to be fair, diesel is at a all time high.
and oil is up, nearing $100 per barrel.
that is not good.
NEW CC Perspectives on Levels of Conspiracy & Corruption in 2020 Election, CV19 & DS Existence
- Thread starter Solemateleft
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
to be fair, diesel is at a all time high.
and oil is up, nearing $100 per barrel.
that is not good.
I don't know where you live but where I live gas is up at least $1.50 from the last time I filled up (I filled up today).
Fair!!!
and it doesn't take an Analyst (as I am) to SEE the Predictable Trend that WE HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY SHOWN over the past 6 Months SHOWS us that these PEAKS and VALLEYS are DIRECTLY ALIGNED with KINETIC ACTIVITY vs indications of a CEASEFIRE PEACE DEAL...
This PERSISTENT TREND substantiates the Absolute Predictable PROJECTION AFTER the CONFLICT with IRAN HAS CONCLUDED by ACHIEVING our STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES...
What this PROJECTION was NOT - it was NOT intended to be confused with PRICES DURING the CURRENT HEIGHTENED KINETIC ACTIVITY!!!
Attachments
The invincible 16 year plan (since Rubio is 54 and Vance is twelve years younger at 42):
Rubio as POTUS with Vance as VP for the 1st eight years
Vance as POTUS for next eight years…
PJ Carter posted to
JUST IN | America, Marco Rubio has just said something publicly about JD Vance that absolutely nobody in Washington saw coming. And what he said — completely on his own, without any political pressure — reveals a side of Trump’s administration that most Americans have rarely, if ever, seen from a political team.
In a city where influential people spend almost every moment protecting their own future and preparing for the next opportunity — Marco Rubio did something that made the entire political world pause.
He looked at JD Vance — his colleague, his friend, and the man he works alongside every single day — and publicly said:
“If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee. And I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”
Think about what that could have meant for him.
Marco Rubio is 54 years old. He has already run for President. He knows exactly what a presidential campaign requires. And right now — his political profile is growing faster than almost anyone in Washington.
Donors are praising him. His influence continues to expand. His presence on the world stage becomes bigger every single week.
He could have positioned himself for the future. He could have kept every option open. He could have simply stayed quiet and waited — exactly the way ambitious politicians often do.
Instead, he made his position clear. JD is our man. And I stand behind him.
And then JD Vance — who had every reason to keep his relationship with a potential political rival strictly professional — said something back that completely touched me.
“Marco is my closest friend in the administration.”
His closest friend.
Not simply a colleague.
Not merely a political ally.
Not someone useful for the moment.
His closest friend.
And then Vance said something about Rubio that tells you just how much respect exists between these two men:
“Marco is more impressive privately than he is publicly. Which is very hard to do. But he is very thoughtful.”
And Trump?
Trump looked at both of them and said:
“We have JD — the vice president is great. Marco’s great. I think if they formed a group — it would be unstoppable.”
Unstoppable.
Three men.
One mission.
Zero games.
In a Washington that often thrives on division — Trump created something that the entire political world is struggling to understand.
A team that genuinely respects and cares about one another.
A Vice President who calls the Secretary of State his closest friend.
A Secretary of State who publicly supports a potential presidential rival without being asked.
And a President who looks at both men and sees not competition — but a future that could be simply unstoppable.
The media keeps searching for cracks between Vance and Rubio. They keep waiting for the rivalry to finally erupt.
And every single time — these two men appear even more united.
Because Donald Trump did not simply put together a Cabinet.
He built a brotherhood.
And what Marco Rubio said about JD Vance — willingly, and despite the potential political cost to himself — is the clearest evidence of that character.
Rubio as POTUS with Vance as VP for the 1st eight years
Vance as POTUS for next eight years…
PJ Carter posted to
THE PROUD MAJORITY
JUST IN | America, Marco Rubio has just said something publicly about JD Vance that absolutely nobody in Washington saw coming. And what he said — completely on his own, without any political pressure — reveals a side of Trump’s administration that most Americans have rarely, if ever, seen from a political team.In a city where influential people spend almost every moment protecting their own future and preparing for the next opportunity — Marco Rubio did something that made the entire political world pause.
He looked at JD Vance — his colleague, his friend, and the man he works alongside every single day — and publicly said:
“If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee. And I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”
Think about what that could have meant for him.
Marco Rubio is 54 years old. He has already run for President. He knows exactly what a presidential campaign requires. And right now — his political profile is growing faster than almost anyone in Washington.
Donors are praising him. His influence continues to expand. His presence on the world stage becomes bigger every single week.
He could have positioned himself for the future. He could have kept every option open. He could have simply stayed quiet and waited — exactly the way ambitious politicians often do.
Instead, he made his position clear. JD is our man. And I stand behind him.
And then JD Vance — who had every reason to keep his relationship with a potential political rival strictly professional — said something back that completely touched me.
“Marco is my closest friend in the administration.”
His closest friend.
Not simply a colleague.
Not merely a political ally.
Not someone useful for the moment.
His closest friend.
And then Vance said something about Rubio that tells you just how much respect exists between these two men:
“Marco is more impressive privately than he is publicly. Which is very hard to do. But he is very thoughtful.”
And Trump?
Trump looked at both of them and said:
“We have JD — the vice president is great. Marco’s great. I think if they formed a group — it would be unstoppable.”
Unstoppable.
Three men.
One mission.
Zero games.
In a Washington that often thrives on division — Trump created something that the entire political world is struggling to understand.
A team that genuinely respects and cares about one another.
A Vice President who calls the Secretary of State his closest friend.
A Secretary of State who publicly supports a potential presidential rival without being asked.
And a President who looks at both men and sees not competition — but a future that could be simply unstoppable.
The media keeps searching for cracks between Vance and Rubio. They keep waiting for the rivalry to finally erupt.
And every single time — these two men appear even more united.
Because Donald Trump did not simply put together a Cabinet.
He built a brotherhood.
And what Marco Rubio said about JD Vance — willingly, and despite the potential political cost to himself — is the clearest evidence of that character.
I Love America
The Clancy trial collapsed into a mistrial when eleven jurors were prepared to accept an insanity verdict for a mother who killed her three children. One man refused to go along.Three female jurors, the foreperson among them, later appeared on camera to paint him as arrogant and dismissive. They said he brushed off toxicology findings and the realities of her prescriptions, even after he conceded he harbored reasonable doubt.
That lone holdout did what the law actually requires. He would not let emotion or majority pressure stretch the insanity standard past the evidence. Eleven people were ready to excuse the unthinkable. He was not.
the foreperson said " he just would not move past the fact that she admitted to killing her kids"
wow. just wow.
wow. just wow.
Yes, it appears that this Trial has also served to help with the Great Awakening of the DS Leftist's Brain Washing PsyOp where people are succumbing to the desensitization of society to blatant, calculated, brutal and vicious Murder!
There was NOTHING random about her deliberate planning, to compute how long her husband would be away, and the sequence of murdering her kids: 3 year old Toddler 1st as the most difficult (needy) to deal with; 5 year old 2nd and baby last...
being as other women raised well over a million dollars for clancy, i am not to sure the liberals are waking up at all.
they seem to be getting more and more disconnected..
Yes, those who have lost their souls have lost their souls... the good news is that Jury is definitely NOT a representative sample of the USA... Maybe Massachusetts, maybe a good job of the Defense lawyer selecting the Jury, but definitely not representative of USA.
Around 46% of U.S. adults (in a recent YouGov poll), with informal online/viewer polls varying more widely (often in the 15–50+% range for guilty).
Key public opinion data
- YouGov poll (Sept. 4–8, 2026; 23,554 U.S. adults): Asked what a more appropriate verdict would be based on what respondents knew. 46% said guilty of murderand 21% said not guilty by reason of insanity (the rest were presumably undecided or chose other options). Breakdowns included:
- Men: 51% guilty / 15% NGRI
- Women: 41% guilty / 26% NGRI
- Democrats: 34% guilty / 31% NGRI
- Independents: 43% guilty / 19% NGRI
- Republicans: 61% guilty / 13% NGRI
- Smerconish.com informal polls(viewer/opt-in, not scientific):
- “Would you find Lindsay Clancy guilty of murder?” (Aug. 29, 2026; ~45,000 votes): 52.31% Yes / 47.69% No.
- Earlier related question (“Was Lindsay Clancy too sick to be guilty of murder?”): Roughly 54% Yes (too sick) / 46% No.
- Court TV and similar viewer/online polls (during the trial; self-selecting audiences, often heavily weighted toward those following the case closely): Frequently showed strong majorities (often 68–77%) favoring “not criminally responsible” / not guilty, with guilty (first-degree or otherwise) in the lower teens to ~20–30% range. These are not representative of the general public.
During this Interview a reporter also asked him:
"When is the Conflict in Iran going to End?"
He responded (something to the effect): "As soon as the November Elections are Over! You know why? Because they are betting on being able to influence the Elections to get more Liberals Elected so that they could get back to their Nuclear Program... But as soon as the Elections are over, the Conflict will come to an End, because they will no longer have any hope of being able to influence our agenda"
A reporter asked President Trump directly on Wednesday whether the U.S. military is behind the wave of strikes wrecking Iran’s oil-tanker fleet. He didn’t send it through a press secretary or hide behind 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴. He just said yes.
“𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.”
The admission caps a campaign that started small and kept growing. On September 5, U.S. fighters and drones hit 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 in the Strait of Hormuz under a new 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘳 policy Secretary of State Marco Rubio rolled out after Iran fired on a U.S. carrier and a guided-missile destroyer—and missed both. Four days later, Trump put the real number at 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬, adding, “𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘻𝘰.”
The strategy is blunt: for every tanker Iran uses to move sanctioned oil or threaten American ships, one of theirs disappears—permanently. This isn’t the muted 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 language Washington usually reaches for on strikes like this. It’s the sitting president grinning about the ledger and daring Tehran to keep testing it.
Iran picked a war of attrition against the U.S. Navy.
𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐭.
"When is the Conflict in Iran going to End?"
He responded (something to the effect): "As soon as the November Elections are Over! You know why? Because they are betting on being able to influence the Elections to get more Liberals Elected so that they could get back to their Nuclear Program... But as soon as the Elections are over, the Conflict will come to an End, because they will no longer have any hope of being able to influence our agenda"
M.A. Rothman
𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐀𝐃𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐀: 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐒 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐕𝐎𝐖𝐒 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆A reporter asked President Trump directly on Wednesday whether the U.S. military is behind the wave of strikes wrecking Iran’s oil-tanker fleet. He didn’t send it through a press secretary or hide behind 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴. He just said yes.
“𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.”
The admission caps a campaign that started small and kept growing. On September 5, U.S. fighters and drones hit 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 in the Strait of Hormuz under a new 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘳 policy Secretary of State Marco Rubio rolled out after Iran fired on a U.S. carrier and a guided-missile destroyer—and missed both. Four days later, Trump put the real number at 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬, adding, “𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘻𝘰.”
The strategy is blunt: for every tanker Iran uses to move sanctioned oil or threaten American ships, one of theirs disappears—permanently. This isn’t the muted 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 language Washington usually reaches for on strikes like this. It’s the sitting president grinning about the ledger and daring Tehran to keep testing it.
Iran picked a war of attrition against the U.S. Navy.
𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐭.
bump
A federal judge on Friday refused to reinstate the three Stars and Stripes journalists the Pentagon fired last month, according to Fox News and the New York Post. US District Judge Trevor McFadden denied the emergency request from publisher Max Lederer, editor in chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte to block their firings while the lawsuit proceeds, writing that they 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
The firings trace back to Slavin and Korte’s July appearance in a CBS Sunday Morning segment criticizing the Pentagon’s overhaul of the paper — participation the Pentagon labeled 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 — and Lederer’s refusal to fire them when ordered to. The trio sued, claiming retaliation and a First Amendment violation, and named Secretary Pete Hegseth and spokesman Sean Parnell as defendants.
McFadden wasn’t buying it. Per Courthouse News, his 24-page opinion found the two apparently 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 — Slavin gives interviews regularly as editor in chief and had sought prior approval for this one, and Korte sat for hers in her office, introduced by her title. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘱𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴, the judge wrote, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴.
Parnell put it plainly on X: 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦. He added that Stars and Stripes is a Department of War publication 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 and that the department has 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 to keep it focused on warfighting and readiness 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴.
The journalists say they are 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 and insist this is not the 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. Maybe not — McFadden himself noted that discovery could strengthen their case. But for now the principle stands: a taxpayer-funded paper answers to the 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝, and sitting for the cameras under your official title is speaking for the government, not as a private citizen against it.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨.
M.A. Rothman
𝐉𝐔𝐃𝐆𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐒 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐎𝐍 — 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐏𝐄𝐒 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐋𝐎𝐂𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐎𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑A federal judge on Friday refused to reinstate the three Stars and Stripes journalists the Pentagon fired last month, according to Fox News and the New York Post. US District Judge Trevor McFadden denied the emergency request from publisher Max Lederer, editor in chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte to block their firings while the lawsuit proceeds, writing that they 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
The firings trace back to Slavin and Korte’s July appearance in a CBS Sunday Morning segment criticizing the Pentagon’s overhaul of the paper — participation the Pentagon labeled 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 — and Lederer’s refusal to fire them when ordered to. The trio sued, claiming retaliation and a First Amendment violation, and named Secretary Pete Hegseth and spokesman Sean Parnell as defendants.
McFadden wasn’t buying it. Per Courthouse News, his 24-page opinion found the two apparently 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 — Slavin gives interviews regularly as editor in chief and had sought prior approval for this one, and Korte sat for hers in her office, introduced by her title. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘱𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴, the judge wrote, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴.
Parnell put it plainly on X: 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦. He added that Stars and Stripes is a Department of War publication 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 and that the department has 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 to keep it focused on warfighting and readiness 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴.
The journalists say they are 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 and insist this is not the 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. Maybe not — McFadden himself noted that discovery could strengthen their case. But for now the principle stands: a taxpayer-funded paper answers to the 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝, and sitting for the cameras under your official title is speaking for the government, not as a private citizen against it.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨.
bump
The Trump Justice Department just tore up an escape hatch sanctuary states have hidden behind for almost three decades. Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wasn’t shy about why: “𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺... 𝘛𝘢𝘹 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘷𝘶𝘭𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺.”
Here’s the loophole they’re closing. Back in 1996, a bipartisan Congress — signed into law by Bill Clinton himself — required every state taking federal welfare cash to report anyone known to be in the country illegally to federal immigration authorities. Two years later, Clinton’s own DOJ quietly issued an opinion redefining “state” to mean only the single office that cut the checks. The law Congress passed got 𝐠𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭, and sanctuary politicians have hidden behind that reading ever since.
Not anymore. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock confirmed the DOJ has withdrawn the 1998 opinion entirely, saying the new guidance “𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘏𝘚 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰.” That means 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 that touches a benefit check — DMVs, prisons, hospitals, housing authorities, schools, and police departments — now has to hand names to DHS, not just the welfare office.
The money on the table is real: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income programs move $𝟏𝟔.𝟒 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 across all 50 states, D.C. and the territories. California, New York and Virginia are among the sanctuary states now staring down a choice — start reporting illegal aliens or start losing federal funding. DOJ says there’s no penalty for relying on the old interpretation up to now, but going forward, compliance isn’t optional.
For 28 years, sanctuary state politicians got to have it both ways: collect the federal check while shielding illegal aliens from federal enforcement. That arrangement only survived because nobody bothered to read the original law. Now that Washington has, the states that built their sanctuary politics on a narrow legal reading are finding out that reading is gone — and the bill for pretending otherwise comes due in your tax dollars, not talking points.
𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟐𝟖 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞.
M.A. Rothman
𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐉 𝐊!𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎𝐍-𝐄𝐑𝐀 𝐋𝐎𝐎𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐄𝐋𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 $𝟏𝟔.𝟒 𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐖𝐄𝐋𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐀𝐖The Trump Justice Department just tore up an escape hatch sanctuary states have hidden behind for almost three decades. Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wasn’t shy about why: “𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺... 𝘛𝘢𝘹 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘷𝘶𝘭𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺.”
Here’s the loophole they’re closing. Back in 1996, a bipartisan Congress — signed into law by Bill Clinton himself — required every state taking federal welfare cash to report anyone known to be in the country illegally to federal immigration authorities. Two years later, Clinton’s own DOJ quietly issued an opinion redefining “state” to mean only the single office that cut the checks. The law Congress passed got 𝐠𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭, and sanctuary politicians have hidden behind that reading ever since.
Not anymore. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock confirmed the DOJ has withdrawn the 1998 opinion entirely, saying the new guidance “𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘏𝘚 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰.” That means 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 that touches a benefit check — DMVs, prisons, hospitals, housing authorities, schools, and police departments — now has to hand names to DHS, not just the welfare office.
The money on the table is real: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income programs move $𝟏𝟔.𝟒 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 across all 50 states, D.C. and the territories. California, New York and Virginia are among the sanctuary states now staring down a choice — start reporting illegal aliens or start losing federal funding. DOJ says there’s no penalty for relying on the old interpretation up to now, but going forward, compliance isn’t optional.
For 28 years, sanctuary state politicians got to have it both ways: collect the federal check while shielding illegal aliens from federal enforcement. That arrangement only survived because nobody bothered to read the original law. Now that Washington has, the states that built their sanctuary politics on a narrow legal reading are finding out that reading is gone — and the bill for pretending otherwise comes due in your tax dollars, not talking points.
𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟐𝟖 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞.
Just more 'Outcome' Driven Operations in this War against the Evil DS Globalists by this Administration!
Mueller Exposed for Keeping a SECRET
that two 9/11 hijackers lived in the home of an FBI informant in California for months before the 9/11 t*rrorist attacks. Two al-Qaeda islamic t*rrorist hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon lived in the Lemon Grove home of a paid FBI informant. A Saudi living in San Diego who the FBI later internally assessed as a paid helper the Saudi intelligence service who helped the t*rrorists find housing, co-signed a lease, gave them cash and introduced them into the local mosque network.
#DC
Two al-Qaeda islamic t*rrorist hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon lived in the Lemon Grove home of a paid FBI informant.
#fbi
A Saudi living in San Diego who the FBI later internally assessed as a paid helper the Saudi intelligence service who helped the t*rrorists find housing, co-signed a lease, gave them cash and introduced them into the local mosque network.
All of this information has been documented in a 28-page chapter of Congress' 2002 Joint Inquiry.
The Bush White House classified the chapter. Mueller, who took over the FBI on Sept. 4, 2001 - seven days before the attacks - ran the bureau for the next 12 years, keeping that information secret, while the FBI told the public the hijackers “operated without suspicion”.
Mueller continued to push the narrative even though 9/11 families and the inquiry's co-chairman accused headquarters of burying Saudi leads.
Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar flew into Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000, after having a meeting with al-Qaeda in Malaysia that the CIA had watched.
They didn't speak English, and within weeks were in San Diego.
Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi national, found them an apartment in his complex, and co-signed the lease.
#muslim
He gave them about $1,500 for rent and deposit, helped them open bank accounts, and introduced them to key members of the m*slim community.
#islam
The t*rrorists then moved into the home of Dr. Abdussattar Shaikh who had been a San Diego FBI counterterrorism informant since 1994.
The FBI later officially labeled Shaikh an “unwitting observer with no role in the attacks.” That is the bureau’s public line. It is not the last word from every investigator.
that two 9/11 hijackers lived in the home of an FBI informant in California for months before the 9/11 t*rrorist attacks. Two al-Qaeda islamic t*rrorist hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon lived in the Lemon Grove home of a paid FBI informant. A Saudi living in San Diego who the FBI later internally assessed as a paid helper the Saudi intelligence service who helped the t*rrorists find housing, co-signed a lease, gave them cash and introduced them into the local mosque network.
Christina Aguayo News
#news Robert Mueller kept the fact that two 9/11 hijackers lived in the home of an FBI informant in California for months before the 9/11 t*rrorist attacks.#DC
Two al-Qaeda islamic t*rrorist hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon lived in the Lemon Grove home of a paid FBI informant.
#fbi
A Saudi living in San Diego who the FBI later internally assessed as a paid helper the Saudi intelligence service who helped the t*rrorists find housing, co-signed a lease, gave them cash and introduced them into the local mosque network.
All of this information has been documented in a 28-page chapter of Congress' 2002 Joint Inquiry.
The Bush White House classified the chapter. Mueller, who took over the FBI on Sept. 4, 2001 - seven days before the attacks - ran the bureau for the next 12 years, keeping that information secret, while the FBI told the public the hijackers “operated without suspicion”.
Mueller continued to push the narrative even though 9/11 families and the inquiry's co-chairman accused headquarters of burying Saudi leads.
Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar flew into Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000, after having a meeting with al-Qaeda in Malaysia that the CIA had watched.
They didn't speak English, and within weeks were in San Diego.
Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi national, found them an apartment in his complex, and co-signed the lease.
#muslim
He gave them about $1,500 for rent and deposit, helped them open bank accounts, and introduced them to key members of the m*slim community.
#islam
The t*rrorists then moved into the home of Dr. Abdussattar Shaikh who had been a San Diego FBI counterterrorism informant since 1994.
The FBI later officially labeled Shaikh an “unwitting observer with no role in the attacks.” That is the bureau’s public line. It is not the last word from every investigator.
Here's the actual interview quote:
“I think the war is going to end immediately after the election,” Trump said. “Because they can’t hold out any longer. They’re desperate to try and affect the election so that we can get a nice, weak group of people in there and leave them alone and let them have their nuclear weapon.”
“I think for gasoline, we’ll get them below $2 a gallon. But not until after the midterm.”
M.A. Rothman
𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏: 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐒 “𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄” 𝐓𝐎 𝐒𝐖𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐒—𝐆𝐀𝐒 𝐃𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐖 $𝟐 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐀𝐅𝐓𝐄𝐑
Reporters pressed President Trump today on when the Iran war actually ends. His answer: the regime is stalling on purpose, and it’s losing.
“I think the war is going to end immediately after the election,” Trump said. “Because they can’t hold out any longer. They’re desperate to try and affect the election so that we can get a nice, weak group of people in there and leave them alone and let them have their nuclear weapon.”
Asked directly whether he’d let Iran keep a bomb, Trump didn’t hedge: 𝘯𝘰. He said the regime is now running on fumes—𝟑𝟎𝟎% 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, a currency he called worthless, and soldiers who aren’t getting paid. The U.S. still 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳.
Then came the pocketbook promise. Oil prices, Trump said, are about to 𝘵𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘦 — just not on Tehran’s timeline. “I think for gasoline, we’ll get them below $2 a gallon. But not until after the midterm.”
Translation for the regime running out the clock: the pain doesn’t stop when the election does—it stops when Tehran quits stalling. And the pain for American drivers has an expiration date Iran can’t control.
𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭.
