According to the Conservative Tribune, an angry Muslim group (I thought they were ALL angry) wants both Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper to ‘speak out’ against the film they created, American Sniper.
“ADC takes these threats seriously and is reaching out to you in an effort to help reduce the hateful rhetoric. It is our opinion that you could play a significant role in assisting us in alleviating the danger we are facing,” the group wrote in an open letter to Eastwood and Cooper.
“I am asking if you are willing to make a statement against the violent rhetoric being exhibited,” the letter continued. “The statement should make it clear that we cannot tolerate hate and bigotry here in America.”
Yea, well, I am asking you to not kill a bunch of Americans on 9/11. I am asking you not to have jihad training camps on American soil. I am asking you not behead people. Just saying. Maybe Obama tolerates your B.S., but I call it like I see it. Radical Islamic Terrorism.
Scroll down to vote!
What the hell are these rogue activist judges doing?
Now, they’re literally making stuff up from the bench.
The Hawaii judge, who was appointed by Obama, is now making up his own “travel ban” rules.
He’s decided that grandparents are exempt from the travel ban.
Yes, you heard correctly.
An unelected official is DECIDING new rules for the rest of America.
This has gotten completely out of control, and he should be removed from his post.
BREAKING: Judge in Hawaii rules grandparents are exempt from President Donald Trump's travel ban enforcement.
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 14, 2017
Author: Amy Moreno
I gonna be totally honest with you folks. I don’t think that there are many people left who would list the last few decades of American presidents as ‘positive’. You have some of the worst leaders in US history, Obama, Bush, and Clinton, who all put us in a world of sh*t (just look at North Korea).
Well, now two of those dummies, Bush Jr and Bill Clinton, decided to work together to ‘take down’ President Donald Trump. At the Presidental Leadership conference in Dallas, they did something very bad…
The two clowns teamed up last night to publicly lecture Donald Trump on HUMILITY!
That’s right. Humility is in red for a reason. I just think it’s funny that George W Bush and Bill Clinton of all people would be going after Donald Trump for humility of all things.
Hey, ex-President Clinton. Do you REALLY think we forgot about this?
Tell me, is that what passes for humble these days? or maybe a BJ doesn’t count as ‘sexual relations’ for a guy like Bill.
Oh, and don’t think I forgot about you, ex-Pres Bush. You want to lecture Trump about being humble? I seem to remember a little something you did as President…
What mission was it, George? It certainly wasn’t beating extremists. We are STILL dealing with them.
Clearly, these guys should have practiced what they preached. I don’t know what the future holds for President Trump, but I’m sure he will handle it just fine.
The pilot who flew the plane for the secret meeting between Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch and, recently disclosed, Paul Ryan is breaking his silence for a $2 million payday that is sure to put his life in danger.
Dimitri Noonan, a pilot who has worked for the Justice Department for 25 years, has codeword clearance but says none of the meeting was classified, since officially it didn’t happen. According to Noonan:
“The three of them sat like old friends and discussed strategies and made treaties. Clinton’s crimes were to be set aside until his wife finished 2 terms of working with Republicans to shore up the base and ‘move away from these Trump loving racists’ as Ryan put it.
Lynch would seal the deal by not investigating the Clintons further. Ryan gets to remain Speaker, the Democrats get the Senate and the White House and 2024 is up for grabs.”
Obviously there are many more details, many dark secrets and much more story to tell.
In a Facebook post published Friday, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer, a Marine veteran, former Navy SEAL, sniper, combat instructor and the owner of Tactical Insider, warned of a “gruesome massacre” if President Trump is removed from office.
“I’m hearing serious rumblings of a hostile, illegal coup against our democratically elected President by seditious, deep-state subversives funded by Soros & other globalists. Very disturbing,” he wrote, adding:
Patriots, this would be nothing less than an act of war against the American people. It would be the removal of our boldest defender & last possibility of maintaining our protective Constitution. Under the boot of globalists, life as we know it, would immediately decline to the model that suits the globalist interest – Marxist/Socialist/Communist. They get complete control, you get zero. Freedom, Gone! Liberty, Gone! This agenda is evil and simply cannot be allowed, at ANY cost.
Like ALL military, law enforcement and government officials, I took an oath to defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. By abandoning the rule of law and conducting a coup against the President & policies WE THE PEOPLE elected, they have made themselves enemies of the United States.
After observing that all patriots, regardless of position, have a duty to protect the Constitution, Sawyer minced no words detailing what he believes would happen to those involved in Trump’s removal and he explained why:
Anti-American subversives involved in ANY WAY in an unconstitutional coup against our President will be run down and executed immediately by the world’s most supreme warriors. There will be nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide, no mercy, no sense of humor. Harsh examples will be made. My prediction is it will be a gruesome massacre. Why? Because one side in this conflict has 8 Trillion bullets & the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.
And, he added, it won’t take very long: “It will likely only take a few hours. Lessons will be learned. History will take note. Order restored.”
“Patriots, We The American People stand united as one, against ALL enemies,” he said. “We are peace-loving people who abide by the rule of law. Prepare yourselves in case this ridiculous insanity actually gets played out and the rule of law goes out the window under their gross miscarriage of our legal process. Shaking my head…”
As we reported Friday, actor James Woods warned that a civil war would break out if Democrats like Maxine Waters — who has made it clear she is willing to sacrifice national security to hurt Trump — succeed in removing Donald Trump from office.
It should be clear that any attempt to remove Trump from office would result in unrest the likes of which we have not seen in years.
As of this writing, Saywer’s post, which starts with a call to prayer for the nation and the president, has been shared over 400 times.
What do you think? Do you agree with Sawyer? Let us know in the comment section below.
Appearing on Fox & Friends on Friday morning, weekend Fox News host Jeanine Pirro warned that, should prosecutors indict a Trump family member on criminal charges, there will be hell to pay with the American public.
Addressing reports that at least one grand jury is investigating President Donald Trump and his associates, the former prosecutor excitedly stated that it probably is concerning to Trump that he is being persecuted.
“I’m sure this is on Donald’s mind, he never stops thinking,” she explained. “But at the same time, this is an agenda.”
“Here is my concern,” Pirro told the Fox & Friends hosts. “If they end up with an indictment against a family member, just to get at Donald Trump because they couldn’t get at him, there is going to be a real uproar, a real uprising in this country.”
Pirro went on to add, “I was a prosecutor for 32 years, you can indict a ham sandwich. The only person in that grand jury is the district attorney who is interacting all of those grand jurors on what the law is — and the body language is clear!”
Watch the video below posted to Twitter by Fox News:
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) August 4, 2017
All the rumors and reports of fear, based on the biggest liars in fake news and the most corrupted swamp dwellers is getting people stirred out of their yawns and into OMG’s. I, for one, am not buying into the evil peoples’ desire to instill fear. I am standing on the wondrous progress of President Trump to drain this swamp, and the good feeling in my gut coupled with the continuous thanks I keep giving to God for sending us a true leader who is guided by his hands.
Where are you? It was never going to be easy to drain a swamp that has its’ lips stuck to the golden cup full of abominations. Yet, all I need to know is that it is written that those who raise that golden cup high up and drink from it are going down….down….down! Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen.
It is time to give President Trump credit for battling the evil forces to this point, and time for every God fearing American to pray and ask what they can do in this deep battle against those who desire to destroy God’s America.
Where it is appalling and ghastly to hear of the evil ones’ ways and their underhanded diabolical deeds, that message does nothing at all to ever interfere with the power of God to raise up dry bones to the state of His glory and purpose. God is always in control, in total power and those he loves he protects. Read and see for yourself how God always picks and protects those he chooses to win for his purpose! Evil knows this and cringes!
God Bless America and President Trump!
The wearing of the full face veil in public has caused controversy throughout Europe. In some countries bans are being put in place — sometimes complete and sometimes partial — with women being denied access to state offices if they insist on wearing face coverings. Here, NSS Member Des Langford considers the pro and cons of a UK public ban and draws his own personal conclusions.
There is a strong argument for banning the full face veil (“burka”, “niqab”) on the grounds of the equality and emancipation of women, because many Muslim women are forced or coerced into wearing it by their husbands and family. Clearly this is totally unacceptable in western society. On the other hand there are some women who argue fiercely that they freely choose to wear the full face veil for personal or religious reasons, and their views need to be taken seriously. It is very difficult to determine the proportions of women who are pressurised versus those who make a free choice. This would be a subject worthy of research investigation, although it would be difficult to ascertain the truth, since some women who claim to make a free choice may in reality be doing so through fear or intimidation.
Security and fear
In an era of (largely Muslim) terrorism the security implications of full face covering are very real and serious. If even one terrorist were to achieve his or her aim through the use of the veil as a disguise this could have devastating consequences. Full face veils could also be used to perpetrate other crime- and this applies equally to face coverings such as masks and motor bike helmets. In addition many people feel a fear of those who they cannot see or identify, and this fear is not irrational since criminals and terrorists have a greater incentive than most to hide their identity.
Minority groups such as Muslims need to integrate and communicate in order to be accepted by western society; otherwise there will always be fear and mistrust between different communities. This has been recognised by recent government drives to encourage immigrants to learn English as an essential part of gaining UK citizenship. Human beings communicate and build trust through facial expression as well as verbally. The covering of the face is a significant barrier to communication and trust, and therefore to the integration of Muslim communities in the western world. It is particularly significant because it is only women who wear the face veil, and it is normally women in Muslim communities who are the most isolated and whose opinions are not heard. To the extent that western society communicates with Muslims it is predominantly with men, and the full face veil is a significant barrier to the integration and acceptance of Muslim women.
Offence to the majority
Many westerners feel offended and affronted by the hiding of the face. This is because they feel that the person hiding their face is being secretive and not open. However the rights of the offended need to be balanced against the rights of the individual to exercise their free choice. Being offended is a personal matter and different individuals and groups will take offence at different things. To ban something because it may cause offence to someone sets a very dangerous precedent for civil liberties: no-one has the right not to be offended. It may even play into the hands of the religious fanatic who would like to prescribe many aspects of western society, such as clothing which they perceive as indecent or literature which criticises their religion. This argument is therefore weak and should not be relied upon.
Scroll down to vote!
The principle argument against the banning of anything is that of the civil liberty of the individual to chose- a cornerstone of free western liberal democracy. This is a very weighty argument, and it is right that in a free society the assumption should always be against any ban, unless there are extremely good reasons otherwise. Nevertheless there are cases where bans have been enforced and where such action commands majority support. An obvious case is the banning of harmful drugs, the taking of which have serious consequences not just for the user, but also for society in general. On the other hand alcohol is freely available and permitted, and the majority support this, despite the many adverse consequences caused by anti social behaviour. A recent precedent for a new ban was on smoking in public buildings. This was probably largely due to the health consequences on third parties of passive smoking. The health of the majority (approximately 75% non smokers) was deemed to outweigh the free choice of the minority (approximately 25% smokers) The question is therefore: does the wearing of the full face veil have any significant consequences upon third parties- 99% plus of the population – which would be sufficient to justify the loss of liberty for the few (far less than 1%)?
Discrimination against Muslims
Such a ban might be perceived by some as discriminatory against Muslims. However only a minority of Muslims consider the full face veil to be an essential part of their religion. Therefore it cannot be discriminatory against the religion as a whole. Moreover, such a ban could and should – for reasons of security – be applied to any other form of face covering in public places, such as masks or motor cycle helmets. Such a broad framing of a ban should help to convince moderate and rational Muslims that the ban is not discriminatory.
There is a strong civil liberties argument for insisting that any bans should be exceptional and need to be justified by significant benefit to the majority of citizens. However in this case such strong justification does indeed exist as a result of very real public security concerns. Additional arguments relating to women’s rights and social integration also carry considerable weight. The argument from women’s rights would be considerably strengthened if it could somehow be demonstrated through research that a significant proportion of female wearers of the full face veil come under pressure to do so.
The balance of the arguments suggest that the needs of the many would justify the banning of the full face veil even though this places a limitation on the freedom of the tiny minority who would freely chose to wear it.
There is an amendment on Capitol Hill to implement term limits. Here’s how it would work:
Donald Trump pushed for an amendment to impose term limits and drain the swamp:
Check out this GENIUS argument for kicking John McCain out of office:
And Nancy Pelosi should have been OUT years ago—here’s the perfect reason why.