Since 2014, three U.S. service members have been killed in the war against ISIS in Iraq. Earlier this week, the Pentagon confirmed Navy SEAL Charles Keating IV was killed during operations with peshmerga fighters. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter specifically referred to the loss of life as a combat death.
Despite Americans being killed on the battlefield with ISIS, the White House has maintained U.S. troops are simply acting as advisors in a dangerous region but are not involved in combat.
"What I think is true is that Iraq and Syria are dangerous places and our men and women in uniform, who are engaged in a mission to offer training, advice and assistance to Iraqi forces that are fighting for their own country, are doing dangerous work. They are taking grave risks to protect our country. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude. Today's incident is a vivid reminder of the risks our service members are taking and some of them, three of them now, have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country," Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday. "But the President has been clear, time and time again, exactly what their mission is. That mission is to support Iraqi forces on the ground who are taking the fight to ISIL on the front lines."
But new video obtained by The Guardian proves U.S. troops are in fact engaged in heavy combat on the front lines with ISIS, where Keating was killed.
Video footage obtained by the Guardian shows the grueling firefight between US special forces, Kurdish commandoes and Islamic State fighters this week, in which a US Navy Seal was killed.
The footage – filmed on a cellphone during the battle, which lasted more than half a day – reveals the extent to which the US military is once again engaged in intense combat in Iraq.
Provided to the Guardian by the lieutenant of an elite Kurdish peshmerga unit, the video shows a convoy of four by four vehicles coming under fire near Tel Osqof, a Christian town about 30km north of Mosul.
Amid the crackle of gunfire, peshmerga fighters and at least six US troops take cover behind an unarmored pickup truck on an arterial road leading into the town.
The embed for the video isn't available, but you can click the image below to watch.
U.S. troops are engaged in combat in Iraq and they're dying. The commander-in-chief and his administration are lying about it for political purposes.
A new piece in The New York Times Magazine
reveals confirms that the Obama administration knowingly misled the public to pass the Iranian nuclear deal. Our president knew full well that Iranian leadership had not adopted “moderate” policies, but the notion was a politically useful one.
When Hassan Rouhani was selected as the new president of Iran, he was heralded as a more tolerant kind of leader. TIME magazine referred to him as a “moderate politician” when he was voted runner up for 2015’s Person of the Year. (This is why that title deserves to be in quotes.)
Yet, as the NYT piece notes, the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran began well before President Rouhani and his advisors assumed leadership.
National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes knew the narrative was more important than the truth. The NYT describes how this “storyteller” flowered the facts to gain public support.
The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.
The administration’s presentation of the Iran deal, the Times concludes, was largely “manufactured” for the purpose of selling the deal.
In other words:
NY Times: Obama admin knew they were lying to the public to sell the Iran deal pic.twitter.com/nzk35ob3wb— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) May 5, 2016
Exactly. President Obama and his advisors ignored the warnings of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign policy experts when pushing through his nuclear agreement. Iran has no interest in playing by the rules, they argued. Since the deal has been signed, we've had plenty of proof. In February, Iranians took 10 American sailors hostage and paraded their capture. Then, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini denounced the U.S. for being too hostile and for trying to halt Iran's missile production, which he argued they use for defense purposes. So much for the peaceful relationship Obama promised the deal would produce.
In case you were surprised by The New York Times exposing the administration for deceiving Americans, their liberal bias came through when they referred to the White House's strategy of passing the nuclear deal as “innovative.”
The Romanian hacker known as "Guccifer" who was extradited to the United States, apparently in connection to the FBI's criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's national security-compromising email scheme, tells Fox News that he accessed the former Secretary of State's email server on multiple occasions. Clinton's unsecure server contained more than 2,000 classified emails, including at least 22 that contained sensitive information at the level of "top secret" and above:
The infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily – and repeatedly – breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013. "For me, it was easy ... easy for me, for everybody," Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker "Guccifer," told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held. Guccifer’s potential role in the Clinton email investigation was first reported by Fox News last month. The hacker subsequently claimed he was able to access the server – and provided extensive details about how he did it and what he found – over the course of a half-hour jailhouse interview and a series of recorded phone calls with Fox News...
Lazar emphasized that he used readily available web programs to see if the server was “alive” and which ports were open. Lazar identified programs like netscan, Netmap, Wireshark and Angry IP, though it was not possible to confirm independently which, if any, he used. In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server. "As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said. With no formal computer training, he did most of his hacking from a small Romanian village. Lazar said he chose to use "proxy servers in Russia," describing them as the best, providing anonymity. Cyber experts who spoke with Fox News said the process Lazar described is plausible.
This experienced hacker says his relatively rudimentary methods were sufficient to penetrate Clinton's emails -- and claims that "up to 10" IP addresses had accessed her system. Data security experts told Fox that Guccifer's account of how he went about breaking into the unsecure emails of America's top diplomat checks out; this isn't forensic confirmation that he's telling the truth, but it's plausible on a technological level. It is confirmed, however, that Guccifer did illegally access unofficial Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal's private emails, which is how the public discovered that she withheld official emails from public scrutiny. That hack exposed two lies: That Clinton had turned over every single work-related message on her server (she hadn't), and that Blumenthal had not acted an adviser to the Secretary of State in any capacity (he had). Clinton and her team have repeatedly asserted that her emails were not hacked. If the Romanian's story is confirmed, this will be yet another lie, of which there have been many over the course of this scandal. They're denying it:
In response to Lazar’s claims, the Clinton campaign issued a statement Wednesday night saying, "There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell. In addition to the fact he offers no proof to support his claims, his descriptions of Secretary Clinton's server are inaccurate. It is unfathomable that he would have gained access to her emails and not leaked them the way he did to his other victims.”
Several former Obama administration officials, including the CIA's deputy director and the Secretary of Defense have stated that it's very likely that hostile foreign powers -- such as Russia, China and Iran -- were able to access Clinton's classified emails. Clinton was personally and specifically warned by State Department security that her set-up wasn't secure and could put national security secrets at risk. She acknowledged the memo, then carried on with her risky conduct anyway.
Capt. Nathan Michael Smith of the U.S. Army sued Barack Obama in district court on Wednesday, on grounds that that he does not have the proper congressional authority to wage war against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
This news comes only one day after a Navy SEAL was killed in combat in Iraq, the third since a U.S.-led coalition launched its campaign against the Islamic State in the summer of 2014.
Smith wants the court to tell Obama that he needs to ask Congress for a new authorization for the use of military force.
Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations given to President George W. Bush for the war on terrorism passed in 2001. Yet, some say the White House's use of 9/11 congressional authorizations is a legal stretch at best.
The White House has claimed it has all the authority it needs to wage the war against ISIS, but says if an authorization tailored specifically for ISIS passed Congress with bipartisan support, it would send a clear signal of unity to U.S. troops and those groups they are fighting.
Smith is asking the court to find that the war against ISIS violates the War Powers Resolution of 1973 because Congress has not declared war or given the president specific authorization to engage.
The White House has not commented on the lawsuit.
Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, and Pearl Jam fired the initial salvos in North Carolina’s transgender bathroom bill drama. Now, the Department of Justice has made a call too—the bill violates the Civil Rights Act (via Associated Press):
A North Carolina law limiting protections to LGBT people violates federal civil rights laws and can't be enforced, the U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday, putting the state on notice that it is in danger of being sued and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.
The law, which requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that conform to the sex on their birth certificate, has been broadly condemned by gay-rights groups, businesses and entertainers. Some have relocated offices or canceled shows in the state. Several other states have proposed similar laws in recent months limiting protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
In a letter to Gov. Pat McCrory, the Justice Department said federal officials view the state law as violating federal Civil Rights Act protections barring workplace discrimination based on sex. Provisions of the state law directed at transgender state employees violate their anti-discrimination protections, the letter said.
"The State is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the state are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance" of their rights, the letter said.
I really don’t see what the problem is with this bill. It’s as if no one on the political left actually read it. It does not strip protections from anyone, businesses can adopt stricter nondiscrimination standards (or honor the ones currently on the books), and they are free to establish single use bathrooms. What about those transgender persons who have undergone a sex change? The law states that you must use the restrooms that correspond with the gender on your birth certificate, which can be changed if someone in the trans community has successfully undergone the procedure.
So, what’s the problem here? No protections are being undercut, businesses and localities are free to accept the current nondiscrimination standards on the books, or adopt new, stricter standards. This appears to be just another political stunt to satisfy the blood thirst with left-wingers on this issue.
Concerning image, it also doesn’t help that a transwoman seems to have lied about being confronted by a custodian at a Transit Center in North Carolina for using the woman’s bathroom. The transgender woman planned on taking a selfie inside. She claims to have been escorted out by security, which was a humiliating experience. The problem is that the security camera footage doesn’t show her being escorted out. When confronted, she pretty much said you just had to be there. That’s not how this works.
The possible loss of federal funds will surely hurt North Carolina’s economy, which has been the fastest growing since 2013. All of this because North Carolina decided to give their residents a sense of privacy in the restroom areas, in order to prevent some male creepers have dressed as women in order to record unsuspecting females in those facilities. Again, no rights were stripped from transgender people; the same protections that existed then, exist now. Birth certificates can be changed. Lastly, it seems progressives are all for bashing North Carolina’s law, and others that make sure people with gender-specific anatomy use the restrooms that are meant for them, until a man not wearing a wig says he’s going to use the ladies room. You see the discomfort in their faces and prolonged silence, as MRCTV’s Dan Joseph demonstrated in this video.
Some people scoffed when Bernie Sanders compared climate change to terrorism at a Democratic presidential debate in November, just hours after the devastating terror attacks in Paris. Yet, a new poll from the Pew Research Center reveals that Democrats agree with him. Dangers to the environment, they suggested, deserve more attention than terrorism.
The survey, conducted April 12 to 19 among 2,008 U.S. adults, found that 77 percent of Democrats believe global climate change is a major threat to the “well-being of the United States.” Incredibly, it was one percent more than Democrats who thought the same about ISIS.
As for Republicans, they have a vastly different view about the dangers we face. An overwhelming number, 91 percent, said ISIS was a major threat. Climate change barely landed on their radar - only 26 percent said it was a threat.
Secretary of State John Kerry was one of 175 world leaders to sign a climate deal in Paris this Earth Day, an agreement intended to reduce our carbon footprint by slowing the rise of greenhouse gases, meaning we can expect a slew of environmental regulations in the coming months. Many liberals praised the agreement, but conservative lawmakers like former presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) denounced the climate deal, wondering how the White House can ignore the threat of radical terrorists in their war on greenhouse gases.
When it does come to protecting our national security, most participants in the Pew survey said the Republican Party does a better job in dealing with the terror threat at home than Democrats (46 percent to 37 percent.)
Let’s see if this translates into the 2016 election results.
The New York Times is reporting this morning that staffers at the RNC were told Wednesday to get behind Trump or get out.
"Some staff members at the Republican National Committee were told Wednesday that if they were unable to get behind the nominee, they should leave by the end of the week," the Times reported.
According to the RNC, that report is not true.
"100% untrue and the New York Times knows," RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer tells Townhall.
Tuesday night, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called for unification of the Republican Party.
Since Texas Senator Ted Cruz exited the race for the White House Tuesday night, effectively conceding the GOP presidential nomination to Donald Trump, conservatives have been reeling and many pieces have been written about the true end of movement, Reagan conservatism.
The Never Trump movement is standing its ground and Republicans are starting to panic about the consequences for Republicans down ticket with Trump as the nominee.
"How can we vote for a guy who holds none of our principles?" is the question being asked.
Conservatives are looking for options and are even considering the possibility of a third party run.
Enter Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, who wrote an open letter to "those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward" after speaking with constituents. He posted the letter on his Facebook page. He argues the country's majority deserves better.
"If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you," Sasse wrote. "Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together."
He also took to Twitter.
AN OPEN LETTER— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
to those disappointed in both of our presidential candidate choices:https://t.co/vbwOi1UGhg
I don’t think the people of my town are wrong: They deserve better choices than Hillary or Trump.— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
An Open Letter: https://t.co/8hXYkGIWut
I think there is room for a 3rd party candidate. What am I missing? More importantly, what are the people at Fremont Wal-Mart missing?— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
I took an oath to the Constitution.— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
That means I'm for limited government.
There’s no evidence that either Trump or Hillary believe in that
Remember: our Founders didn’t even want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice? https://t.co/0s6ApkRqGO— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
Why are we confined to these two terrible choices? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them & go bigger. That’s what we do.— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
We now have the two most unpopular candidates EVER – Clinton by a little, and Trump by miles. https://t.co/YWl7ySPRiq— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two.— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
So, will Sasse be the third party candidate? Time will tell.
(note to reporters: Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next 6 mons; thus likely can’t be an engaged parent w/little kids)— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016
Washington D.C. is projected to open its first gun store and indoor range. Now, we have news that April was the 12th month in a row for record-breaking gun sales. As usual, fears over more gun control and terrorism have fueled Americans’ drive to exercise their Second Amendment rights (via WFB):
This April saw the most gun-related background checks of any April on record, making it the 12th month in a row to achieve a high water mark for gun sales.
The FBI ran 2,145,865 checks through the National Instant Background Check System last month, according to the agency’s records. That represents more than a 400,000 increase over the previous record set in April 2014. Though the numbers represent the best April on record, the month also saw the fewest checks of any month thus far in 2016.
The trend of record-setting months began last May.
Terror attacks on American soil and abroad may also be driving gun sales.
Gun rights advocates said calls for gun control from politicians such as Hillary Clinton have fueled the surging gun sales and believe the record levels will continue.
The pace of 2016’s gun sales thus far is on track to break 2015’s all-time record for guns sales, where over 23 million FBI background checks were conducted. Since the start of Obama’s presidency, Americans have bought over 100 million guns. As I’ve said before, Obama and the Democrats are the best gun sales team ever. And Hillary is sure to drive up sales with her anti-gun rhetoric on the 2016 trail. In fact, the spike in gun sales has led to the creation of almost 25,000 new jobs in 2015, with a nationwide total of 287,986.
Still, the thought of anti-gun Hillary in the Oval Office, possibly being able to choose two anti-gun jurists for the Supreme Court should scare the hell out of us.
Donald Trump has flip-flopped yet again, this time on the minimum wage.
The presumptive GOP nominee said in an interview on CNN that he’s open to looking at increasing the federal minimum wage because people need enough money to live on.
"I’m looking at that because I’m very different from most Republicans,” he said. “You have to have something that you can live on, but what I’m really looking to do is get people great jobs so they make much more money than that, so they make more money than the $15. If you start playing around too much with the lower level, the lower level number, you’re not going to be competitive ... I'm open to doing something with it because I don't like that. What I do like is bring our jobs back."
Labor groups have been pushing to increase the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $15.
Trump said during a November GOP debate, however, that he is opposed to raising the minimum wage.
“I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is,” he said at the time.
He even argued during a November interview with MSNBC that it was too high.
"We have to become competitive with the world. Our taxes are too high, our wages are too high, everything is too high,” he said. “What's going to happen is now people are going to start firing people.”
He did say during Wednesday’s interview, however, that lawmakers need to be careful about making drastic changes to the minimum wage.
“If you start playing around too much with that lower level number, you are not going to be competitive,” he explained, before again saying that he’s “open to doing something” with the federal minimum wage.
2016 RACE ROUNDUP: Trump Mulls VP Pick, Mocks Hillary for Not 'Putting Away' Sanders | Cortney O'Brien
Muy Malo: Outrage Over "Insensitive" Language Used in Cinco De Mayo DUI Memo, Cops Apologize | Katie Pavlich