Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? A straight exploration of the facts should reveal the truth. That’s what CNN political analyst Steve Cortes does in this critically important video.
I just tried to post this article on facebook re the Clinton FBI investigator committing suicide in a night club and the article was denied by facebook. I have requested a review as there are other news sources who are reporting this story. Nancy
Clinton investigator shot dead in nightclub (FBI says suicide)
thehornnews.com/clinton-investigator-shot-dead-in-nightclub-fbi-says-suicide/
The FBI is mourning the death of longtime agent Salvatore “Sal” Cincinelli, 41, a top financial crimes investigator.
Cincinelli reportedly died of at least one gunshot wound in the middle of a crowded Texas nightclub during a night out with colleagues.
Cincinelli was an FBI special agent that spearheaded many of the bureau’s highest-profile financial investigations. In his nine years of service, Cincinelli had headed up investigations into Wall Street banks as well as the finances of the Clinton Foundation. A native New Yorker, Cincinelli reportedly gave up a high-paying Wall Street banking career in 2010 to devote his life to the FBI.
According to eyewitnesses, a number of FBI agents had gathered at the trendy Container Bar in Austin, Texas on Jul. 16 for a night of drinking and dancing. Late in the evening, Cincinelli allegedly turned a gun on himself and committed suicide in the middle of the crowded dance floor. The FBI has not commented on Cincinelli’s death.
The FBI agents on site instructed witnesses to delete any video and photographs they had of the evening and had the bar cleared out, reports say. Austin police were also reportedly instructed to remain silent on the details, and nightclub employees were told to “stay offline” and “keep quiet” about what they saw.
The New York Daily News reports that Cincinelli’s sister, Valerie Cincinelli, is currently awaiting trial in a murder-for-hire plot in New York City.
“Valerie, accused of plotting to kill her estranged husband and her boyfriend’s teen daughter, was a 12-year NYPD veteran when she was arrested two months ago in the twin murder schemes,” The New York Daily News reported on Jul. 24. “Her boyfriend John DiRubba ratted Cincinelli out to the FBI and cooperated with investigators in the sting operation that landed her in handcuffs.”
Valerie was apparently very close to her brother, Sal.
“She is absolutely devastated by the passing of her brother and best friend, and this is certainly adding to the stress of her current situation,” defense lawyer James Kousouros told The New York Post.
Sal Cincinelli was a Supervisory Special Agent at the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes Unit at the time of his death.
He was profiled by Reuters in 2012 as part of an article on FBI special agents that gave up lucrative careers in the financial sector to investigate financial misconduct.
“Very very bright guy,” one FBI insider told True Pundit. “Such a young guy, it really gets you in the gut. He put in the hours too, was always working hard.”
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: Islamomoria, then, would describe the pollyannish assessment of Islam as a religion or worldview which ignores the jihad mandate, hatred for the disbeliever, sex slavery, inherent gender inequality, and imposition of Shari’a law upon all (including execution of homosexuals and apostates, and dhimmitude for all non-Muslims allowed to live by the global caliphate.) Those preaching or under the spell of such a misguided, positive assessment of Islam would be known as Islamomorons. Perhaps the pejorative sense inherent in this term would serve as a wake-up call to those who listen mindlessly to pseudo-scholarly Islamophiles, while at the same time shaming and silencing the latter from further propaganda. It is the perfect word to describe “useful idiots” so eager to welcome Islam into Western life without realizing they are sowing the seeds of their own society’s destruction.
When words are weaponized and skillfully wielded in the moral battles of a society, they can change the debate landscape in short order — a few decades at most. Witness, for example, a word freshly minted in the early 1980s, when attitudes toward homosexuality were by and large negative. Gay activists coined the term “homophobia” and applied it not only to those holding an “irrational fear” of homosexuality/homosexuals (which is what the term literally meant) but also to those opposed to the practice or lifestyle for moral, medical, sociological or theological reasons. They successfully beguiled a dull-witted society into swallowing uncritically the judgment that anyone opposed to homosexuality as an equally acceptable lifestyle as that of heterosexuality must be intolerant and bigoted, and consequently should be ostracized and shamed into silence until all opposition to the homosexual activist agenda was squelched, and indeed a negative cultural perception was transformed into a positive one.
Muslim activists in the West were quick to learn from this. In the 1990s, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood in America and sister organizations, all committed to the ascendancy of Islam and its ultimate conquest of the USA in pursuit of a global caliphate, gathered to strategize a long-term plan for the advancement of Islam in American culture. Key to their vision was the makeover of the negative image of Islam in the West. To accomplish this the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) coined the term “Islamophobia,” and the 29 Muslim Brotherhood-related organizations began to wield it as a verbal weapon to shame and silence anyone critical of Islamic doctrine and practice.
One of the then members of the IIIT who later renounced his Islamic radicalism and left the organization, Abdur Rahman Muhammad, revealed the intent behind the coining of “Islamophobia”:
“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics…. Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them. This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive ‘General Strategic Goal for North America.’” [To see that document in Arabic, followed by an English translation, click here.]
“The Equality Act” sounds like a great bill. Who would be against equality? But, it’s not really about equality.
The Equality Act is really about using the full weight of the federal government to impose the ever-evolving sexual revolution on the American people, under threat of punishment or loss of federal funds.
Rather than allow a national debate on the issues of human sexuality and gender, the Act shuts down the debate and, in essence, labels as bigots those who will not bow the knee to the sexual revolution.
As Andrew Walker writes, “For progressives, the Equality Act is the rallying cry that would forever cement the legitimacy of sexual-revolution ethics into federal law.”
So What is the Equality Act?
The Equality Act— to be introduced by House Democrats in Congress—adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This means that almost no area of American public life—including education, employment, public accommodation, housing, medical care, non-profits, and federal funding for example—will be left untouched.
Obviously, invidious discrimination is wrong, but that is not what the Equality Act is addressing. Americans are not being denied employment, housing, or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Rather, these types of laws have been used throughout the country to punish those that believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman, and believe that there are only two genders, male and female, both rooted in biology.
Some Problems with the Equality Act:
1. It threatens the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion
An excellent view of America by a 26 year old young lady from a Facebook post. Well written thoughts.
I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to ‘fix’ the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continued to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought.
We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.
Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”
Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.
Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world?s GDP. The list goes on. However, these universal truths don?t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it?s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
Are you tired of hearing about the endless talk of President Trump and the Mueller Report ? This video interview of Andrew Breitbart from 2009 gives an inside look into the thinking of the man who pushed back fiercely against liberalism. Nancy
The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart
Published on May 27, 2009
What if we arrived at a point where a solid majority of Californians wanted independence (and perhaps states like Washington and Oregon sought to join them)? Should they have the moral and constitutional right to do so? Would the other states ever impose military control over Californians to keep them in the Union?
The standard response is this issue was settled during the Civil War. Really? What the Civil War proved was that the North had more military might than the South. Imagine that it were the South in 1860 that held the political and military advantage to impose its will over the North, and moved to legalize the evil of slavery everywhere. Would the North have been morally wrong to secede?
The issue of secession takes on renewed vigor now given the British exit from the European Union. The EU allowed a fairly orderly process for allowing nations to leave the EU governing structure. The political tide in many places around the world appears to be for self-rule and sovereignty.
In America, the deepening and perhaps irreversible red state-blue state schism deserves immediate attention. We as a nation are more divided on ideological, cultural, economic and geographical lines than at any time since the Civil War. Look at the electoral map from recent elections.