Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

Vogue editor-in-chief says it’s important to “take a stand” when deciding which female politicians to feature

First Lady Melania’s spokeswoman fired back: “To be on the cover of Vogue doesn’t define Mrs. Trump, she’s been there, done that long before she was First Lady.”

From The Independent: Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour has said it’s important to “take a stand” when deciding which influential women in politics the magazine features on the cover.

Wintour was interviewed by CNN ahead of the Met Gala, which is scheduled to take place in less than a month’s time on Monday 6 May. During the interview, the Condé Nast artistic director was questioned over the women in politics who she chooses to profile in the magazine, having previously featured former first lady Michelle Obama and US senator Kamala Harris.

“If you’re talking about the first lady or senator Harris, obviously these are women that we feel are icons and inspiring to women from a global perspective,” Wintour said.

Wintour added that in the present political climate, she believes it’s important to “take a stand”, and that she doesn’t think you can “try and please everybody all the time”.

“You have to stand up for what you believe in, and you have to take a point of view,” the 69-year-old said stated.

Before Wintour learned how to “take a stand”

CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour pointed out that the American magazine has featured more women from the Democratic party than the Republican party. “We profile women in the magazine that we believe in the stand that they’re taking on issues. We support them in the fact that we feel that they are leaders,” Wintour said in response.

The Vogue editor-in-chief stated that the defeat of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential election made it even more apparent that more women are needed in leadership roles. In December 1998, Clinton became the first US first lady to be featured on the cover of Vogue, during her husband Bill Clinton’s tenure as president.

“I felt that the first lady at that time had behaved in a very brave way,” Wintour stated. “So we felt it was a time to support her and to stand up for women.”

Former first lady Obama was featured on the cover of Vogue on three occasions while she was in the White House. Wintour stated that, in her opinion, Obama “redefined” the role of the first lady, a position that she held from 2009 until 2017.”She made the White House a place for everyone.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Boston Globe op/ed urges waiters to contaminate food of Trump officials

We are told a democracy can only work and get things done when political parties and opponents compromise because in a democracy, winners are only temporary victors until the next election. And so political opponents each gives up something, in order to gain something. It’s not all or nothing.

But in the (dis)United States of America today, Democrats and the Democrat Party have neither interest nor disposition to compromise. Even worse, they openly call for and inflict violence on those who disagree with them. Some examples:

  • Remember Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was shot by a Democrat — Bernie Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson — on June 14 2017?
  • Last July, America’s premier newspaper, the New York Times, actually published an editorial calling Democrats to go to war and deploy mafia tactics against President Trump.
  • Americans, including an 81-year-old man, are assaulted for wearing MAGA hats.
  • Hollywood actors and rappers make open or veiled threats to assassinate President Trump.
  • Prominent Democrats, like Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder, openly call for violence.
  • Congressman Eric Swallwell (D-CA) threatens to “nuke” us if we resist gun-confiscation.

The latest is a Boston Globe op/ed, penned by former waiter Luke O’Neil, calling on waiters to poison (“tamper with”) the food served to Trump administration officials.

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019, the Boston Globe published the op/ed by Luke O’Neil — a one-time waiter who free-lances for the Guardian, The New York Times, New York magazine, and other publications.

Soon after the op/ed was published, Boston Globe scrubbed the op/ed’s first sentence, “One of the biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol’s salmon,” and appended a prominent editor’s note saying “A version of this column as originally published did not meet Globe standards and has been changed. The Globe regrets the previous tone of the piece.” A day later, the Globe removed the op/ed entirely from its website, with the excuse that “the column did not receive sufficient editorial oversight.” (Fox News)

Incredibly, after spending two hours scouring the web, I cannot find any website, even AltMedia ones, that re-published the entirety of O’Neil’s poison-food op/ed, not even Internet archives. I could find only these excerpts of the op/ed:

Keep Kirstjen Nielsen unemployed and eating Grubhub over her kitchen sink

By Luke O’Neil • April 10, 2019

One of the biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol’s salmon. I was waiting on the disgraced neoconservative pundit and chief Iraq War cheerleader about 10 years ago at a restaurant in Cambridge and to my eternal dismay, some combination of professionalism and pusillanimity prevented me from appropriately seasoning his entree. A ramekin of blood on the side might have been the better option, come to think of it. He always did seem really thirsty for the stuff.
I was reminded of that episode this week when Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, the purportedly reluctant triggerman for Donald Trump’s inhumane policies of ethnic cleansing, announced she would be stepping down from her post at the president’s request. The news comes a little over a year since she took the job, and about nine months since she was infamously shame-marched out of a restaurant — a Mexican one of all things — in Washington, D.C., by a group of protestors just as the news of our official policy of separating families at the southern border was first being reported on. What a delight it was to see.
Around the same time, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and others in the administration or associated with Trump — such as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Mitch McConnell, and white nationalist and dirty coward from the zombie movie who gets everyone else killed Stephen Miller . . . . .

Living in Boston, we’re no strangers to visitors from any administration, whether they’ve been given a lecture role at a school like Harvard — which doesn’t seem to have any compunctions about welcoming literal comic book-style villains to campus — or of any of a number of other prestigious tech or academic institutions in the area. Invariably the bad guys, like the rest of us, will have to eat. And when they show up in our restaurants, you have my permission, as an official member of the mainstream media, to tell them where to go and what they can do with themselves when they arrive there, but, you know, said in a more specific and traditional Boston colloquialism.

As for the waiters out there, I’m not saying you should tamper with anyone’s food, as that could get you into trouble. You might lose your serving job. But you’d be serving America. And you won’t have any regrets years later.

Some years ago, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the differences between Conservatives and the Left — in fundamental values, world views and goals — are so divergent, they are irreconcilable.

How can conservatives compromise with people like Luke O’Neil?

As for defeating the Left in the ballot box, there have been so many instances of Democrat voter fraud that I no longer trust the results of elections.

So what are we to do?

See also “Transgender Starbucks employee Lauren Walker brags about spiking conservatives’ drinks with estrogen“.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Hillary 2.0: AOC fakes southern accent before black audience

Hillary Clinton did it, patronizing and pandering to black audiences by speaking in an entirely phony southern drawl.

Now, another Demonrat is also faking a southern accent before a black audience.

Yesterday, speaking at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in New York city, self-described socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who was a bartender when she was auditioned and recruited by the Demonrat Party, used a very bad southern accent that she never uses to tell an audience of predominately black people that there is nothing wrong with them serving other people in low skilled jobs. She said:

“I’m proud to be a bartender, ain’t nothin wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with working retail, folding clothes for other people to buy. There is nothing wrong with preparing the food that your neighbors will eat. There is nothing wrong with driving the buses that take your family to work.”

[videopress 9K9tNMwF]

Ryan Saavedra reports for The Daily Wire that AOC’s speech “immediately sparked outrage as many accused her of racism, noting that her accent while speaking to black people was similar to how two-time failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would speak to black people — which was widely condemned as racist.”

“African-American” Jamarcus Dove-Simmons (@Jamarcus_Dove) tweeted: “She trying too hard. The accent is so obvious ‘Ain’t nun wrong with dat’ Every African-American does not talk in this way. I guess you’re trying to ‘win the black vote.’ This ain’t it, @AOC”

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Rapper Cardi B says she drugged, robbed men because she had “limited options”

Don’t believe the feminists’ lies. Stripper careers do not “empower” women.

And as for Cardi B and her “limited options” excuse, girlfriend should learn about Nick Vujicic. Not everyone succumbs to the notion of perpetual victimhood…

From Fox News: After a video surfaced of Cardi B admitting to robbing and drugging men, the singer is explaining herself.

In the clip from an Instagram Live recorded three years ago, the rapper said, “I had to go strip, I had to go, ‘Oh yeah, you want to f–k me? Yeah, yeah, yeah, let’s go back to this hotel,’ and I drugged n—–s up, and I robbed them. That’s what I used to do,” (via Hip Hop Ratchet) she explained.

After horrified social media users responded to the 26-year-old star’s confession with the hashtag #SurvivingCardiB (in reference to the R. Kelly documentary “Surviving R. Kelly”) Cardi took to Instagram to explain her actions.

“So I’m seeing on social media that [an Instagram] live I did 3 years ago has popped back up. A live where I talked about things I had to do in my past right or wrong that I felt I needed to do to make a living,” she wrote in a post on Tuesday. “I never claim (sic) to be perfect or come from a perfect world wit (sic) a perfect past I always speak my truth I always own my s–t.”

The star said that while many artists glorify violence and crime, that was never her style.

“There are rappers that glorify murder violence drugs an (sic) robbing. Crimes they feel they had to do to survive,” she said. “I never glorified the things I brought up in that live I never even put those things in my music because I’m not proud of it and feel responsibility not to glorify it.”

While the former stripper said she was not proud of her actions, she felt they were necessary at the time.

I made the choices that I did at the time because I had very limited options. I was blessed to have been able to rise from that but so many women have not,” she said. “Whether or not they were poor choices at the time I did what I had to do to survive.”

And the Bronx native clarified that all the men she referred to in the clip were men who she was dating and she claims they knew what she was doing.

“The men I spoke about in my life were men that I dated that I was involved with men that [they] were conscious willing and aware,” she said. “I have a past that I can’t change we all do.”

She continued, “all I can do now is be a better me for myself my family and my future.”

Cardi is married to rapper Offset, with whom she shares 8-month-old daughter, Kulture.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump 100% vindicated: AG William Barr’s letter to Congress on Mueller Report

After two years and $25 million of taxpayer dollars, the long-awaited Mueller report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr last Friday, March 22, 2019.

The report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes. Of course, that won’t stop the Demon Party from undertaking yet more investigations, which some leading Demonrats are already vowing.

The Mueller Report is not yet made public, but below is AG Barr’s summary letter of the report’s “principal conclusions” to the chairmen (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jerrold Nadler) and ranking members (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Doug Collins) of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

I had a hell of time finding the letter in text format to copy and post here. You can also read the letter in PDF here.

The Attorney General

Washington, DC.
March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 CPR. This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 US. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

_________________

¹In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

_________________

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

_________________

² See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

_________________

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public View, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e. g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

* * *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 CPR. I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr
Attorney General

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Colorado governor signs law that gives state’s electoral votes to national popular vote winner

Over two years later, butt hurt from Hillary’s loss still alive and well.

From MSN (via CNN): Colorado could be part of voting history next general election day, joining 11 other states looking to ensure that their electoral college votes echo the will of the American majority to elect the next president.

Gov. Jared Polis (demorat) signed a law Friday that would allot the state’s electoral college votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote. The Washington Post previously reported the law’s signing.

The trend comes as Americans have shown greater support in recent years for a more democratic presidential election process, without the translational risks of the electoral college. But the daunting requirement of changing the Constitution, where the electoral college is formally codified, has posed a challenge to both public and political support for the issue.

The state’s legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado’s votes raise the current total to 181 electors. Most states have winner-take-all laws in place dictating that their electors go towards whichever candidate takes the state’s popular majority, while Maine and Nebraska opt to proportionally split their electors based on the vote.

The eleven other states that have signed on — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state — as well as the District of Columbia and now Colorado, make up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. New Mexico, which has five electoral votes, sent a bill to the governor’s desk to elect the president by popular vote and may soon join the group as well.

And the electoral college had been contentious not long ago. In 2016, President Donald Trump won the presidential vote with 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. But Clinton won the popular vote, garnering 48.5% of the vote to Trump’s 46.4%.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

New Zealand mosque shootings: the John Podesta connection

On March 14, 2019, New Zealand sustained its deadliest mass shootings in modern history when a gunman, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, killed 50 people and injured another 50 at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The media immediately identified Tarrant as that most noxious of all monsters — “an alt-right affiliated white supremacist”. (Wikipedia)

Strangely, there is a John Podesta connection to the New Zealand mosque shooting.

John Podesta, 70, is a major Democrat Party honcho. He was:

  • Bill Clinton’s White House chief-of-staff.
  • Barack Obama’s White House advisor.
  • Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Here are his connections to the Christchurch mosque shootings:

(1) John Podesta just happened to be in New Zealand 5 days before the mosque shootings.

To begin, New Zealand is enmeshed with the U.S. Deep State, being a member of the Five Eyes spy network — a powerful intelligence club made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

As reported by MSN.news on March 10, 2019, Podesta was in New Zealand for a Global Progressives event. He was interviewed on TV by a pliant and fawning Newshub political correspondent, Tova O’Brien, who extolls Podesta as “one of the most powerful in U.S. Democratic politics” and “someone who understands too well the influence and damage hacking and fake news can do.”.

Promoting the Russian election-meddling meme that Democrats never tire of, Podesta said he agrees with New Zealand intelligence’s warning to Parliament last month that their election is also vulnerable to a serious cyber attack from Russia and China. Podesta said:

“Vladimir Putin must be sitting in the Kremlin saying this is the best return on investment I ever got – I’ve got a pliant president of the United States. I’d say very worried. I don’t see why they couldn’t do it. And there are other state actors as well. There are other actors in the region including China that may have a high degree of interest in being able to penetrate what the private conversations of people in NZ politics and NZ Government are looking at.”

Calling the country a “juicier target”, Podesta said New Zealand should guard against hacked information being weaponised as fake news: “What’s new is this weaponisation – the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissatisfaction – that’s I think what you’ve got to look out for.”

To watch the interview, go here.

(2) The same symbols on Podesta’s palms were painted on mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant’s semi-automatic gun.

The (UK) Sun reports, March 15, 2019, that “Crazed Brenton Tarrant scrawled the names of modern terrorists, ancient military commanders and far-right symbols on his guns and magazines of ammunition before going on a rampage in New Zealand,” including the words “For Rotherham” — an apparent reference to the paedophile ring run by British-Pakistani men in the Yorkshire town in recent decades.

What The Sun missed are two other symbols painted in white on Tarrant’s semi-automatic gun: that of a fish and the number 14.

Below is a pic of the gun. I painted the red circles around the two symbols.

Where have we seen the fish symbol and number 14 before?

On John Podesta’s palms! (H/t tweeter Jordan Sather)

In December 2016, I did a post on just that: “Those cryptic markings on John Podesta’s palms“.

While there may be an innocent explanation for the no. 14 and fish markings on Podesta’s palms, some see an occultic meaning. Whatever the meaning of the two symbols, it is curious, to say the least, that the perpetrator of the deadliest mass shootings in modern New Zealand history just happens to sport the same symbols on his semi-automatic gun.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

John Podesta sent an assassination email 3 days before suspicious death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Since Scalia’s body was cremated 24 hours after death, what was in the coffin?

It is more than three years since the suspicious death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

We are told that on February 13, 2016, Scalia suddenly died in his sleep in his room in Cibolo Creek Ranch, a 1,700-acre ranch and luxury hotel in west Texas, only 15 miles from the US-Mexico border. To this day, Scalia’s death is shrouded in mystery. The things “that don’t fit together” include the following:

Adding to the mystery surrounding Scalia’s death is an email by John Podesta, the longtime Democrat operative who was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Dated just three days before Scalia’s death, the email made mention of “wet work” — a slang term of spooks which means assassination of a public figure.

From True Pundit:

True Pundit personnel, who have served in varying intelligence capacities and agencies for the United States, were floored this morning when combing the Wikileaks database of John Podesta emails.

Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in a Feb. 9, 2016 email makes reference to an assassination. Using the term “wet work,” Podesta sent a cryptic email to Democratic strategist and heavyweight consultant Steve Elmendorf. The term wet work is an intelligence slang term with Russian roots. Defined it means to assassinate a public figure, diplomat or someone of political note.

Elmendorf replied to Podesta’s mysterious reference: “I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite, we all need to buckle up and double down”

We do not want to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole here based on one or two comments. However, Podesta’s email was sent on a Tuesday. By Friday, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was found dead at a remote Texas resort. To say Scalia’s death was suspicious is putting it mildly.

  • No autopsy
  • No medical examiner on site to decipher cause of death
  • No U.S. Marshal protection detail accompanying Scalia
  • No functioning CCTV cameras on day of death
  • Scalia found clothed on bed with pillow over face
  • Scalia’s body mysteriously cremated before it could be examined
  • Resort owner large Obama contributor
  • And the list goes on and on

We are not alleging Podesta or Elmendorf played a role in Scalia’s death. That is a large leap and making such a leap is how news sites get a reputation for spreading conspiracy theories. But neither are doing themselves any favors by discussing the topic via email either. And the timing cannot be ignored, even by partisan detectives. Simply put: The optics look very bad.

When public officials and Beltway insiders, especially those working for Hillary Clinton, start and correspond to an assassination-themed email thread, they open themselves up wide for criticisms. Likewise this is the definition of poor judgment by both parties, discussing anything related, jokingly or not, to assassination. Podesta, after all, is running a campaign for the presidency of the United States and therefore his communications are held to a higher standard. And in a functioning Republic where law and order prevail, the FBI would want some answers too to the questions were are posing here. Any competent investigator would, based on the troubling timing alone. But, not Director James Comey’s FBI. Not this FBI.

Here’s the link to the Podesta email on Wikileaks. Below is a screenshot I took of the email:

H/t Big Lug

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Hillary Clinton says she’s not running for presidency in 2020

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton grinds woman’s butt in South Africa

Can we believe her?

News12 Westchester reports, March 4, 2019, that in an exclusive interview, Hillary Clinton ruled out a 2020 presidential run for the first time on camera.

In her first local TV interview since the midterm elections, Hillary told News12’s Tara Rosenblum on camera:

I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”

Expressing deep concens about the state of American politics today — which she herself worked at destroying, calling supporters of Trump “a basket of deplorables” — Hillary vowed to be vocal about those concerns and pledged to take an active role by working with the candidates in the crowded Democratic field.

She’s already held private meetings with many of the candidates, and she revealed the substance of some of those closed-door discussions: “I’ve told every one of them, don’t take anything for granted, even though we have a long list of real problems and broken promises from this administration that need to be highlighted…. I’m gonna do everything I can to help the Democrats win back the White House.”

She said: “I want to be sure that people understand I’m going to keep speaking out. I’m not going anywhere. What’s at stake in our country, the kind of things that are happening right now are deeply troubling to me. And I’m also thinking hard about how do we start talking and listening to each other again? We’ve just gotten so polarized. We’ve gotten into really opposing camps unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my adult life.”

Blah, blah, blah.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Senate Democrats vote for infanticide

Jeremiah 19: 3-5

Thus saith the LORD of hosts….
Behold, I will bring evil upon this place….
Because they have forsaken me, and…
have filled this place with the blood of innocents.

Yesterday, a bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) against infanticide by ensuring that babies who are born alive after botched abortions are provided medical care and treatment, failed 53-44 because every Democrat except three voted against it.

The bill, S. 130 – Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was introduced by Sen. Sasse on January 15, 2019, in response to laws recently passed in New York and Virginia legalizing abortion of not just late-term (third trimester) unborn humans, but post-birth (“after labor”) abortions. Similar moves are being made in Illinois and Vermont.

To that end, S. 130 states that its purpose is “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

S. 130 furthermore states that “If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws” because “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

Accordingly, “Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital….

Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”

S. 130, with 48 co-sponsors, all Republicans, needed 60 votes to pass, but received only 53 “yes” votes:

  • Every Democrat, except Senators Joe Manchin (WVa), Bob Casey (PA) and Doug Jones (AL), voted against the bill, i.e., voted for infanticide:
    • Among the Demonrats who voted in favor of infanticide were every Democrat senator running for president in 2020: Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders.
  • Every Republican except three voted for the bill:
    • Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who supports abortion, did not vote.
    • Pro-life Republican Senators Tim Scott and Kevin Cramer, who would have voted “yes,” did not vote because they were absent due to flight delays.

During the debate on S. 130, Demonrats made false claims about the bill — that it would ban abortions or ban late-term abortions; that the bill hated women; and that abortion is about women’s health. (LifeNews)

But S. 130 is not about banning abortions, late-term or otherwise. Nor is S. 130 about women; it’s about babies who survive an abortion. Nor is S. 130 about women’s health; it’s about the health and the life of babies. Nor does S. 130 hate women. On the contrary, the bill goes out of its way to protect women whose babies survive an abortion by specifying that “The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.”

Don’t believe me? Read S. 130 for yourself, here. It’s not long — only one page.

There are some who suspect the Demonrats’ bloodlust to abort late-term unborn and outright kill babies who survive abortions, may have something to do with the lucrative sale of baby parts for “scientific” research and who knows what else.

In fact, in 2017, as a result of Center for Medical Progress’ undercover video exposés, two California companies, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, were fined and ordered to shut down for illegally trafficking world-wide in aborted baby parts (tissues and organs) obtained from Planned Parenthood of Orange County.

Most recently, on February 13, 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Roberto and William Isaías, wealthy Ecuadorian brothers who were principals in DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics. The brothers donated $90,000 to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and were given asylum in the U.S. by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s State Department also rebuffed attempts by Ecuador to extradite the brothers to face justice for running their Ecuadorian bank into the ground, illictly profiting from government bailout funds, and wiping out the life savings of thousands of families. (California Catholic Daily)

Below is an elegiac poem by FOTM reader Tim Shey:

New York Deathscape
By Tim Shey

Auschwitz,
Treblinka,
Buchenwald,
New York:
Unreal.

Child sacrifices unto Baal,
Albany is become Sodom.
The Hudson
Is a river of venom,
In the Valley of Slaughter.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0