Senator Kid Rock? Don’t Laugh….

As you’re reading this, odds are a Democratic operative in Michigan or Washington, D.C., is listening to Kid Rock’s gravelly voice—rapping, shrieking or crowing, depending on the song—and meticulously cataloguing every single offensive syllable. The renegade musician and prospective candidate for U.S. Senate is an opposition-researcher’s dream come true: For more than two decades, Robert Ritchie—or Bobby, as he asks people to call him—has written and performed provocative records about, among other things, extravagant drug use, excessive drinking and sexual exploits with prostitutes, strippers and Hollywood starlets. These lyrics are far from hollow. Kid Rock’s hard-partying image is central to his popularity and has been exhaustively documented in media accounts over the years. Political opponents will be digging through more than just his albums, too: There’s the sex tape he starred in, the arrest following a Waffle House brawl, the no-contest plea to charges he assaulted a deejay at a Nashville strip club, the messy divorce from Pamela Anderson. If that weren’t enough, he has offered other forms of ammunition to potential foes in interviews over the years, such as when he told Rolling Stone of his distaste for Beyoncé (“I like skinny white chicks with big tits”) and gave the New Yorker his stance on same-sex marriage (“I don’t give a fuck if gay people get married. I don’t love anybody who acts like a fuckin’ faggot”).

Because of his manifest rebelliousness—the offensive language, the sex, drugs and rock n’ roll lifestyle, the middle finger to polite company—Kid Rock’s tweet last week announcing that he is considering a campaign for U.S. Senate in Michigan was met with predictable contempt from the political class. How dare the foul-mouthed, long-haired, wifebeater-wearing, Jim Beam-swigging, self-described redneck suggest he belongs in the world’s greatest deliberative body? Moreover, critics had immediate cause to call his bluff: The website he tweeted out, www.kidrockforsenate.com, links to a merchandise store hosted by Warner Bros. Records, and Ritchie, who’s gearing up for a fall tour, also just happened to release two new singles from his forthcoming album. Consensus formed at warp speed in the Acela corridor that it’s a money-making publicity stunt; that Kid Rock for Senate should not be taken seriously.

A Complete History Of John McCain Calling For War Around The World

JIM CAREY–Earlier this week notorious war hawk US Senator John McCain (R-Az) was diagnosed with brain cancer. While the liberal and conservative establishments are sending their regards, Geopolitics Alert instead compiled a list of reasons why we don’t care about McCain.

The list is of course a history of all the instances McCain has called for US-led intervention around the world. There’s obviously a long history here, so Geopolitics Alert has compiled the largest examples from Europe to Asia. We’ll start with the obvious wars first.

Afghanistan and Iraq

Obviously every US senator (besides California’s Barbara Lee) voted to give president George W. Bush the power to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11th. However, McCain wasn’t happy with just moving to invade Afghanistan. No, he had other targets on his mind as early as the day after the towers fell.

Despite McCain’s claim in 2014 that “the Iraq war probably wouldn’t have happened” if he had won the 2000 Republican primary and then general election, this assertion seems ridiculous. On September 12th 2001, McCain appeared on MSNBC presenting a long list of countries he felt were providing a “safe harbor” to groups like al Qaeda. This list of course included Iraq and several other countries that appear later on this list.

Syria

Another country on that 2001 list (of course) was Syria. Now, the Bush regime may have never gotten a chance to continue toppling Mideast countries (thanks to the failure in Iraq and the exposure of that war being sold on lies). But McCain seemingly never lost sight of his hatred for Bashar Al-Assad.

Shortly after the Arab Spring “broke out” in Syria, McCain – and his constant partner in war crimes Sen. Lindsey Graham – quickly found communication channels with the “Syrian opposition.” Just a few short months after the US endorsed protests in Syria (even having their ambassador attend), McCain and Graham began calling for arms to start flowing to the Free Syrian Army and other “rebel” groups.

Libya

McCain’s plans for Syria never quite worked the way he wanted but he probably should’ve know they would never yield a positive result. If McCain didn’t want to look at Iraq to prove that point, he had another more recent example he could’ve used: the NATO intervention in Libya.

It was less than a year before McCain wanted to arm Syrian takfiris that he had supported with the bombing and no fly zones in Libya. McCain even wanted tougher actions against the country. Which has now become an anarchic Wild West that’s home to all sorts of horrors from the Islamic State to a new slave trade.

West and Central Africa

McCain is also a champion of the “war on terror” in other parts of Africa. While McCain hasn’t directly supported terrorists in some countries in Africa, he still has called for more US intervention across the continent.

This list includes countries dealing with Islamic insurgencies, such as Mali. McCain has also called for plans like “deploying Special Forces” to rescue girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria and intervention in Sudan, where McCain and his wife have invested money for some time. 

Iran

Another country on the list of hated nations originally put forth by Bush undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, and also another long time target of McCain, is of course Iran.

Although McCain has always said “he prays” there will never be at war with Iran, the man constantly calls for it and even jokes about bombing the country when he feels the mood is right. The truth of the matter is, McCain’s positions towards Iran are so hostile that even flagship neoconservative institutions like the Cato Institute think he is too hawkish.

Bosnia and Kosovo

But McCain isn’t satisfied with just backing salafi jihadists in the traditional Middle East and North African theaters. He’s also backed violent radicals across the fringes of Europe. This trend really started in the mid 1990’s when McCain was a vocal supporter of then president Bill Clinton’s war in Bosnia.

Many of the Muslims traveling to Bosnia joining the mujahideen there have joined groups like IS in recent years. And IS flags can occasionally be seen in the Sunni areas of Bosnia now. McCain was still backing potential takfiri movements, recently accusing Russia of interfering in local affairs, and calling for more US intervention in the country.

McCain made similar decisions when he advocated US intervention in Kosovo in the late 90’s. In the Kosovo conflict, McCain backed the Kosovo Liberation Army: a genocidal jihadist organization with ties to Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden.

Ukraine

Don’t be fooled into thinking that McCain only supports jihadists in Eastern Europe though! He also backs the overt Nazis acting as death squads for Kiev in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.

This of course started in 2014, but McCain has continued to pledge support for Kiev’s crimes in the Donbass region to this day. This is all par for the course in McCain’s larger theme of challenging Russia– the country he believes controls the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Afghanistan and Iraq

Obviously every US senator (besides California’s Barbara Lee) voted to give president George W. Bush the power to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11th. However, McCain wasn’t happy with just moving to invade Afghanistan. No, he had other targets on his mind as early as the day after the towers fell.

Despite McCain’s claim in 2014 that “the Iraq war probably wouldn’t have happened” if he had won the 2000 Republican primary and then general election, this assertion seems ridiculous. On September 12th 2001, McCain appeared on MSNBC presenting a long list of countries he felt were providing a “safe harbor” to groups like al Qaeda. This list of course included Iraq and several other countries that appear later on this list.

Syria

Another country on that 2001 list (of course) was Syria. Now, the Bush regime may have never gotten a chance to continue toppling Mideast countries (thanks to the failure in Iraq and the exposure of that war being sold on lies). But McCain seemingly never lost sight of his hatred for Bashar Al-Assad.

Shortly after the Arab Spring “broke out” in Syria, McCain – and his constant partner in war crimes Sen. Lindsey Graham – quickly found communication channels with the “Syrian opposition.” Just a few short months after the US endorsed protests in Syria (even having their ambassador attend), McCain and Graham began calling for arms to start flowing to the Free Syrian Army and other “rebel” groups.

Libya

McCain’s plans for Syria never quite worked the way he wanted but he probably should’ve know they would never yield a positive result. If McCain didn’t want to look at Iraq to prove that point, he had another more recent example he could’ve used: the NATO intervention in Libya.

It was less than a year before McCain wanted to arm Syrian takfiris that he had supported with the bombing and no fly zones in Libya. McCain even wanted tougher actions against the country. Which has now become an anarchic Wild West that’s home to all sorts of horrors from the Islamic State to a new slave trade.

West and Central Africa

McCain is also a champion of the “war on terror” in other parts of Africa. While McCain hasn’t directly supported terrorists in some countries in Africa, he still has called for more US intervention across the continent.

This list includes countries dealing with Islamic insurgencies, such as Mali. McCain has also called for plans like “deploying Special Forces” to rescue girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria and intervention in Sudan, where McCain and his wife have invested money for some time. 

Iran

Another country on the list of hated nations originally put forth by Bush undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, and also another long time target of McCain, is of course Iran.

Although McCain has always said “he prays” there will never be at war with Iran, the man constantly calls for it and even jokes about bombing the country when he feels the mood is right. The truth of the matter is, McCain’s positions towards Iran are so hostile that even flagship neoconservative institutions like the Cato Institute think he is too hawkish.

Bosnia and Kosovo

But McCain isn’t satisfied with just backing salafi jihadists in the traditional Middle East and North African theaters. He’s also backed violent radicals across the fringes of Europe. This trend really started in the mid 1990’s when McCain was a vocal supporter of then president Bill Clinton’s war in Bosnia.

Many of the Muslims traveling to Bosnia joining the mujahideen there have joined groups like IS in recent years. And IS flags can occasionally be seen in the Sunni areas of Bosnia now. McCain was still backing potential takfiri movements, recently accusing Russia of interfering in local affairs, and calling for more US intervention in the country.

McCain made similar decisions when he advocated US intervention in Kosovo in the late 90’s. In the Kosovo conflict, McCain backed the Kosovo Liberation Army: a genocidal jihadist organization with ties to Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden.

Ukraine

Don’t be fooled into thinking that McCain only supports jihadists in Eastern Europe though! He also backs the overt Nazis acting as death squads for Kiev in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.

This of course started in 2014, but McCain has continued to pledge support for Kiev’s crimes in the Donbass region to this day. This is all par for the course in McCain’s larger theme of challenging Russia– the country he believes controls the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

P/C GAGE SKIDMORE

Mueller expands his probe into Trump business dealings after president warned him to stick to Russia only

JD HEYES–It’s no secret that President Donald J. Trump is sick and tired of the ongoing “Russia” investigations – by Congress, by the Justice Department, and by the DoJ-appointed “special counsel” Robert Mueller.

In an interview with The New York Times this week, Trump made his irritation plain when he told editors and reporters that if he had known ahead of time that early campaign ally Jeff Sessions would, as one of his first official acts, recuse himself from all matters related to t Åhe Russia investigations, the president would never have nominated him.

“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he told The Times. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.” [RELATED: Trump critical of Sessions over AG’s recusal from Russia probes; ‘very unfair to the president’]

In the same interview, Trump was asked whether he would ever fire Mueller, and if so, under what circumstances. This is where it is now getting interesting. The Times reported:

Mr. Trump said Mr. Mueller was running an office rife with conflicts of interest and warned investigators against delving into matters too far afield from Russia. Mr. Trump never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, nor would he outline circumstances under which he might do so. But he left open the possibility as he expressed deep grievance over an investigation that has taken a political toll in the six months since he took office. [Emphasis added]

When he was asked if Mueller’s investigation would go a step too far if it began examining Trump family finances beyond any relationship to Russia, the president was much more specific.

“I would say yes,” Trump responded, though he did not clarify what he might do about it. “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”

Well, that red line may have just been crossed.

Bloomberg News reported Thursday that Mueller has, in fact, expanded his investigation into just that aspect of Trump’s personal life:

The U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia in last year’s election is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe.

This comes on the heels of the president, less than a day earlier, telling The Times that such a probe would be out of bounds. Are we about to see a showdown between a president clearly fed up with the Russia nothing burgers and the Deep State’s operatives – Mueller being one of them?

By all rights the president, as head of the Executive Branch and all its various agencies – which includes the Justice Department, whom Mueller works for – has the authority to fire the special counsel, for any reason or for no reason. But if he does that, the political fallout would be immense.

Democrats and not a few Republicans, all of whom have repeatedly touted Mueller’s reputation and supposed independence, would scream “obstruction of justice” from every corner of the nation’s capital. Pretty much all mainstream media outlets would use the firing to once and for all “prove” the Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative they’ve been pushing for months. It may be that Trump could not survive politically.

To Trump’s legion of political enemies, on the surface, there is a Trump business empire connection to Russia: financing deals, buildings and the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, which Trump used to own. To his critics, those ties alone are “proof” of “collusion.”

So, less than a day after the president warns Mueller to stick to his real mandate – investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election – word breaks that he’s already begun looking into Trump corporate financial dealings with Russian entities.

And now a showdown is brewing, which leads to this question: Was this all a setup from the beginning?

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Trump presidency “failing?” Actually, president is doing exactly what he promised: making America great again

JD HEYES–If all you read or listen to is the disgustingly dishonest Washington establishment media, on any given day throughout his first six months on the job, President Donald J. Trump was teetering on the edge of failure, just a tweet or a comment or a misstep away from losing it all, taking the country down with him.

But a spate of stories on Friday proved not only are such allegations false, quite the opposite is taking place: The president and his administration are delivering big time on the promises Trump made during his campaign last year, and already the country is responding in ways that the Trump-hating “mainstream” media is never going to tell you.

Here are just a few examples:

— According to Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, the president and his various Cabinet officials have removed or withdrawn something like 860 Obama-era regulations, which is part of the president’s overall strategy to roll back as many federal rules as possible, Breitbart News reports.

In a presser with the media, Mulvaney was updating reporters on the president’s early executive order instructing federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new rule implemented. In reality, said the OMB director, the administration’s ratio is more like 16-to-1 rather than 2-to-1.

During a presser on Thursday, Mulvaney said the “next iteration” of Reaganomics — President Ronald Reagan’s economic policies that led to massive growth of jobs, GDP and opportunities — was going to be “MAGAnomics,” which he defined as “a unifying theme of just about everything we do.” He believes it is vital to see 3 percent annual growth in the country once again, to deliver on the president’s promise of better and more plentiful job opportunities.

Talking about the “slow accretion, that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people,” the OMB director noted that, during the “last six months here, the Obama administration put on over six billion dollars in new regulatory burden,” adding, “We had zero.”

The policies of MAGAnomics already seem to be paying dividends.

Breitbart News also noted, citing statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, that participation in the food stamp program has nosedived, falling to its lowest level in seven years.

The site noted further that USDA statistics for the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation showed that 42,609,852 people in the U.S. took part in the food stamp program in fiscal year (FY) 2017, the lowest level it has been since 2010 when 40,302,000 people enrolled in the program.”

Participation in the program has been falling since 2014 — but only after Obama was forced to placate Republicans who sought some cuts to the program in the 2014 farm bill, followed by state efforts to also trim dependency on the program. Some states, like Maine, reimplemented a work requirement for residents to receive food assistance. Georgia followed, along with a number of other states.

— A number of industries are all showing steady growth, including mining, construction, and manufacturing, CNS News reported.

Mining expanded a whopping 21.6 percent during the first quarter, after only increasing 5.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016. “The first quarter growth primarily reflected increases in oil and gas extraction, as well as support activities for mining,” the Bureau of Economic Analysis noted.

This is substantial because that kind of growth should continue. Trump has made it a point to revitalize the mining industry, particularly coal mining, by extracting the U.S. from burdensome “climate change” agreements like the expensive Paris Accords and rolling back regulations aimed at curbing mining growth. Indeed, the first new coal mine in the Trump era opened in mid-June in Pennsylvania.

But other industries are also growing — industries that produce good-paying jobs and, in and of themselves, indicate a broader economic renaissance, like construction. (Related: Making The VA Great Again: Trump Administration Has Fired More Than 500 Veterans Administration Workers Since January.)

This is just the beginning. Trump has only been in office six months. If his administration continues to fulfill his promises of expanding opportunity by essentially getting the federal government out of our way, there is no telling how much the economy will grow.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

We Need To Pass ‘Stand Your Ground’ In Every State, Abolish The BATFE, And Repeal The Major Federal Gun Laws

MICHAEL SNYDER–Throughout history, dictators and tyrants have always wanted to take guns away from the people. Hitler confiscated guns once he took power in Germany, Stalin confiscated guns in Soviet Russia, and Mao confiscated guns when the communists took power in China. An armed population is one of the cornerstones of a free society, and our founders understood this very well. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t seem to understand the Second Amendment in our day and time. The following is what the Second Amendment actually says…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The phrase “shall not be infringed” was intended to leave no room for confusion.

Unfortunately, all sorts of restrictions have been put on our absolute right to keep and bear arms over time, and we need to fight to fully restore our rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

A lot of politicians say that they are “pro-gun”, but most of them will only go so far. To me, being “pro-gun” means that you should be fighting to fully restore our Second Amendment rights. In particular, the following are three areas where many “pro-gun” politicians are often quite weak…

#1 We Need Stand Your Ground Laws In All 50 States

If you are not familiar with “stand your ground” laws, the following is how Wikipedia defines them…

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called “line in the sand” or “no duty to retreat” law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can “stand their ground” and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death. One case describes “the ‘stand your ground’ law… a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder.”[1]

Today, 28 states have adopted “stand your ground” laws formally, and a few others have adopted “stand your ground” in practice. But even where such laws have been passed formally, they are often way too weak.

We need very strong “stand your ground” laws in all 50 states, and we need to keep fighting for this until we get it done.

#2 We Need To Abolish The BATFE

The BATFE has been used as a political weapon for decades, and there have been many instances where the authority that it has been given has been greatly abused. The following example comes from Breitbart

A recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) violated restrictions to compile information on U.S. gun owners.

According to the report, the ATF “has 25 firearms-related data systems, 16 of which contain retail firearms purchaser information from a federal firearms licensee (FFL)—such as firearms importers and retailers.” Sixteen of these systems contain “retail firearms purchaser information,” as it pertains to guns purchased from a federal firearms license holder (FFL).

Many have suggested reforming the BATFE, but I believe that the best approach would be to abolish it altogether. If we fully restored Second Amendment rights in this country there would be very little for this agency to do anyway, and any essential functions could easily be taken over by other federal law enforcement institutions.

#3 We Need To Repeal The Major Federal Gun Laws

We have lived with some of these laws for so long that most people just assume that they are constitutional. There are so many federal laws that need to be repealed, but I think that a good place to start would be with these four major ones

If I end up in Washington, I plan to work very closely with the Gun Owners Of America, the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance and other pro-gun groups to draft legislation which will fully restore our Second Amendment rights.

If you believe in what we are trying to do, I hope that you will support us. Whenever the left takes power, they unashamedly try to advance their anti-gun agenda. But when the right takes power, they seem to think that the status quo is okay.

The status quo is not okay, and now is the time to fight harder than ever for the rights that are guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment.

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Reebok Slams Trump in New Ad…Decides Conservative Dollars Are No Longer Wanted

Reebok made a questionable business decision this past weekend, to alienate supporters of President Donald Trump when it decided to use a smug, condescending algorithm to school the president.

The athletic shoe company tweeted the algorithm, directed at the president, days after the left feigned outrage when President Trump told French first lady Brigitte Macron that she was in “great shape” and “beautiful.”

The president was raised in an era when complimenting a woman was not seen as an assault, so the guide may be useful for him if he wants to appease hypersensitive millennials. But it’s a safe guess that he doesn’t.

According to the chart, among the times it is not appropriate to use the phrase “You’re in such good shape…beautiful,” is when “you are a world leader greeting the spouse of a head of state.”

Levin: ‘Right Now … We’re Not a Free People’

On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Thursday, host Mark Levin railed against politicians in Washington D.C., declaring that “[r]ight now, we are in a state of servitude to Obamacare,” and “we’re not a free people.”

“Right now, we are in a state of servitude to Obamacare,” said Mark Levin. “We are in a state of servitude to whatever the Republicans are cooking up. We’re not a free people. We’re not an independent people.”

Levin’s comments came after the GOP failed to pass their health care reform bills, the House version AHCA and Senate version BCRA, and after President Trump’s meeting with GOP senators, wherein Trump declared, “We have to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Below is a transcript of Levin’s remarks from the Thursday show:

Levin: “I have a series of questions for you, ladies and gentlemen, as we watch this debacle: first, the passage of Obamacare – the way it was rammed through – and now the disaster of what should be a simple repeal.

“Are we capable of choosing our own health care policies? I mean, you and me. Are we capable of choosing our own health care policies?

“Are we capable of making our own health care decisions? That’s what it comes down to.

“All the talk about Medicaid, all the talk about— All that aside, are we not a free people, an independent people?

“Conversely, do you trust politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions about your health care and the health care of your family? If you do, which politicians and which bureaucrats do you trust to make these decisions? Which department and agencies of the federal government, and why?

“We’ve reached a point in our country, ladies and gentlemen, where liberty is defined through government subsidies and welfare and pensions and other forms of entitlements. That’s not liberty. That’s servitude.

“Right now, right now, we are in a state of servitude to Obamacare. We are in a state of servitude to whatever the Republicans are cooking up. We’re not a free people. We’re not an independent people.

GINGRICH: Boost economy with ‘very large’ tax cut — or ‘real danger of Speaker Pelosi’

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a dire warning to Republicans on Monday: Improve the economy or face cataclysmic losses in 2018.

How bad? Nancy Pelosi would return to the Speaker’s chair.

During an appearance on Fox News, Gingrich urged Republicans to focus on economic growth.

“They have got to pass by Thanksgiving, and get signed into law, by Thanksgiving, a very large tax cut, retroactively designed back to January 1 to make sure that we have enough economic growth in 2018. That Republicans can run as the party of prosperity, of jobs, of higher take home pay, and of economic growth,” Gingrich said.

He said the “highest focus” should be getting the tax bill passed.

“If we don’t have economic growth next year, I think we’re in real danger of having Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019,” Gingrich said.

He predicted Republicans would retain power if there is economic growth.

Trump has been frequently tweeting about job growth during his term.

Last week, he shared stats about private-sector job growth, most notably, 42,000 jobs added in mining and logging, a key focus during his campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania:

P/C GAGE SKIDMORE