Displaying posts published in

May 2017

Muslim White Supremacist Said His Murder Victims Disrespected Islam By Tyler O’Neil

Only in Florida. A white supremacist man converted to Islam and confessed to killing two of his roommates, who were also white supremacists. A third roommate (and again, white supremacist), who was away during the killings, was also arrested for homemade explosives.

Tampa police arrested 18-year-old Devon Arthurs Friday night, after the young man brought them to the bodies of two men he confessed to killing that very evening, Fox 13 News reported. The Miami Herald reported that Arthurs told police he killed his roommates “because they disrespected his new-found Muslim faith.” As he was arrested, Arthurs made several references to “Allah Mohammed.”

Around 5:30 p.m., Arthurs came into the Green Planet Smoke Shop near his apartment, wielding a gun and announcing that he had killed two people. He reportedly said he was upset “due to America bombing his Muslim countries.” He also warned employees not to leave the store, but the shop’s manager was able to break away and call the police.

“He came in there with a gun, never faced it at [the employees],” manager Fadi Soufan told Fox 13 News. Arthurs started “telling them the world’s corrupt, crazy stuff like that, and that he just shot someone.”

Police officers came and took Arthurs into custody, but then he told them where to find the bodies. He also reportedly added, “I had to do it. This wouldn’t have to happen if your country didn’t bomb my country.” Officers identified the victims as 22-year-old Jeremy Himmelman and 18-year-old Andrew Oneschuk. Investigators reported that all three of the men lived in an apartment together.

In a press release, the Tampa Police Department announced that “due to concerns about possible explosives, the Tampa Police bomb squad and the Tampa Fire Rescue Hazmat team worked through the night to ensure that it was safe to enter the condominium.”

Arthurs was booked into the jail early Saturday, and faces first-degree murder and kidnapping charges.

But the story gets crazier. On Sunday afternoon, police arrested a fourth roommate, Brandon Russell, whom Arthurs also identified as a white supremacist. According to Arthurs, this man had participated in neo-Nazi chat rooms where he “threatened to kill people and bomb infrastructure,” according to the FBI report.

Inside Russell’s bedroom, police found a framed photograph of Timothy McVeigh, the convicted and executed bomber responsible for attacking the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 16, 1995. They also found Nazi and white supremacist propaganda, and radiation sources — thorium and americium. CONTINUE AT SITE

Linda Sarsour Still Won’t Own Up to Her Hateful Speech By Tom Knighton

To a social justice warrior, there is nothing so awful as a white male. For one like Linda Sarsour, that is especially true, which she recently illustrated at Dartmouth College.

On May 12, during a question and answer period with Sarsour, someone in the audience asked a question about a tweet Sarsour made regarding genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arab Christian Brigitte Gabriel.

In that tweet, Sarsour said:

I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.

The Daily Wire reported on the question, and Sarsour’s response:

The young man confronted Sarsour:

Hi. So, um, this question is really important because I believe that women’s rights are also human rights. So I really want to know: under what circumstances it’s acceptable to say that “I wish I could take their vaginas away. They don’t deserve to be women.” Just to give that context, that’s one of the tweets off your Twitter.

There was a long pause while Sarsour decided how to mitigate the effect of the truth being thrown at her. She finally responded by evading the question:

So, let’s give some context here, because, y’know, we have — Uh, this is an event organized by an Asian American, right? Let’s just get — let’s get some context to what is going on here. Celebrating a community, right? Talking about communities of color who are being directly impacted by this moment and I have a young white man in the back who is not directly impacted by any of the issues I mentioned.

That elicited applause from the supine audience, which apparently didn’t care about the massive hypocrisy of a woman posing as a fighter for women’s rights who had called for literally ripping away the vaginas of women that she hated.

Sarsour continued by astonishingly claiming she never issued the tweet: “A copy and paste that he got from a right-wing blog. He doesn’t even know if it actually came from my Twitter account because he has a screenshot of it. He never actually went to my Twitter to see if it’s actually there. Right? That never happened. ”

Never happened, huh? Then what’s this?
A screenshot of Linda Sarsour’s tweet.

Sarsour then tried to deflect the criticism by pretending it was simply a case of saying “stupid s***” when one is younger — yet she never disavowed the sentiment in that tweet.

She could have simply apologized. But she didn’t. Instead, she simply argued that people say things that may be “stupid” — but of course, she alone gets a pass on what she said and did in the past.

Meanwhile, the progressive movement she so proudly supports has ruined people for saying and doing much less. CONTINUE AT SITE

Oregon Leftists Circulate List of Restaurants Engaging in ‘Cultural Appropriation’ By Tom Knighton ???!!!

Talk to anyone who has tried to run a business and ask them how hard it is. I can speak from experience when I tell you that it isn’t easy. Long hours, sleepless nights, and concerns you never even thought about as an employee are the norm. Add in the fact that you get paid last, which can mean some very lean times, and the challenges of owning a business become rather obvious.

Now, you may also have to consider the idea that Social Justice Warriors think you have the wrong DNA for your line of work, because they’re horrible.

Reason.com reports that some have put together a spreadsheet of Portland, Oregon, restaurants that allegedly engage in “cultural appropriation”:

The list, a Google Docs spreadsheet, includes about 60 Portland-area restaurants, the names of their white owners, and the kind of cuisine they serve. (For example, the list informs us that Burmasphere “was founded by a white man who ate Burmese food in San Francisco.”) The spreadsheet also lists competing restaurants that are owned by people of color and urges customers to try them instead.

“This is NOT about cooking at home or historical influences on cuisines; it’s about profit, ownership, and wealth in a white supremacist culture,” wrote the spreadsheet’s authors. “These white-owned businesses hamper the ability for POC [people of color] to run successful businesses of their own (cooking their own cuisines) by either consuming market share with their attempt at authenticity or by modifying foods to market to white palates. Their success further perpetuates the problems stated above. It’s a cyclical pattern that will require intentional behavior change to break.”

The spreadsheet seems to be a response to the controversy over Kooks Burritos, a Portland-area pop-up food truck run by two white women. In an interview with Williamette Week, Kooks owners Kali Wilgus and Liz Connelly explained how they fell in love with authentic Mexican tortillas during a visit to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico.

It’s funny that these oh-so-caring and tolerant individuals fail to understand how outright insulting they are to everyone, whether white or minority.

Restaurants open and close all the time for a variety of reasons. To say that minorities can’t compete simply because white people are cooking the same type of food? That implies that minorities are incapable of succeeding without these benevolent white knights who compiled the listing.

They are literally saying that “people of color” can’t possibly make it without a group of SJWs to clear the road for them.

Sounds like this is about the SJWs own self-esteem more than anything else. CONTINUE AT SITE

Armed Troops Patrol British Landmarks After Manchester Attack Soldiers were on the streets a day after the U.K. raised the country’s terror-threat alert to its highest level By Robert Wall

LONDON—Rifle-toting soldiers in camouflage took up positions around Buckingham Palace and patrolled Westminster on Wednesday, as Britain joined European neighbors in deploying military force against terrorism at home.

The U.K. government sent troops to the streets a day after raising the country’s terror-threat alert to its highest level while investigating the bombing of a concert in Manchester, England. The Monday night attack, which killed at least 22, added to the catalog of recent terror that has bloodied some of Europe’s biggest cities, including London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Nice, France.

Britain joins France and Belgium, which have also had high-profile military personnel deployments to bolster domestic police and security forces in the wake of attacks. For tourists, soldiers in military fatigues clustered at airports, train stations and museum entrances have been jarring and grim reminders of the heightened state of alert the continent has adopted.

For many Europeans, it has also become a part of life. Troop deployments in France and Brussels were initially seen as temporary measures. In both countries, soldiers are still patrolling alongside police more than a year after rolling out.

“It is easy to get soldiers on the streets,” said Ben Barry, senior fellow for land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It is much more difficult to get them off.”

France, which has suffered the brunt of recent attacks, has adopted a particularly visible domestic war-footing. Military troops carrying assault rifles patrol the boulevards of Paris. Security officials conduct bag checks in front of grocery stores and cinemas.

Security officers have set up cordons around tourist sites like the Louvre museum. The vast space under the Eiffel Tower, long a gathering place for tourists and locals alike, is now accessible only after passing through metal detectors. Temporary barriers erected around the structure are being replaced with a permanent, eight-foot-tall glass wall that will be finished by autumn.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday proposed extending France’s state of emergency—in place since November 2015—for another five months. The emergency status allows warrantless searches and house arrest.

France has dispatched 7,500 troops across the country to augment police and other security forces. About half are in Paris. The home-front deployment involves about the same number of troops currently involved in France’s various overseas commitments, including in places such as Iraq and Mali. CONTINUE AT SITE

From 9/11 to Manchester Donald Trump found out something about the presidency and the world on this trip. By Daniel Henninger

Now we have Manchester and its 22 dead, many of them children. Somehow, we always end up back at 9/11, leaving flowers and candles again.

A political constant since 9/11 is that terrorism inevitably changes U.S. presidencies. I think the events this week—the president’s overseas trip and then Manchester—may have a similar effect on Donald Trump.

On Inauguration Day in January 2001, George W. Bush’s mind no doubt was filled with plans for his first term. Months later, his was a war presidency and would remain so.

Several things sit in my memory from the politics of that period. One is President Bush’s face as he addressed Congress on Sept. 20. He was a changed man. Also remembered is the solidarity of national purpose after the attack. The final memory is how quickly that unity dissipated into a standard partisan melee.

The Democratic point of attack became the Patriot Act’s surveillance provisions, a legal and legislative battle that ran the length of the Bush presidency. By the end of his second term, George Bush had become an object of partisan caricature and antipathy equal to anything President Trump endures now.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, four major terrorist attacks took place inside the U.S.: Fort Hood in 2009, the Boston Marathon in 2013, San Bernardino two years later and then Orlando in 2016. During these years, the locus of terror migrated from al Qaeda to Islamic State.

Volumes have been written about Barack Obama and terrorism, much of it about the president’s struggles with vocabulary terms such as war, Islam, extreme and radical. The killing of Osama bin Laden evinced a rare, passing moment of national unity.

With the opposition to the Trump presidency programmed for driverless resistance, there will be no national unity in the war on terrorism. The Democrats have become the Trump-Is-Russia Party, and that may be as good a way as any for them to spend their waking hours.

But even Hillary Clinton couldn’t duck the terrorism problem in the 2016 presidential campaign, and when Mr. Trump said he would “defeat ISIS,” his lack of nuance no doubt won him votes.

Which brings us to Manchester this week and memories of 9/11.

Note the political response to the Manchester murders. Again, total solidarity, such as this from European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker : “These cowardly attacks will only strengthen our commitment to work together to defeat the perpetrators of such vile acts.”

Post-9/11, naturally one expects such commitments to erode like sand castles. But this time, by coincidence, alleged Manchester bomber Salman Abedi murdered concertgoers in the same week Donald Trump was using his first overseas trip to build a coalition to defeat Islamic State. CONTINUE AT SITE

Violent Politics: Edward Cline

Try to imagine the metaphysics of a deadly snake.

Existence exists. Youknow that. But does a snake?

On May 18th Tucker Carlson on Fox Insider News delivered what must be one of the most poignant and hard-hitting warnings voiced by a newscaster about today’s trend to settling political disputes with violence. It was a delivery that reflects a cogent, thinking mind, a virtue we don’t usually associate with TV newscasters:

“’We Are in Danger’: Tucker Says Progressives Must Condemn Political Violence.”

The modern left is no longer an ideological movement. Instead it’s an organized movement around identity politics,” Tucker said on tonight’s show.

He warned that dividing Americans into “sub-groups” and promoting “tribalism” is dangerous for our democracy.

He said that modern progressives don’t want to argue and have a reasonable discussion. They want their “team” to win, and some of them are willing to use violence to do so, as we’ve recently seen at protests across the country.

“Violence is what separates politics from war,” Tucker said. “It’s when hurt feelings become dead bodies, the point at which countries become ungovernable.”

He noted that he’s recently had progressives on his program, and when pressed, they refused to condemn political violence.

He concluded that “we are in danger” as long as that’s the case.

In truth, the Progressives and Antifa thugs have no “identity” to speak of. It could be an amalgam of disparate groups. I am “anti-Trump” and violence is what I do. As Greg Gutfield writes, also on Fox:

On its ever changing face, identity politics seemed pretty innocuous. It’s simply a way of unifying your demands among a similar group of people.

We’ve seen it take all shapes: There’s identity politics based on race, gender, disability and religion. There are loads of others — some so unusual they beggar belief (there are people who now identify as animals, for example. Sometimes, I feel that I am one of them).

But as identity politics expanded, infecting campus life, political agendas and self-absorbed acceptance speeches at award shows, we saw something strange and wonderful happen….

2017 may have been that year when identity politics hit a brick wall, and slumped limply on the pavement.

But what prompts Progressives and their “foot soldiers” – the ones who riot, destroy property, shout down speakers with impunity, and physically assault anyone who dissents – to close their minds to any rational, civil discourse on the issues that seem to excite them to foam-flecked madness?

I have taken to characterizing Progressive/University behavior to that of cobras or rattlesnakes. Snakes do not think; in terms of teleology, they are “programmed” to respond to stimuli such as heat or a moving body, at which they will strike, to kill and/or consume. To a predator snake, all moving bodies pose a threat or an opportunity for a meal. Snakes do not pause to think about the body; there is no appraisal of it at all. The consciousness of a snake is not volitional. A snake cannot, by its nature, have values. Progressives champion no fixed ideology but chaos. They are prime candidates for herpetological study.

Saffie Rose Russos, British terror victim, and the president By Shoshana Bryen

President Donald Trump, speaking in Riyadh, named Iran as a source of terrorism and destruction in the Middle East. At the same time, he politely but firmly demanded that the Sunni Arab establishment take responsibility for its role in the spread of jihadist ideology and jihadist terror.

Wahabi ideological purity backed by Saudi and Qatari oil money set the stage for the rise of Islamist warfare just as much as Iranian ideological purity plus oil money did.

There is no neat separation between Sunni terror and Shiite terror, between ISIS and Hezb’allah, between Iran and Hamas. Shiite Iran and Sunni Qatar – staunch enemies to one another – both fund Hamas. Sunni rivals Qatar and Saudi Arabia both fund radical Syrian rebel groups. The Kurdish war against ISIS runs into Turkey’s war against the Kurds, which supports Bashar Assad’s war against Syrian Sunnis, which is supported by Shiite Iran, which is an ideological and religious enemy of Sunni Turkey.

With admirable firmness, President Trump placed the burden of counter-jihad squarely on those who fomented it, nurtured it, paid for it, and in many cases venerated it:

The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures – and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you. A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

… Muslim nations must be willing to take on the burden, if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion.

The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman appeared to understand that the president was talking to the Sunni Arab world and that it is in trouble.

He denounced terrorism, including Sunni terror groups; agreed to work to curtail terror financing; and promoted economic advancement, including for women, as a means to stem radical inroads. He said the word “Israel” without venom or irony. None of these is a traditional Saudi position, so their official appearance reveals how much the king fears for the future of his country and the region – and how much the Sunni states want the U.S. to bail them out of a world they made but no longer control.

This brings us to Saffie Rose Russos, an 8-year-old girl who died in a suicide bombing along with 22 other young people at a pop concert in Manchester (U.K.). The bomber was 23-year-old Salman Abedi, known to British authorities prior to the attack. The bomb was filled with nails and screws – a Palestinian tactic first seen during the so-called “second intifada” and adopted widely by Sunni terrorists.

How the Ebb-and-Flow of American Politics Affects American Jewish Attitudes toward Israel After the fall of the Soviet Union, progressives began to picture the U.S.-Israel relationship as the embodiment not of enduring American values but of bad old “hegemonic” habits. by Jordan Chandler HirshH

In his quest to discover the sources of the growing rift between American Jewry and Israel, Daniel Gordis convincingly arguesthat, rather than being traceable to the character of Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, or to changing patterns in American Jewish life, the rift is over issues of “moral and political essence and ideology”—issues of, in a word, identity. He proceeds to diagnose four divergent “political and cultural assumptions” that, taken together, expose the ways in which Israel and America represent “two fundamentally different if not antithetical political projects.” Although the resultant tensions between Israeli and American Jews are “as old as Israel itself,” rarely if ever have they generated the fissures currently dividing the two communities. The question, then, is: why now?

In what follows, I mean to expand on the reasons advanced by Gordis with some background reminders from American political history. This history shows that inter-communal tensions are not the only or even the most important factors in the rift. Although, as Gordis notes, suspicion and misunderstanding plagued relations between American Jews and the Jewish state from Israel’s inception, they were also tied in great part to a tension that pervaded U.S.-Israel ties more broadly, and that has its locus in the shifting priorities of American foreign policy.

In May 1948,President Harry Truman swiftly extended diplomatic recognition to the newly born state of Israel. Nevertheless, during its War of Independence, he also imposed an arms embargo that imperiled Israel’s ability to repel invading Arab armies. For his part, Truman’s successor Dwight Eisenhower at firstdistanced America from Israel as he sought to win over Gamal Abdel Nasser and convert the Egyptian dictator’s influence into coin on the Arab street more generally. His administration even established a CIA front group to counteract popular American sympathy for Zionism.

Although the relationship improved somewhat under the Kennedy administration, it remained tepid until the Six-Day War. Just as Jerusalem’s stunning success in that conflict “did much,” as Gordis writes, “to soften feelings” toward Israel among American Jews, more significantly it did the same in Washington. Israel’s victory demonstrated the logic of a U.S.-Israel alliance. Morally, the Jewish state represented at once a fellow democracy in a region otherwise devoid of free societies and a plucky underdog pursuing its national self-determination in the mold of America’s founding fathers. Strategically, Israel could serve as America’s battleship in the Middle East; armed with U.S. weapons, it could help balance and beat back Soviet power.

The new partnership quickly took hold. President Lyndon Johnson began to speak of the Jewish state with the moral conviction that would become common among later presidents. Soon after the war, when the Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked why the U.S. would back a country with only three million citizens against 80 million Arabs, Johnson responded: “because it is right.” Many Americans appeared to agree. In June 1967, a Gallup poll had found 38 percent sympathizing more with Israel than with the Arab nations; by January 1969, that number had jumped to 50 percent.

Throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s—despite Arab oil embargoes, despite the humiliation of the American defeat in Vietnam and the ensuing years of foreign-policy confusion and disillusionment—Israel successfully reinforced its moral alignment with the United States. It did so through its performance as the forward arsenal of American might in the Middle East. As I’verecounted elsewhere, Israel saved the U.S.-backed Hashemite kingdom in Jordan from a Syrian invasion, humiliated the Soviet Union by downing its planes over the Suez Canal, and opened the port of Haifa to the U.S. Sixth Fleet to counter the Soviet presence in Syria. Most spectacularly, in the summer of 1982, Israeli pilots flying U.S. planes downed 86 Syrian-manned Soviet MiGs without suffering a single loss.

Israel’s achievements generated American goodwill. When asked in the 1970s whether a so-called Jewish lobby was taking over Congress, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic Senator from Washington, responded that Americans of all kinds, far from being in the thrall of lobbyists, “respect competence. They like that we are on the side which seems to know what it’s doing.” In 1988, 63 percent of Americans averred to pollsters that an “extremely important” or “very important” reason for U.S. support of Israel was that the country was “the most outspoken foe of Communism in the Middle East and its strength prevents the Soviets from gaining even further influence in the region.”

American Jews, for their part, largely adhered to the same views. Not only did they remain strongly pro-Israel, but, as Gordis points out, they “saw no friction between those feelings and their feelings as proud Americans.” And this seamless support would persist, at least on the surface, throughout the Reagan presidency and until the collapse of the Soviet empire—after which the tectonic plates undergirding the U.S.-Israel alliance and, correspondingly, the American Jewish relationship with Israel began to shift.

Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free ‘Collusion with Russia’ Narrative The ‘Russian collusion’ scandal is manufactured — but like all good subterfuge, it is premised on a kernel of truth. By Andrew C. McCarthy

If police believe bank robbers were hoping for inside help on a heist, they don’t hold a press conference to smear the bank manager with their suspicions about “collusion.” They go about the quiet police work of building a conspiracy case. Unless and until they find concrete evidence and are ready to file formal charges, they keep their big mouths shut.

Those rudimentary rules of the road are worth remembering when we consider the transparently political testimony of former Obama-administration CIA director John Brennan before the House intelligence committee on Tuesday.

Brennan’s story can be summed up as follows: The Russians are insidious, and they plot to manipulate Americans into helping them, wittingly or unwittingly. The Russians interfered with the American election by orchestrating the publication of unflattering information (mainly, Democrat e-mails), hoping either that Donald Trump would win, or that the likely winner, Hillary Clinton, would be badly damaged. While carrying out this plan, Russian operatives reached out to some people who were connected to the Trump campaign. Brennan supposes that the Russians must have attempted to “suborn” those people because . . . well . . . um . . . that’s “what the Russians try to do.” But he can’t say whether they actually did.

More to the point, Brennan has no idea whether these suspected but unproved Russian entreaties actually worked. When he left the government at the end of President Obama’s term, Brennan said, “I had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting U.S. persons involved in the [Trump] campaign or not to work on their behalf.”

That’s a weasel’s way of saying he’s got nothing.

Brennan, the hardest charger in Obama’s patently politicized intelligence community, spent goo-gobs of energy on this, throughout the closing months of the 2016 campaign. And he’s got nothing.

The “Russian collusion” scandal is manufactured. Like all good subterfuge, it is premised on a kernel of truth: The Russian regime is always on the look-out for Americans willing to betray their country. Sometimes it works. So, when our security services detect such Russian outreach, of course they must investigate it.

But the fact that the Kremlin wants to flip an American does not mean the American in question will play along. The fact that an American ends up speaking to a Russian operative — just as Democratic lawmakers and administration officials regularly speak to Russian operatives — does not mean the American is a traitor. To establish that an America is doing Russia’s bidding, you need to prove that the American is doing Russia’s bidding.

Brennan apparently can’t even prove that Russia beseeched Trump associates to do anything related to influencing the election outcome, much less that any particular Trump associate agreed to do anything, and less still that anything was actually done.

The Media’s Reliance on Skeevy Leaks and Crazy Conclusions By Russ McSwain

Our institutions are failing us. The skies are filled with bitter accusations thrown at our president. This is the outcome we should expect when we allow a man to rise to governmental heights beyond his experience and competence. The problems are aggravated when that man shows no respect for the normal boundaries and limits on his power; When that man is unable to simply do his job, but launches public outbursts that undercut the people with whom he works, he is unfit. If you’ve been following the ongoing soap opera in Washington, you know the man I’m describing is James Comey.
Comey’s antics are compounded by the utter disregard for the truth displayed by our national media. One need not be a fan of President Trump to appreciate how outrageous the media attacks on him are.

Here are three sets of attacks based on leaks that have turned out to be false, frivolous or both. The set involving Comey has many parts so we’ll save it for last.

1. The Washington Post reported that newly appointed Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to resign. The implication being he’d encountered inappropriate roadblocks erected by the Trump White House. Rosenstein denied this charge while testifying under oath before Congress. Denials don’t get more bulletproof. When confronted by Rosenstein’s denial, Philip Rucker, White House bureau chief for the Post, stood by his reporter and her source. “We don’t know how serious the threat was. We don’t know if it reached, you know, the level of the President or the Attorney General. But we do know that he threatened to resign…”

The only people above Rosenstein in the chain of command are, you know, the president and the attorney general. Few among us have not come into a new work situation and encounter something that causes us to grumble and gripe to our peers and staff. Most people familiar with English understand that is not a threat. Resignation can be a threat only when it is delivered to superiors. The bureau chief of a major newspaper gives us absolute assurance of the one thing he thinks he knows, and it turns out to be a trivial insignificant event. When the media people stretch an event into something it is not, it makes it very difficult to believe them and their anonymous sources.

2. The Washington Post reported that in a White House meeting President Trump revealed classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador. That can be a bad thing. It can also be perfectly benign. In this case it was benign The information was the city from which a foreign intellenge agency acquired information about ISIS current plans to blow up airplanes. If that information was made public it is possible that ISIS could identify the spy who provided it. Trump wasn’t speaking publicly. He was talking with the Russians, who are as plagued by ISIS terrorists as we are. They have already lost a commercial airliner full of tourists to ISIS. The chance that the Russians would publicize this information or share it with ISIS is zero.

But the word got out anyway. Someone leaked it, and the Washington Post published it. The Russians wouldn’t tell ISIS but the Post did. To add insult to real injury, the Post then blamed Trump. One could not make that up.