Black U.S. Navy sailor who claimed to be target of a racist incident at sea FAKED entire incident

(National SentinelDishonor: A black U.S. Navy sailor who claimed that racial slurs were written on his rack has admitted to staging the incident himself, Navy officials said Friday.

Marquie Little, a 27-year-old African American seaman stationed aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush, posted photos under an alias on Facebook Nov. 15 showing his bed covered in trash and racial slurs, the Navy Times reported.

“I proudly serve the Navy and this is what I’m receiving in return,” he wrote in the post.

“It’s not my first time being called a word such as that,” the aviation boatswain’s mate said in a phone interview later that month. “It puzzled me as to who would do it and why they would do it.”


However, on Friday Cmdr. Dave Hecht, a spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic, said  that “a thorough investigation” conducted with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service found inconsistencies in the sailor’s story.

“A NCIS-supported command investigation following claims of racially-motivated vandalism aboard the (carrier) has determined that the alleged victim staged the incident himself,” Hecht told the Navy Times in an email.

“The United States Navy does not tolerate racial discrimination of any form and the well-being of our Sailors is our top priority,” Hecht said.

Hecht would not confirm that Little was the sailor in question, but said the guilty party had “received appropriate administrative actions and additional counseling and training.”

“He will remain a member of the crew and continue to perform his military duties,” Hecht said.

Little denied being responsible for the incident, adding that NCIS had done a poor job of investigating.

“And now I’m to be here looking like a bad guy for attention,” Little wrote in a text message. “I have nothing to gain from doing such an incident but I have everything to lose.”

Last month, after the vandalism and the Facebook post, Little told Navy Times he feared for his safety.

“Maybe the guy or guys that vandalized my rack would see me out in town,” he said. “I constantly have to look who’s giving me the side eye.”

This incident follows a similar one earlier this year at the Air Force Academy preparatory school. There, five black Air Force cadets claimed that they had been targeted for racial slurs, but it turned out that one of the five committed the act.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Gowdy slams Dems who suggest ‘evidence’ of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ as ‘reckless,’ ‘baseless’

(National SentinelCongress: Newly-minted chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., hit back at Democrats on Capitol Hill who continue to suggest, despite no evidence, that President Donald J. Trump did something nefarious with the Russians.

Organic-Storable-Food-Supply-MR“There are members of both the House and the Senate who [say] ‘I’ve seen evidence that is more than circumstantial, but not direct,'” Gowdy told Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson. “There is no way it can be more than circumstantial but not direct.”

He called them “reckless, baseless allegations.”

Gowdy, who also serves on the House intelligence committee investigating possible connections between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign, said a member of that committee “said this week that he has seen evidence [but] he can’t tell us what it is [and] it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt.

“There’s no way to defend yourself against those kinds of baseless, reckless accusations,” he added.

He was very likely referring to the Intelligence Committee’s out-of-control ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who told ABC‘s “This Week” that “I think there is evidence” of Trump colluding with Moscow.

“I can’t go into the particulars of our closed investigation,” Schiff said, “but I also think there is evidence of obstruction [of justice]. But in both cases, I would say, whether there is some evidence doesn’t mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The obstruction case Democrats think they have has been debunked time and again by real constitutional experts. And as for the never-ending Russia probe, Democrats need it to continue so they can keep the support of their own unhinged base, whom they have all but promised Trump’s impeachment over these alleged ‘crimes.’

Gowdy also said that the “hyper-focus” so-called ‘collusion,’ which is just a very small portion of the House’s Russia investigation, can be blamed squarely on the far-Left media establishment.

He also said the House is looking at these things: Active Russian interference (a subset of that is the collusion angle); the U.S. response (which would have been the Obama administration’s responsibility); and the leaks and unmasking of Americans caught up in foreign surveillance.


Limbaugh: ‘We’re watching a political coup’ with never-ending leaks to ‘oust a duly elected president’

(National SentinelPolitical media: On Friday talk radio legend Rush Limbaugh, a seasoned conservative political observer, told listeners the incessant leaking of sensitive information from the Deep State and the constant “impeachment” drumbeat is nothing less than a concerted effort to “oust a duly elected president” who many view as a threat to their privileged existence.

Trump has been saddled with unfounded charges of obstruction of justice over his alleged request to former FBI Director James Comey that he drop the bureau’s investigation into Michael Flynn, as well as allegations that he divulged “classified” information to Russian diplomats. Also, at least two congressional panels – the House and Senate intelligence committees – are investigating alleged Russia “interference” in the November election, along with alleged “collusion” between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

There is no proof of any of those allegations, Limbaugh reminded his audience, adding that the steady calls for impeachment nonetheless amount to a “silent coup” attempt of a “duly elected president.”

Per, here is a partial transcript:

I don’t know that there’s a lot of incompetence here. I know what you mean by that, but I think (sigh) this is all being fairly well executed by the people who have a strategy behind it. I mean, you have to have a lot of pieces in place to be able to carry out a story for which there’s no evidence for over a year. You have to have a… You want to talk about a conspiracy? I mean, people love conspiracy theories. How’s this happen?

How do we get no evidence of anything into five investigations on Capitol Hill, numerous media investigations, and the big investigation by the real pros: The CIA, the NSA, and the FBI? Those are the people that can survival and wiretap, and there’s nothing. There’s not a scintilla. There’s not a whit. There’s no evidence whatsoever. And yet theirs no end is in sight to this. That’s a pretty good trick, and it takes a conspiracy. It takes a lot of people conspiring together to make this happen. All it would take to unravel this is for one of these people on the left to say, “There isn’t any evidence.

“What are we doing here? We’re wasting our time. We need to look at something else. We’re not gonna find any evidence. There’s no evidence!” All it would take is one person in the media, in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA. All it would take would be one staffer somewhere of one Democrat. All it would take would be one renegade media member. And not a single leak, not a single betrayal of this. So I don’t think this is incompetence. I think it’s much worse.

I think it has a purposeful, studied effort and outcome, which is a coup. We are watching a silent coup here to oust a duly elected president, and this coup is being mounted by career government people who can traffic anonymously and who are protected by people in the media and within the Democrat Party. Stop and think of it, folks. A year. How many…? Hasn’t the Washington Post at one time admitted that they have over 30 anonymous sources for all of this? That’s just one newspaper, 30 anonymous sources there.

How many anonymous people are talking New York Times? How much overlap? How many sources are talking to both places? All these deep state career government people, ex-Obama people that are civilians now? We don’t know. But it is a lot of people, and there isn’t any evidence. There’s none! And it’s gonna continue whether or not… Not only is there no evidence, there’s nothing to suggest the need of a special counsel. They can’t even find a cover-up to cover up the fact that there’s no evidence. What is the cover-up?

When you don’t have a crime, then what the hell is being covered up? But they’ve got people believing that there’s a scandal here, and you know what the scandal is? Firing Comey. That’s not a scandal. Firing Comey? The president can do that any time he wants for whatever reason he wants, and he doesn’t need anybody’s permission. But that is the supposed scandal. Now, about Comey, I mentioned earlier that I was reading some things last night about it and I said, “This is embarrassing. This is really a bit of desperation here.”

You have to balance what’s coming up here with another reputation that we’ve been presented with. In the case of James Comey — and this goes back to the Bush presidency when he was a deputy attorney general for John Ashcroft. That’s when I first became aware of the name of James Comey, and from that day forward James Comey has been presented as a lawyer beyond repute. He is a lawyer who exudes integrity. He is flawless. He has never slipped up.

This man is the epitome of honesty. This man is the epitome of courage. This man is the epitome of independence. This is the reputation of James Comey. This is why the Clinton campaign went through such conniptions when Comey was doing what he was doing, because he was doing all of that with the finest reputation anybody in Washington has ever had. Now that reputation’s beginning to crumble. That’s the dirty little secret.

That reputation’s starting to take some hits, and not because of anything Trump did. Because of things Comey has done. The July 5th press conference, the October 28th letter to Congress, the listing of charges but there’s not gonna be any prosecution. That just isn’t done. There’s all kinds of things being done. And now this guy with the impeccable reputation all of a sudden some people are whispering he’s got a power complex.

People are starting to whisper, “This man’s trying to make it all about himself. This man’s trying to figure out where the bright lights are in every story and end up right in them.” Well, those are serious, serious assaults if you have spent your life crafting and building this impeccable reputation for virtue and for honesty and for integrity. So it’s against all that that this now is beginning to happen. So here’s the first thing.

This is Washington Examiner: “Comey Hid Among White House Curtains to Avoid Trump.” I’m sorry. The only reason we know this is because Comey told somebody, and the fact that Comey’s telling people this so that they will then tell the media? I would be embarrassed, is what I’m saying. This is embarrassing. “Former FBI Director James Comey now says he tried to hide among the tall, blue curtains adorning a White House meeting room in an attempt to hide from President Trump at an Inauguration Day event.

“Comey said the incident was one example of what he believed were times Trump tried to create a public image that showed Comey was on his side.” So we have image protection going on here. (translated) “We have my independence is at stake here! I’ve got to do something! That’s bad. So now I’m gonna tell people I had to hide in the curtains. This guy Trump? This guy Trump was so eager to corrupt me, so eager to make it look like he and I were buds, I had to hide in the curtains!”

The FBI director is admitting that he hid from the president of the United States in the curtains on Inauguration Day. This is embarrassing! Benjamin Wittes, who runs a blog — Lawfare or some such thing — is said to be a good Comey friend. Quote, “Comey described really not wanting to go to that meeting” on Inauguration Day, “for the same reason he later did not want to go to the private dinner with Trump: the FBI director should be always at arm’s length from the president, in his view.

“There was an additional sensitivity here too,” Benjamin Wittes said, “because many Democrats blamed Comey for Trump’s election, so he didn’t want any shows of closeness between the two that might reinforce a perception that he had put a thumb on the scale in Trump’s favor.” This is so embarrassing. This is a window into the way Comey’s thinking, and all he’s thinking about is himself! He’s making all of this about him!

Most people do.

Most people’s egos are such that everything ends up being about them. But this is not about James Comey, and yet he’s trying to make it about him, and this is about trying to save and protect his reputation. And then he goes on to say (paraphrased), “I didn’t want to shape Trump’s hand. You know, Trump when he shakes your hand he pulls you to him and he tries to make it look like you’re buddies and friends.” No, no, no, no. You people, you’ve been in politics so long, you don’t understand how people actually interact with each other in the real world.

But Comey thought that Trump was engaging… Everything Trump was doing was designed to create an image that he and Comey were buds. (scoffs) But Benjamin Wittes said, “Mr. Comey also felt he could not refuse a presidential invitation, particularly not one that went to a broad array of law enforcement leadership.” So it wasn’t just Comey? You’ve got all other kinds of law enforcement people there, and yet Comey admits to hiding in the curtains so that Trump will not notice him?

(scoffs) This is like my cat thinking I can’t see her when her head’s poking around the corner. How in the world do you hide in the curtains and think you’re not going to be seen and more importantly: Why would you then leak this story? Because it feeds the lunatic left.


Trump blasts partisan Dems over ‘made up,’ ‘fake’ Russia dossier

(NationalSentinelPolitics: When it comes to feeding their always-angry, always-irrational base some red meat, congressional Democrats are never hesitant.

That’s the only way to explain why some Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee would read parts of the wholly discredited, unsubstantiated Trump “dossier” put together by a former British spy into the congressional record, as if it were legitimate ‘evidence.’

In a recent interview with the Washington Times, President Donald J. Trump was obviously fed up:

The unverified 35-page series of memos by Christopher Steele accused the Trump campaign of an elaborate criminal conspiracy with Russia to hack Democratic Party computers. Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, read parts of the dossier into the hearing record on March 20, as did three other Democrats, as he argued for a commission.

In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Trump was asked about this Democratic tactic.

“I think it’s a disgrace,” the president said. “The dossier has been totally discredited, No. 1. No. 2, Adam Schiff is totally partisan, as partisan as you can get. And No. 3, the Russia story is a fake story. It was made up so that they can justify the fact that Hillary Clinton lost an election that a Democrat should not lose because it’s almost impossible for a Democrat to lose the Electoral College. And not only did she lose, but she lost by a lot because I got 306 and [she got] 232.”

Referring to Mr. Steele, the president said, “He made it up.”

There has been no public official confirmation of any of the dossier’s charges against Mr. Trump and his aides.


Some liberal news sites identify Mr. Steele simply as a former British MI6 intelligence officer. In his dossier role, he was not an objective intelligence analyst, but instead was on the payroll of a Hillary Clinton backer, through Fusion GPS, to produce information that would injure the Trump campaign.

Trump was also asked his opinion of the FBI offering to pay Steele $50,000 if he continued his “investigation” into the Republican presidential nominee, to which he replied: I think if that’s true with the FBI, that would be very disgraceful. You understand that.”

It’s important to remind our readers that #nevertrump, GOP-hating media outlets had this “dossier” for months – months – before the November election, but they didn’t publish any of its details because no one could substantiate any of it. That includes U.S. intelligence agencies, by the way.

The idiots at Buzzfeed, led by editor Ben Smith, however, finally did publish the document in full, and now they’re getting sued out of existence for doing so. Also, the dossier author, Steele, has admitted key elements contained within are unsubstantiated

As for the Democrats, they have made the accusation that the dossier is true and therefore have the burden of proof: Where is the evidence that the information in the document is valid?

If lawmakers could be held to the same legal standards as private citizens and news organizations, they would never make such statements because they, too, would face charges of libel and slander.