Associate of Joseph Mifsud Was Described By EU Parliament As A ‘Reliable Ally” To George Soros

Over the past few months, many questions have been asked regarding the “mysterious Maltese Professor”, Joseph Mifsud and his involvement in the “Trump – Russia” conspiracy. Disobedient Media’s Elizabeth Vos first reported on both professor Mifsud and Russiagate’s many connections to British Intelligence, as well as the findings of Chris Blackburn, who recounted evidence of Mifsud’s close relationship with Italian Senator Gianni Pittella.

In July of 2016, during the heat of the 2016 Presidential election, Pittella attended the Democratic National Convention where he was interviewed by TIME Magazine. In the interview, Pittella formally endorsed then candidate Hillary Clinton, stating: “I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

Pittella continued, stating: “This campaign is special…This campaign is not between Democrat or Republican. It’s between democracy and no democracy in the U.S. It’s between having a relationship between the U.S. and the E.U. and the U.S. and other countries, or not. And Italian citizens, together with the world, have the duty not only to intervene, but to act, to support Hillary’s campaign.”

Pittella also spoke at the DNC in Philadelphia, decrying the “virus of populism”, stating that the U.S. “[has] the same virus in your society. And this virus is represented by Donald Trump.”

However, according to internal documents from George Soros Open Society Foundation leaked in 2016, Pittella is considered to be a close ally of Soros. The 127-page document by the Open Society European Policy Institute, titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019), lists the names of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. Included among the names of 226 MEPs is that of Gianni Pittella.

According to the document, Pittella is one of six members of the EU’s Conference of Presidents, the highest political decision-making body of the European Parliament, whom are deemed to be among the Open Society Foundation’s reliable allies in the EU.

Using his influence as a highly regarded member of European Parliament, Pittella inserted himself into American politics during the 2016 Presidential race.

Lee Smith of Real Clear Politics, later reported on Chris Blackburn’s exceptional research, including Mifsud’s relationship with Pittella.

Disobedient Media will continue to follow this story as it develops.

CIA Undermines North Korea Summit By Leaking Report To Media Asset

Just as it was reported that the summit between the United States and North Korea was back on and that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea was on his way to New York to meet with officials in preparation for the June 12 summit, the CIA leaked an intelligence assessment concluding that “North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon.” The timing of this leak is striking, as it seems to be an effort to undermine negotiations between the two nations and comes just days after ranking members of the Democratic Party and Republican hardliners attacked President Donald Trump over his efforts to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The identity of the reporter who helped break the story also raises serious questions about whether or not a faction within the CIA deliberately attempted to undermine diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. According to NBC News, the report was leaked to none other than NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian, known as “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man.”

In 2014, The Intercept reported on Ken Dilanian’s correspondence and relationship with the CIA while Dilanian was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.

According to The Intercept, “Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.”

According to the Huffington Post, while writing for the Los Angeles Times, Dilanian also reported a CIA claim as fact by stating that “there was no collateral murder in a 2012 drone strike on Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.” Dilanian’s article was directly disputed in an Amnesty International report.

In the aftermath of the revelations about Dilanian’s ties to the CIA, he was disavowed by the Los Angeles Times. The disclosure of Dilanian’s collaboration with the CIA also led his former employer, David Lauter of the Tribune Washington to believe Dilanian could have violated Tribune news policy. Lauter acknowledged that Tribune policy dictates that reporters “not share copies of stories outside the newsroom.” Lauter further stated that he was “disappointed that the emails indicate that Ken may have violated that rule.”

Dilanian has not shied away from pushing articles written by former CIA officials who continue to perpetuate the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative without any regard to facts, such as Steven Hall’s Washington Post article titled: “I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.”

Ken Dilanian on Twitter

Perspective | I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.

Wikileaks has also pointed out Dilanian’s agency connection and his pushing of the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative, tweeting: “CIA’s ‘mop up man’ Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election.”

WikiLeaks on Twitter

CIA’s “mop up man” Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election

In the aftermath of recent revelations concerning the CIA’s collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 US Presidential Election the fresh leaks continue to show a pattern of rebellion that has long run rampant in the US intelligence community. While the CIA’s apparent violations of ethical considerations concerning surveillance of candidates running for public office was serious enough, their interference drags the reputation of the agency to a new (and in the case of Korean peace negotiations, more dangerous) low amid their conflictwith the sitting President of the United States.

However, despite these attacks, preparations between the two countries have continued for the upcoming June 12 summit. President Trump announced earlier today via Twitter that: “We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!

Stubborn Syria

Stubborn Syria

Antithesis title because it isn’t Syria who is stubborn it’s Bashar Al Assad.

Understand the Geneva Protocols are an absolute. We do not play with chemical WMDs, they are always a serious matter.

Agent Orange is one of America’s worst incidents. Official story is a herbicidal that had fallout. Some claim it was intentional. Veterans affected by Agent Orange are bitter and angry about it, but most of all never want to see anything like it again. You’ll note that we haven’t had another incident like it, in accident or intention. I am not saying there haven’t been some stupid incidents. I am saying incidents where intention (including negligence) can be shown likely even possible, in hurting our soldiers for sake of someone’s need to know, these haven’t taken place.

Why is this so important? Because it shows our learning from our mistakes, be they witting stupidities of placing our soldiers in harms way or the innocent unwitting mistake as officially explained, we’ve learned and do not do things like this anymore.

Today Bashar Al Assad claims he’s President of Syria. Yet every time there’s a chemical attack he and his cohorts say “it wasn’t Assad.” Is that taking responsibility, especially after Russia guaranteed all the chemical weapons were destroyed and Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry accepted that as true?

Think of it this way: If I come to your home and while there shoot and kill your neighbor’s entire family the police will want to know how much you knew of what I was going to do, how well you knew me, etc., to see if you were a part of it and if there was any way you could foresee what I had done and prevented it since I was from your house, your premises.

While the police clear you of any criminal wrongdoing or negligence, you’re still subject to a wrongful death suit brought by any relative of that family. Why? Because it was your house, your premises, and the responsibility falls on you to control who comes in and to assure their actions aren’t harmful to others like your neighbors.

Bashar Al Assad has this same responsibility for Syria, and so too President Trump for the United States of America.

President Trump put troops on the border on word of a group trying to push right through our border to promote their agenda over America’s and American’s Rights and the will of the American People to have and control their own nation. There could have been a chemical attack there, and our deployed troops would deal with it. We would then receive a briefing explaining the intel we had or didn’t have, what went wrong, what went right, and all in the pro-active step of taking responsibility to control our premises, our borders.

Assad never does that. His response, “it’s not me,” and he just goes about his protracted war effort. He doesn’t have an inkling of the responsibility he has as President of Syria to assure chemical weapon, production, use, sale, purchase will not be tolerated as a duty to his people let alone the Geneva Protocols. Instead Assad just wants to make sure he isn’t blamed and leaves a vacuum of irresponsibility to police the chemical weapons in his country. Assad isn’t taking on that his and the enemy’s production are an escalation in Assad’s irresponsibility, that they’ve both taken to buying and selling these weapons as commodities, as normal modern war strategies to carry out barbarism on a mass scale just because Assad won’t step down.

This is why America, Britain and France had to take action. Assad’s claims of “no WMDs” or “they’ve all been destroyed” must be absolute and for every possibility within Syria. Should a tragedy occur it is Assad’s duty in claiming to be the President of Syria that he show a full willingness to be responsible for the incident, with a sober, humble, and accurate briefing. This is an authority that has been abused by 7 years of war and irresponsibly claimed the lives of 500,000 civilians, and displaced millions abroad.

And to those who think Bashar Al Assad wouldn’t have done this when the rebels were about to surrender… In reality: Rebels didn’t surrender yet. In reality: Turkey is in Syria attacking the Kurds and trying to take some land too. In reality: The Middle East nations want each others land, for more food, more oil, more people to be supported. In reality: Every Middle East leader has to have a “tough guy” reputation, with an escalating ruthlessness to assure they can maintain control of their nation and discourage other leader’s aggression. So ask yourself what is more ruthless than gassing the surviving and supposed soon to surrender rebels in your nation as a means of demoralizing and hoping to make Turkey’s military retreat?

There can be peace in the Middle East. But peace is unlikely anywhere that stubborn dictators won’t step down in acquiesce to the passionate desires of the people of their nation, and any peace forced by a ruler is at the cost of the lives of those who dissent, from Mao, to Stalin, to Lenin, to Fidel, to, today, Maduro, Kim Jung Un, and South Africa over 100 million people have been murdered for the stubbornness of Dictators.

America’s goal and hope as this was our own hopes for our own future in the Founding of our nation, is a Syria based on the Will of the People of Syria and not the stubbornness of a Dictator and their arms, nor their opposition. But that can’t happen with both sides willing to use and proliferate chemical WMDs against the People of Syria and finger pointing is their answer to any inquiry, especially when Assad is meant to represent both sides as the President of Syria.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

Shilling for Soros: Washington Posts’ Omission of Facts in Defense of a Narrative

On Saturday, the Washington Post published an article by Griff Witte titled: “Once-fringe Soros conspiracy theory takes center stage in Hungarian election,” in which the author disingenuously writes off any and all involvement by the left-wing billionaire in politics as a far-right, tin-hat conspiracy theory despite direct evidence to the contrary.

In his article, Witte never once mentions the 2016 release of documents obtained from Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF) and published on

In fact, one document titled: “Open Society Foundations – International Migration Initiative”, details how the OSF is able to directly influence the immigration policy of European governments by working in conjunction with other immigration activist groups including but not limited to the International Migration Institute (IMI), the MacArthur Foundation, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the International Detention Coalition (IDC).

As detailed in another document titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019)”, the Open Society European Policy Institute has been very successful in its ongoing influence campaign within the European Parliament. This 127-page document lists a total of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. In other words, nearly one-third of European Parliament seats are held by so-called “reliable allies” of Mr. Soros.

Included in this list of MEPs who have chosen to instead represent the views of global elites over their fellow countrymen are Hungarian MEPs Tamás Meszerics and Péter Niedermüller.

Tamás Meszerics is a member of the Politics Can Be Different, part of the European Green Party, and since 2014, has served as an MEP as part of The Greens–European Free Alliance. Tamás also serves on the Board of Governors for the European Endowment for Democracy, which includes the Open Society Institute among its partner organizations. Tamás also works as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, at the Soros founded Central European University, where he teaches a course entitled: “Democracy between Crisis and Transformation: Normative and Institutional Perspectives”.

Since July 2014, Péter Niedermüller has served as a Member of the European Parliament, representing Hungary for the Democratic Coalition. Niedermüller also serves as the Treasurer of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

Niedermüller has also been an outspoken critic of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, referring to his attacks on Mr. Soros as “hate propaganda”. Lacking any substantive argument, Niedermüller has not surprisingly labeled any and all attacks against Soros as anti-Semitic.

Instead of providing any information to the reader regarding Soros’ influence over members of the European Parliament, Witte has instead chosen to provide a one-sided, fact-free assortment of political talking points, in order to attack the current Hungarian government, and by extension, influence the reader.

Throughout the article, Witte also provides statements given by various advocacy groups, in order to bolster his argument. However, again, Witte conveniently omits key, factual information regarding these various groups’ associations with Mr. Soros and his foundation.

For example, Witte cites statements given by Márta Pardavi, Co-Chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee without disclosing Márta’s ties to Soros or that the Hungarian Helsinki Committee receives the majority of its funding (34%) from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

In fact, between 2015 and 2016, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee received four grants totaling $1,434,732 from Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The Co-Chairs of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, András Kádár and Márta Pardavi, also have close ties to George Soros and his foundations.

In 2012, Co-Chair András Kádár taught a class at the Central European University (CEU). The CEU was originally founded by George Soros in 1991. Mr. Soros currently serves on the Board as Honorary Chairman, along with his son Alexander Soros, former Governor of New York, George E. Pataki, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Richard C. Blum.

The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is also listed as a Participating NGO in the Central European University’s NGO Fair program.

Last September, András was one of ten speakers who participated in a joint discussion on migration, hosted by the Open Society Foundation at the Open Society European Policy Institute.

Co-Chair Márta Pardavi also currently serves on the board of PILnet Hungary Foundation. PILnet’s Board of Directors includes Emeritus Director Aryeh Neier of Open Society Foundations – New York. In fact, the Open Society Foundations Justice Initiative even sponsors a fellowship program named after Neier, known as the “Aryeh Neier Fellowship Program”. PILnet also lists the Open Society Foundations under its list of “Private Foundations and Government Supporters”.

In October of 2017, PILnet held a two-day conference located at the Open Society Initiative Budapest Foundation in Hungary. The event was convened to allow participants to debate and “exchange experiences with current challenges of involving commercial law firms and/or individual lawyers in human rights advocacy efforts, and in the development of home-grown pro bono projects.”

PILnet states that the workshop was able to take place thanks to the financial support of the “International Visegrad Fund and to the in-kind support of the Open Society Archives.” (The International Visegrad Fund offers a scholarship for qualifying individuals at George Soros’ Central European University.) PILnet is also listed as a participating NGO in the Central European University’s NGO Fair program.

Márta has even written an article published on the Open Society Foundation website, titled: “What You Need to Know About the Refugee Crisis in Hungary”, in which she attacked the Hungarian governments’ stance on mass migration, and went as far as to claim that “There is no Migration crisis in Hungary”, and that “Migration fills the gaps left by native-born Hungarians”.

Márta can also be heard on the Open Society Foundations’ May 2017 podcast “Talking Justice”, in which she discusses the challenges faced by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee in relation to the ongoing refugee crisis.

From 2003 to 2011, Márta served on the board, and as vice-chair of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). The current Chair of the Board of Directors for the ECRE is Morten Kjaerum. Kjaerum currently serves as the Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden. The Institute provides a list of eleven “Funding Partners”, which includes the Open Society Initiative for Europe.

Other members of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee with ties to Soros and his foundations include: Dávid Vig who was previously a member of the Open Society Foundations Human Rights Program; Gábor Gyulai, founding member of the European Network of Statelessness (ENS), which maintains a list of four donor organizations, including the Open Society Foundations; and Dr. Gruša Matevžič, who serves on the advisory board of the International Detention Coalition, which as previously stated, is one of many groups working in conjunction with the Open Society Foundation in order to influence the immigration policy of European governments.

Witte also provides a statement from Andras Kovats, director of Menedék Hungarian Association for Migrants, in which Kovats states that as a result of the Orban governments stance of refugees, his staff “often receives verbal abuse and threatening messages. Tucked in the mail one recent day was a letter packed with excrement.”

Again, Witte fails to inform the reader that the Menedék Hungarian Association for Migrants also receives financial support from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, totaling nearly $100,000 between 2015 and 2016.

Finally, at the end of the article, Witte briefly notes: “Gergo Saling contributed to this report.” Why is this final piece of information important?

Gergő Sáling is the co-founder and editor of the Hungarian Investigative Journalism Center Direkt36. Direkt36 provides a list of six organizations which fund their “journalism”, of which the Open Society Foundation is listed.

Direkt36 also lists itself as a member of both the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

The GIJN, by its own admission, states that the “GIJN receives generous core support from the Open Society Foundations, which has supported GIJN since its founding as a loose network in 2003…”, while the OCCRP provides that “OCCRP is supported by grants by the Open Society Foundation…”

By providing quotes from various Soros-affiliated figureheads and organizations without even providing the slightest details of their associations with the primary subject of the article, the author is engaging himself in purposeful deception and shoddy journalism.

Couple this with the many key omissions of fact and important details, it is hard to not conclude that this article represents the epitome of propaganda in its purest form. By publishing this piece, the Post’s motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness” absolutely rings true, except it is the Post who killed it.

VIDEO: Big Trouble in Little Jerusalem with John Fitzgerald

Right Side News with John Fitzgerald  – Big Trouble in Little Jerusalem

JERUSALEM: On December 6th, 2017 President Donald Trump unveiled a new policy regarding Israel’s capital city.

WATCH NOW: Right Side News’ John Fitzgerald walks you through the newly recognized capital of Israel.



In a statement President Trump said:

My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city — and so importantly — is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Predictably Hamas have declared another one of their adorable days of rage which are by this point a weekly event. We can expect other Islamic nations like Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom to follow suit shortly. Of course, the liberal media and most of the world look the other way, too keen to call the President a racist to pay attention when he said:

So today, let us rededicate ourselves to a path of mutual understanding and respect. Let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities. And finally, I ask the leaders of the region — political and religious; Israeli and Palestinian; Jewish and Christian and Muslim — to join us in the noble quest for lasting peace.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel. God bless the Palestinians. And God bless the United States. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Of course on CNN and MSBNC the violence you see on the streets of Israel tonight is the fault of the man who wishes to bring peace to the region. This is the definition of #FakeNews.

SEE ALSO: Last week Right Side News’ John Fitzgerald, analyzed the disruption that took place at the “It’s Okay To Be White” speech given by Lucian Wintrich at the University of Connecticut.

*Please like, subscribe and leave us your thoughts in the comments section.

Imran Awan Alleged to Have Used His Position to Influence the Pakistani Government

According to a report by the Daily Caller, former Democratic IT aide, Imran Awan, used his position as a congressional IT aide to to pressure local police to drop fraud charges against his father for writing seven fraudulent checks during the course of multiple land purchases.

One of the victims, Mohammad Abid, claimed that the reason the authorities dropped the charges is because Ashraf Awan’s son, Imran “had easy access to the corridors of power”. Abid further alleged that Regional Police Officer (RPO), Ahmed Raza Tahir, was backing Imran and his father.

According to DAWN, sources stated that Imran was using his political influence to influence the police to charge those who had filed complaints against his father, even leading to the arrest of Asim Sheikh, the attorney representing the complainants.

It was further alleged that, “’power muscles’ in the federal capital as well as in the provincial capital had phoned the local police to lend all sorts of help to the US national and his father.”

According to a Democratic IT aide, Imran told him that he had persuaded former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to intervene in the matter.

Imran was also said to have been sending money and gifts to government officials in Pakistan, and received protection from Pakistani police. The Daily Caller further reports that Imran was also sending IT equipment to Pakistan during the same period of time in which fraudulent purchase orders for that equipment were filed, and in which over $120,000 of congressional equipment was signed away by the chief of staff for Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY).

This is troubling, not only because it shows how Awan was able to influence high-ranking political figures in the U.S. to intervene in he and his family’s personal matters, but it further shows that Imran was able to use his position to influence high-ranking Pakistani government officials as well.

Because Imran and his brothers had access to some of the most important, classified information relating to our national security, and had attempted to wire $283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to a bank account in Pakistan, it begs the question: Were they selling our secrets to a foreign country known for harboring the likes of Osama bin Laden?

Newly Discovered Guccifer 2 Chat Shows He Was Wikileaks’ Source

An Associated Press (AP) journalist has released a chat with Guccifer 2.0. 

Raphael Satter released a previously unpublished chat he had with Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 stated, in reply to a question about why Guccifer 2.0 is sending documents directly to a journalist instead of waiting for Wikileaks to publish them, that “I don’t know when or if they gonna publish them.” According to Satter, “@raffiwriter argues @Guccifer _2’s handlers were impatient with @Wikileaks as summer wore on. My 8/22 convo with G2 seems to support that.”  

Satter is referencing an article in the New Yorker magazine by journalist Raffi Khatchadourian, which was reviewed extensively by RightSideNews in the article, Did Wikileaks Directly Receive Information from Guccifer 2.0? The New Yorker article lists three important interactions that display Guccifer 2.0 being impatient with Wikileaks, including:

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” An article by Joe Uchill from July 13 quotes Guccifer 2.0: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) On July 17, Assange “originally planned” to publish the files, but did not. Instead, Guccifer 2.0 leaked a batch of documents to Uchill on that very day.

4) On July 22nd, Wikileaks published the documents, and on that same day Guccifer 2.0 wrote, “At last!”

5) On August 22nd, exactly one month later, Guccifer 2.0 in his chat with the AP’s Raphael Satter expresses impatience with Wikileaks’ release of files.

According to Uchill’s July 22 article, “The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack.”

The implication of Guccifer 2.0 directly working together with Wikileaks is that Guccifer 2.0 had in his possession the documents that Wikileaks later leaked, which contradicts the narrative put forward on the Guccifer 2.0 research website,, that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source for Wikileaks. Raphael Satter is encouraged to release screenshots of his entire chat with Guccifer 2.0.

BREAKING: New Report Suggests DNC Hacker Was Collecting Opposition Research on Donald Trump

A newly discovered report from the firm that was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC breach says that the hackers were looking for information that would hurt Donald Trump and other GOP candidates. The report says

“Based on the data exfiltrated from the DNC, one of FANCY BEAR’s goals appears to have been to collect opposition research the DNC’s research staff had gathered on President Elect (then Republican primary candidate) Donald Trump and other Republican (GOP) presidential candidates.” (page 11). 

According to the Crowdstrike, Fancy Bear is the alleged hacking entity that stole data from the DNC and leaked it to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike’s findings have been used by the DNC and the US Intelligence Community to claim that Russian was involved in the election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The newly revealed information appears to contradict that narrative by showing Fancy Bear was allegedly helping Clinton by hurting Trump and the GOP. 

According to Palo Alto Networks, a spear fishing attack on May 26, 2016 “to a U.S. government entity” was successful, while Crowdstrike says the virus was in the DNC system in April 2016. The attack was allegedly passed on to targets through infected RTF files. Crowdstrike appears to contradict the report of Palo Alto Networks on the timeline of when the DNC was breached.

Contact: [email protected]

Roger Stone: Schiff and Speier Say that DNC Handed Over Their Server


Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26, is claiming that Congressman Schiff and Speier told him at the hearing that the DNC did, in fact, give over its server to the FBI. This contradicts James Comey’s testimony, when he stated that the DNC never handed over the server for investigation.

Answering the questions of Infowars as he apparently was leaving the hearing, Stone said: “The FBI Director… testified before this committee that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine their servers. Mr. Schiff intimated today that that was not the case and claimed that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI.”

In another interview, this time with the The Gateway Pundit, Stone was quoted as saying:

“The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC. When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’ Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”

The question is, did the DNC turn over its server during the summer recess?

Questions the DNC Don’t Want Asked on Guccifer 2.0 And Their Claim He Took Only Two Files

The Washington Post article, National Security Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump” from June 14, 2016, states that the hacking group known as Fancy Bear “broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said.” The article then states that “The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.” The article continues, quoting DNC lawyer Michael Sussman of the Perkins Coie firm: “But at this time, it appears that no financial information or sensitive employee, donor or voter information was accessed by the Russian attackers,” he said.

However, in the subsequent article the following day, June 15, entitled “Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack“, the Washington Post reports that Guccifer 2.0 posted to a website some of the allegedly stolen documents. They included a file titled “Donald Trump Report,” dated Dec. 19, 2015, and a list of what was purported to be million-dollar-plus donors to the Democratic Party.”

Questions the DNC must answer are, 1) Why did the DNC say that only two opposition research files were taken, and not donor information, when Guccifer 2.0 did indeed take both the opposition files and the donor files? 2) Why did Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research files, when those files could prove to be harmful to Donald Trump, if he was indeed a hacker on a mission to elect Donald Trump? 3) Did the DNC collude with Guccifer 2.0 in directing him to release the opposition research files? 4) Why did Guccifer 2.0 continue to release opposition research files, when he later released an archive of Sarah Palin’s Twitter messages on July 14, and the first page of the Trump Foundation’s income tax form and the Trump financial report on October 18, if he had already proven that he had hacked the DNC? and 5) What specific part of the software Crowdstrike used to analyze the DNC server would show that only two files were taken, when presumably hackers were in the DNC system for weeks on end?

If the answer is that the DNC or Crowdstrike did not have full visibility into the scale of intrusions on their security infrastructure, is it a coincidence that the only files the DNC or Crowdstrike thought were missing at the time were the two opposition research files, which if released would be damaging only to Trump and not Clinton, and that Guccifer the next day did indeed release those two opposition research files that are harmful to Trump but not Clinton? Those two files were entitled “Donald Trump Report” and “2016 GOP presidential candidates” in the releases. Are these opposition files that Guccifer 2.0 released the same ones that the DNC is referring to, or was Guccifer 2.0 holding on to even more harmful information, and released the Trump report and GOP report to deflect from it? All of the information from the Trump report comes from public sources. On the other hand, why would Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research if he was supposed to be helping Donald Trump, if he could prove that he has hacked the DNC by sharing any of the 38 other files he subsequently leaked in later months?  

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Bombthrowers Exclusive: National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster; A Legend or a Lie?

James Simpson | Bombthrowers

 (Language warning) (CORRECTION as to casualty count appears near the bottom of this article)

Fresh on the heels of a successful offensive in Mosul, Iraq, the Iraqi military is now poised to retake Tal Afar, long a hotbed of ISIS and other insurgent activity. Before we pulled out of Iraq, Tal Afar, like Fallujah, had been the focal point of multiple large-scale, costly offensives to eject entrenched insurgents. In 2005, then-Colonel H.R. McMaster led the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) in the largest of these offensives, Operation Restoring Rights. His reputation as a brilliant military strategist rests largely on the results of that one battle. Given the widespread support for McMaster in the media and Washington establishment, it is ironic that current reporting largely fails to mention this battle or McMaster’s central role in it.

McMaster’s widely-hyped strategic acumen has been called into question by high-level military sources with personal knowledge of his conduct in the field. These sources spoke with me on condition of anonymity.

McMaster rests his laurels on the counter-insurgency strategy he claims won the Battle of Tal Afar, Iraq. But sources say McMaster ignored counter-insurgency experts and that his reckless leadership killed between 70 and 85* Americans and almost lost the battle. The battle, the sources say, was won only through a valiant rescue mission during which most of those casualties occurred.*

Until today this information has been suppressed.

Today, National Security Advisor McMaster is facing sustained criticism for his seemingly relentless opposition to Trump policies, his purging of many competent, conservative Trump loyalists from the National Security Council staff, and “protecting and coddling” 40 Obama holdovers — almost one-sixth of the NSC staff — who are plainly out to sabotage the Trump agenda.

Yet he continues to enjoy President Trump’s support. Is President Trump reluctant to fire McMaster for fear of criticism? Has he decided that McMaster’s reputed military genius is worth the cost? Or has he been thoroughly misinformed about McMaster’s character and competence? Who is H.R. McMaster really?

Lieutenant General (three-star) Herbert Raymond McMaster is a career Army officer still on active duty. He came to the Trump administration as a quick replacement for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), who resigned over controversies regarding his contacts with Russian officials. Whatever Flynn may have done wrong, his true sin was bucking the D.C. establishment, including many military leaders. And as frequently happens in Washington, when a strong conservative political appointee faces widespread (often manufactured) controversy, the knee-jerk reaction is to find a replacement the establishment likes. McMaster fits the bill.

On the surface, he appears to have the right resume. He has been awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit and other medals, although John Kerry and many others have proved there are ways to get these medals without earning them. Most of this acclaim comes out of his service at the Battle of 73 Easting (1991), where in 23 minutes, McMaster’s nine M1A1 Abrams tanks and 12 Bradley Fighting Vehicles destroyed 30 Iraqi tanks and 14 armored vehicles. McMaster has been given credit for quick thinking and aggressive action, but his unit faced off against obsolete Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks operated by troops with inferior training. His unit was part of a larger operation that experienced similar success, ultimately destroying 85 tanks, 40 personnel carriers, and over 30 other vehicles. As George Dvorsky observes: “the [Republican Guard] didn’t have a chance.”

As the author of the 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam, McMaster enjoys a reputation as something of a maverick, a fact which perhaps found favor in the unorthodox Trump administration. The book has been described as “the seminal work on military’s responsibility during Vietnam to confront their civilian bosses when strategy was not working.”

But, as noted above, McMaster’s reputation rests largely on the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy applied at Tal Afar. It was later hailed by President George W. Bush, who said it, “gives me confidence in our strategy because in this city we see the outlines of the Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting for…” For once, the media agreed with Bush, published glowing reports on McMaster’s feats. Mother Jones and the Washington Post called him the “Hero of Tal Afar.” The left-leaning calls him “the Army’s smartest officer.”

Now leftists are coming out of the woodwork to defend McMaster against his conservative critics. Newsweek accuses the “alt-right” of attempting to smear McMaster, while genuine slime merchants like Media Matters for America are smearing his critics.

He is even being defended by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the propaganda arm of the Palestinian terrorist group HAMAS.

Okay, wait a minute.

When reflexively anti-American, anti-military outlets like Mother Jones, Slate and the Washington Post offer fawning praise for a Republican military commander, the reasons underlying those plaudits deserve further investigation. When anti-American, anti-military, George Soros-funded, extreme leftist smear operations like Media Matters go to war to defend a Trump political appointee, it casts a shadow on everything about the man. When the anti-American, terrorism-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR defends an American general, the alarm bells drown out all other sound. And officers who have witnessed his “leadership” in the unforgiving crucible of combat are now sounding the alarm.

It is not unusual in Army practice that studies and reports often gloss over leadership failures by simply not mentioning the leaders who failed. This seems to be the case in an official military report prepared for the U.S. Army’s Combat Studies Institute concerning the conduct of 3rd ACR in Operation Restoring Rights, according to Brave Rifles at the Battle of Tal Afar.[1] The 3rd ACR, also known as the “Brave Rifles,” is comprised of three ground squadrons, the 1st, 2nd and 4th, and a support squadron. Most of the fighting during this operation was conducted by the 2nd Squadron. Its commander, Lt. Col. Christopher M. Hickey, was the man on the ground leading the engaged combat forces.

Virtually all of the action described centers on decisions made by Hickey. McMaster barely gets a mention. The Washington Post‘s account of the battle puts McMaster in the middle of it, though the embedded reporter, Jon Finer, says he didn’t see McMaster until “the operation was winding down.” Brave Rifles does not describe where McMaster was at all, only that he responded to Hickey’s request for more troops by appealing to Task Force Freedom and Multinational Corps–Iraq (pp. 131-132). He likely oversaw the offensive from 3rd ACR’s operations base, FOB Sykes, 7.5 miles south of town (p. 130). Given that he had overall command of the regiment, that is probably where he should have been, except that he seemed to want people to believe he was in the heat of battle. He wasn’t.

The report is not especially critical of Hickey, but if the operation was an unqualified success, McMaster’s role presumably would have been highlighted. McMaster’s Tal Afar COIN strategy is also credited with inspiring Iraq’s 2007 “surge” operation. Yet Brave Rifles makes no such claim.

The report describes a halt in the advance to evacuate civilians that occurred little more than one day into the fight. In a “Frontline” video interview, [2] McMaster claims the pause was “about three days,” but according to Brave Rifles, it took a full week (p. 142). Officers on the ground during that battle claim that in fact the 2nd Squadron was surrounded and in danger of being annihilated. One Special Forces operative described it as a “goat fuck” (p. 142). A 1,150-strong Special Operations Group joined with other units to launch a rescue mission that would clear a path to McMaster’s beleaguered forces.

The following is an account of that effort provided for this article by the commander of the Special Operations Group. He is a highly decorated retired Special Forces flag officer with decades of service under his belt. His bona fides have been confirmed by other top-level military sources. All have requested anonymity. Given the D.C. establishment’s demonstrated hostility to whistleblowers, you can’t blame them.

Here is his story:

Mine was one of three units sent to rescue McMaster from Tal Afar. McMaster replaced most of the operations people upon assuming command with his admirers — most of whom had limited combat experience at best. The majority never had a troop command, even in peacetime. As an apprentice of David Petraeus, McMaster was recommended to command the 3rd ACR not because of his ability/experience to command a large armored formation but simply so he could get his ticket punched on the way to flag rank.

The strategy called for assault, clear and hold, but McMaster simply ordered the squadron to advance without securing positions taken. This allowed insurgents to come in behind his assault force and it was soon surrounded. It came to be known among the troops as “Little Stalingrad” because of McMaster’s arrogance and disregard of advice from COIN experts. McMaster was thoroughly briefed that Tal Afar was an insurgent stronghold but ignored this intelligence and attempted to take the city by coup de main (surprise attack) using a blitzkrieg strategy like Von Paulus used in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Use of armor in urban warfare is fraught with danger if not carefully coordinated with infantry and combat support. The insurgent force, commanded by former Iraqi officers, allowed McMaster’s column to enter the city, then sprung the trap. As with Von Paulus, McMaster soon found his tanks and tracks hopelessly bogged down in the streets and narrow alleys of Tal Afar.

The insurgents used the city like a giant maze. M1A2s (Abrams main battle tank) have vulnerabilities the insurgents used to their advantage. The Abrams was designed with no escape hatch underneath. The insurgents dropped Molotov cocktails on the tanks from tops of buildings. With the tank on fire, the crew had to exit thru the top of the tank, where they could be fired upon as they climbed out.

The M1A2 is also vulnerable to RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades]. Tal Afar had been ringed with sand berms to make it difficult for insurgents to get away. However, to enter the city, the tanks had to drive over the berms. The M1A2 underbelly is not adequately armored. As the tanks came over the berms, insurgents shot at their undersides with RPGs. The insurgents learned these tactics from the experience of jihadis who fought the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s. McMaster apparently didn’t.

McMaster attempted to paint a rosy picture of the assault but it soon became apparent to others his unit was in trouble. McMaster estimated the assault would take one-and-a-half days to complete, but by that time the 2nd Squadron was trapped. The official record claims that they halted the assault to allow civilians to evacuate. The truth is that they had become surrounded and couldn’t move.

My SF unit, just off another operation, was ordered to re-deploy and fight our way in to open a supply route into the city to replenish ammo and supplies and Medevac the wounded. Earlier attempts to drop supplies by helicopter met intense fire and risked supplies falling into enemy hands. It took us three days to battle our way to them. I lost 40 men KIA [killed in action] in one day and a total of 50 lost from my unit alone during the pause, with many more wounded.

The operation which was supposed to last 2 days, turned into an 18-day battle, with the 3rd ACR being decimated. Many soldiers died later in field hospitals overloaded with wounded. Many civilians were not evacuated until after the forces engaged, and they too suffered many dead and wounded.

This fiasco was covered up by McMaster’s good friend, mentor and fellow West Pointer, David Petraeus, who worried that revealing the depth of McMaster’s mistakes would reflect badly on him as well.

McMaster is a political officer who took credit for the hard work and sacrifice of others. He advanced his own career and burnished his myth with the help of David Petraeus and John McCain. A deeper research into Army records including casualties and vehicle losses will paint an accurate picture of the debacle, not mythical accounts.

The truth about Tal Afar is that a major cover up has allowed an unqualified officer to occupy one of the most critical positions in our national security apparatus.

According to the Brave Rifles report, 2nd Squadron lost 8 men and 12 soldiers from other units who joined them in the fight and 38 friendly Iraqi soldiers and 6 Iraqi policemen also perished.** (p. 147). According to the Special Forces officer, however, losses actually included:

Approximately 250 killed in action, including 70 to 85 American troops* and approximately 165 to 180 friendly Iraqi forces

1 HH47 Chinook helicopter

4 Blackhawk helicopters

4 M1A2 Abrams Tanks

30 Bradley Fighting Vehicles

Heavy losses of 5-ton trucks and fuel tankers

McMaster’s reputation for arrogance and incompetence filtered down to the rank and file as well.

Mathew Bocian served in the U.S. Army as a cavalry scout with 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry (Stryker). He deployed to Mosul and Tal Afar in 2004 and to Baghdad for The Surge in 2007. He has written a book about it, The Ghosts of Tal Afar. Bocian’s unit was in Tal Afar when McMaster’s 3rd ACR showed up.

He had this to say about McMaster’s leadership:

[T]he regiment’s senior leadership thought they were hot-shit, and would teach us a thing or two. I was in a Squadron-wide officer call when good old H.R himself told the room not to worry – the real cav[alry] was here, and they brought the “big guns”. We deterred Hajj [the insurgents] by going into town every day – yes, even Al Sarai [the insurgent stronghold] because if you didn’t, Hajj took more and more control of the town; they were trying to drive a wedge between U.S. Forces and the Iraqi populous [sic]

3rd ACR’s idea of deterrence was to park a few tanks up at the castle and occasionally shoot main gun rounds over Al Sarai and into the empty desert. Yeah. That worked for all of about an hour until the Hajj (who are pretty fucking smart) got wise to the scheme and weren’t afraid of the sound. All that did was keep the residents in their homes so the only folks who went out were the bad dudes.

Not long after we returned to Mosul to take part of the Brigade’s new offensive to seal off all of Mosul, 3rd ACR launched an offensive of their own. They had opted to “assess” the situation for a week and had neglected certain parts of Tal’Afar – including Al Sarai. They lost a tank, a Bradley and an M-88 recovery vehicle in that initial push – and taking heavy fire and multiple casualties, were repelled by the Hajj, who had entrenched themselves in the area given plenty of time to prepare.

I don’t know how many soldiers 3rd ACR lost, or had wounded in Tal’Afar, but I look back in disgrace and wonder if their leadership had listened and were less cocky, if their losses could have been fewer.

Other sources I interviewed say that McMaster has very few admirers in the general officer corps and was considered to be just another typical “political general.”

He has not been given any battle commands since he was promoted to general. They say he would never have made general rank without the help of David Petraeus. He was passed over twice for promotion to flag rank, and didn’t get his first star until Army Secretary Peter Geren, a former Democratic congressman from Texas, took the unprecedented step of pulling General Petraeus from a combat command and appointing him to chair the Army’s promotion board, which Geren also hand-picked.

Petraeus, of whom it has been said, “throughout his military career had worn his ambition like a strong aftershave,” saw to McMaster’s star. Then-Army Chief of Staff General George Casey concluded, “If McMaster weren’t such a smart-ass, he would have been promoted a long time ago.”

General officers require Senate confirmation both for appointment and advancement. McMaster’s Senate champion was and still is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain advocated replacing Flynn with McMaster. McCain described McMaster as “a man of genuine intellect, character and ability.”

To obtain his fourth star, McMaster must please his Senate overlords and their allies in the military — i.e. the establishment. This virtually guarantees a NSC advisor beholden to the swamp. In a recent interview with Breitbart News, Erik Prince, founder of the military contractor Blackwater, said:

[T]he danger of appointing a serving general, a three-star general that wants to be a four-star general, means that that general will always go with his service. If it’s a long-retired guy that’s not worried about a promotion, I think it’s easier to give objective advice. That’s the danger of having a serving officer as the national security director.

It is worth noting that Trump had consulted Prince extensively regarding Afghanistan strategy and Prince had been invited to join him at Camp David deliberations, but McMaster allegedly took him off the list at the last minute.

It seems the height of irony that Iraqi forces are now entering Tal Afar again, this time with Iran-backed militias — responsible for killing many Americans in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Meanwhile, the “Hero of Tal Afar” counsels President Trump to certify Iran in compliance with a nuclear deal composed in secret that was never signed and never consented to by the Senate. On the home front he resists efforts to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, emboldening groups like CAIR, that have joined with other subversive groups in their efforts to destabilize our nation.

My source concludes: “With McMaster now as National Security Advisor, maybe some aspiring young Army officer will write a sequel to McMaster’s book and call it, LtGen McMaster: Dereliction of Duty II. We can only hope General Mattis and General Kelly, along with a very distinguished group on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, give our President competent and honest military advice and guidance, not tainted by ‘what’s in it for me’ from a man who is a legend only in his own mind.”

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook.

*The Special Forces flag officer who served as the primary source for this article acknowledged after the article was initially published that he had previously provided incorrect casualty figures from the Battle of Tal Afar. The resulting errors in this article have been corrected and where they have been corrected there now appears an asterisk (*).

**The Iraqi casualties from the Brave Rifles report were not stated in the original article but in light of the flag officer’s now-corrected information, we have included those figures.

[1] “Frontline-Counterinsurgency in Tal Afar Iraq.” YouTube. February 15, 2008. Accessed August 26, 2017.

[2]  Ricardo A. Herrera, “Brave Rifles at the Battle of Tal Afar,” In In Contact! Case Studies from the Long War, Volume I, ed. William G. Robinson (Fort Leavenworth: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006), pp. 125-147.

Full transcript: Trump and Turnbull’s phone call

Trump Trurnbull Transcript

Full transcript: Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull’s phone call
The Prime Minister told US President Donald Trump during their heated January phone call America did not have to accept any of the refugees held on Nauru or Manus Island.

Read the full transcript of their call below.

Turnbull: Good evening.

Trump: Mr. Prime Minister, how are you?

Turnbull: I am doing very well.

Trump: And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?

Turnbull: He is a great mutual friend yes.

Trump: Well you say hello to him. He is a very good friend. By the way thank you very much for taking the call. I really appreciate it. It is really nice.

Turnbull: Thank you very much. Everything is going very well. I want to congratulate you and Mike Pence on being sworn in now. I have spoken to you both now as you know. I know we are both looking to make our relationship which is very strong and intimate, stronger than ever – which I believe we can do.

Trump: Good.


Turnbull: I believe you and I have similar backgrounds, unusual for politicians, more businessman but I look forward to working together.

Trump: That is exactly right. We do have similar backgrounds and it seems to be working in this climate – it is a crazy climate. Let me tell you this, it is an evil time but it is a complex time because we do not have uniforms standing in front of us. Instead, we have people in disguise. It is brutal. This ISIS thing – it is something we are going to devote a lot of energy to it. I think we are going to be very successful.

Turnbull: Absolutely. We have, as you know, taken a very strong line on national security and border protection here and when I was speaking with Jared Kushner just the other day and one of your immigration advisors in the White House we reflected on how our policies have helped to inform your approach. We are very much of the same mind. It is very interesting to know how you prioritize the minorities in your Executive Order. This is exactly what we have done with the program to bring in 12,000 Syrian refugees, 90% of which will be Christians. It will be quite deliberate and the position I have taken – I have been very open about it – is that it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down – the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities. We have seen that in Iraq and so from our point of view, as a final destination for refugees, that is why we prioritize. It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities. We have a similar perspective in that respect.

Trump: Do you know four years ago Malcom [sic], I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted. When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent – but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true – and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.

Turnbull: Well, yes. Mr. President, can I return to the issue of the resettlement agreement that we had with the Obama administration with respect to some people on Nauru and Manus Island. I have written to you about this and Mike Pence and General Flynn spoke with Julie Bishop and my National Security Advisor yesterday. This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the Vice President.

Trump: Well, actually I just called for a total ban on Syria and from many different countries from where there is terror, and extreme vetting for everyone else – and somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome. And I am saying, boy that will make us look awfully bad. Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people. Really it looks like 2,000 people that Australia does not want and I do not blame you by the way, but the United States has become like a dumping ground. You know Malcom, anybody that has a problem – you remember the Mariel boat lift, where Castro let everyone out of prison and Jimmy Carter accepted them with open arms. These were brutal people. Nobody said Castro was stupid, but now what are we talking about is 2,000 people that are actually imprisoned and that would actually come into the United States. I heard about this – I have to say I love Australia; I love the people of Australia. I have so many friends from Australia, but I said – geez that is a big ask, especially in light of the fact that we are so heavily in favor, not in favor, but we have no choice but to stop things. We have to stop. We have allowed so many people into our country that should not be here. We have our San Bernardino’s, we have had the World Trade Center come down because of people that should not have been in our country, and now we are supposed to take 2,000. It sends such a bad signal. You have no idea. It is such a bad thing.

Turnbull: Can you hear me out Mr. President?

Trump: Yeah, go ahead.

Turnbull: Yes, the agreement, which the Vice President just called the Foreign Minister about less than 24 hours ago and said your Administration would be continuing, does not require you to take 2,000 people. It does not require you to take any. It requires, in return, for us to do a number of things for the United States – this is a big deal, I think we should respect deals.

Trump: Who made the deal? Obama?

Turnbull: Yes, but let me describe what it is. I think it is quite consistent. I think you can comply with it. It is absolutely consistent with your Executive Order so please just hear me out. The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000. Every individual is subject to your vetting. You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting. You can decide to take 1,000 or 100. It is entirely up to you. The obligation is to only go through the process. So that is the first thing. Secondly, the people – none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.

Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people –

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

Turnbull: This is our experience.

Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

Turnbull: I agree with you, letting one million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

Trump: Well, there could be two million people coming in Germany. Two million people. Can you believe it? It will never be the same.

Turnbull: I stood up at the UN in September and set up what our immigration policy was. I said that you cannot maintain popular support for immigration policy, multiculturalism, unless you can control your borders. The bottom line is that we got here. I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it. It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion. So you have the wording in the Executive Order that enables the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to admit people on a case by case basis in order to conform with an existing agreement. I do believe that you will never find a better friend to the United States than Australia. I say this to you sincerely that it is in the mutual interest of the United States to say, “yes, we can conform with that deal – we are not obliged to take anybody we do not want, we will go through extreme vetting” and that way you are seen to show the respect that a trusted ally wants and deserves. We will then hold up our end of the bargain by taking in our country 31 [inaudible] that you need to move on from.

Trump: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order.

Trump: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it. Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you. I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.

Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically –

Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison. I am doing this because Obama made a bad deal. I am not doing this because it fits into my Executive Order. I am taking 2,000 people from Australia who are in prison and the day before I signed an Executive Order saying that we are not taking anybody in. We are not taking anybody in, those days are over.

Turnbull: But can I say to you, there is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal. Look, you and I have a lot of mutual friends.

Trump: Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.

Turnbull: Mr. President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States. It shows that you are a committed –

Trump: Okay, this shows me to be a dope. I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. Not even a little bit. I think it is ridiculous and Obama should have never signed it. The only reason I will take them is because I have to honor a deal signed by my predecessor and it was a rotten deal. I say that it was a stupid deal like all the other deals that this country signed. You have to see what I am doing. I am unlocking deals that were made by people, these people were incompetent. I am not going to say that it fits within the realm of my Executive Order. We are going to allow 2,000 prisoners to come into our country and it is within the realm of my Executive Order? If that is the case my Executive Order does not mean anything Malcom [sic]. I look like a dope. The only way that I can do this is to say that my predecessor made a deal and I have no option then to honor the deal. I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?

Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.

Trump: How does that help you?

Turnbull: Well, we assume that we will act in good faith.

Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?

Turnbull: Correct, we have stopped the boats.

Trump: Give them to the United States. We are like a dumping ground for the rest of the world. I have been here for a period of time, I just want this to stop. I look so foolish doing this. It [sic] know it is good for you but it is bad for me. It is horrible for me. This is what I am trying to stop. I do not want to have more San Bernardino’s or World Trade Centers. I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.

Turnbull: These guys are not in that league. They are economic refugees.

Trump: Okay, good. Can Australia give me a guarantee that if we have any problems – you know that is what they said about the Boston bombers. They said they were wonderful young men.

Turnbull: They were Russians. They were not from any of these countries.

Trump: They were from wherever they were.

Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.

Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the government decides, the people’s representatives decides. So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us – that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.

Trump: I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it – START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.

Turnbull: You will not.

Trump: Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.

Turnbull: You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.

Trump: I have no choice to say that about it. Malcom [sic], I am going to say that I have no choice but to honor my predecessor’s deal. I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made. It is an embarrassment to the United States of America and you can say it just the way I said it. I will say it just that way. As far as I am concerned that is enough Malcom [sic]. I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.

Turnbull: Do you want to talk about Syria and DPRK?

Trump: [inaudible] this is crazy.

Turnbull: Thank you for your commitment. It is very important to us.

Trump: It is important to you and it is embarrassing to me. It is an embarrassment to me, but at least I got you off the hook. So you put me back on the hook.

Turnbull: You can count on me. I will be there again and again.

Trump: I hope so. Okay, thank you Malcolm.

Turnbull: Okay, thank you.


Smartmatic CEO: Voter Turnout “was manipulated”

Reuters reporting that the George Soros linked Smartmatic voting machine company has admitted to voter manipulation in Venezuela election.

LONDON (Reuters) – Turnout figures in Venezuela’s Constitutional Assembly election were manipulated up by least 1 million votes, Smartmatic, a company which has worked with Venezuela since 2004 on its voting system, said on Wednesday.

“We know, without any doubt, that the turnout of the recent election for a National Constituent Assembly was manipulated,” Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said at a news briefing in London

Smartmatic is something that President Trump’s support base has been discussing. Vote paper ballots was strongly urged.


Its not just Smartmatic…Soros has ties to DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, responsible for 50 percent of voting machines in USA from The_Donald October 2016

Donald Trump was right … the American elections will be rigged by globalist socialism through Smartmatic, the same company that handles the Brazilian and Venezuelan elections. And whoever is behind it is a strong man of George Soros.

The Smartmatic group, which develops the computer programs used in the electronic ballot boxes of the elections of several American states and the Brazilian elections, has already been questioned in both the US and Brazilian courts. Other less well-known accusations are related to fraud in the Venezuelan electoral system. According to The Wall Street Journal Smartmatic’s machines and programs have secured power for tyrant Hugo Chavez by fraudulent counting of votes in the country.

But who is the man at the helm of the Smartmatic company?


The Lord [Senator in the United Kingdom] George Mark Malloch Brown is a typical globalist. In his résumé we see the following: he held the post of UN Secretary-General, his main written work is The Unfinished Global Revolution, a book in which he criticizes the inability of national governments to solve their problems and Defends the creation of a world power capable of solving all crises of the planet. But the best comes now.

Malloch Brown is president of the investment funds of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, that is, is nothing less than the man at the head of the fortune of the tycoon George Soros.

And why bring all this information to the fore in the midst of the American presidential election campaign? Because, As already denounced by the American candidate Donald Trump and several journalists around the world, George Soros is the main financier of the electoral campaign of the Clintons and of his Clinton Foundation.

Let’s go to the Smartmatic group page, the information is there.


Below, also taken from the site of Smartmatic, the relationship of the American states in which the company acts in the elections. We highlight in yellow those that are considered decisive states to elect the American president.


On the Clinton Foundation’s link with global billionaires like George Soros to watch the documentary Clinton Cash.


Before election here is what Mainstream News was reporting


Donald Trump’s baseless claims about the election being ‘rigged …

Aug 15, 2016

TrumpSays the U.S. election system is “rigged.” — Donald Trump …. “People are going to walk in and …


‘Vote Flipping’ Happens, But Doesn’t Mean Election Is Rigged | Time …

Oct 27, 2016

… Nevada have reported isolated problems with machines vote flipping. … voteflipping at the voting booths …

 Twitter chat:

Sweden’s Islamic Rape Epidemic: Almost Half of Victims are CHILDREN


Rapes are rampant in Sweden, following years of Muslim immigration. An alarmingly high percentage of the victims are children.

10News Update  7/8/17       

Rapes in Sweden has been soaring since the country started to take in large numbers of Muslim migrants and refugees. According to statistics, 92 percent of all severe rapes (violent rapes) are committed by migrants and refugees. 100 percent of all attack rapes (where victim and attacker had no previous contact) are committed by that same group.

The top-10 list of rapists’ national background shows only one non-Islamic country (Chile). Most rapists have Iraqi background, followed by refugees and migrants from Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Syria, Gambia, Iran, Palestine, Chile and Kosovo. Migrants and refugees from Afghanistan are 79 times more likely to commit rape than Swedes.

Also read: Danish Police: Merkel’s and Sweden’s Refugee Policy Endangers Neighbours

The same pattern is seen all over Western Europe, and in many places, it has an impact on demographics in public spaces. Just like in Islamic countries, many countries with a high number of Muslim migrants have fewer women than men on the streets.

A Swedish survey shows that over the past year 34 percent of Swedish women, out of fear of abuse, have chosen to take an alternative route or chose another means of transportation. 12 percent say they have stayed home from something they otherwise planned because they were afraid. And 23 percent find that their quality of life is affected by increased insecurity, up from 13 percent the year before.

48 percent of German women say that they are afraid of walking in certain areas in their own neighborhood. 44 percent of them believe that their personal security is threatened by immigration from “Islamic countries”.

Borwin Bandelow, Professor of Psychiatry at Göttingen University, claims that the women’s fears are “well-founded”.

Also read: “Allah will take revenge on you and will make it count”

New data from Sweden’s national bureau for statistics, BRÅ, shoes that 3,430 rapes were reported during the first six months of 2017, up 14 percent compared to the previous half-year. In all, 9,680 sexual crimes were committed from January to June. According to a BRÅ report from 2013, only 23 percent of sexual crimes in Sweden are reported, which means that the real number of sexual crimes committed over the past six months in Sweden amounts to around 42,000 incidents. With a female population of approximately 5 million, a woman’s risk of becoming a victim of sexual crime during a lifetime in Sweden is significantly high.

BRÅ’s report also shows, that not only women, but also children, should be aware of the increased danger of rape and other sexual crimes.

According to BRÅ, 43 percent of rape victims are children.

Due to the enormous amount of rapes in Sweden, music festivals are now planning gender separated events, just like in Islamic countries.

Denmark experiences similar problems with rampant rapes committed by Muslims. Since the country caved to EU and UN pressure in 2015 and started taking in asylum seekers from Islamic countries, rapes soared 163 percent in just one year.