Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Benghazi Survivor Has Choice Words For Those Who Criticize Trump Over Khashoggi

Published

on

Liberals, MSM, & some Republicans have been criticizing Trump over how he’s handled the killing of a Saudi reporter who worked for the Washington Post.

Libs & MSM most likely have an ulterior motive as they want Trump to punish Saudi Arabia which could harm our relationship with the country, not to mention, their spending on U.S. defense items which equals a lot of jobs here.

Now a Benghazi survivor is stepping up to the plate for Trump & he has an epic message for his detractors.

Kris Paronto “was part of the CIA annex security team that responded to the terrorist attack on the US Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, September 11th, 2012, helping to save over 20 lives while fighting off terrorists from the CIA Annex for over 13 hours. Mr. Paronto’s story is told in the book “13 Hours” written by Mitchell Zuckoff and his five surviving annex security team members.”

Trending: Trump Gives Adam Schiff New Nickname And He Is Fuming

The Daily Caller reported:

“Benghazi survivor Kris “Tanto” Paronto had a few choice words for those who have been critical of President Donald Trump’s response to the death of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Turkey’s Saudi Arabian Embassy.

Addressing his tweet to the “leftist journalists & liberalists” who are angry about the Trump administration’s handling of the situation, Paronto asked, “Where in the hell were you when @BarackObama left 30+ AMERICANS to die in Benghazi Libya including an Ambassador?”

Saudi state media reported on Friday that Khashoggi had, in fact, been killed inside the embassy. So far, eighteen arrests have been made — and some of those arrested have close ties to the Saudi crown prince.

Turkish officials claim to have a recording of Khashoggi’s death, which they have said was essentially a hit, ordered by the crown prince himself and carried out by professionals.

Despite an early report that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had been granted access to the recording, the top diplomat has refuted that claim in a statement.

The investigation, currently being carried out by Saudi and Turkish officials, is still ongoing.”

USA Today reported about Paranto’s attitude toward Obama & Benghazi earlier:

“Former Army Ranger Kris Paronto said he wanted to reach through the screen and “choke” former President Barack Obama after the one-time commander in chief referred to “wild conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

Paronto, a then-CIA contractor who was part of the response to the attack, made the comment during a Fox News interview Sunday.

“It’s disgusting,” Paronto told Fox News host Pete Hegseth, adding that he thought it showed Obama to be a “narcissist” and “elitist.”

“It just raises the bile inside of me. I had a hard time just watching the speech itself,” he said.

“I just wanted to see what he had to say. And when that came across, I just wanted to reach through the screen and just grab him — grab him and choke him and say, ‘Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me that you’d have the gall to disgrace the memory of my teammates and what we did there that night by calling it conspiracy?’””

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


WHOA: Trump Admin Reveals BIGGEST Move Again Yet Again Acosta — ‘Permanently’

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

The drama between the Trump administration and CNN reporter Jim Acosta may not be done anytime soon as it is being reported the White House press staff are looking to have Acosta permanently banned.

The ban comes amid a legal feud between Acosta, CNN, and the White House.

Here’s how everything has gone down:

Acosta initially refused to hand over a microphone to a White House intern, resisting her attempt to retrieve it.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of putting his hand on the intern, called the incident unacceptable, and subsequently banned him.

They took his press credentials and suspended him from covering events at the White House.

CNN and Acosta sued the Trump administration over the incident, claiming Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the White House violated Acosta’s right to a due process as they pulled his media pass and denied Acosta an option to repeal his revocation.

The judge ordered the White House to immediately restore Acosta’s press credentials.

So…

The Trump administration is complying with the order and will reinstate Acosta, but they are making a move to have him permanently banned from the White House, the Daily Caller reports.

The White House sent a letter to Acosta notifying him that his pass granting him temporary access to the White House grounds would be suspended after a temporary restraining order runs its course. The letter is the latest in the fight between the White House and the CNN reporter who caused a fracas at a recent presidential press conference when he refused to give up the microphone.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an injunction Friday morning ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials, saying his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated. The judge was clear, however, that he made no ruling on whether the First Amendment right applies for any reporter to be at the White House.

According to the report, President Trump admitted he was not sure whether the administration would ultimately win the CNN lawsuit.

“We’ll see how the court rules,” the president said.

“Is it freedom of the press when somebody comes in and starts screaming questions and won’t sit down?” he added, speaking of Acosta.

Should the administration lose the lawsuit, Trump revealed his administration has a strategy.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump said the White House press team would implement new policies and rules for reporters such as turning off cameras.

“I think one of the things we’ll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don’t have any airtime, although I’ll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows,” Trump said, as the Daily Caller reports.

As the legal feud continues, the Trump administration announced they would be “temporarily” reinstating Acosta’s press pass and would be complying to the order, BUT they are giving him a 14-day pass and will resume their suspension once it expires.

The Hill reports CNN is already responding to the move by requesting an emergency court hearing:

CNN on Monday requested an emergency hearing in the U.S. District Court after the White House threatened to again pull the press credentials of the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

CNN said the letter amounts to an “attempt to provide retroactive due process,” calling for a hearing on a preliminary injunction during “the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible.”

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.


Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Democrat-Controlled House Just Changed Major 181-Year Rule For Muslims

Published

on

...

* By

181 years is a long time for a dress code to stay in place… even for Congress. Hats were forbidden in the House of Representatives, but no more. Of course, members are being told to use good judgment but given their track record, this should be interesting to watch. Now, men and women will be allowed to wear ‘hats’ in the chamber.

Change is not always good and this will probably wind up being a circus. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, is behind this move. She will be the first to wear an Islamic hijab in the chamber. Lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons – so there are some restrictions on this at least for now.

Chicks on the Right has the scoop on this story:

Ok…so I have a feeling some “traditionalists” are going to have an issue with this. CHANGE IS BAAD.

But honestly, after hearing from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I think (I hope) that Congresspeople will go about this with respect and their best judgment. (That’s… a high hope for Congress.)

So anyway, the U.S. House has changed a 181-year-old dress code rule against hats.

According to Daily Wire:

Back in 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives banned the wearing of hats in the chamber in a move to differentiate itself from the British Parliament.

But in 2018, the elected lawmakers have voted to rescind the rule. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, will be the first to wear a hijab in the chamber.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told the New York Post on Thursday. “I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

Under the revised rules, lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons.

I’m not a fan of Ilhan Omar’s, but I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I’m not the kind of hypocrite who supports the rights of Christians not to have their religion infringed upon, and will not do the same for others. It’s Omar’s constitutionally-protected RIGHT to wear her hijab. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She should not have to choose between upholding her religious dress code and that of her congressional position. The END.

And that’s not all. The new rule allows for head covering for religious AND medical reasons. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman made a compelling point.

The New Jersey Democrat had a tumor successfully removed and has undergone chemotherapy since September to ensure she’s cancer-free.

The treatment caused her hair to fall out. She wears a hat outside, but when she votes on the House floor she takes it off.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Watson Coleman told The Post. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

So sure… I’m as traditional as the next guy. But I ABSOLUTELY think the “no-hat” rule can be bent for religious and medical reasons.

I’m SURE some of you will disagree with me on this one.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend