Dem Rep Jarrold Nadler– ‘Russian Election Attack Equivalent to Pearl Harbor’

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,886 other followers

Source Article from

Dagestan church shooting may be terrorist attack – investigators

Investigators are not ruling out the possibility that the church shooting in Dagestan was a terrorist attack, Russian Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko said on Monday. An armed man opened fire at people leaving an Orthodox church in Dagestan’s Kizlyar on Sunday, killing four and wounding four others. “A terrorist attack is among the possible theories,” Petrenko said. The gunman was identified as a 22-year-old local resident. Russia’s Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Articles 105.2 (murder with aggravating circumstances) and 317 (attempt on the life of a law enforcer) of the Russian Criminal Code, TASS reported.

Source Article from

'The United States is under attack': Intel chiefs say Russia targets midterm election

The heads of six top U.S. intelligence agencies said on Tuesday that Russian interference in American democracy has not diminished since the 2016 presidential race and is continuing in advance of this year’s midterms.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., the directors of the CIA, FBI, National Intelligence, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency were asked to reaffirm their view that Moscow’s election meddling has continued since the election of President Trump. They did so unanimously.

“Frankly, the United States is under attack,” Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, said at the start of Tuesday’s hearing. “Under attack by entities that are using cyber to penetrate virtually every major action that takes place in the United States.”

“Influence operations, especially through cyber means, will remain a significant threat to U.S. interests,” Coats continued. “Russia probably will be the most capable and aggressive source of this threat in 2018.”

The director warned that the Kremlin will continue to use “sympathetic” spokesmen to advance its disinformation agenda, pushing propaganda, social media, “false-flag personas” and other means of influence “to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States.”

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past operations as successful,” Coats added.

In October 2016, U.S. intelligence officials announced for the first time publicly that the Russian government was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee earlier in the year.

In early January 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report on Russia’s interference in the U.S. presidential election, concluding with “high confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.” Putin’s goals, the report said, were to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency” — and to boost Donald Trump’s election chances.

But President Trump has repeatedly refused to accept the conclusion that Russia’s interference tipped the scales in his favor, even as three separate investigations into his campaign’s contacts with Russia — and possible collusion with the Kremlin — continue.

“This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,” Trump said last May, shortly after firing FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing the federal probe. “It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

In his testimony, Coats decried those who have dismissed Russia’s election meddling.

“We need to inform the American public that this is real,” he said. “We are not going to allow some Russian to tell us how we’re going to vote. There needs to be a national cry for that.”

Read more from Yahoo News:

Source Article from

Frito-Lay under attack by outraged feminists after announcing "Lady Doritos" that would be less messy

Image: Frito-Lay under attack by outraged feminists after announcing “Lady Doritos” that would be less messy

(Natural News)
Welcome to America 2018, where everyone and their mother is a victim.

Last week, Doritos announced that it would soon be coming out with chips designed to appeal more to women. According to PepsiCo global chief Indra Nooyi, women aren’t very fond of the traditional Doritos because of how loud and messy they are to eat. These new “Lady Doritos,” as the Internet has begun to refer to them as, will be less crunchy and coated in less powdered cheese, which truthfully seems like a rational and reasonable marketing idea. Not to the feminists, though, who are now outraged that any company could be this “insensitive” and “misogynistic.”

Julia Reiss of, for example, wrote an angry article titled “Doritos is rolling out Sexist-as-F*ck chips,” in which she complained that “the patriarchy is all too real these days,” and that she wasn’t sure if “we should boycott the brand or start a viral, crunch chip-eating, finger-licking, bag-tossing campaign.” (Related: Feminists call for science to be turned into a social justice propaganda machine.)

Tim Nelson of also connected the “Lady Doritos” to the patriarchy that is apparently alive and well in America, writing: “Of course, a company as large as PepsiCo would never stop to question how our base capitalist system perpetuates a cultural superstructure where women are made to feel that they can’t lick Dorito dust off their fingers without falling short of some patriarchal concept of femininity,” adding sarcastically that perhaps PepsiCo will start to produce a Mountain Dew “for men that actively suppresses emotion next.”

Liberal commentator and host of Good Morning Britain Piers Morgan was also outraged over the news of the Lady Doritos, going so far as to hold up a microphone to the mouths of his female co-hosts as they ate the snack, exclaiming, “Here’s how you eat Doritos. We don’t want lady Doritos! They want equality. They want the same size Doritos as men. They want to eat them in the same noisy way as men.”

As his rage continued to escalate on the air, Morgan eventually began to criticize Doritos boss Indra Nooyi, and even declared, “This is what we do to Doritos!” while smashing the chips to pieces with his microphone. The entire segment was a bit odd to say the least, and definitely an overreaction.

When Indra Nooyi thought of this idea, she obviously didn’t do it with the intent of oppressing women or treating them differently than men; it was a genuine marketing idea that was meant to give women something that she felt they desired. It’s a shame that the very first thing liberals and feminists jump to when hearing about a marketing strategy directed towards women is “sexism” and “misogyny.”

It begs the question: Are similar advertising campaigns that also target women sexist as well? What about makeup commercials that feature beautiful models with long eyelashes and red lipstick? What about ads for women’s weight loss programs that claim to help women get that ideal, curvy figure? What about marketing campaigns for women’s clothing that feature skirts and dresses? Would all of these be considered sexist too? (Related: If you’re still not convinced that feminists are insane, read this article about what female students at the University of Florida are now doing to demand free tampons.)

Sadly, this culture of victimization is exactly what the left wing thrives off of, which is why they are typically the ones talking about so-called oppression and inequality. They know that once people believe they are victims (like the feminists who were outraged over the Lady Doritos), the left knows that they can exploit their frustration for political gain: “you are oppressed, but vote democrat and we’ll fight for a fairer, more equitable America.”

And on a side note, if these feminists are all worked up over a marketing campaign put out by a brand of chips, then perhaps they should consider getting their priorities straightened out.

Sources include:



Source Article from

James Mattis: US has no evidence Damascus used sarin gas in chemical attack

chemical attack syria


US Secretary of Defense James Mattis says investigators are looking into reports that the Syrian government used sarin gas in recent chemical attacks, but there is no evidence of the gas usage so far, US media reported on Friday.

“We do not have evidence,” Mattis told reporters according to Politico.

Mattis added it appears chlorine was used in the attacks, but “we are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use.”

The US defense chief stressed that it would be a mistake for the Syrian government to launch any more chemical attacks on civilians.

On Thursday, the State Department said the United States was working with its partners on the ground in Syrian to investigate the reports of recent chemical weapons use in East Ghouta, Syria.

Media reports earlier this week suggested that the Trump administration believes Damascus is developing new chemical weapons.

The Pentagon’s statement comes amid the disputes around the report presented by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and by the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). The analysis calls Syrian President Bashar Assad is responsible for the use of sarin in the Khan Sheikhoun incident, while the Daesh terrorist organization is responsible for the use of sulfur mustard in Umm Hawsh.

Syrian authorities have been repeatedly accused of using chemical weapons against civilians in the conflict that began in 2011, but Damascus has denied the allegations.

Source Article from

Stockholm truck attack suspect’s terrorism trial to begin on Tuesday

The trial of a man accused of killing five people and injuring ten others, when a truck he was driving plowed into a crowd of people in the Swedish capital Stockholm last April, is due to begin on Tuesday. Rakhmat Akilov, an Uzbek asylum seeker, has spoken of wanting to run over “infidels” and had sworn allegiance to ISIS the day before the attack, though the terror group have not claimed responsibility.

Source Article from

Russia Blasts US Attack on Syrian and Allied Forces

Russia Blasts US Attack on Syrian and Allied Forces

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

US-led aggression was discussed in a same day article. CENTCOM’s pretext rang hollow.

Conflicting explanations were given. Syria’s Foreign Ministry called the incident “a new act of aggression that constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity, shows the direct US support for terrorists who and is aimed against sovereignty and integrity of Syria.”

State media blasted US “aggression…an attempt to support terrorism.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova raised disturbing questions, asking:

“(H)ow can a 500-strong unit attack a headquarters with the support of tanks and artillery and injure only one of the attackers?” 

“How (were) the people inside the headquarters able to survive in these conditions for at least half an hour that is needed for aviation to arrive at the scene?” 

“How could a decision to open a massive fire to defeat the Syrian militiamen be made in such a short period of time?”

Clearly the incident was premeditated, unrelated to false claims of Syrian and allied military elements threatening US-supported so-called Syrian Democratic Forces.

Washington’s version of events was a bald-faced lie, an attempt to justify aggression, calling it “self-defense.” 

Syrian and allied forces were conducting a reconnaissance mission in the area when they were aggressively terror-bombed.

Russia’s Defense Ministry blasted the incident, saying “once again (it) shows that the United States’ illegal military presence in Syria is actually aimed at taking control of the country’s economic assets and not fighting against the ISIL international terror group,” adding:

On February 7, “a pro-government militia unit was conducting surveillance and research activities near the al-Isba oil refinery (17 kilometers southeast of the Salhiyah settlement) to eliminate a militant group shelling the positions of government troops” when it was attacked by US-led forces.

Russia knows Washington launched naked aggression in 2011 for regime change, to replace Syrian sovereign independence with pro-Western puppet governance, to loot the nation’s resources, exploit its people, and isolate Iran ahead of targeting its government the same way.

It knows war will continue endlessly as long as Washington and its rogue allies continue pursuing these objectives unchallenged.

Russia wants things resolved, peace and stability restored to the country, confrontation with Washington avoided.

Its strategy failed. War escalated after Trump took office. The only language US administrations understand is force.

As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving it a taste of its own medicine perhaps by downing one or more of its warplanes to say enough is enough, conflict will likely continue escalating, not end.

America attacks countries it believes it can roll over – why it hesitates confronting Russia and China militarily, except perhaps one day by preemptive nuclear war it may foolishly believe it can win by striking hard and fast before they can react, what I call a doomsday scenario.

Since war in Southeast Asia, Washington never faced an adversary able to inflict large-scale casualties on US forces.

Russia and China surely can, North Korea and Iran to a lesser extent.

Bullies like America don’t like even matches, fearing they’ll lose, or get too bloodied if win. They like unfair fights against weak adversaries.

Russia for sure isn’t one of them. It’s about time someone boldly gave Washington a bloody nose, a taste of its own medicine.

Moscow would be heroic for rising to the challenge, America unlikely to escalate a fight it can’t win against an adversary able give as much as it takes.

Appeasing bullies is wrongheaded. If Hitler was confronted before things got out of hand, WW II would have been unlikely.

The best way to prevent another global war with nukes is by confronting Washington forcefully enough to show its bullying no longer will be tolerated.

Otherwise, peace in our time will be unattainable the way things were in the late 1930s. I deplore war, strongly against endless US wars of aggression.

I fear where things are heading if Washington isn’t challenged and stopped before unthinkable nuclear war erupts, dooming us all.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Source Article from

Surveillance Video Catches Cops Brutally Attack Innocent Elderly Man & Then Lie to Arrest Him


Long Island, NY — An innocent elderly man was yanked from his front porch, thrown down stairs, and then brutally attacked by those who claim to protect and serve. Then, after he was permanently injured, police charged him with a crime.

Robert Besedin, the 72-year-old Air Force veteran has since filed a federal lawsuit against police after he said two officers “pushed him, grab him by his neck, hurled him down four steps and body slammed him to the ground.”

The force with which the officers attacked Besedin was so brutal that it knocked his hearing aids from his ears.

After the officers savagely attacked the innocent elderly man, he was arrested, brought to jail, locked in a cage for days—unable to hear anything without his hearing aids—and charged with felony assault against two Nassau police officers. The only thing is, he never touched them.

The fact that Besedin was innocent was of no concern to the officers who charged him. In their sworn testimony and their written statement, the officers had accused Besedin of resisting arrest, stating that he “violently flailed his arms, kicked, screamed, and pushed Officer Mantovani down four steps” after a confrontation on Besedin’s front porch.

Luckily for Besedin, however, he had a surveillance camera on his front porch which captured the incident on video and proved the cops were lying thugs.

While in jail, Besedin told police that there was video of the incident but they never cared to look at it. The charges were held over this innocent man’s head for a year because the cops lied and the “investigators” couldn’t have cared less about video evidence exonerating Besedin. It was not until this week that all charges were dropped against Besedin, in spite of the original attack happening a year ago.

“These officers lied,”  Frederick Brewington, Besedin’s lawyer said. “And there’s no question they lied.”

Officers Stephen Beckwith and John Mantovani haven’t faced any discipline for their role in beating an innocent elderly man and lying about it in their report either.

According to Brewington, police responded to Besedin’s home that night because his phone “butt dialed” 911 several times.

“There’s a question of how all those calls were made,” Brewington said. “We believe that a good number of them were made accidentally, kind of what we refer to as ‘butt calls.’”

Regardless of what brought police to Besedin’s home that night, attacking an innocent, non-violent man and then lying about it to falsely charge him was a criminal act and the officers need to be held accountable.

Sadly, however, if history is any indicator, only the taxpayers of Long Island will pay for the crimes of Nassau’s finest.

Video footage surfacing days, weeks, or months after a violent incident involving police often disputes their original versions and prove that cops have no problem lying to justify their brutality.

One such incident involved an officer’s dashcam. In 2013, Officer Adam Lin spotted 19-year-old Dontrell Stephens in a “high-crime area” — the man’s own low-income neighborhood — riding a bicycle in a manner the deputy found suspicious.

Lin stopped the youth, who dismounted the bike with a cell phone in his hand and slowly approached the officer. Just outside the range of dash cam video, the officer shot Stephens four times — claiming he was in fear for his life — but footage and evidence clearly showed the claim to be baseless.

Three of the bullets remain lodged in Stephens’ body, according to the Sun Sentinel — two in his arm and one in his spine, which left him paralyzed and dependent on a wheelchair for mobility.

Stephens won a massive $22.4 million settlement. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Seltzer, last year, however, set a precedent, and instead of the taxpayers being held solely liable, nearly everything this officer owned was seized to pay back Stephens — including everything from his furniture to his clothing.

Source Article from

ISIS video shows jihadists waiting in French countryside to attack "Paris before Rome"

jihadist sniper


The pro-ISIS group that last month depicted the invasion of Washington this week declared “Paris before Rome,” depicting a terrorist invasion that began with cells in the countryside outside Paris before attacking the city.

Al-Abd al-Faqir Media released what they called “a cinematic film about the invasion of the Islamic State of the capital of degeneracy … in the near future, inshallah.”

The video opened with a man visiting an ISIS social media account on a computer and a recording of deceased ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani: “The time is now — we want Paris before Rome and before al-Andalus, after we make your lives miserable and bomb your White House and Big Ben and Eiffel Tower.” Sacking Rome has been a cornerstone of ISIS theology since the beginning of the caliphate.

Showing a map of France, the group showed a rendering of a drone approaching Paris from the southwest, “type: al-Burraq,” which is a drone used by the Pakistani Air Force, “belonging to the caliphate army – location: the western countryside of Paris.”

The film cuts to a wooded countryside “where the infantry unit of the caliphate lie in wait for their enemies,” and showed a mock-up of a French military vehicle targeted by the drone while “trying to advance toward the military centers of the Islamic State.”

In this live-action part of the film, the “French military vehicle” — with the tagline “Army of Satan” — is portrayed by a beat-up pickup as camouflage-clad jihadists dash through the woods and ambush the vehicle. They blow up the truck in the firefight and set about “chasing and capturing the enemies of Allah” who fled the vehicle.

“They fear the flames of hell and seek a kill that will ransom them, for never will a disbeliever and his killer be united in its fire,” says the narrator. Two people with hoods placed over their heads are led into a clearing and shot in the head. It’s unclear where the footage was shot and whether the executions are real, as they’re filmed at a distance.

“After the soldiers of the caliphate completed the siege on the city of Paris, Allah has guided his soldiers to storm the city from the ground tunnels and surprise the enemy with a direct double attack,” continues the film, cutting from tunnel incursions to “chasing the mass of the French border guards on the outskirts of the city.”

With spliced movie scenes showing New York, the “invasion” then proceeds to the “intervention of Islamic war fighters” being directed from the “Islamic Air Operations Command Room.”

Video game-style footage of an attack at the base of the Eiffel Tower is shown while the words of one of the November 2015 Paris attackers play.

To show the Eiffel Tower being destroyed and falling to the ground, the filmmakers later rip off footage from the 2009 movie “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.”

The film cuts back to the ISIS social media page and promises “the spread of Hesba [accountable] men in the streets of Western Europe.” A video shown on the social media page in the background, though, appears to show a jihadist looking down the street toward the U.S. Capitol.

This is the fourth episode of Al-Faqir’s “conquering” series. The third episode released last month depicted jihadists conquering Washington and renaming the nation’s capital “Wiliyat al-Farouq,” or province of the redeemer.

Source Article from