Daily Archives: December 29, 2018

December 29 Choosing Between Heaven and Earth

What I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard–pressed between the two.

Philippians 1:23


Every Christian ought to feel the strain of desiring to be with Christ, yet also longing to build His church. If the Lord said to me, “You have five minutes to choose between being in heaven or on earth,” I would have a difficult time making that decision. And I would want to be sure I was choosing for the right reasons. I’d have to ask myself, can I glorify Christ more in heaven or on earth?

Paul found it an impossible choice. Nevertheless, most people would choose to stay on earth. When asked why they would, most would give some selfish reason, such as, “We’re getting a new house,” or “I don’t want to leave my kids.” For Paul, nothing really mattered except glorifying Christ. When faced with the most basic of life’s issues—whether it would be better to live or die—his response was, “I would be thrilled to glorify Christ in heaven or on earth. Given the choice, I can’t choose.” Because glorifying Christ was Paul’s motivation, where he glorified Christ was not the issue. That ought to be true for you as well.[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. (2001). Truth for today : a daily touch of God’s grace (p. 390). Nashville, Tenn.: J. Countryman.

Why Flynn? – A Confluence of Highly Charged Political Events… — The Last Refuge

Several people have requested specificity as to why President Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton viewed Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as a risk worthy of primary confrontation/removal after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election.

The most obvious answer is not too complex; predates the election; and is connected directly to three core components of the Libya crisis: (1) White House; (2) State Department; (3) Hillary Clinton.

Drawing from years of exhaustive research within the Benghazi Brief; along with breakout information as to how the FBI and DOJ are directly connected to the issues therein; there is a clear and concise reason why Flynn was viewed as a risk to the interests of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and State Department Officials.

Lieutenant General Flynn was appointed to head the Defense Intelligence Agency on July 24th, 2012, approximately two months before the attack on the State/CIA compound in Benghazi Libya.

The Benghazi compound itself was controversial as it was part of a joint State Department and CIA mission to try and stop the spread of weapons to radical Islamic elements in the region.  After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi the Libyan weapons depots -as well as U.S. weapons shipped into Libya to assist the “rebels” in Gaddaffi’s ouster- were the immediate problem.

Weapons in 2012 were being redirected to Syria.  An operation to secure those weapons was ongoing in Benghazi (Eastern Libya).

On September 11th and 12th, 2012, a pre-planned protest in Cairo Egypt coincided with a pre-planned attack on the U.S. State Dept./CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya.  There are numerous factions of extremist Islam involved; however, for the sake of brevity all groups were supported by political arm of the extremists, The Muslim Brotherhood.

In Cairo, Egypt, the key protest organizer was a person named Mohammed al-Zawahiri who, along with his Muslim Brotherhood comrades, was just released from prison by then Egyptian President Morsi.   [Mohammed al-Zawahiri is the brother of al-Qaeda’s #2 guy (at the time) Ayman al-Zawahiri who was/is running al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.]

The 9/11 2012 Cairo protest was centered around demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, also known as “the blind sheik“, who was in federal prison in the U.S. for his part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. {Go Deep} It is critical to understand that the Cairo protest was specifically about the release of Omar Abdul Rahman.


It is critical to understand the accurate origin of the Cairo protest because the U.S. State Department falsely claimed another motive about a YouTube video insulting Islam. Hours later that fraudulent motive was then used to explain the Benghazi attack.  The motive became a political risk.

The fraudulent origin of the motive was exposed by documents from within the Defense Intelligence Agency; the head of the DIA was LTG Michael Flynn.

From 2012 DIA documents retrieved by Judicial Watch, the factual background of the attack on the Benghazi compound was exposed. {Go Deep}

Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.”  The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.  The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).”  The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.”  The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons.  Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock.  They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

(Link to PDFLink to Judicial Watch)

DIA Director Michael Flynn, was on the job two months when the attack took place.  Flynn sent this intelligence information to the State Department, White House, Intelligence agencies, ODNI, and Defense Dept. on Sept 12th, 2012.  Director Flynn knew the motives, the players and also knew there was advanced warning the attack was coming.

While al-Zawahiri was organizing the Cairo Egypt,protest for the release of the Blind Sheik….  in Benghazi a jihadist attack by the Muslim Brotherhood group who supported the Blind Sheik was also pre-planned.   Both events were sending the U.S. a message centered around Omar Abdul Rahman, the “Blind Sheik”.   Both events (Cairo and Benghazi) had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTube video.

However, behind the attack-motive was the much bigger State Department and CIA problem with the U.S. Libyan weapons and the flow to Syria.  The U.S. sending weapons into the hands of al-Qaeda was always the larger risk to the Obama administration.  This problem started with Clinton (State) and Panetta (CIA at the time), but now those weapons going to Syria was an even bigger problem.  Flynn was not in place at the time (2010 – 2011) when Obama, Clinton and Panetta carried out Operation Zero Footprint.

Factually the U.S. policy that facilitated arming al-Qaeda was a big political problem.  All of the expressed false motives, false statements and political lies were intended to cover-up this issue.

Secretary Hillary Clinton left DoS immediately after Benghazi (the end of 2012); and after an agreement with President Obama John Podesta was installed within the White House to protect Clinton’s future interests.

In 2016 Michael Flynn’s knowledge of the factual backstory to Libya and how the Obama/Clinton team misled everyone was the risk that Flynn represented.

President Obama (and everyone around him), Hillary Clinton (and everyone around her), likely viewed everything through their own prism.  The prior administration (writ large) likely forecast/anticipated President Trump and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would do to them what they would do if the roles were reversed.

Team Obama and Team Clinton likely thought all the Benghazi issues would be laid bare; and remember, after the attack, the FBI (via Robert Mueller) was also an active participant.  Remember the ridiculous weeks it took the FBI to reach Benghazi?

CNN – More than two weeks after four Americans — including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.  (more)

Now that we know how politicized the FBI was, try laying a little bit of hindsight into how the FBI ::cough::  Robert Mueller  ::cough:: was handling all that Benghazi stuff (?).

Candidate Trump the vulgarian disrupter, and adviser Flynn (former DIA knowing too much), must have seemed like the absolute worst case scenario for Obama/Clinton and every single ideological ally within government.   Think about it.

Then Donald Trump wins the election….  and Flynn becomes National Security Adviser.  Holy cow…  In hindsight the panic must have been palpable.

Think about the scale of it.

Why wouldn’t they wiretap Trump?  Think about the stakes?  Why wouldn’t the entire apparatus of every institutional office aligned with common interest to the White House, Obama and Clinton not do everything in their power to eliminate the threat?

The better question is: what wouldn’t they be willing to do?

Robert Mueller being FBI Director during the Benghazi cover-up, and ultimately the leverage over him is due to his obedience therein. Certainly this explains his selection by the crew… Mueller was uniquely well motivated… and simultaneously gives Mueller a motive to paint Flynn into any scenario that would shut him down.

I hope that answers the question of:  Why Flynn?

Robert Mueller’s Mission:

♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation.  Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation.  In this way Mueller provides cover for ideologically aligned deep state officials.

♦(2)  Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2015, 2016, 2017.  Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.

♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry.  Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe; and/or block IG Horowitz from seeing material related to the FISA abuse scandal and “spygate”.  In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.

In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.



via Why Flynn? – A Confluence of Highly Charged Political Events… — The Last Refuge

7 presidents who were tougher than Trump on media

The president was frustrated with the media coverage of him and his policies, swearing that 85 percent of all newspapers were against him.

“Our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public,” the president griped. Then, almost derisively, he said: “Freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?”

So, he opted to bypass the traditional media he was convinced was unfair and speak directly to America.

And President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats on the radio, beginning in 1933, proved to be a successful political move.

The verdict is still out on President Donald Trump’s tweets, though.

Trump regularly tweets about “fake news.” He has doubled down on the view that overly critical news outlets are the “enemy of the American people.”

He talked about more stringent libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, threatened the broadcast license of certain networks, and the Trump White House pulled the press pass for CNN personality Jim Acosta after a confrontation at a press conference.

But so far he hasn’t taken government action, as Roosevelt and other past presidents have.

A Trump-appointed federal judge sided with CNN on the Acosta press pass. Congress is unlikely to enact new libel laws, as Supreme Court precedent sets a high standard for a public figure to sue a news outlet.

The Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to pull a license of a network (which aren’t licensed), having purview only over individual stations that operate on the public airwaves (which are licensed). Cable news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel also are not licensed and not subject to FCC regulation.

Past presidents have taken tangible actions to undermine a free press. Trump has so far taken only a more negative rhetorical tone toward the press, said David Beito, a history professor at the University of Alabama.

“Would he like to do something? He probably would, but a change of tone has been the biggest difference,” Beito told The Daily Signal, characterizing Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press as more aggressive than most of his predecessors.

Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were among the biggest presidential offenders during the 20th century, he added.

“Wilson was extremely hostile to any sort of criticism, but it was couched in terms of wartime and the red scare,” Beito said. “Everyone knew Wilson was doing this. FDR was very subtle. Roosevelt was effective working through third parties. It was hard tying him to anything.”

Here are seven examples of presidential administrations that went well beyond rhetoric in going after the press.

Source: 7 presidents who were tougher than Trump on media

Who Was Secretly Behind America’s Invading And Occupying Syria?

The invasion and occupation of Syria by tens of thousands of jihadists who were recruited from around the world to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, was financed mainly by US taxpayers and by the world’s wealthiest family, the Sauds, who own Saudi Arabia and the world’s largest oil company, Aramco.

America’s international oil companies and major think tanks and ‘charitable’ foundations were also supportive and providing propaganda for the operation, but the main financing for it came from America’s taxpayers, and from the Saud family and from the Government that they own.

One of the best articles that the New York Times ever published was by Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, on 23 January 2016, “US Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels”. They reported that,

“the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels. …

From the moment the C.I.A. operation was started, Saudi money supported it.” 

Furthermore, “The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia — and from Qatar, Jordan and Turkey.” But “American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation.” The invasion and occupation of Syria by jihadists from around the world was primarily a Saud operation, though it was managed mainly by the US Government.

Prior to the failed US-backed coup-attempt on 15 July 2015 to replace Tayyip Erdogan as Turkey’s President, Turkey was part of the U.S-Saudi alliance to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government. But afterwards, Turkey increasingly switched against the US and Sauds, and toward instead supporting the target of the Sauds and of America’s aristocrats: Syria. And, so, Turkey has increasingly joined Syria’s alliance, which includes Iran and Russia. That’s one of the major geopolitical changes in recent decades.

The NYT continued:

The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The C.I.A. helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012.

The US preferred to be supplying the jihadists weapons that weren’t from US manufacturers, in order to impede any tracing back to the United States the arming of the movement to oust and replace Syria’s secular, committedly non-sectarian, Government. The Sauds — who are just as committedly sectarian, and are even supporters of the extreme fundamentalist Wahhabist sect of Sunni Islam — likewise tried to cover their tracks in this operation, but their tracks were financial. The Sauds have been especially skillful at covering their tracks. Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud was a buddy of George W. Bush, and had secretly donated over a million dollars in cash to Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, according to Osama bin Laden’s financial bagman, who had picked up personally each one of the million-dollar-cash donations to that organization until 9/11 and who named amongst those donors not only Prince Bandar but also Prince Salman al-Saud, who subsequently became King Salman, who is now the father of Crown Prince Salman, who recently murdered the columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Crown Prince Salman is also a close friend of America’s current ‘prince’, Jared Kushner, the US President’s son-in-law.

So, the Saud family are very close with America’s Republican aristocrats, perhaps even closer than they are with America’s Democratic aristocrats. But especially because of the business links, the Sauds are deeply influential throughout America’s aristocracy. Not only is Saudi Arabia the world’s most oil-rich country, but it is also the world’s largest purchaser of weapons from Lockheed Martin and the other American ‘defense’ contractors, which sell exclusively to the US Government and to the governments that are allied with it (such as to Saudi Arabia). So, those corporations depend upon the Sauds more than upon any other family, even than any single American family.

The Saud family are also crucial allies with Israel’s aristocracy, who include such American billionaires as the Republican Sheldon Adelson and the Democrat Lesley Wexner.

Prince Bandar was also reported by the FBI to have financed directly from his personal checking account the US stays, and the pilot-training, of at least two of the 15 Saudis who were among the 19 jihadists who carried out the piloting and plane-seizings on 9/11. So, if Bandar didn’t (perhaps in consultation with George W. Bush) actually plan those attacks himself, he at least was one of their chief financial backers.

The NYT article also mentioned that “In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with C.I.A. officers in Jordan and Turkey. Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles,” so as to conquer Syria, for the Sauds.

These authors were, however, misguided when they wrote that “While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said.” That “support” to jihadists, to the extent that it was financial, came actually not from “Saudi citizens,” but from the Saudi aristocracy, mainly from the Saud family itself. Moreover, in a monarchy — which Saudi Arabia is — there are no actual “citizens”; there are only the monarch and his or her “subjects” not “citizens” (citizens such as exist in a democracy — even it’s only a so-called one). There are only the monarch and his/her subjects — especially in an absolute monarchy, such as Saudi Arabia. So: that term “citizens” was a false and misleading term in that context.

On 6 March 2013, Britain’s Guardian bannered regarding General Petraeus “From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington’s man behind brutal police squads” and reported his having created the death squads in El Salvador and designed the post-Saddam Iraqi torture program for trying to extract from detainees (though the Guardianfailed to note this) whatever information they might have about Saddam Hussein’s role in the 9/11 attacks. Nothing was mentioned in the Guardian, about 9/11, but only that “The aim: to halt a nascent Sunni insurgency in its tracks by extracting information from detainees” — but nothing was said there about what type of “information” was being sought, or why. “With Petraeus’s almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele’s field expertise in counterinsurgency, the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying force.” But force for what? The Guardian offered nothing on that.

Thierry Meyssan at Voltairenet, on 9 May 2011, headlined “What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group” and he wrote:

“The operation was controlled in reality by William J. Donovan, the former commander of the OSS (the US intelligence service during the war), now in charge of building the American branch of the new secret service of NATO, Gladio …

Moreover, the security of each subsequent meeting was not provided by the police of the host country, but by the soldiers of the NATO Alliance.”

Meyssan said that “Henry Kissinger is the main person responsible for invitations to the Bilderberg Group.” Another of the “core group” was “Henry R. Kravis: US financier, investment fund manager KKR. He’s a major fundraiser for the Republican Party.” Meyssan called this “The Lobby of the most powerful military organization in the world [NATO].”


During the last US presidential elections, it was reported that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disappeared on June 6, 2008, in order to negotiate an end to their rivalry. In reality, they participated in the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group in Chantilly, Virginia (USA). The following day, Mrs. Clinton announced that she was retiring from the race. … 

According to our sources, something else happened. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton concluded a financial and political agreement. Senator Obama bailed out his rival financially and offered her a position in his administration (Clinton refused the vice-presidency and instead chose the State Department) in exchange for her active support during the campaign against McCain. Then, the two leaders were presented by James A. Johnson to the Bilderberg Conference, where they assured the participants that they would work together. [Hillary had a solid record and reputation as a neoconservative and as a supporter of overthrowing Syria’s Government.] Barack Obama had already been NATO’s candidate for a long time. [But his campaign rhetoric had nonetheless caused worries amongst the Establishment.] Mr. Obama and his family have always worked for the CIA and the Pentagon. Moreover, the initial funds for his campaign were provided by the Crown of England, via a businessman named Nadhmi Auchi. [See, e.g.: this and this and this and this.] In presenting the Black Senator to the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Alliance was, in fact, organizing public relations at the international level for the future president of the United States.

Of course, that was even before Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

On 11 December 2018, Meyssan headlined “Whom does Emmanuel Macron owe?” and he wrote that, “he owes his electoral campaign mostly to Henry Kravis, the boss of one of the world’s largest financial companies, and to NATO – a considerable debt which weighs heavily today on the solution to the Yellow Vests crisis.”

Macron had first met “Henry and Marie-Josée Kravis, in their residence on Park Avenue in New York. (This meeting probably took place in 2007. Thereafter, Emmanuel Macron systematically visited the Kravis couple whenever he was in the USA, and Henry Kravis welcomed him in his offices on Avenue Montaigne when he visited Paris.) The Kravis couple, unfailing supporters of the US Republican Party, are among the great world fortunes who play politics out of sight of the Press.”


In December 2014, Henry Kravis created his own Intelligence agency, the KKR Global Institute. He nominated at its head the ex-Director of the CIA, General David Petraeus. With the Kravis couple’s private funds (the KKR investment funds), and without referring to Congress, Petraeus pursued operation «Timber Sycamore» which had been initiated by President Barack Obama. This was the largest weapons traffic in History, implicating at least 17 states and representing many thousands of tons of weapons worth several billion dollars [7]. As such, Kravis and Petraeus became the main suppliers for Daesh [8].

On 6 June 2017, Meyssan headlined “Confrontation at Bilderberg 2017” and wrote:

There exist no photographs of the meeting of the Bilderberg Group, whose work is confidential. Security for the meeting is not handled by the FBI, nor the Virginia police force, but by a private militia organised by NATO.

The Bilderberg Group was created in 1954 by the CIA and MI6 in order to support the Atlantic Alliance. …

The 2017 meeting is also described there: Among the Board of Directors, mostly international corporate luminaries, was “Marie-Josée Drouin-Kravis: Economic columnist in print and broadcast media in Canada. Researcher at the very militaristic Hudson Institute. She is the third wife of Henry Kravis.”

Both Petraeus and his two KKR sponsors are regular attendees at the Bilderberg meetings. What financial stake — if any — in assisting the Sauds to take over Syria, KKR has, is not known. But if there is such, then the US Government’s recent decision to quit its military occupation of Syria will presumably be, to that extent, unfavorable for KKR, and unpopular amongst the 150 companies in which it holds stock.

The great investigative journalists Dilyana GeytandzhievaAndrey FominManlio Dinucci, Thierry Meysan, and the South Front site, have, in several articles, documented that the Governments of US, UAE, Qatar, and mainly Saudi Arabia, are financing and overseeing a multibillion-dollar privately operated weapons-smuggling operation to Sunni jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda in Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and Asia. Meyssan writes:

In less than three years, Silk Way Airlines transported at least one billion dollars’ worth of armament.

One thing leading to another, journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva uncovered a vast system which also supplied the jihadists not only in Iraq and Syria, but also in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Congo – also paid for by the Saudis and the Emiratis. Some of the arms delivered in Arabia were redirected to South Africa.

The arms transported to Afghanistan were delivered to the Talibans, under the control of the US, which is pretending to fight them. …

Although, according to the international treaties, neither civil nor diplomatic flights are authorised to carry military material, requests for recognition as «diplomatic flights» require the explicit detailing of the cargo transported. However, at the request of the US State Department, at least Afghanistan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bulgaria, Congo, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Israël, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Turkey and United Kingdom closed their eyes to this violation of international law, just as they had ignored the CIA flights to and from their secret prisons. …

According to Sibel Edmonds – ex-FBI agent and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition – Azerbaïdjan, under President Heydar Aliyev, from 1997 to 2001 hosted in Bakou the number 2 of Al-Qaïda, Ayman el-Zawahiri. This was done at the request of the CIA. Although officially wanted by the FBI, the man who was then the number 2 of the international jihadist network travelled regularly in NATO planes to Afghanistan, Albania, Egypt and Turkey. He also received frequent visits from Prince Bandar ben Sultan of Saudi Arabia.

International relations are controlled by international corporations, but the identities of the persons who control those are often hidden; so, it’s not easy to say whom has been enriched by the invasion and occupation of Syria. And, probably, there won’t be funding for investigative journalists to do the costly research to find out whom those persons actually are. But they controlled both Obama and Trump, both of whom carried out their policy on Syria.

Source: Who Was Secretly Behind America’s Invading And Occupying Syria?

The Biggest Critics Of Trump’s Syria Withdrawal Fueled Rise Of ISIS

Authored by Max Blumenthal via ConsortiumNews.com,

Too many of those protesting the removal of U.S. forces are authors of the catastrophe that tore Syria to pieces…

President Donald Trump’s announcement of an imminent withdrawal of US troops from northeastern Syria summoned a predictable paroxysm of outrage from Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Former Secretary of State and self-described “hair icon” Hillary Clinton perfectly distilled the bipartisan freakout into a single tweet, accusing Trump of “isolationism” and “playing into Russia and Iran’s hands.”

Michelle Flournoy, the DC apparatchik who would have been Hillary’s Secretary of Defense, slammedthe pull-out as “foreign policy malpractice,” while Hillary’s successor at the State Department, John Kerry, threw bits of red meat to the Russiagate-crazed Democratic base by branding Trump’s decision “a Christmas gift to Putin.” From the halls of Congress to the K Street corridors of Gulf-funded think tanks, a chorus of protest proclaimed that removing US troops from Syria would simultaneously abet Iran and bring ISIS back from the grave.

Yet few of those thundering condemnations of the president’s move seemed able to explain just why a few thousand U.S. troops had been deployed to the Syrian hinterlands in the first place. If the mission was to destroy ISIS, then why did ISIS rise in the first place? And why was the jihadist organization still festering right in the midst of the U.S. military occupation?

Too many critics of withdrawal had played central roles in the Syrian crisis to answer these questions honestly. They had either served as media cheerleaders for intervention, or crafted the policies aimed at collapsing Syria’s government that fueled the rise of ISIS. The Syrian catastrophe was their legacy, and they were out to defend it at any cost.

Birthing ISIS From the Womb of Regime Change

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Clinton, Kerry, and the rest of the Beltway blob lined up reflexively behind George W. Bush. The insurgency that followed the violent removal of Iraq’s Ba’athist government set the stage for the declaration of the first Islamic State by Abu Musab Zarqawi in 2006. Five years later, with near-total consent from Congress, Hillary enthusiastically presided over NATO’s assault on Libya, cackling with glee when she learned that the country’s longtime leader, Moammar Gaddafi, had been sodomized with a bayonet and shot to death by Islamist insurgents — “We came, we saw, he died!” It was not long before an Islamist Emirate was established in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, while 31 flavors of jihadi militias festered in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Architects of chaos in Syria.

While still defending her vote on Iraq, Hillary made the case for arming the anti-Assad opposition in Syria. “In a conflict like this,” she said, “the hard men with the guns are going to be the more likely actors in any political transition than those on the outside just talking.”

In 2012, the CIA initiated a one billion dollar arm-and-equip operation to fund the so-called “moderate rebels” united under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). A classified Defense Intelligence Agency memo distributed across Obama administration channels in August of that year warned that jihadist forces emanating from Iraq aimed to exploit the security vacuum opened up by the US-backed proxy war to establish a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” — an “Islamic State,” in the exact words of the memo.

Referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’s Syrian affiliate by its name, Jabhat al-Nusra, before Western media ever had, the DIA emphasized the close ties the group had fostered with Syria’s “moderate rebels”: “AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media. AQI declared its opposition to Assad’s regime from the beginning because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis.”

The memo was authored under the watch of then-Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was convicted this year of failing to register as a foreign agent of Turkey — an extremely ironic development considering Turkey’s role in fueling the Syrian insurgency. Predictably, the document was ignored across the board by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, heavy weapons were flowing out of the U.S. Incirlik air base in Turkey and into the hands of anyone who could grab them across the Syrian border.

As early as February 2013, a United Nations independent inquiry report concluded, “The FSA has remained a brand name only.” The UN further issued a damning assessment of the role of the United States, UK and their Gulf allies in fueling extremism across Syria. “The intervention of external sponsors has contributed to the radicalization of the insurgency as it has favoured Salafi armed groups such as the al-Nusra Front, and even encouraged mainstream insurgents to join them owing to their superior logistical and operational capabilities,” the report stated.

US Arms, ISIS Caliphate

How ISIS overran large swaths of territory in northeastern Syria and established its de facto capital Raqqa is scarcely understood, let alone discussed by Western media. That is partly because the real story is so inconvenient to the established narrative of the Syrian conflict, which blames Assad for every atrocity that has ever occurred in his country, and for some horrors that may not have ever taken place. Echoing the Bush administration’s discredited attempts to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, someneoconservative pundits hatched a conspiracy theory that accused Assad of covertly orchestrating the rise of ISIS in order to curry support from the West. But the documented evidence firmly established the success of ISIS as a byproduct of the semi-covert American program to arm Assad’s supposedly moderate opposition.

Opposition activists fly the flag of the US-backed Free Syrian Army alongside the flag of ISIS in the center of Raqqa, December 2013. (Raqqa Media Center)

Back in March 2013, a coalition of Syrian rebel forces representing the CIA-backed FSA, the Turkish and Qatari proxy, Ahrar al-Sham, and the Al Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra, overwhelmed the Syrian army in Raqqa. Opposition activists declared the city the “icon of the revolution”and celebrated in Raqqa’s town center, waving the tricolor flags of the FSAalongside the black banners of ISIS and al-Nusra, which set up its headquarters in the city’s town hall.

But disorder quickly spread throughout the city as its residents attempted to order their affairs through local councils. Meanwhile, the US-backed FSA had ceded the city to al-Nusra, taking the fight to the front lines against government forces further afield. The chaos stirred by the insurgents and their foreign backers had created the perfect petri dish for jihadism to fester.

A month after Raqqa was taken, the Iraqi zealot and ISIS commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi revealed that al-Nusra had been a Trojan horse for his organization, referring to its commander, Mohammed Jolani, as “our son.” Jolani, in turn, admitted that he had entered Syria from Iraq as a soldier of the Islamic State, declaring, “We accompanied the jihad in Iraq as military escorts from its beginning until our return [to Syria] after the Syrian revolution.”

By August, Baghdadi completed his coup, announcing control over the city. According to the anti-Assad website, Syria Untold, the U.S.-backed FSA had “balked in the face of ISIS and avoided any military confrontation with it.” Many of its fighters quickly jumped ship to either the Islamic State or al-Nusra.

“The [FSA] battalions are scared to become the weakest link, that they will be swallowed by ISIS,” a media activist named Ahmed al-Asmeh told the journalist Alison Meuse. “A number joined ISIS, and those who were with the people joined Jabhat al-Nusra.”

Backing “Territorial ISIS”

As the insurgency advanced towards Syria’s coast, leaving piles of corpses in its wake and propelling a refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions, the U.S. stepped up its arm-and-equip program. By 2015, the CIA was pouring anti-tank missiles into the ranks of Nourredine Al-Zinki, an extremist militia thateventually forged a coalition with bands of fanatics that made no attempt to disguise their ideology. Among the new opposition umbrella group was one outfit called, “The Bin Laden Front.”

Despite all its war on terror bluster, the U.S. was treating ISIS as an asset in its bid to topple Assad. Then Secretary of State Kerry copped to the strategy in a leaked private meeting with Syrian opposition activists in Sept. 2016: “We were watching,” Kerry revealed. “We saw that Daesh [ISIS] was growing in strength and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage, you know, that Assad might negotiate and instead of negotiating, you got Assad, ah, you got Putin supporting him.”

When Russia directly intervened in Syria in 2015, the Obama administration’s most outspoken interventionists railed against its campaign to roll back the presence of Al Qaeda and its allies,comparing it to the Rwandan genocide. These same officials were curiously quiet, however, when Russia combined forces with the Syrian military to drive ISIS from the city of Palmyra, to save the home of the world’s most treasured antiquities from destruction.

At a March 24, 2016, press briefing, a reporter asked U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner, “Do you want to see the [Syrian] regime retake Palmyra, or would you prefer that it stays in Daesh’s [ISIS] hands?”

Toner strung together empty platitudes for a full minute.

“You’re not answering my question,” the reporter protested.

Toner emitted a nervous laugh and conceded, “I know I’m not.”

About a year later, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman openly called for the U.S. to use ISIS as a strategic tool, reiterating the cynical logic for the strategy that was already in place. “We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad,” Friedman proposed. “After all, they’re the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war—the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other.”

Giving ISIS ‘Breathing Space’

Palmyra saved twice from ISIS. (Wikimedia Commons)

When the U.S. finally decided to make a move against ISIS in 2017, it was gripped with anxiety about the Syrian government restoring control over the oil-rich areas ISIS controlled across the northeast.

With help from Russia, and against opposition from the U.S., Syria had alreadyliberated the city of Deir Ezzor from a years-long siege by the Islamic State. Fearing that ISIS-occupied Raqqa could be next to be returned to government hands, the U.S. unleashed a brutal bombing campaign while its allies in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (a rebranded offshoot of the People’s Protection Units or YPG) assaulted the city by ground.

The U.S.-led campaign reduced much of Raqqa to rubble. In contrast to Aleppo, where rebuilding was underway and refugees were returning, Raqqa and outlying towns under U.S. control were cut off from basic government services and plunged into darkness.

The U.S. proceeded to occupy the city and its outlying areas, insisting that the Syrian government and its allies were too weak to prevent the resurgence of ISIS on their own. But almost as soon as U.S. boots hit the ground, ISIS began to gather strength. In fact, a report this August by the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Monitoring Team found that in areas under direct American control, ISIS had suddenly found “breathing space to prepare for the next phase of its evolution into a global covert network.”

This October, when Iran launched missile strikes against ISIS, nearly killing the ISIS emir, Baghdadi, the Pentagon complained that the missiles had struck only three kilometers from U.S. positions. The protest raised uncomfortable questions about what the top honchos of the Islamic State were doing in such close proximity to the American military, and why the U.S. was unwilling to do what Iran just had done and attack them. No answers from the Pentagon have arrived so far.

Target: Iran

With the appointment this August of James Jeffrey, a self-described “Never Trumper” from the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as Trump’s special representative for Syria engagement, it became clear that the mission to eradicate ISIS was of secondary importance. In testimony before Congress this December, Jeffrey laid out an agenda that focused heavily on what he called “Iran’s malign influence in the region,” “countering Iran in Syria,” and “remov[ing] all Iranian-commanded forces and proxy forces from the entirety of Syria.” In all, Jeffrey made 30 mentions of Iran, all of them hostile, while referring only 23 times to ISIS. It was clear he had regime change in Tehran on the brain.

Trump, for his part, had been mulling a removal of U.S. forces from northern Syria since at least last Spring, when he put forward a vision for an all-Arab military force funded by Saudi Arabia to replace them. But when Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was sawed apart inside his country’s embassy in Istanbul this October, Trump’s plan went to pieces as well. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoganexploited the Khashoggi saga to perfection, helping to transform Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman from the darling of America’s elite into persona non grata in Washington. As a result, he arranged a front line position for Turkey in the wake of any U.S. withdrawal.

There are now real reasons to fear that a Turkish advance will ignite a resurgence of ISIS. Turkey was not only a source of aid and oil sales to the jihadist group, it currently oversees a mercenary force of Salafi militiamen that includes droves of former Islamic State fighters. If the Turkish onslaught proves destabilizing, Iran and its allied Shia militias could ramp up their deployment in Syria, which would trigger a harsh reaction from Israel and its Beltway cut-outs.

Then again, the Kurdish YPG is in high level negotiations with Damascus and may team up with the Syrian military to fill the void. From an anti-ISIS standpoint, this is clearly the best option. It is  therefore the least popular one in Washington.

Whatever happens in Syria, those who presided over U.S. policy towards the country over the past seven years are in no position to criticize. They set the stage for the entire crisis, propelling the rise of ISIS in a bid to decapitate another insufficiently pliant state. And though they may never face the accountability they deserve, the impending withdrawal of American troops is a long overdue and richly satisfying rebuke.

Source: The Biggest Critics Of Trump’s Syria Withdrawal Fueled Rise Of ISIS

Political Bias: Google Bans Gateway Pundit From Their News Search — The Gateway Pundit

Google has blocked Gateway Pundit from appearing in their news searches and is refusing to explain their reasoning.

Google claims that they are not politically biased, but that has been proven to be a lie over and over again.

Last week, The Gateway Pundit applied to be listed in Google News and were denied. Our exclusive reports frequently appear in their news alerts when they are aggregated on to other sites, but never from our own.

The emailed denial reads as follows:

Review Complete: Site Rejected

Thanks for your interest in sharing your content via Google News. Unfortunately, we can’t include your website in Google News at this time.

Before you request inclusion again, review our content policies and technical guidelines. You can also visit the Google News Help Forum, where Google News employees and publishers often share helpful tips and expertise. Members of the forum may provide specific suggestions and feedback for your website.

While we can’t provide specific feedback for publishers seeking inclusion, here are the top 3 most common reasons for rejection.

  • Unoriginal content: Google News values original reporting. If your site shows syndicated content, make sure it’s properly attributes and makes up less than 50% of the content on your site. Advertising and other paid promotional material on your pages should not exceed your content.
  • Unclear ownership or authorship: Google News strives to show readers news from transparent sites with verifiable author information. Make sure site ownership, mission, and contact information (such as email and physical addresses and phone numbers) are available. Articles should display author information.

After a minimum of 60 days, you can submit your website for review again using the Request Inclusion in Google News button next to your site in the Publisher Center.

As Breitbart News kindly pointed out, neither of the reasons for denial apply to our website.

“The vast majority of articles on The Gateway Pundit are original write-ups from its reporters. The site has also published multiple exclusive stories over the past year, including comments from U.S. Senatorsa letter from President Trump to Vladimir Putin, as well as information on outgoing defense secretary Gen. Jim Mattis’ long-rumored presidential bid,” Breitbart noted.

The story Breitbart linked to about our comments from US Senators is a perfect example of Google’s nonsense. As you can see here, our original story about Senator Rand Paul telling me that he supports immunity for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was picked up by many other outlets and their coverage of my report appeared in Google News alerts — but my original was no where to be found.

This is the case for much of our content.

Additionally, the result when people search for our site immediately calls us “fake news.” The publications that helped to lead us into the Iraq War with lies do not.

Blocking sites like ours from being included in search results not only harms us, but it also deprives people of the ability to easily gather information from a variety of sources. Don’t worry Big (Tech) Brother says they will be totally unbiased when they are determining what you are allowed to read.

via Political Bias: Google Bans Gateway Pundit From Their News Search — The Gateway Pundit

Another, bigger migrant caravan to leave from Honduras next month

(Los Angeles Times) Another migrant caravan — this one estimated at 15,000 people — is preparing to leave Honduras on Jan. 15, according to migrant rights advocates and Spanish-language media. “They say they are even bigger and stronger than the last caravan,” said Irma Garrido, a member of the migrant advocacy group Reactiva Tijuana Foundation.

Meanwhile, thousands of Central American migrants from a caravan that left Honduras in October remain stranded at the U.S.-Mexico border and languishing in crowded Tijuana shelters while they wait out a lengthy process to file asylum requests with the United States.

Source: Another, bigger migrant caravan to leave from Honduras next month

Foreign leader: Obama guilty of ‘facilitating’ persecution of Christians

Former President Barack Obama delivers the Nelson Mandela lecture in Johannesburg, South Africa, July 17, 2018.

The former president of Nigeria, a Christian, is charging in his new book that President Obama was involved in “facilitating” the persecution of Christians by prodding voters there to adopt a Muslim-led government.

The Muslim, Muhammadu Buhari, was, in fact, elected, and he is being blamed for allowing “the persecution of Christians,” reports Breaking Israel News.

Goodluck Jonathan was Nigeria’s president from 2010-2015, and writes in his new book, “My Transition Hours,” that, “On March 23, 2015, President Obama himself took the unusual step of releasing a video message directly to Nigerians all but telling them how to vote … In that video, Obama urged Nigerians to open the ‘next chapter’ by their votes. Those who understood subliminal language deciphered that he was prodding the electorate to vote for the [Muslim-led] opposition to form a new government.”

BIN reported that ABC had the context, from a 2011 report.

That said, “The current wave of [Muslim] riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission’s (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, was unsurprising. Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar’Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his [Jonathan’s] ascent as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year’s election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.”

Raymond Ibrahim reported in BIN, “That the Obama administration may have imposed its will on a foreign country’s politics and elections is hardly unprecedented. Recall the administration’s partiality for the Muslim Brotherhood during and after 2012 presidential elections in Egypt; or its unsuccessful efforts to oust Israeli prime minister Netanyahu with U.S. taxpayers’ money; or its efforts – with an admittedly unverified ‘dossier’ … to prevent then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump from being elected, or by discussing an ‘insurance policy’ in the event that Trump won.”

Ibrahim continued, “So in Nigeria, the Obama administration, it seems, sought to right the apparently intolerable wrong of having a duly elected Christian president in a more than 50 percent Christian nation.”

He noted two questions, is there corroboration for the claims, and is Buhari facilitating jihad on Christians.

Actually, the claims “appear to correspond with the former U.S. administration’s policy concerning Muslims and Christians in Nigeria,” he said.

Ibrahim explained, “The Obama administration insisted that violence and bloodshed in Nigeria – almost all of which was committed by Muslims against Christians – had nothing to do with religion. This despite the fact that Boko Haram – which was engaging in ISIS type of atrocities: slaughter, kidnap, rape, plunder, slavery, torture before ISIS was even born – presented its terrorism as a jihad. In one instance it even called on President Jonathan to ‘repent and forsake Christianity’ and convert to Islam as the price for peace.

“The Obama administration, however, refused to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization until November 2013 – years after increasing pressure from lawmakers, human rights activists, and lobbyists.”

He noted that the Obama administration only offered “generic regrets” if Christians were killed, but protested loudly, in a statement from then-Secretary of State John Kerry – when the Nigeria government killed 30 Boko Haram terrorists.

Then when a conference was scheduled in the U.S. for the governors’ of Nigeria’s states, the Obama administration blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, the report said.

Ibrahim also noted since Buhari was elected, with the help of Obama, “Muslims have attacked Christians in ways that are being characterized as a ‘pure genocide.’”

A Christian organization reported, “In just the first six months of this year, 6,000 Christians were slaughtered in the name of jihad. It took three times as long for the Fulani to kill only 1,484 Christians under Jonathan’s presidency.”

“According to Rev. Musa Asake, the General Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria: ‘Under President Buhari, the murderous Fulani herdsmen enjoyed unprecedented protection and favoritism… Rather than arrest and prosecute the Fulani herdsmen, security forces usually manned by Muslims from the North offer them protection as they unleash terror with impunity on the Nigerian people,’” Ibrahim reported.

He explained the National Christian Elders Forum charged, “JIHAD has been launched in Nigeria by the Islamists of northern Nigeria led by the Fulani ethnic group. This Jihad is based on the Doctrine of Hate taught in Mosques and Islamic Madrasas in northern Nigeria as well as the supremacist ideology of the Fulani. Using both conventional (violent) Jihad, and stealth (civilization) Jihad, the Islamists of northern Nigeria seem determined to turn Nigeria into an Islamic Sultanate and replace Liberal Democracy with Sharia as the National Ideology. … We want a Nigeria, where citizens are treated equally before the law at all levels….”

Source: Foreign leader: Obama guilty of ‘facilitating’ persecution of Christians

December 29 Christ Is the Creator

“In [Christ] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

Colossians 1:16


Christ created everyone and everything.

The sheer size of the universe is staggering. The sun, for example, could hold 1.3 million planets the size of Earth inside it. The galaxy to which our sun belongs, the Milky Way, contains hundreds of billions of stars. And astronomers estimate there are millions, or even billions, of galaxies.

Who created this awesome universe? According to the false teachers at Colosse, it was not Christ. They viewed Him as the first and most important of the emanations from God; they were convinced it had to be a lesser being who eventually created the material universe. Believing matter to be evil, they argued that neither the good God nor a good emanation would have created the universe.

But the apostle Paul rejected that blasphemy, insisting that Christ made all things, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible. When he mentions thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities (v. 16), he is referring to the various ranks of angels. Far from being an angel, as the false teachers taught, Christ created the angels (cf. Eph. 1:21). Jesus’ relation to the unseen world, like His relation to the visible world, proves He is God, the Creator of the universe.

Man is certainly interested in knowing about the universe that Christ created. That is evident, for example, by his exploration of space. Manned space capsules photographing the earth rising over the lunar horizon and satellites beaming pictures to us of planets at the outer edges of our solar system leave us in awe and wonder. Even more amazing is, not that man has gone into space, but that God came to Earth. In Christ, the invisible God who created everything and everyone became visible to man. How sad that while man looks into space, He refuses to look at the One who came to Earth.


Suggestions for Prayer: Worship Christ for His awesome work of creation.

For Further Study: Read Psalm 19:1–6. What testimony does this passage give of the Creator?[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. (1997). Strength for today. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

OPINION: The Press Made It Impossible For Trump To Win Christmas

The Obamas did not spend Christmas with the troops, or even in Washington

Most are now accustomed to the media’s perpetual blood hunt of Donald Trump. The press’s daily browbeating of Trump is accepted and even expected, but the Christmas onslaught of Trump bashing by the mainstream media was an embarrassment even for them.

It would seem the press already had the stories written and were just waiting for the clock to strike 12:01 a.m. on December 25 so they could run them. On Christmas Day, 2018, NBC News trumpeted: “Trump becomes first president since 2002 not to visit troops on or before Christmas — though he called military personnel on Tuesday, Trump did not visit a hospital or a military base.”

Plenty of others joined NBC.

Media leftists and other leftists excoriated Trump for not having spent Christmas with our troops. So desperate were they to berate him that they couldn’t even wait until the 26th to run these stories.

Unbeknownst to any of them, as their stories were rolling off printing presses or being posted to blogs and websites, Trump was in the process of doing the exact thing they were lambasting him over not doing: He was en route to a U.S. military base in Iraq, where, on December 26, the president and first lady made a surprise visit to our troops.

The media’s next line of scrutiny was to claim the trip was hastily thrown together at the last minute as a result of Trump feeling pressure from their never-blinking coverage.

Trump’s trip, of course, was not publicized information. Presidential trips into conflict zones tend to not be forecasted on the official calendar on the White House website. Such trips are complex. They aren’t scheduled hours in advance; they’re scheduled days, weeks, even months prior.

Advance teams are on the ground up to two weeks prior, military escort and communication aircraft must be requisitioned, ground transportation and other logistics are worked out in exacting detail far in advance of any president setting foot on foreign soil. The very suggestion that Trump made the Iraq Christmas trip in response to criticism is not only a demonstration of ignorance, but it’s laughable considering how well known it is that Trump couldn’t care less what the press thinks of him.

The press then managed to venture from laughable to just plain ridiculous.

First lady Melania Trump was excoriated over her choice in footwear, Trump was blasted for “doing this backwards,” even troops who came to visit with their commander-in-chief managed to fall victims of the Trump-hating press’s poison pen when CNN suggested they may have violated rules by bringing “MAGA” caps to be signed.

Where Trump is involved it never ends. Which causes one to wonder: Does the press, our so-called “fourth branch of government,” place all presidents under the same microscope of scrutiny? We don’t have to look very far into history for an answer.

The Obamas did not spend Christmas with the troops, or even in Washington, D.C. No, the Obamas had their own Christmas tradition. Every year in office, the Obamas spent Christmas vacationing in Hawaii. For eight consecutive years, the Obamas spent two to three weeks living quite large in opulent tax-payer rented estates on the island.

According to the U.S. Air Force, those trips, which sometimes saw the family traveling on separate jets — Air Force One for the president and another, a military version of a Boeing 757 for the first lady — cost Americans at least $28 million. Other sources place the cost significantly higher.

What did press coverage of Obama Christmases past look and sound like? Was there widespread criticism of a president golfing with millionaire friends at private resorts on an island 4,800 miles from Washington, D.C., and 6,200 from Baghdad instead of supporting the troops? Not so much.

What we got instead was fawning pictures of the first family riding bicycles, enjoying shave ice, a shirtless Barack frolicking and body surfing in the waves, and of course, hitting the links. Lots and lots of links. Outlets like ABC News provided hard-hitting pieces that detailed the Obama’s plans for each day, including “Gone Golfing,” “A Late Start and a Luau,” “Family Night Out” and “Golf and Fine Dining.”

In summary, press coverage of Trump’s Christmas: “Trump isn’t celebrating Christmas with the troops!” “Trump with our troops is just a publicity stunt!” “Trump’s wife doesn’t know how to dress at Christmas time!” “Trump should’ve shown the troops some respect and stayed home!”

Press coverage of Obama’s Christmases: “So long, big guy! Have a great time. Can’t wait to see you when you get back!”

Derrick Wilburn is a Centennial Institute fellow and the founder of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives.

Source: OPINION: The Press Made It Impossible For Trump To Win Christmas

“Election Meddling” Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked “Russian Bot” Scheme

For over two years now, the concepts of “Russian collusion” and “Russian election meddling” have been shoved down our throats by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald Trump.

Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy, the focus shifted from “collusion” to “meddling” and “influence.” In other words, maybe Trump didn’t actually collude with Putin, but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump’s favor.

To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.

Election meddling “Russian bots” and “troll farms” became the central focus – as claims were levied of social media operations conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.

And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg “Troll farm” (which a liberal journalist cast serious doubt over), the MSM – with all of their proselytizing over the “threat to democracy” that election meddling poses, has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of “Russian bots” created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting “Hamilton 68” dashboard developed by the same IT experts. 

Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan – bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot “false flag” operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year – creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters. Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for “coordinated inauthentic” behavior.

Jonathon Morgan, Roy Moore, Reid Hoffman

As Russian state-owned RT puts it – and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, “it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy by “Russian bots.” Except they weren’t run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible for creating and amplifying the “Russiagate” hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection.

A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.

Described by the New York Times as a group of “tech specialists who lean Democratic,” New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies. Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military’s advanced research agency. His partner, Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company in 2018 alone.

On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama’s 2017 special election for the US Senate.

Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to support a write-in candidate instead.

In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had “orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”

It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story on expert opinion from Morgan’s other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. –RT

Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just

In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore’s campaign. A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating a self-described “false flag” operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea what their purpose was. Did he think no one would notice? –RT

Even more strange is that Scott Shane – the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama “Russian bot” scheme, knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore.

Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama’s former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge’s campaign to suppress Republican votes, “enrage” Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a “false flag” to hrt Moore. He dubbed it “Project Birmingham.” RT

Shane told BuzzFeed that he was “shocked” by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge “false flag” operation on Moore as “limited Russian tactics” which were part of an “experiment” that had a budget of “only” $100,000 – and which had no effect on the election.

New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a “research project,” which Morgan suggested was designed “to better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation.”

While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard to give his “false flag” more credibility – misleading the public about a “Russian” influence campaign that he knew was fake.

New Knowledge’s protestations apparently didn’t convince Facebook, which announced last week that five accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan’s – had been suspended  for engaging in “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” RT

They knew exactly what they were doing

While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the “Project Birmingham” as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation’s after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing.

“We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification and targeted advertising,” reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.

The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines faded away?  

Source: “Election Meddling” Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked “Russian Bot” Scheme

From US to Across the World, Melania Trump Soared as First Lady in 2018 — Check Out Her Best Moments

The U.S. first lady displayed what it means to be an American in 2018, as she intentionally met with so many people, made her first solo trip overseas, and shared what her initiative meant to her — as well as making history along the way.

Let’s take a look at the best moments of first lady Melania Trump over this past year.

Lights up the room at the State of the Union address

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

During President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January, Melania wowed people as she entered the room to a standing ovation.

She sat down next to a 12-year-old boy who was then honored in the president’s speech for starting a movement of placing 40,000 flags on the graves of the “great heroes” for Veterans Day.

Cherishes longtime friendships at Barbara Bush’s funeral

David J. Phillip/Getty Images

When former first lady Barbara Bush passed away on April 17, 2018, Melania brought two special guests to honor Bush’s devotion to the White House staff.

The two guests, former White House head maitre d’ George Hannie and White House usher Buddy Carter, “were very close to the Bush family,” and Melania “wanted them to be able to pay their respects.”

Carter worked at the Blair House for 15 years and then began working at the White House as a butler during former President George H.W. Bush’s administration. Hannie worked at the White House for 46 years.

Visits with wounded troops ahead of the Fourth of July


The first lady made a surprise visit to spend time with wounded American service members a day before the Fourth of July.

“Thank you to the many dedicated service members & medical staff who take such good care of our men & women in uniform,” she tweeted about her visit.

Unveils “Be Best” awareness campaign

Win McNamee/Getty Images

In May, Melania unveiled her “Be Best” campaign, launching her first official platform as the first lady.

The initiative revolves around encouraging children to understand the importance of their emotional, social, and physical health. It includes three pillars: well-being, social media use, and opioid abuse.

“When children learn positive online behaviors early on, social media can be used in productive ways and can affect positive change,” she said during her speech at the White House.

Shows support and compassion in hands-on hurricane relief

The White House/Flickr

During the month of October, Hurricane Michael, a Category 4 storm, came rolling through the Florida Panhandle and caused a lot of devastation, as tens of thousands of homes were destroyed and roads were flooded.

The president and first lady listened to people’s stories as they toured the wreckage, the Associated Press reported.

Accompanied by her husband, Melania handed out bottles of water at an aid distribution center.

Takes initiative to next step — spends time with newborns who suffer from NAS

The White House/Flickr

Continuing her “Be Best” initiative, the first lady has visited several hospitals over the past year where she’s had the opportunity to meet with families who have newborns with neonatal abstinence syndrome, suffering from opioid withdrawal.

When her airplane had minor mechanical issues in October, Melania took the time to visit the intensive care ward at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“As the caretakers of the next generation, it is our responsibility to protect our most valuable and vulnerable — our children,” she said.

Dances her way across Africa — first solo trip as first lady

The White House/Flickr

Melania took her first solo trip as the first lady to Africa, where she had a five-day, four-country tour.

Visiting Ghana, Malawi, Kenya, and Egypt, the first lady was able to share her “Be Best” initiative as she visited a baby clinic and toured a hospital, visited Ghana’s first lady, toured a classroom in Malawi and helped children learn English, danced alongside children, and fed baby elephants.

Cue the lights — White House shines with Melania’s Christmas decoration design

Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks

The White House is decked out for the holidays as the decorations, which the first lady designed, line the halls and rooms.

With the “American Treasures” Christmas theme, the decorations are centered around “patriotism” — a tree in the East Wing honors troops, the official White House tree is wrapped in a ribbon that’s embroidered with each state and territory, and the State Dining Room has national symbols on display.

“Our theme honors the heart and spirit of the American people,” Melania said in a statement.

Ready for takeoff — makes history in military aircraft

The White House/Flickr

In December, Melania visited Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, and the USS George H.W. Bush, where she honored the American service members, saying during her speech that “we know that we are free because you are brave.”

“This administration will always stand with the men and women of the United States armed forces,” she said.

The first lady made history during the trip with her “incredible flight” in the Osprey aircraft, the first time a first lady had flown in that type of aircraft.

Continues to make history — the first time a first lady has visited American troops in Iraq

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

The first lady accompanied her husband to an active combat zone and made history, as it was the first time a first lady visited Iraq since the war began in 2003.

The couple traveled Christmas night to visit with American service members stationed at Al Asad Air Base near Baghdad, where the Trumps were able to meet military leaders as well as shake hands and take photos with the troops. They also visited with hundreds of troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on the way back to the U.S.

“I’m very honored to be here tonight,” the first lady said at the base in Iraq, according to the White House. “Thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, and keeping us safe and free. I’m very proud of you.”

Source: From US to Across the World, Melania Trump Soared as First Lady in 2018 — Check Out Her Best Moments

Video: “Love, Light, Joy” by Alistair Begg — Truth For Life Blog

Two thousand years ago, the Lord Jesus stepped into human flesh, and the wonder of God’s initiative-taking, all-encompassing love shone into darkness. In this moving Christmas meditation, Alistair Begg invites us to entrust our lives to the guiding light of the Savior’s embrace. Although the world’s shadowy trials bring pain and disappointment, the joy of knowing Christ illuminates the days of those who are kept completely in His care.

via Video: “Love, Light, Joy” by Alistair Begg — Truth For Life Blog

And Jesus Asked, “Who Do You Say That I Am?”

He asked His disciples, “13Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15“But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” (Matthew 16:13b-16, HCSB)

I find it interesting that Jesus asked this of his followers; first concerning the Jews and second, they themselves. I could understand Jesus questioning The Twelve but the Jews? Really? I mean, he’s the Messiah for crying out loud! Unless He wanted to gauge his popularity status it makes no sense to me why He would be considered about the people’s opinion of Him.

Nonetheless, onto the bigger question: “Who do you say that I am?” This time directed to those who walked with Him and knew Him intimately. Peter called Him “the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” I wonder, if Jesus asked that same question today, what answers would we give?

Rabbi, Prophet, Fairytale?

In a world where everyone is “tolerant” and “spiritual” and “right”, there is no room for “wrong” unless offenses are had and feelings are hurt, and correction and teaching are misconstrued into “intolerance” and “stupidity”. We’re all just breathing to death after all. Why the need for salvation when we can have paradise here? Where the masses scream “you Christians are ignorant and bigoted and full of nonsense. Let me do me. I’m not hurting anyone,” while simultaneously pinning for life and love and something worth staying here for.

In a realm where everything must be Instagramed or it didn’t happen and instant gratification reigns over patience and legacies, it is becoming more plausible than ever that in this culture, Jesus is often reduced to a hipster-like, flower crown-wearing religious teacher who was a good person with some nice teachings and did a thing that is irrelevant to our 21st century lives today.

“Who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks. We most likely would say anything other than what Peter professed. We christen Him “killjoy” “control freak” “irrelevant” “uncaring tyrant” and a “fairytale for weak-minded people to help them feel better in hard times.”

And yet, we may be wrong.


It has been a year and six days since Something Like Love came and interrupted my way of life, since God drew me back to Himself and my, what a year it has been. I definitely was not expecting God to speak to me through flames on that cool, November night before Thanksgiving although, considering how He caught Moses’ attention in the desert, I should not be surprised by His tactics. It’s been a year of discovery, struggle, questions and answers, love, and the facing of harsh realities; or maybe just facing reality. I’m in the beginning of a transitional period (at the end of year, imagine that!) and my view and understanding of the Divine Being who makes his abode with me has changed several times over the past 13 months. One main thing that became apparent late in the year is that I am more at ease, more capable, and best comfortable loving God with my mind than with my heart.

That’s bothersome to me.

Maybe because I spend many days reading the words of the early theologians and find myself a bit envious. Envious of their ability to write with such candor the long-forgotten truthful essence of the Christian faith while still letting their passion and inadequacy shine through. It is the perfect marriage of heart and mind. How unlike the divorce between the two we often see in the western world. What did they know about Jesus that we seem to be missing?

A New Kind of Saviour

Writer and theologian A. W. Tozer says in his book The Pursuit of God, “The world is perishing for lack of the knowledge of God, and the church is famishing for want of His presence… We have broken with God. We have ceased to obey Him or love Him, and in guilt and fear have fled as far as possible from His presence.” We often operate in guilt and fear because we perceive you as someone who cause us harm or as someone to whose right standing and standard we could never reach. Perhaps we, like blind Bartimaeus, need a touch from the Messiah to heal the stubborn darkness of our eyes to let His light shine forth so we too can declare like Peter “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!”


Source: And Jesus Asked, “Who Do You Say That I Am?”

‘Cracks Appear’: Economist on Why US’ Giving Up Its Global ‘Policeman’ Role

Donald Trump’s official rejection of the role of a global “policeman” could be called the most important event of the outgoing year, Sputnik contributor Ivan Danilov writes, stressing that the cracks in the foundations of American hegemony have already become too visible.

Source: ‘Cracks Appear’: Economist on Why US’ Giving Up Its Global ‘Policeman’ Role

President Trump Blames Democrats for Deaths of Migrant Children — The Gateway Pundit

President Trump blamed Democrats for the recent deaths of migrant children in Border Patrol custody, saying on Twitter Saturday that the immigration policies of the Democrats and their refusal to support a border wall encourage migrants to try to enter the U.S. illegally.

Screen image from December 25, 2018, during partial government shutdown over border wall funding.

“Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can’t. If we had a Wall, they wouldn’t even try! The two……..children in question were very sick before they were given over to Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard & getting so little credit!”

A record number of migrant children are pouring over the Southern border this month, with a reported 24,000 just in the first three weeks of December. DHS reports many migrants, including children, are sick when caught. Two migrant children from Guatemala have died with flu-like symptoms in Border Patrol custody in December.

While caravan migrants have been stopped at the Tijuana, Mexico side of the border with California, other migrants are swarming the borders of New Mexico and Texas, overwhelming the ability of the federal government to handle and process them. The government has released thousands of migrants on the streets of cities like El Paso because of a lack of capacity to hold them.

Trump is in a showdown with Democrats over a budget demand of $5 billion for border security and wall construction which the Democrats are refusing. The federal government is partially shutdown as a result with negotiations set to continue next week when the Democrats take control of the House while Republicans retain control of the Senate with an increased majority comprised of fewer turncoat GOP senators.

via President Trump Blames Democrats for Deaths of Migrant Children — The Gateway Pundit

This Is Exactly The Kind Of Behavior That You’d Expect During A Stock Market Implosion…

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

If a doctor tells you that his patient’s condition is swinging up and down wildly, is that a good sign or a bad sign?  Of course the answer to that question is quite obvious.

And if a doctor tells you that his patient’s condition is “stable”, is that a good sign or a bad sign? 

Just like in the medical world, instability is not something that is a desirable thing on Wall Street, and right now we are witnessing extreme volatility on an almost daily basis.  On Thursday, the Dow was already down several hundred points when I went out to do some grocery shopping with my wife, and at the low point of the day it had fallen 611 points.  But then a “miracle happened” and the Dow ended the day with an increase of 260 points.  As I detailed yesterday, this is precisely the sort of behavior that you would expect during a chaotic bear market.

As Fox Business has noted, bear market rallies are typically “sharp, quick and usually short” I figured that the momentum from Wednesday would carry over into the early portion of Thursday, so I was surprised when the Dow was down by so much as we neared the middle of the day.  But then around 2 PM we witnessed an extraordinary market surge

The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted a 865-point swing in less than two hours. The blue-chip index had been down in mid-afternoon more than 500 points to cut the previous session’s gains in half, before bargain hunters and short covering turned a big decline into a modest gain.

An 865 point swing in less than two hours is not “normal”.

In fact, it is about as far from “normal” as you can get.

Let’s talk about short covering for a moment.  During huge market downturns, speculators often try to make a lot of money very rapidly by shorting stocks.  But if momentum suddenly shifts, those short sellers can be caught with their pants down and the consequences can be quite dramatic.  The following comes from Marketwatch

Indeed, market veterans warn that massive, one-day rallies are often more characteristic of downturns, occurring as selloffs lead to significantly oversold technical conditions that leave markets ripe for short covering only to give way to renewed selling once the frenzy of forced buying is exhausted. Investors who short a stock are essentially betting that its price will fall by first borrowing the shares, but those traders can be forced to buy shares back if prices suddenly swing higher, which, in turn, can amplify price swings.

In addition, it appears that on Thursday there was more of the “forced pension rebalancing” that Zero Hedge has been talking about

It certainly has the smell of a massive pension reallocation as the moment stocks started to surge, bonds were dumped

No stock market crash in U.S. history has ever gone in a straight line.  There are always huge ups and downs during every market crash, and this market crash is no exception.

Ultimately, there is no way that you can possibly interpret the behavior of the market in recent days as “healthy”

Here’s the problem: as we discussed last night, since 1990, every comparable reversal – with a few exceptions – came during the 2008-2009 bear market.  According to Bloomberg data, in eight previous bear markets the S&P 500 experienced rallies of greater than 2.5% more than 120 times as the benchmark plunged from peak to trough. From the collapse of Lehman to the financial crisis bottom in March 2009, the S&P 500 rallied more than 4 percent on 13 different occasions.

This is not the kind of price action you see in normal bull markets,” said Robert Baird equity sales trader Michael Antonelli. “This is just a face ripping short cover rally. I am 100 percent not saying we are in a situation like 2008 now, but look at October 10, 2008 to October 13, 2008: the market rose nearly 12 percent in one day. October 27 to October 28, 2008, it rose 11 percent.”

Meanwhile, it appears that one of America’s most iconic retailers is about to go down in flames.

For years I have been warning that Sears was eventually “going to zero”, and if a last ditch rescue attempt does not materialize by the end of the day on Friday, Sears will be liquidated

The employer of more than 68,000 filed for bankruptcy in October. Its last shot at survival is a $4.6 billion proposal put forward by its chairman, Eddie Lampert, to buy the company out of bankruptcy through his hedge fund, ESL Investments. ESL is the only party offering to buy Sears as a whole, people familiar with the situation tell CNBC. Without that bid or another like it, liquidators will break the company up into pieces.

But as Lampert stares down a deadline of Dec. 28 to submit his offer, he is quickly running out of time. As of Thursday afternoon, Lampert had neither submitted his bid, nor rounded up financing, the people familiar said.

The inevitable demise of Sears could be seen from a mile away, and the same thing can be said about the country as a whole.

Our debt-fueled standard of living has been propped up by the biggest debt binge in the history of the world, and Wall Street has been transformed into the largest casino on the entire planet.

The entire U.S. economic system has become one huge Ponzi scheme, and all Ponzi schemes ultimately collapse.

Right now, we are in the early stages of a game that is going to take some time to fully play out.  The pessimism that has gripped Wall Street is starting to spread throughout the general population, and many experts were stunned to learn that consumer confidence just declined for a second month in a row

The confidence Americans feel in the economy fell for the second month in a row and touched the lowest level since last summer, perhaps a sign that worries about the 9 1/2-year U.S. expansion have spread from Wall Street to Main Street.

The consumer confidence index dropped to 128.1 this month from a revised 136.4 in November, the Conference Board said Thursday. Economists polled by MarketWatch had forecast a 133.3 reading.

If you have been a regular visitor to my websites, then nothing that will happen over the next few months should be a surprise to you.

The inevitable consequences for decades of exceedingly foolish decisions are starting to roll in, and the bursting of “The Bubble To End All Bubbles” is going to be beyond excruciating.

Source: This Is Exactly The Kind Of Behavior That You’d Expect During A Stock Market Implosion…

The Liberal Mainstream Media Is Now Using Communist Tactics to Push Their Propaganda and Lies on the American Public — The Gateway Pundit

The American Catholic recently published an article titled, “The Purpose of Politically Correct Lies.”

The brief article explains how communist societies use propaganda to control the population.

Th author Donald McClarey included this quote:

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels)

This quote clearly describes the actions and intent of today’s mainstream liberal media in America.

The goal of the US mainstream media and the tech giants in Silicon Valley is not to inform or report the truth but to deceive and control.

The best example of this in recent memory is the liberal media’s outlandish defense of CNN’s Jim Acosta after he was banned from the White House press corps.

In early November CNN’s rude and boisterous reporter Jim Acosta was suspended from covering the White House over his disruptive and abusive conduct during the president’s press conference.

Video shows Acosta hacking a White House intern’s arm with enough force to push her arm down and knock her off balance.

CNN said the video of Jim Acosta was doctored.

The White House video originally posted by Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars — WAS CLEARLY NOT DOCTORED!

The liberal reporters not only defended Jim Acosta — They denied the reality that he had contact with the White House intern even with video!

Yet a vast majority of the US liberal media outlets claimed the video was doctored including: Axios, Newsweek, The New York Times, ABC7 Chicago, The Guardian…

It wasn’t and it was CLEAR to anyone who compared the two videos that they were not doctored.
Yet the liberal media pushed the complete lie that you were seeing two different videos!

Paul Joseph Watson proved his video that came under attack by the liberal media WAS NOT DOCTORED!

Still the media pushed the outlandish lie that the video was doctored.

Today the liberal mainstream media is showing us who they are — shameless liars and Communists.

Don’t fall for their propaganda!

Featured image — Czech farmers’ communist propaganda

via The Liberal Mainstream Media Is Now Using Communist Tactics to Push Their Propaganda and Lies on the American Public — The Gateway Pundit

December 29, 2018 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

11 Note the similarity of David’s declaration to the end of the Lord’s Prayer reflected in some manuscripts: “Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever” (Mt 6:13). Also note the points of similarity between David’s broader prayer (vv. 10–19) and David’s other prayers of thanksgiving in 1 Chronicles (16:7–36; 17:16–27) as well as Psalm 145, which is attributed to David in the superscription of that psalm.[1]

29:11 The purpose of the temple was to exalt the Lord and to acknowledge the universality of His kingdom. David modeled before the people the worship of the living God. It typically starts with praise for God’s eternity, His complete control over the universe, and His great power. He is the glorious Master over all (Ps. 134:3).[2]

29:11 Yours, O Yahweh, is the kingdom See note on 1 Chron 17:14.

head While the Hebrew word used here, rosh, literally means “head,” it often is used to mean “first” (Prov 8:26) or “chief” (Deut 1:13; 33:5). Here, it indicates that God is exalted as the ultimate ruler of all creation.[3]

29:11 Yours, O Lord. This is probably the source of the longer ending of the Lord’s prayer (Matt. 6:13; cf. Luke 11:4). See theological note “The Greatness of God.”[4]

[1] Mabie, F. J. (2010). 1 and 2 Chronicles. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Chronicles–Job (Revised Edition) (Vol. 4, p. 154). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 530). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

[3] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Ch 29:11). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[4] Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (p. 594). Orlando, FL; Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries.

%d bloggers like this: