Donald Trump issued an executive order banning travel into the United States for residents from seven Muslim countries. It didn’t take long for liberals to lose their minds over the order; they began to protest in airports around the world, and federal judges moved to overturn the executive order. Then Starbucks got involved — and it backfired on them massively.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz responded to Trump’s executive order by announcing that they would hire 10,000 refugees. Trump supporters immediately mobilized, organizing a boycott of Starbucks. Within hours, #BoycottStarbucks was trending on social media, and other rival coffee companies were moving to take advantage of Starbucks’ misstep.
One Trump supporter took a video in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the video, you can see a very long line for Caribou Coffee… while Starbucks sits empty across the street.
Apparently, people would rather wait in line than give their money to a liberal, anti-American company like Starbucks. And it shows — Starbucks stock has plummeted since their refugee announcement:
It may make liberals feel good to offer jobs to refugees, but Americans overwhelmingly agree with Trump’s executive order in poll after poll. Starbucks really made a big mistake here, and they’re paying for it right where it hurts: in the wallet.
Jeff was the national rally organizer to free Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi from the Mexican prison, chairman emeritus of Ross Perot's Reform Party of California, and a former candidate for governor. Jeff is editor-in-chief at Freedom Daily. He wrote for former Hollywood talent agent & Breitbart contributor, Pat Dollard, and headed up his 30 person research team. Mr. Rainforth also wrote for the Wayne Dupree Show. Jeff is single & says he is not gay.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.
Since Donald Trump was elected president last November, the political establishment has been in a constant of panic.
Trump’s presidency is a harsh referendum to the shady politicians that have been in power for a better part of the last 50 years. For years, the American people have grown to distrust their government after numerous scandals have been pushed to the side to protect the deep state.
During Trump’s campaign, he promised the American people that he would be working for our best interests and that he would drain the swamp of corrupt individuals in Washington D.C.
Now, the C.I.A., a government entity in the United States that is notoriously shrouded in secrecy is panicking after Trump threatens to reveal one carefully guarded secret that could topple the establishment for good.
There are many excellent reasons why the American people distrust the American government, and for a good cause.
For years, the American people have been used as pawns to further the globalist agenda of a socialist state and to witness dozens of corrupt politicians walking free never answering for crimes they have committed. Though there has been one particular crime that was committed on American soil that has fascinated millions of Americans for decades.
When beloved president John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, many people did not buy the official story of a lone gunman being responsible for the horrendous tragedy. Of course, there was an investigation into the John F. Kennedy’s assassination but, many Americans felt it left more questions than answers. After the investigation concluded, the documents about the murder were locked up and never to be seen by the American people for over 50 years.
Now, after decades, President Trump has announced that he will be allowing the release of all remaining classified documents, which are 3,000 in total, and all related to the JFK assassination to the public. And, of course, the CIA is in a state of panic and doing their best to thwart the release of these documents to the people.
Infowars interviewed Roger Stone, and he stated that a reliable source close to him said that the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA director Mike Pompeo was lobbying hard for Trump not to release the documents to the public. However, this is where it gets interesting, and when you are dealing with the government, it always does. Many government officials claim that the documents on the JFK assassination will not reveal anything new, but then why are they fighting so hard to keep them a secret?
According to Stone, he believes that it will paint the CIA in an unfavorable light by proving that Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the CIA to pull off the crime of the century.
President Donald Trump said Saturday he intends to allow the release of classified government documents about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy “subject to the receipt of further information.”
Trump’s tweet comes as he is staring down an October 26 deadline set in law by Congress mandating the public release of the still-secret documents — including FBI and CIA files — barring any action by the President to block the release of certain documents.
“Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened,” Trump said, appearing to leave open the possibility that some documents could still be withheld.
The White House said in a statement to Politico earlier this week that the White House was working “to ensure that the maximum amount of data can be released to the public” by next week’s deadline.
Trump himself is no stranger to the controversies and conspiracy theories that have long swirled around the assassination of the 35th president.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump made the unfounded claim that the father of GOP rival Sen. Ted Cruz was associated with Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, a claim he has never reneged nor apologized for.
Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone, who helped launch Trump’s campaign for president, is also an avid conspiracy theorist who wrote a book about the wild claim that President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s vice president, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination.
Republican members of Congress, including Senate judiciary committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, have urged Trump to allow the full release of the documents.
“No reason 2 keep hidden anymore,” Grassley tweeted earlier this month. “Time 2 let American ppl + historians draw own conclusions.”
Historians who have studied the assassination do not believe the documents will lead to any bombshell new conclusions in the Kennedy assassination, but the documents could shed more light on facets of the investigation and Oswald’s mysterious trip to Mexico City weeks before the assassination. Some have expressed concerns that the documents could be embarrassing to Mexico and damaging to US-Mexico relations.
What those documents will reveal is anyone’s guess, but it cannot be good considering how hard government agencies are working to downplay this massive release. Will we finally have the answers we have all been looking for, or will it be so heavily redacted that it will lead to more questions than answers?
Either way, this is a HUGE development and the deep state is obviously nervous which can only mean they are hiding something.
It’s so hard to fathom the fact that an institution that used to embody all that is all America and Americans is now on a mission to commit collective suicide, but that’s what they are clearly trying to do.It’s now being reported that the NFL and it’s overpaid ball tossing employees had a secret meeting this past Tuesday to discuss the issues involving the national anthem protests. Apparently, from the information we have gathered, everyone at that meeting was ok with the fact that players kneeling is now the norm. Everyone except Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones that is.
In fact, reports have stated that Jones was downright very vocal in his opposition to the Anthem protests.
Jones made it very clear during the meeting that he believes the language in the league’s game-day manual should be changed to stipulate punishments for any player who does not comply with standing for the playing of the national anthem. However, Jones did not stipulate that he wanted the matter brought up for debate and there was no discussion whatsoever of actually altering any NFL policies.
No other owners supported Jones’s stance during the meeting, and most of the time was spent discussing how to move “from protest to progress,” rather than focusing on the protests themselves. Unbelievable!
But what is even more baffling is the fact that Jones didn’t bother to raise any concerns about the league’s ongoing efforts to support players in their communities since all owners seem supportive of the ongoing dialogue between the NFL and NFLPA on matters of social awareness, injustice, and racism. Do they even see the humor in the fact that a bunch of overpaid millionaires are discussing these topics?
Fatherless Families Are No. 1 Problem in America, Not Racism
Talk-show host, attorney, and best-selling author Larry Elder said the breakdown of the family — fatherless families — is the number one problem in America, not racism or discrimination or bad cops. He added that when it comes to murder, nearly half of the homicides each year are black-on-black killings.
Commenting on The Rubin Report, Larry Elder said there is a liberal agenda at work and “the goal is to tell black people that we’re victims, that discrimination, racism remain major problems in America when, in fact, they don’t. And they want black people to vote for the Democratic Party.”
“The Democratic Party gets 95% of the black vote, and the reason they get it is blacks are convinced that the number one issue facing the country is social justice, racist white cops, discrimination, systemic racism, micro-aggression – whatever new word they come up with – and it’s a bunch of nonsense,” he said.
“The number one problem domestically facing this country is the breakdown of the family,” said Elder. “And President Obama said it, I didn’t. A kid raised without a dad is five times more likely to be poor and commit crimes; nine times more likely to drop out of school; and 20 times more likely to end up in jail.”
“So, you’re far more likely to end up in jail without having a dad, than you are because of a white racist cop,” said Elder.
When host Dave Rubin brought up the issue of “systemic” discrimination against blacks, Elder repeatedly asked him to provide a specific example. “Give me the most blatant racist example you can come up with right now,” he said.
Rubin then said, “I think you could probably find evidence that, in general, cops are more willing to shoot if the perpetrator is black than white.”
Elder said, “What’s your data, what’s your basis for saying that? I’m talking about what the facts are. Nine hundred sixty-five people were shot by cops last year and killed. Four percent of them were white cops shooting unarmed blacks. In Chicago, in 2011, 21 people were shot and killed by cops. In 2015, there were seven.”
“In Chicago, which is a third black, a third white, a third Hispanic, 70% of the homicides are black on black – about 40 per month, almost 50 per year – last year in Chicago and 75% of them are unsolved,” he said. “Where is Black Lives Matter on that?”
“The idea that a racist white cop shooting unarmed black people is a peril to black people is BS,” said Elder. “It’s complete and total BS. And the reason for these so-called activists saying this is the assumption that racism remains a major problem in America, and the media, CNN and especially MSNBC, runs down whenever a black cop shoots somebody, and it’s [then] some march in Washington. It’s ridiculous.”
“Half the homicides in this country are committed by and against black people,” said Elder. “Last year there were 14,000 homicides – not talking about suicides, I’m talking about homicides — half of them were black [and] 96% of them were black on black of that 7,000. Where’s the Black Lives Matter on that?”
Do these efforts the NFL and players are trying to forward include getting young black men to stop killing each other? Do these efforts include getting young black men to stick around when they father a child?
Please share if you will continue to boycott the NFL….
Today, authorities have identified the Muslim woman who was forcibly removed from a Southwest Airlines plane in Baltimore on Tuesday as “Anila Daulatzai.” A professor at Harvard none the less!
Once this “religion of peace” disciple got on the plane and saw there were two small dogs on board, she told the flight crew that she had a life-threatening allergy to dogs. Yeah, right “Allergies.” But she conveniently had no documentation to prove her medical condition. So she was then asked to leave the plane.
At that point, Daulatzai refused, so the flight’s captain called Maryland Transportation Authority Police, and its officers came on board to forcibly remove her.
Reports later said the dogs on the flight included one small pet and one service animal. If you have a life-threatening allergy to those dogs why would you refuse to vacate the place?
Sadly, Southwest Airlines apologized for police having to drag Daulatzai off the flight at Baltimore Washington International Airport that was headed to Los Angeles. She was still rightly charged with disorderly conduct and released on her own recognizance after appearing in court.
“The Los Angeles Times reported that Anila Daulatzai “was taken into custody and charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest.” She is from Baltimore, the newspaper reported. According to the Los Angeles Times, the airline’s spokesman contends that Daulatzai “demanded an EpiPen and was uncooperative,” adding, “We do not have or administer shots.”
According to the Harvard website, “Currently Anila Daulatzai is teaching a graduate-level seminar course titled ‘Talibanization’ and its other. This course does not focus on the history of the Taliban movement (or movements described as ‘Taliban-like’), but more importantly on the performative nature of the term ‘Talibanization’. The course explores what deploying the term enables, particularly in the highly militarized contexts of the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
The site adds, “In particular, the course explores how formations of liberalism, feminism, and secularism give life to a term like ‘Talibanization’, and the violence that is enabled and justified by its deployment.””
The Gatestone Institute Reports:
Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe
A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.
Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are “unclean” animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.
This latest canine controversy — which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage — follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.
The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.
According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.
According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is “founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support.”
Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: “In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country.”
Dutch political commentators believe Küçük’s declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims — who now make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000 — view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük’s call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.
The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.
In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida — a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city’s total population — asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not “offend Muslims.”
Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.
After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced a wave of dog poisonings. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 (local media reports here, here, here, here and here) in Lérida’s working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.
Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.
In Britain, which has become “ground zero” for Europe’s canine controversies, blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their “unclean” guide dogs.
In Reading, for example, one pensioner, a cancer sufferer, was repeatedly confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog. He also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.
In Nottingham, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry a blind man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. The taxi driver was later fined £300 ($470).
In Stafford, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry an elderly blind couple from a grocery store because they were accompanied by their seeing-eye dog.
In Tunbridge Wells, Kent, a blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.
In London, a bus driver prevented a woman from boarding a bus with her dog because there was a Muslim lady on the bus who “might be upset by the dog.” As the woman attempted to complain, the doors closed and the bus drove away. When a second bus arrived, she again tried to embark, but was stopped again, this time because the driver said he was Muslim.
Also in Britain, police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers, following complaints that it was offensive to their religion.
A report for the Transport Department advised that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable.” British Transport Police still use sniffer dogs — which are trained to detect explosives — with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers are now more aware of “cultural sensitivities.”
Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are now being fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they do not cause offense.
Critics say the complaints are just another example of Muslims trying to force their rules and morals on British society. Tory MP Philip Davies said: “As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally.”
Meanwhile, Muslim prisoners in Britain are being given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells.
The inmates say their bedclothes and prison uniforms must be changed according to Islamic law if they have come anywhere near dog saliva. Government rules mean prison wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims.
The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Islamic holy book the Koran and other religious items. Prisoners are handed special bags to protect the articles.
In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to the city’s 3,000-strong Muslim community.
In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.
In France, Marie Laforêt, one of the country’s most well-known singers and actresses, appeared in a Paris courtroom in December to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.
The 72-year-old Laforêt had placed an ad on an Internet website looking for someone to do some work on her terrace in 2009. She specified in the ad that “people with allergies or orthodox Muslims” should not apply “due to a small Chihuahua.”
Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.
The case was taken up by an anti-discrimination group called the Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), which lodged a complaint against Laforêt.
Laforêt’s lawyer said his client “knew that the presence of a dog could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect.” But Muslims rejected her defense.
Allergies my hind end! And who are these professors who are indoctrinating our young?
This woman is once again doing what Muslims do best. They come to our freedom loving nation, take advantage of the naiveness we show towards them, and impose their satanic values on the rest of us. The people on that plane needed to be removed from the flight because little miss Islam follows a religion that states that dogs are dirty but goats are ok.
It’s not illegal to bring a small dog with you on a plane, especially if it’s a service dog. After all, dogs have never hijacked or flown any of our planes into our buildings.
Please share if you agree Southwest was correct to have this woman removed from the plane!