DEVELOPING: Drudge Report, Breitbart Taken Down Tuesday Afternoon …Update: Back Up

See the source image

By Cristina Laila

The highly influential Drudge Report, founded by Matt Drudge went offline at around 3:15 PM EST on Tuesday.

Capture

At the time of this publication, the site appears to be down with a 502 error.

Reports of other sites having issues include Breitbart News and Spotify.

The Drudge Report has battled many DDoS attacks in the past as it boasts over 1.2 billion hits per month in website traffic.

It is unclear why the Drudge Report went offline Tuesday. The Gateway Pundit will update as soon as more information is available.

Update: BNO News is reporting Google services suffer outage, taking down major websites and services including Spotify and Snapchat.

Update: The Drudge Report is back online.

Story developing…

DEM CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR MILITARY COUP TO REMOVE TRUMP, THEN BACKTRACKS

Dem Congressman Calls For Military Coup to Remove Trump, Then Backtracks

Leftists in total meltdown after Trump-Putin meeting

 | Infowars.com – JULY 17, 2018

US Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) appeared to call for a military coup to remove Donald Trump in response to Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, before walking it back.

After former CIA director John Brennan called Trump’s actions “treasonous,” only to be ridiculed by Rand Paul, who pointed out that Brennan voted for the Communist Party USA candidate in 1976, Cohen went one step further.

“Where are our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!” tweeted Cohen.

Capture

However, after receiving criticism for the tweet, Cohen backed away and insisted that he wasn’t calling for a coup.

Capture

Last week, Cohen embarrassed himself by ludicrously claiming that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok should have been awarded a Purple Heart, a medal which is usually only awarded to members of the U.S. military who have been wounded or died in battle.

Support for President Trump amongst the U.S. military is higher than his support amongst the general public, so any kind of “coup” looks incredibly unlikely.

MSNBC contributor and top “resistance” activist Scott Dworkin also responded to Trump’s meeting with Putin by calling for Hillary Clinton to be installed as president.

“Trump and Pence should be removed from office and we should either have a new election, or Hillary Clinton should take over. That’s how we beat Putin. There is no other way,” tweeted Dworkin.

Capture

Quite how Hillary could be installed as president without America going through some kind of devastating civil war was not expanded upon.

Dworkin and Cohen are by no means the first to call for Hillary to be installed by means of some sort of military coup.

Back in February 2017, far-left film maker Michael Moore called on the the judicial system “to rule either that the President is the winner of the popular vote OR the election must be held over.”

Just over a month later Moore re-iterated his insistence that Trump be removed, writing, “The Democratic Party needs to declare a National Emergency. For the first time in our history, the President of the United States and his staff are under investigation for espionage.”

SOCIALIST OCASIO-CORTEZ CALLS FOR OCCUPATION OF AIRPORTS, ICE OFFICES

Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Calls For Occupation of Airports, ICE Offices

‘We have to mobilize,’ she says

 | Infowars.com – JULY 17, 2018

Far-left New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called on protesters to “occupy” airports, border crossings, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices nationwide.

“We have to occupy all of it,” she told Democracy Now! on Monday. “We need to occupy every airport. We need to occupy every border. We need to occupy every ICE office until those kids are back with their parents, period.”

Ocasio-Cortez claimed that ICE is not in the business of immigration enforcement, despite that being in its very name.

“First of all, ICE is not [U.S. Customs and Border Protection],” she said. “When we talk about abolishing ICE, we’re talking about ending family detention. We’re talking about ending an agency and ending a practice and a structure that is not accountable to the U.S. Department of Justice, that often takes on things that look a lot like enforcement activities.”

“We have to show people that we’re willing to walk the walk and put our money where our mouth is,” she added.

Despite ICE becoming a big target for the far-left, Democrats are hesitant to go after the agency due to the majority of Americans supporting it and the radical optics of opposing immigration enforcement.

For example, Democrats introduced an “Abolish ICE” bill but then refused to vote on it, with some Democratic lawmakers admitting it was a “publicity stunt.”

However, Reps. Clay Higgins (R-La.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are crafting a “support ICE” bill that will be voted on the House floor on Wednesday.

“What I found so interesting is the Democrats introduced a bill to abolish ICE … we give them an opportunity, and they say they don’t want to vote for it, McCarthy said Monday.

Rather than allowing a vote against ICE, Republican leadership felt it better to record votes in favor of the agency.

“After being called on their bluff, Democrats ran scared from their own bill,” Speaker Paul Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said in a statement.

“Democrats will now have the chance to stand with the majority of Americans who support ICE and vote for this resolution, or follow the extreme voices on the far left calling for abolishment of an agency that protects us.”

It’s clear Ocasio-Cortez’s position of abolishing ICE is too extreme for mainline Democrats, especially during an election season, so it remains to be seen how she plans to achieve her vision of a borderless utopia.

Radical Islam wins in Sweden: Number of Islamists increases by 900% with children being raised to hate the West – Study

By   

Last year, Swedish authorities declared that the number of Islamist militants in Sweden had risen from 200 to 2,000 over a 10-year period. Now, a 265-page report has been released on the fundamentalist branch of Islam known as Salafism, which advocates a return to ‘pure’ Islam. The report, the largest ever of its kind, shows a clear rise of Salafism in Sweden.

According to the study, which was commissioned by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, a government department, “not all Salafists are jihadists, but all jihadists are Salafists”.

It shows evidence that Salafist preachers in Sweden are co-operating in order to push their message across Muslim communities, and that disturbing every-day behaviour is now common even in children.

The study was created in order to understand, by interviewing police, social workers, and community representatives, how religious beliefs lead to acts of terror.

It found a well-organised ideology that was consciously creating a deep social rift between Muslims and Swedes by pushing for Sweden’s Muslim minority population to reject the country’s mainstream cultural surroundings, allowing terrorists and radical jihadist recruits to emerge.

According to author and prominent extremism researcher Magnus Ranstorp, “Salafists advocate gender segregation, demand that women veil themselves to limit ‘sexual temptation,’ restrict women’s role in the public sphere and strongly oppose listening to music and some sports activities.” The religious movement appears to be highly coordinated.

“It is interesting that the Salafist preachers, on whom the study focuses, appear to be more in cooperation with each other, rather than rivals. Instead, these preachers seem to divide their da’wa (mission) into different geographical areas,” Ranstorp says.

Muslims are encouraged by prominent extremist leaders to refrain from making friends of non-Muslims, to encourage them to love Allah, and to hate non-believers for not following Islam. They are instructed to refrain from joining wider communities and groups and must resist changing their appearance, language and behaviour in order to adapt and integrate with Swedish culture.

Sweden is home to over 800,000 people born outside of Europe (largely from Syria and Iraq) as well as hundreds of thousands of second and third-generation migrants, and these instructions are becoming deeply ingrained in these sections of the population.

In the Swedish municipality of Boras, officials are reporting that they are seeing young children refusing to drink “Christian” water from the taps and washing themselves in the mosque after spending the day in contact with non-Muslims.

In Vasteras, teenage criminals are reportedly using what they are taught about non-Muslims to justify stealing from shops with non-veiled cashiers while shouting “kafir” (a derogatory Arabic term for a non-believer). Other reports have emerged detailing accounts of groups of Muslims harassing immigrant shop owners, demanding to know if they follow Allah and abusing them otherwise.

In Gothenburg, which has supplied more recruits from Sweden to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) than any other city, Salafists informed their followers that voting in secular Swedish elections was “haram” – forbidden.

One interviewee makes it clear that the influence of these extremist Islamist leaders spreads beyond the mosques. “Swedes have no idea how much influence political Islam has in the suburb. Swedish laws are not applied there.”

In its conclusion, the study urges Sweden to be more open to understanding and exposing the clear links between radical Islam and terrorism. “When the then-National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism said that the question of why so many people chose to travel to IS from Sweden was ‘a million dollar question,’ it is an illustration of the overall inability of Swedish authorities (with the exception of police and security police) to see that this problem has not emerged from a vacuum.”

Russia wants to question Christopher Steele, Michael McFaul, top politicians for aiding Bill Browder

Russia wants to question Christopher Steele, Michael McFaul, top politicians for aiding Bill Browder

Bill Browder in the US Senate / Reuters

Russia’s prosecutor general will demand interviews with American congressmen, security services staff, and other high-profile individuals as it seeks to involve the US in its investigation into convicted financier Bill Browder.

Moscow accuses Browder of illegally taking $1.5 billion out of Russia and fabricating evidence that led to the passing of the sanctions-imposing Magnitsky Act. As part of the investigation, the prosecutor general wants to speak to ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele, author of the notorious Trump dossier, and former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, who campaigned on behalf of Browder.

Michael McFaul and Hillary Clinton in 2016. / Reuters

Other persons of interest on what Russia said was an incomplete list included David Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and president of think tank Freedom House, and the billionaire Ziff brothers, who are described as “Browder’s long-standing partners in crime.”

This was announced by Aleksandr Kurennoy, the head of the mass media department of the prosecutor general’s office in Moscow, who said that Russia was ready to share its findings with US law enforcement agencies “on even terms.”

The announcement follows hot on the heels of a proposal made by Vladimir Putin during his press conference with Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday, in which he offered to “meet US authorities half-way” and allow the Mueller investigation into Moscow’s election meddling to interview suspects in Russia, “on the condition” that Russian investigators could speak to suspects in the Browder investigation. Russia has previously tried to extradite Browder and gain access to others, but without success, though the businessman was briefly arrested in Spain in May, before being set free.

Browder responded to Putin’s words in the Washington Post, claiming that the Russian leader’s offer meant he was “rattled” by Browder’s accusations of corruption against Moscow officials.

US-born Browder made a fortune as an investor in Russia, starting in the 1990s, but was barred from entering the country in 2005, and has since become an arch-critic of the Kremlin. His allegations over the treatment of one of his staff, Sergei Magnitsky, while in custody, led to the sanctioning of select Moscow officials in the 2012 Magnitsky Act, but the legislation has since been expanded and can be applied to any foreign official, who is deemed to have violated human rights.

Browder was convicted in Russia in absentia in 2013 for fraud and tax evasion, and again, at the end of last year.

The 54-year old investor has also been a prominent voice in the Mueller investigation itself, though it does not concern him directly, and he submitted a scathing testimony about Russia to the US Senate a year ago.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Mish: “Mass Hysteria”

By Tyler Durden

Capture

My article Congratulations to President Trump for an Excellent Summit with Putin spawned numerous some I could not tell if they were sarcastic or not.

For example, reader Brian stated ” There is zero doubt now that Putin stole the election from Hillary. So much so that she MUST be given the nomination again in 2020. All potential challengers must step aside. To refuse her the 2020 nomination would be evidence of traitorous activities with Putin.”‘

I congratulated Brian for brilliant sarcasm but he piled on. It now seems he was serious.

Mainstream media, the Left an the Right were in general condemnation.

Numerous cries of treason emerged from the Left and the Right (see the above link)

It Happened – No Trial Necessary

A friend I highly respect commented “There is simply no question that they did it. You can legitimately claim that it’s not important or that there has been no tie to Trump shown. On the Russians’ side, they can say, screw off, we were pursuing our interests. But you can’t take the view it did not happen. It happened.”

There is a question who did it. Indictments are just that, not proof.

The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could control him.

They Are All Liars

It’s a mystery why anyone would believe these proven liars. That does not mean I believe Putin either. They are all capable liars.

Let’s step back from the absurd points of view to reality.

US Meddling

The US tries to influence elections in other countries and has a history of assisting the forcible overthrow of governments we don’t like.

  • Vietnam
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Drone policy

All of the above are massive disasters of US meddling. They are all actions of war, non-declared, and illegal.

I cannot and do not condone such actions even if they were legal.

911 and ISIS resulted from US meddling. The migration crisis in the EU is a direct consequence of US meddling. The Iranian revolution was a direct consequence of US meddling.

Now we are pissing and moaning that Russia spent a few million dollars on Tweets to steal the election. Please be serious.

Let’s Assume

Let’s assume for one second the DNC hack was Russia-based.

Is there a reason to not be thankful for evidence that Hillary conspired to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination?

Pity Hillary?

We are supposed to pity Hillary?

The outrage from the Right is amazing.

It’s pretty obvious Senator John McCain wanted her to win. Neither faced a war or military intervention they disapproved of.

Common Sense

Let’s move on to a common sense position from Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept.

  1. Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a “Danger to America” or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
  2. Greenwald vs. Cirincione: Should Trump Have Canceled Summit After U.S. Indictment of Russian Agents?

Greenwald vs. Joe Cirincione

​GLENN GREENWALD: In 2007, during the Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama was asked whether he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Iran without preconditions. He said he would. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t, because it would be used as a propaganda tool for repressive dictators. And liberals celebrated Obama. It was one of his greatest moments and one of the things that I think helped him to win the Democratic nomination, based on the theory that it’s always better to meet with leaders, even if they’re repressive, than to isolate them or to ignore them. In 1987, when President Reagan decided that he wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, the far right took out ads against him that sounded very much just like what we just heard from Joe, accusing him of being a useful idiot to Soviet and Kremlin propaganda, of legitimizing Russian aggression and domestic repression at home.

GLENN GREENWALD: It is true that Putin is an authoritarian and is domestically repressive. That’s true of many of the closest allies of the United States, as well, who are even far more repressive, including ones that fund most of the think tanks in D.C., such as the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think the most important issue is the one that we just heard, which is that 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are in the hands of two countries—the United States and Russia—and having them speak and get along is much better than having them isolate one another and increase the risk of not just intentional conflict, but misperception and miscommunication, as well.

JOE CIRINCIONE: Right. Let’s be clear. Glenn, there’s nothing wrong with meeting. I agree with you. Leaders should meet, and we should be negotiating with our foes, with those people we disagree with. We’re better off when we do that. And the kind of attacks you saw on Barack Obama were absolutely uncalled for, and you’re right to condemn those.

JOE CIRINCIONE: What I’m worried about is this president meeting with this leader of Russia and what they’re going to do. That’s what’s so wrong about this summit coming now, when you have Donald Trump, who just attacked the NATO alliance, who calls our European allies foes, who turns a blind eye to what his director of national intelligence called the warning lights that are blinking red. About what? About Russian interference in our elections. So you just had a leader of Russia, Putin, a skilled tactician, a skilled strategist, interfere in a U.S. election. To what? To help elect Donald Trump.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think this kind of rhetoric is so unbelievably unhinged, the idea that the phishing links sent to John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee are the greatest threat to American democracy in decades. People are now talking about it as though it’s on par with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that the lights are blinking red, in terms of the threat level. This is lunacy, this kind of talk. I spent years reading through the most top-secret documents of the NSA, and I can tell you that not only do they send phishing links to Russian agencies of every type continuously on a daily basis, but do far more aggressive interference in the cybersecurity of every single country than Russia is accused of having done during the 2016 election. To characterize this as some kind of grave existential threat to American democracy is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we heard throughout the Bush-Cheney administration about what al-Qaeda was like.

JOE CIRINCIONE: Why does Donald Trump feel that he has to meet alone with Putin? What is going on there? I mean, that—when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, at least he had George Shultz with him. The two of them, you know, were meeting with Gorbachev and his foreign minister at the time. This is—it’s deeply disturbing. It makes you feel that Trump is hiding something, that he is either trying to make a deal with Putin, reporting something to Putin. I tell you, I know U.S. intelligence officials—I’m probably going right into Glenn’s wheelhouse here. But U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about what Donald Trump might be revealing to the Russian leader, the way he revealed classified information to the Russian foreign minister when he met privately with him in the Oval Office at the beginning of his term. No, I don’t like it one bit.

GLENN GREENWALD: I continue to be incredibly frustrated by the claim that we hear over and over, and that we just heard from Joe, that Donald Trump does everything that Vladimir Putin wants, and that if he were a paid agent of the Russian government, there’d be—he would be doing nothing different. I just went through the entire list of actions that Donald Trump has taken and statements that he has made that are legitimately adverse to the interest of the Russian government, that Barack Obama specifically refused to do, despite bipartisan demands that he do them, exactly because he didn’t want to provoke more tensions between the United States and Russia. Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well. So is expelling Russian diplomats and imposing serious sanctions on oligarchs that are close to the Putin regime. You can go down the list, over and over and over, in the 18 months that he’s been in office, and see all the things that Donald Trump has done that is adverse, in serious ways, to the interests of Vladimir Putin, including ones that President Obama refused to do. So, this film, this movie fairytale, that I know is really exciting—it’s like international intrigue and blackmail, like the Russians have something over Trump; it’s like a Manchurian candidate; it’s from like the 1970s thrillers that we all watched—is inane—you know, with all due respect to Joe. I mean, it’s—but it’s in the climate, because it’s so contrary to what it is that we’re seeing. Now, this idea of meeting alone with Vladimir Putin, the only way that you would find that concerning is if you believed all that.

JOE CIRINCIONE: So, Trump knew that this indictment was coming down, before he went to Europe, and still he never says a word about it. What he does is continue his attacks on our alliances, i.e. he continues his attacks on our free press, he continues his attacks on FBI agents who were just doing their job, and supports this 10-hour show hearing that the House of Representatives had. It’s really unbelievable that Trump is doing these things and never says one word about it. He still has not said a word about those indictments.

GLENN GREENWALD: That’s because the reality is—and I don’t know if Donald Trump knows this or doesn’t know this, has stumbled into the truth or what—but the reality is that what the Russians did in 2016 is absolutely not aberrational or unusual in any way. The United—I’m sorry to say this, but it’s absolutely true. The United States and Russia have been interfering in one another’s domestic politics for since at least the end of World War II, to say nothing of what they do in far more extreme ways to the internal politics of other countries. Noam Chomsky was on this very program several months ago, and he talked about how the entire world is laughing at this indignation from the United States—”How dare you interfere in our democracy!”—when the United States not only has continuously in the past done, but continues to do far more extreme interference in the internal politics of all kinds of countries, including Russia.

GLENN GREENWALDThe United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it’s some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive.

GLENN GREENWALD: It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton in 2016 who lost this election. The entire Democratic Party has collapsed as a national political force over the last decade. They’ve lost control of the Senate and of the House and of multiple statehouses and governorships. They’re decimated as a national political force. And the reason is exactly what Joe said. They become the party of international globalization. They’re associated with Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires and corporate interests, and have almost no connection to the working class. And that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it’s because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails. And I think that until we put this in perspective, about what Russia did in 2016 and the reality that the U.S. does that sort of thing all the time to Russia and so many other countries, we’re going to just not have the conversation that we need to be having about what these international institutions, that are so sacred—NATO and free trade and international trade organizations—have done to people all over the world, and the reason they’re turning to demagogues and right-wing extremists because of what these institutions have done to them. That’s the conversation we need to be having, but we’re not having, because we’re evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin. And that, to me, is even more dangerous for our long-term prospects than this belligerence that’s in the air about how we ought to look at Moscow.

Indictments and First Year Law

Mish: I now wish to return to a statement my friend made regarding the idea “No question Russia did it“.

From Glenn Greenwald

As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it’s certainly the most specific accounting yet that we’ve gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did in 2016. But it’s extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won’t be presented until a trial or until Robert Mueller actually issues a report to Congress. And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we’re simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush’s former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. But even if the Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we don’t talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite dangerous.

Mish – Six Questions

  1. Is this a trial or a witch hunt?
  2. Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars?
  3. Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved?
  4. Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence?
  5. Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise?
  6. Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?

Irrational and Dangerous

I don’t know about you, but I have no reason to believe known liars and hypocrites.

I disagree with Trump all the time, in fact, more often than not.

The amount of venom on Trump over this is staggering.

Adding a missing word, I stand by my previous statement: “Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise.”

If you disagree please provide examples. The only two I can come up with are Pearl Harbor and 911. In both, the US was directly attacked.

For rebuttal purposes I offer Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Iran, WWI, treatment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and McCarthyism.

Greenwald accurately assesses the situation as “really irrational and really quite dangerous.”

Indeed.

And if indictments and accusations were crimes, we wouldn’t need a jury.