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

Connect with us

Protester Interrupts Trump’s Speech – He Smirks, Turns To Crowd, Then Drops Bomb On Media

Published

on

Don’t you just love it when Trump is Trump?

The Daily Caller is reporting that at a rally in Florida, Trump smiled and stopped speaking while law enforcement officers escorted four people out of his event for Ron Desantis for causing a disturbance during the president’s speech.

As the people were being escorted out of the building the crowd grew loud. They shouted and booed, while law enforcement escorted four women towards the exit, as Trump did the famous “outta here” hand motion.

But what’s perhaps even better is what the president said after the crowd settled down, “Aw, that’s too bad. That’s too bad, That’s too bad! One person, one person and tomorrow the headlines will be ‘massive protest.’”

Trending: Federal Judge Releases Benghazi Evidence – Hillary Goes Into Complete Panic

The president was speaking at a rally in Tampa Bay, Florida on behalf of Republican Ron DeSantis, who is running to be the next governor of Florida. His primary opponent is Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. And it’s turned out to be quite the race.

Watch Trump’s classic reaction to the removal of the protesters.

Here is more on the Republican primary race for governor in Florida via The Tampa Bay Times:

“In any normal election year, Adam Putnam would be a shoo-in to be the next Florida governor.

The pride of Bartow has been courting and charming conservative activists across the state for years. He can fire up crowds big and small with red-meat partisan speeches; he’s sharp and deeply informed about Florida issues; and, most importantly, he is blowing away fundraising records.

His Republican rival, Ron DeSantis? Prospective supporters and congressional colleagues are at least as likely to describe him as smug as they are to describe him as charming. He can struggle to hold a big crowd’s attention when speaking. He is new to Florida issues, and his money raising has underwhelmed a lot of Republicans who expected more.

As of last week, DeSantis, 39, has raised $9.07 million, spent $874,000 and has $8.2 million in his campaign account and separate political committee. Putnam, 43, has raised $29.4 million since he started preparing to run for governor in 2015, spent $13.3 million and has $16.2 million on hand.

In state where it can cost more than $1.5 million a week to run TV ads and neither candidate is well known, having considerably more money can be crucial.

But this is the Donald Trump era, when career politicians are especially suspect. Putnam has never run a campaign at this level, and his central campaign theme — “Florida First” — is hollow. What candidate for Florida governor is not going to put Florida first?

Putnam was barely old enough to buy a beer when he had his last remotely tough campaign, becoming at 22 the youngest member ever elected to the Florida House. He escaped serious challengers in election after election as he moved from the state House, through 10 years in Congress, and eight years as agriculture commissioner.

All the while, Putnam relied mainly on the same stable of political advisers to guide his campaigns. Until recently, those advisers were largely steering his gubernatorial campaign, though he finally brought in a campaign manager two months ago (Brett Prater), and has replaced his longtime TV ad maker.

That hasn’t stopped self-inflicted wounds.

Dubbing himself a “proud NRA sellout” probably won’t hurt Putnam in the primary, but could in the general election, if he makes it that far. His campaign scheduling a fundraiser last month at the home of an Orlando supporter who had been all over the news years ago for shooting two pet huskies — and then dismissing it as nothing compared to DeSantis receiving financial support from a prominent Democratic donor — was downright moronic.

Still, Putnam is clearly outworking DeSantis on the campaign trail, holding meet and greets, and well-attended rallies. Drawing hundreds of people to events even in the most rural counties counts for something.

“Adam is the only candidate who has shared specific ideas and policies. He is running a Florida-based, grassroots-driven campaign. Our opponent is dialing-it-in from Washington and is running for his third job in three years,” said Ward Baker, a senior adviser on the Putnam campaign.

Thanks to DeSantis’ almost nightly appearances on Fox News — TV exposure to Republican voters worth millions of dollars — recent public and private polls have consistently shown the two-term congressman and agriculture commissioner tied or DeSantis slightly ahead.”

Although Putnam has a lot more money we can rest assured that whoever ends up winning the primaries will be better than anything the Democrats will have to offer.

But Donald Trump is an ace in the party now. Whoever he endorses ends up winning. Because he’s the first GOP president in my lifetime to actually keep his promises he has an approval rating of over 90% amongst Republicans and we can be pretty sure his approval amongst Democrats is also high but the media doesn’t want to tell us. After all, who doesn’t want an awesome economy as we are having now and the fact that America is once again “First” and foremost in the world? No more leading from behind!

 

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


Air Force Witness Of Extortion 17 Attack On SEALs Says We Were Lied To – Obama Has Hell To Pay

Published

on

...

* By

The families of some of the 17 SEAL Team 6 commandos who were killed in an ambush in Afghanistan during a helicopter flight to help Army Rangers pinned down by Taliban gunmen accused the Obama administration of deliberately endangering their loved ones for political ends.

Now a highly decorated, retired Air Force officer is coming forward, breaking her silence to speak out on what she witnessed in one of the deadliest attacks on Navy SEALs in U.S. history. Her testimony details how the government covered up evidence in the 2011 downing of a Chinook helicopter gunship that killed a total of 38 military personnel in Afghanistan and how the attack that took so many lives could have been prevented if it were not for the restrictions to the military’s rules of engagement instituted under the Obama administration.

On August 6, 2011, Air Force Capt. Joni Marquez was working along with her crew in the early morning hours before sunrise while aboard an AC-130 gunship when they were summoned to a mission in what she describes as “almost like a 9-1-1 type of a situation.”

The gunship received orders to fly close-in air support above Afghanistan’s dangerous Tangi Valley, in Wardak Province. They were to assist troops with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment who were under heavy fire by eight heavily armed Taliban insurgents. The Rangers had put in a call for assault helicopters to engage the enemy to draw them out of their hiding place in the rocky valley. They believed the insurgents were all killed after the air weapons team fired on the Taliban fighters. They were wrong.

Marquez states of the events that unfolded afterward – “I had the sensor operators immediately shift to the eight insurgents the helicopters had taken out. Two were still alive. We had seen two of them (insurgents) moving, crawling away from the area, as to not really make a whole lot of scene.”

She was the fire control officer aboard the AC-130 gunship and her job was to make sure the sensors and weapons aligned allowing the crew to hone in on targets for accuracy in firing. However, that night it did not matter because the gunship had not received permission to fire.

As she monitored the scene from above she detailed the scene to the ground force commander – “You have two enemy forces that are still alive. Permission to engage,” she asked. They were denied.

Marquez details in excruciating and painful detail how the ground commander’s refusal to grant her crew permission to engage the two enemy fighters sealed their fate. As a result, 38 people died in Extortion 17. She and her team could do little more than track the two enemy insurgents with the surveillance equipment. She and her team watched on helplessly as the two moved through an open field and made their way to a village for reinforcements.

Meanwhile, a CH-47 Chinook helicopter, with the call sign Extortion 17, was called into lengthy firefight.  Marquez explained – “If we would’ve been allowed to engage that night, we would’ve taken out those two men immediately. They continued to essentially gain more and more force behind them because they just kept knocking on doors and the two personnel that initially fled ended up becoming a group of 12 people.”

Instead, a Taliban fighter shot a grenade from a rocket launcher hitting the Chinook. It sent the helicopter in a downward spin where it eventually crashed and killed everyone on board. 38 people died including thirty Americans and eight Afghans. Of those 38 dead, 17 were Navy SEALs. The tragedy took some of the glow off SEAL Team 6’s grand achievement just three months earlier: A team penetrated Pakistan airspace, infiltrated a compound in Abbottabad and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden – long considered to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2011 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City.

Marquez believes that had her team been allowed to engage and return fire, those 38 deaths could have been prevented. Pleas and warnings from her crew to turn the Chinook back or cancel their mission went unheeded. She explained that by the time Extortion 17 came in confusion ruled the day, stating – “Whenever we reached out to the Joint Operations Center, they would essentially just push back with, ‘Find a, a good infill location. Find a good helicopter landing zone.’”

She explained that one of the hardest things she had to do in her entire military career was to be forced to simply watch from her infrared monitor as one of the SEALs was ejected from the burning Chinook helicopter and his heat signature faded from red to blue. She stated – “We had to sit and watch that, and I think that was one of the hardest things that I had to do. That man was, you know, dying on the ground.”

Marquez describes the pain of the aftermath of living with what happened and the toll it has taken. She is in active therapy as a result and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD. She tearfully explains – “If we would’ve been allowed to engage that night, we would’ve taken out those two men immediately. I mean, it’s just one of those things where you know that it could’ve all been prevented.”

Her retelling of the events as they unfolded that night is corroborated by a previously top-secret report compiled by the Defense Department inspector general.  The report includes interviews with many of Marquez’s colleagues on the gunship, including the commander.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who served as deputy undersecretary of defense for Intelligence and was a commander in the Army’s super-secret “Delta Force,” denounced politicized rules of engagement as a “deliberate plot” within the American armed forces that he says puts political correctness above the safety of the troops. He stated – “We’ve allowed politics to become more important than the lives and safety of those men and women.”

The rules of engagement on the battlefield were tightened by Gen. Stanley McCrystal under former President Obama’s leadership in 2009. The official reason cited was an “overreliance on firepower and force protection” with the idea that this would reduce civilian casualties and win the cooperation of locals. Except according to Marquez it didn’t. The rules regarding when to engage the enemy were continuously changing depending on who was in charge and those rules prevented her crew from effectively doing what was necessary.

Marquez stated – “Ridiculous rules of engagement that basically state that you can’t shoot until being shot upon.  A weapon has to be pointed, and essentially fired at you, in order for you to shoot and you have the proper clearance so that you don’t, you know, go to jail, that you’re charged with a war crime.”

Senior legal advocate for U.S. Special Forces Jeffery Addicott is considered an expert in rules of engagement with 20 years of experience describes Marquez’s story as one of the most tragic regarding U.S. troops under enemy fire. He explains that all these unrealistic rules do is tie the hands of military personnel and endanger lives.

Addicott states – “In Afghanistan, we had rules of engagement that became more restrictive the longer we stayed. Right now, the rules of engagement are absolutely bizarre. Law of war, if you do or you suspected that someone was an enemy combatant, they had a weapon, they were carrying it openly, you could kill them before they shot at you.”

He is now pushing for congressional oversight of the Department of Defense’s rules of engagement so as to prevent a repeat of this level of tragedy. He believes placating foreign governments at the expense of American lives became a death sentence some military personnel. Overly restrictive rules of engagement do nothing to help those fighting the war win. They are simply the work of bureaucrats enforced against military personnel under political pressure from host nations.

Examples of some of the unclassified rules of engagement for Afghanistan are as follows –

  • No night or surprise searches
  • Villagers warned prior to searches
  • U.S. units on searches
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first
  • Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany
  • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present
  • Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch them placing an IED, but not if they’re walking away from placing an IED.
  • Only engage an enemy fighter if you see a weapon, and they’ve fired first

Addicott states – “Under our current rules of engagement, you cannot shoot them until they shoot at you first. Now many people — of course people on the ground, the military soldiers — they know that this is a recipe for disaster and so, we basically have these rules that are made by the president.”

Marquez agrees with Addicott’s assessment and hopes her revelations of what actually occurred on the night Extortion 17 crashed will bring change that saves lives. She states – “I won’t rest until some kind of justice is served, in a manner of either, you know, the people that were responsible for that night, for making those calls, come forward and are honest about it. I know that’s kind of a lofty goal but, if that’s something that doesn’t happen, then obviously the ROE’s to change, for them to be realistic.”

Many family members of the fallen believe SEAL Team 6 had a target on its back and that persons inside the Afghan National Security Forces may have tipped off the Taliban about that fateful night in Tangi Valley. They wonder why a fighter just happened to be stationed in a turret within 150 yards of a landing zone that had never been used before. Yet the Defense Department special operations official continues to maintain there is no indication the mission was compromised by the Afghans.

Family members enlisted legal watchdog group, Freedom Watch led by attorney Larry Klayman in an effort to force new disclosures using the power of the FOIA process. Klayman speaks of how he has repeatedly been “stonewalled” by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the CIA and the National Security Agency.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon signed an order requiring documents be released on a continual basis through the spring and summer. The Justice Department said at least 50 documents in the Pentagon have been identified as relevant, but only one has been turned over. The DOJ unilaterally set a new deadline for the release and then ignored their own deadline. Klayman also stated DOJ attorneys will not take his phone calls. He states – “They don’t even produce under their own self-imposed deadline. We’re pleading with the judge to do something, and he’s just sitting on it.”

As has become abundantly clear during the last several years the U.S. government is spending a significant amount of time and resources covering up the truth on many things from the American people. Things like the current FISA abuses, spying, Benghazi, the NSA, and a vast number of other incidents. It seems that a FOIA request no longer accomplishes what it was set up to accomplish – there is no “freedom of information” any longer. The government purposely delays or conceals documents in an effort to give time to redact and to delete things they do not want the American public to become aware of.

One wonders if the end result will be the same with current fictional witchhunt into so-called Russian collusion. As Rep. Trey Gowdy said recently when questioning FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – “Whatever you got, finish it the hell up because this country is being torn apart”

Continue Reading

Nancy Pelosi Just Days From COMPLETE Defeat After Dems Suddenly Blindside Her

Published

on

...

* By

It is far from certain or a done deal that Nancy Pelosi will be the next Speaker of the House. 17 Democrats so far have come forward declaring they will not support Pelosi in the role. In fact, at least one Democrat told Fox News that this was going to get ugly. That is a certainty.

This is why Pelosi is groveling before the Rev. Al Sharpton. She wants the support of the Congressional Black Caucus among others. She may be a fund-raising juggernaut, but the 78-year-old Democrat appears frail and slurs her speech regularly. Many Democrats believe it is time to hand the reins over to younger leadership. Fox News has more on this brewing, bitter fight within the Democratic Party:

The revolt inside the Democratic Party against Nancy Pelosi’s return to the House speakership is gaining momentum with a growing number of Democrats signing a letter pledging not to support the California Democrat for speaker.

“It’s going to get ugly,” a senior House Democrat told Fox News.

Fox News has confirmed at least 17 House Democrats, including incumbents and incoming members, have signed on to a document saying they will not support Pelosi on the House floor for speaker. A Democrat familiar with the effort says they are trying to add more names before the letter is publicly released.

If all those Democrats vote against Pelosi on the floor, Pelosi would not have the votes for speaker. To get the gavel, Pelosi will first need to pick up a majority of the Democratic Caucus in internal leadership elections, then go on to win an absolute majority of the House.

“It’s who blinks first,” another senior House Democratic lawmaker said. “Is it Nancy or is it the caucus?”

Still, even as these Democrats try to convince Pelosi she doesn’t have enough support to win, no Democrat has stepped forward yet to challenge her.

But on Wednesday, Rep. Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Ohio, said she is contemplating running for speaker.

“People are asking me to do it, and I am thinking about it,” Fudge told a local news outlet. “I need to give it some thought and see if I have an interest. I am at the very beginning of this process. It is just in discussion at this point.”

During a Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday, Pelosi simply replied “yes” when asked if she would have the votes if the election were today. Asked about a potential challenge from Fudge, Pelosi replied, “Come on in. The water’s warm.”

Meanwhile, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton tweeted his support for Fudge.

“Congress needs a new leader. Period,” Moulton said. “I’m hoping Marcia Fudge, my first (and arguably best) mentor in Congress, will run for the next Speaker of the House. I have full faith in her ability to lead our new Congress to its fullest potential.”

Fox News is told the 17 Democrats who have signed the letter include Fudge, Moulton, and Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio, Kathleen Rice of New York, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Filemon Vela Jr. of Texas, Bill Foster of Illinois, Brian Higgins of New York, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Linda Sanchez of California, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Max Rose of New York, Anthony Brindisi of New York and Ben McAdams of Utah.

In recent days, allies of Pelosi have been working to stop a Democratic rebellion from taking place.

In a Monday letter to fellow Democrats, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings pressured Democrats to vote for Pelosi, saying, “I understand that some of our newly-elected members said during their campaigns they would oppose Leader Pelosi.”

Cummings said Democrats must unify behind the party’s choice.

“After we, as Democrats, make our selection, our new members should not be pressured into voting against our party’s nominee on the House floor in January — when the choice will be between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate,” Cummings wrote. “That will only play into the hands of House Republicans and President Trump.”

Democrats plan to meet behind closed doors to select their nominee for speaker later this month. But the official election for speaker takes place in January when the entire House of Representatives votes.

After arriving in Washington on Tuesday, several Democrats suggested it will be hard for them to support Pelosi for speaker.

Rep.-elect Kendra Horn, D-Okla., who unexpectedly defeated GOP Rep. Steve Russell in a seat which had been Republican for years, told Fox News she will vote for “what’s best for Oklahoma” and said supporting Pelosi would be “challenging” in her state.

Reps.-elect Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo., indicated they are undecided regarding who they will support.

Politico reported that Pelosi and her allies are arguing that it’s important for a woman to be elected speaker.

“I think it would look ridiculous if we win back the House … we have a pink wave with women who have brought back the House, then you’re going to not elect the leader who led the way? No,” Florida Rep. Lois Frankel told Politico. “That would be wrong.”

Republicans, certainly, see a Pelosi speakership as beneficial to them. President Trump last week said that Republicans would help Pelosi if she didn’t have enough support from Democrats. It is unclear whether the president was being sincere.

“If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor!” he tweeted.

Pelosi was speaker between 2007-11, but in 2016 she fended off a leadership challenge from Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. During a recent appearance on Fox News’ “Cavuto,” Ryan said, “I don’t think this is a done deal yet” in terms of Pelosi becoming speaker again. Ryan also says he “hopes somebody does” challenge Pelosi.

“We’re getting a lot of phone calls and a lot of us are talking, I think it’s important,” he said. “As I said, I don’t have any intention of doing this at this point.”

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