ISIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm

ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.

The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas, targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

Law enforcement and intelligence sources report the area around Anapra is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). Cartel control of the Anapra area make it an extremely dangerous and hostile operating environment for Mexican Army and Federal Police operations.

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

Michael Knowles: Trump obstructed Dem attempt to overturn 2016 election with a coup

Yes, President Trump committed obstruction. From the moment he defeated Hillary Clinton, Democrats have tried to overturn the 2016 election, but Trump has obstructed their efforts every step of the way.

This was obstruction in the interests of justice. The president should be applauded for it.

First, partisans within the Justice Department spied on the Trump presidential campaign. They used a mainstream news article to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump’s campaign staff by misleading a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge about the source of the article.

In fact, the news story was based on unverified opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Recently uncovered text messages between disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest this surveillance continued after the election, shifting its focus from the Trump campaign to the transition team of then-President-elect Trump.

Then, according to fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, several Justice Department and FBI officials discussed staging what would have amounted to a coup to oust the duly elected president of the United States from office.

The coup would have been staged by invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

The amendment was adopted to deal with cases when a president is unable to carry out his duties following a severe injury or illness – such as being wounded in an assassination attempt, suffering a stroke, or being in a coma. None of these conditions applied to President Trump.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein allegedly suggested wearing a wire to secretly record conversations with President Trump in the hopes of entrapping him to lead to his overthrow.

Next, Trump’s critics called him a traitor. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who was Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate in 2016, suggested that Trump might have committed treason as early as July 2017 – just two months after Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

That same month, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman said: “There’s almost no question this is treason.”

Last July, Charles Blow published a column in The New York Times headlined “Trump, Treasonous Traitor.”

Then John Brennan, who was CIA director under President Obama, described President Trump’s conduct as “nothing short of treasonous.”

A few weeks later, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters suggested Trump had “committed treason” and compared the president to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and **** Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.

Others leveled the same false charge at President Trump as well.

After that, government leakers and their mainstream media allies discussed imprisoning members of President Trump’s family along with him.

According to the narrative, Donald Trump Jr. and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner were destined for orange jumpsuits over an allegedly nefarious meeting with some Russians at Trump Tower. There was even talk of the president’s daughter Ivanka going to prison.

A writer for Vice.com reported giddily on the reaction of federal inmates to the prospect of an incarcerated Trump.

Democratic politicians clamored for the impeachment of President Trump. Many said they expected Mueller’s investigation would show that Trump worked with Russia to get elected. In their minds, the president was guilty until proven innocent.

But then Mueller reported he had discovered what President Trump had insisted all along was the truth: Trump never “colluded” with the Russians. No member of his campaign “colluded” with the Russians. The central accusation against the president that had fueled two years of nonstop attacks on him turned out to be a lie.

Now desperate Democrats, bereft of any legal basis for impeachment, have seized upon Trump’s displeasure at two years of presidential harassment as their new grounds for removing him from office.

Over the past two years, President Trump has voiced his displeasure at what he considered unfair attacks. According to the Mueller report, upon the appointment of the special counsel, Trump said that “this is the end of my presidency,” followed by an expletive.

The Mueller report then quoted Trump as saying: “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years, and I won’t be able to do anything.”

The president took to Twitter to assail the special counsel’s investigation as a “witch hunt.” He allegedly considered firing Robert Mueller.

According to Attorney General William Barr, President Trump didn’t obstruct justice. But neither did Trump take attacks on his presidency lying down.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of 20 Democrats seeking her party’s presidential nomination to replace Trump, tipped her party’s hand when asked recently to cite the grounds for impeachment.

It doesn’t matter whether President Trump committed a crime, Warren said.

“This isn’t even specifically about Donald Trump himself,” Warren said. Right – it’s about overturning the results of a presidential election that didn’t put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.

Now Democrats would like to impeach Trump for obstructing their repeated attempts to overthrow him.

As far as many Democrats are concerned, Trump’s real crime was winning the presidency in the first place.

Chase deletes "Monday Motivation" tweet after backlash

You can call it a bank backfire.

Chase, America's largest bank, tried to offer tips to save money on Twitter.
Chase tweeted a hypothetical conversation between the bank and a customer.

It suggested the customer should cut unnecessary expenses, like making coffee at home or walking instead of taking a cab.


Some thought it came across as "poor shaming."
Chase deleted the "Monday Motivation" tweet and pledged to be more sensitive on social media in the future.

"Our #MondayMotivation is to get better at #MondayMotivation tweets. Thanks for the feedback Twitter world," Chase tweeted.

'Preferably Caucasian' job posting goes viral

FALLS CHURCH, Va. -- A northern Virginia tech staffing company has apologized after an online job posting sought "preferably Caucasian" applicants.

Cynet Systems in Sterling, Virginia, removed the post and issued an apology Sunday on Twitter. The company said the individuals involved have been fired and the job post "does not reflect our core values of inclusivity & equality."

The help wanted ad, posted on LinkedIn and other sites, sought an account manager for a job based in Tampa, Florida, with an unspecified pharma company, WWSB reported. A bullet point under "Job Description" described a candidate who is "Preferably Caucasian who has good technical background."

A Cynet statement issued Monday said the company has a longstanding policy of turning down clients requesting candidates of a specific race or gender.

"We understand why some may have been upset seeing this listing, because we were too," the company's co-CEO, Ashwani Mayur, said. The company statement does not say how long the ad was live.

"We are also looking at measures that could help us catch offensive or outside-of-policy ads before they ever go live to ensure this can't happen again," Mayur said. He noted that he and the other company owner are both Indian-American, and that his company's workforce is 60% minority.

A LinkedIn spokeswoman said the ad was taken down as soon as it was discovered and that such postings are highly unusual. ...

Like many of you, today I kept a close eye on what was going on in Venezuela.

Early this morning Venezuelan opposition leader, Juan Guaido, revealed that he (and a part of the military) were initiating the 'final phase' of his plan to overthrow the socialist President Nicolas Maduro. Later, videos and images were shared of the Venezuelan military (backed by Maduro) firing pellets and live ammo at the uprising. Then, the world was shocked to see military armored trucks driving into crowds of protestors in the street.

There are many takes and talking points you can extract from today. Why haven't AOC and Bernie condemned Maduro's use of force and/or discussed the uprising in Venezuela? Why have the mainstream media avoided discussing this inevitability of socialism? What geopolitical consequences and ramifications are to come out of Russia backing and convincing Maduro to stay in Venezuela?

None of these talking points, although important, are what I want to highlight.

What I want to highlight is that Venezuela implemented a ban on the sale of guns and munitions in 2012.

"Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all - except government entities."

THIS is what the founders feared. THIS is what the Second Amendment was created for. Yes, hunting and individual self-preservation against crime was also in mind, but fighting against a tyrannical government was and is the main reason for the 2A. Venezuela gave up their guns, their best chance at opposing tyranny, because they never thought a day like today would happen. Like our modern day Leftists in the US, they would rather entrust their protection to the federal government. A former gun store owner in Venezuela told Fox News:

"If guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power – and had legal carry been a common thing – it would have made a huge difference,”

Opponents of the 2A argue that guns would be no match to the might of a tyrannical US military, so why bother having them? This is obviously an idiotic argument, but one I've heard often. A population armed is enough of a deterrent for a tyrannical government. Even if it wouldn't be, the opportunity to be able to defend one's self and family is something we should never give up, even if we're "out gunned".

I, living in Canada, envy the 2A. I envy the right and responsibility to protect one's self and family from tyrannical forces, both home and away.

Venezuela should be a lesson, a warning, that tyranny isn't some abstract idea, but a very real and an always present threat.

- JW

1,485 vs. 352: Abortions at or After 21 Weeks Outnumbered Homicides in NYC

The number of babies aborted at a gestational age of 21 weeks or later in New York City in 2015 outnumbered homicide victims in that city that year by 1,485 to 352, according to the latest abortion data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the homicide data for that year published by the New York Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

While there were approximately 0.96 people per day victimized by “murder and non-negligent manslaughter” in New York City in 2015, there were approximately 4.1 babies at 21-weeks gestational age or older who were aborted per day in the same city.

Despite this, the New York Times ran a story on Sunday that said abortions occurring at 21 weeks or later in the United States are “rare.” It referenced and linked to another story the Times had published on Feb. 6 that referred to abortions occurring at 21 weeks or later as “very rare.”

CNN's Chris Cuomo: Antifa Is 'A Good Cause'

CNN's Chris Cuomo argued on Monday night that the violence-embracing far-left group Antifa was "a good cause," and was immediately met by pushback from the two contributors who he had on for the segment.

"You can talk about Antifa, I've watched them in streets protesting in different situations, OK?" Cuomo said. "There are certainly aspects of them that are true to a cause, that is a good cause, they want social justice, they want whatever they want in that context."

"Not Antifa," CNN's Rob Astorino responded. "Antifa's [inaudible]."

"Chris, Antifa is not a good cause," CNN's Steve Cortes fired back. "Antifa does not have good aims, Antifa wants power, wants political power, taken through force. That's what Antifa is all about."