They make it too easy…
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
From Daily Mail: ‘Squad’ congresswoman Ilhan Omar told friends years ago that the man who went on to become her second husband was in fact her brother, DailyMail.com can confirm.
And now for the first time one of those friends has come forward to reveal exactly how Omar and Ahmed Elmi scandalized the Somali community in Minneapolis.
Abdihakim Osman is the first person to go on record to speak of how Omar said she wanted to get her brother papers so he could stay in the United States, at a time when she was married to her first husband Ahmed Hirsi.
But hardly anyone realized that meant marrying him.
Osman’s revelations are sure to renew calls for an investigation into the Minnesota freshman representative who has repeatedly refused to answer questions on her marriage to Elmi.
She originally said the idea that the spouses were also siblings were ‘baseless, absurd rumors’, accusing journalists of Islamophobia, but has since stayed quiet.
Her spokesman told DailyMail.com that Omar, 37, does not comment on her family or personal life. ‘The Congresswoman is focused on the work her constituents sent her to Washington to accomplish,’ he said.
Omar married her first husband Hirsi in 2002 in a Muslim ceremony that, like many in the immigrant community, was not registered with the state. Their first child Isra was born the following year and a second followed.
But in the late 2000s Elmi appeared in Minneapolis, said Osman, who referred to Hirsi by his nickname ‘Southside’ throughout the interview. ‘People began noticing that Ilhan and Southside (Hirsi) were often with a very effeminate young guy,’ Osman said, who spoke in Somali through an interpreter.
‘He was very feminine in the way he dressed — he would wear light lipstick and pink clothes and very, very, short shorts in the summer. People started whispering about him. ‘[Hirsi] and Ilhan both told me it was Ilhan’s brother and he had been living in London but he was mixing with what were seen as bad influences that the family did not like. So they sent him to Minneapolis as ”rehab”.’
Osman, who runs a popular Facebook blog called Xerta Shekh, which comments on Somali issues, said that Omar kept her marriage to Elmi quiet, with no one from the Somali community invited to the wedding. He explained: ‘When [Hirsi] and Ilhan got married, a lot of people were invited. It was a big Islamic wedding uniting two large clans in the Minneapolis community. ‘I would say there were 100-150 people there.’
But, he said: ‘When she married Elmi, no one even knew about it.’
Osman said at the time Hirsi was better known than Omar among Somalis. ‘He was a footballer, he promoted a lot of Somali shows, he was very popular. ‘So the scandal was about [Hirsi’s] brother-in-law more than Ilhan’s brother.’
It has long been rumored that Omar and Elmi are brother and sister. But because of a lack of paperwork in war-torn Somalia where they were both born, positive proof of their relationship has never been uncovered.
Read the whole story here.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Two days ago, conservative talk-show titan Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that he’s been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.
Stage 4 lung cancer means the cancer has metastasized (spread) throughout the body to other organs. Distressingly, the median life expectancy of stage 4 lung cancer is only around 8 months; the 5-year survival rate after diagnosis is only 4%.
Last night, at his State of the Union (SOTU) address, President Trump saluted and conferred on Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal are the highest civilian awards in the United States. Established in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy, the Presidential Medal of Freedom recognizes those people who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors”.
Demonrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who will be 80 years old on March 26, with her botoxed, many-times lifted, wrinkleless face, pointedly remained seated and refused to applaud.
Pelosi also showed her disdain by tearing up a printed copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech.
Earlier, when Trump walked into the House chamber to raucous applause from GOP members and chants of “four more years,” Trump snubbed Pelosi by refusing to shake her hand, turning his back on the House Speaker who led his entirely-baseless and blatantly-partisan impeachment in the House of Representatives. (New York Post)
In a rage, Demonrat Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI), Tim Ryan (OH) and Bill Pascrell (NJ) stormed out of the SOTU address. Other Demonrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Steve Cohen (TN), Al Green (TX), Hank “Guam would tip” Johnson (GA), Frederica Wilson (FL), and Earl Blumenauer (OR), boycotted the SOTU. (Breitbart)
In his SOTU address, the “Great American Comeback,” President Trump graciously made no mention of the Democrats’ impeachment witch-hunt, focusing instead on his administration’s many accomplishments, policy goals and the eternal American spirit. He said:
“America’s enemies are on the run, America’s fortunes are on the rise and the America’s future is blazing bright. In just three short years, we have shattered the mentality of American decline and we have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny. We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, and we are never going back!”
Callling every child “a gift from God,” President Trump also spoke out for the unborn, calling on Congress to ban late-term abortion.
Thank you and God bless you, President Trump.
Please pray for Rush Limbaugh.
Please pray for President Trump.
Please pray for America.
We have a joke and Hitler!
A young man named Chuck bought a horse from a farmer for $250. The farmer agreed to deliver the horse the next day.
The next day, the farmer drove up to Chuck’s house and said, “Sorry, son, but I have some bad news, the horse died.”
Chuck replied, “Well then, just give me my money back.”
The farmer said, “Can’t do that, I went and spent it already.”
Chuck said, “Okay then, just bring me the dead horse.”
The farmer asked, “What ya gonna do with him?”
Chuck said, “I’m going to raffle him off.”
The farmer said, “You can’t raffle off a dead horse!”
Chuck said, “Sure I can. Watch me. I just won’t tell anybody he’s dead.”
A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, “What happened with that dead horse?”
Chuck said, “I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at $5 a piece and made a profit of $2,495.”
The farmer said, “Didn’t anyone complain?”
Chuck said, “Just the guy who won. So I gave him his $5 back.”
Chuck grew up and now works for the government.
The media portray Americans who believe in chemtrails and weather-modification as tinfoil hat-wearing “conspiracy theorists,” as if there are no real conspiracies and ignoring the inconvenient fact that it was the CIA who concocted the label “conspiracy theory” for the express purpose of discrediting by denigrating skeptics of the official version of the Kennedy assassination.
But the plain fact is that the U.S. government has been engaged in weather modification (“tinkering with the environment”) since 1953, as revealed in a 784-page U.S. Senate report, Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: May 1978), which came to light in April 2017, nearly 40 years after it was published.
Now, there is more evidence of the U.S. government’s weather modification.
John Fialka reports for E&E News (via ScienceMag.org), Jan. 23, 2020, that David Fahey, the top climate-change scientist at the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said his agency has received $4 million (which Fahey said could expand to more than $100 million) from Congress to combat climate change with “geoengineering” — which he calls “Plan B”.
But Fahey wants the nomenclature be changed from “geoengineering” to “climate intervention,” which he maintains is a “more neutral” term. He says:
“Geoengineering is this tangled ball of issues and science is only one of them. One of the things I’m interested in doing is let’s separate the science out.”
Fahey is a physicist and the director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory.
Fahey said “Plan B” refers to two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions:
Fahey said research in both techniques are recommended in a forthcoming study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine titled “Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth.”
Even if Plan B were implemented, the results likely would not be immediate. Fahey said Plan B might take until the next century to complete the cooling.
Asked by a researcher whether injections of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere might reduce seafood by acidifying the oceans, Fahey admitted there would be drawbacks to Plan B, as well as unintended consequences:
“When you put aerosols up into the atmosphere, it does a lot of things. That opens up this whole menu of things that you’d have to worry about. [Other aerosols such as calcite or titania] might have less impact, but nobody knows. We want to look at them in the laboratory. We have to use atmospheric observations to find out what we’re doing.”
Several smaller countries have complained that the use of aircraft to inject aerosols into the atmosphere might alter the weather or destroy the ozone layer that protects humans from some of the more harmful radiation from sunlight.
For now, NOAA’s authority does not extend into the stratosphere — the second major layer of Earth’s atmosphere, just above the troposphere, and below the mesosphere. But there is a bill in Congress, HR 5519: Climate Intervention Research Act, that would broaden NOAA’s jurisdiction.
Until now, the closest thing to testing Plan B is a Harvard University-sponsored project called the “Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment” (SCoPEx). It proposes a small-scale test using a propeller-driven balloon that would ascend to a height of 12 miles over New Mexico and then release less than 2.2 pounds of calcium carbonate. The idea is to create a tubular area in the sky—about six-tenths of a mile long and 109 yards in diameter—through which the sensor-packed balloon could slowly move back and forth, mixing the air and monitoring the solar-reflecting abilities of the scattered materials. It also would track the impact of the treated area on the surrounding atmosphere. When SCoPEx would happen remains unknown.
Fahey said NOAA supports the Harvard stratospheric test and has contributed an instrument to help it measure the dispersion of particles:
“We’re going to have to give up some things to go into Plan B. That’s why we would be motivated to try designer aerosols, but we may not have time. That’s what Harvard wants to do. It goes back to the question of which path you want to be on [–an international decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or being late and forced to implement a Plan B to stop runaway climate change]. I don’t want to be on the late path, but the question is which paths are going to be open to us. I think nobody can play out all the chess moves on this issue. It is so complicated.”
H/t Activist Post
Finally, someone is holding Hillary Clinton accountable.
This morning, in the U.S. district court in Manhattan, 2020 presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), 38, filed a $50 million defamation suit against Hillary Clinton for calling her a “Russian asset” or spy. The lawsuit demands a jury trial.
Note: An “asset” is a spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy.
A press release from Tulsi’s 2020 campaign states:
On October 17, 2019, she [Hillary Clinton] publicly stated in an interview that “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary … [is a] favorite of the Russians… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.” The press extensively republished and disseminated these statements, which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset.
Below are excerpts from the lawsuit, Tulsi Gabbard and Tulci Now, Inc. v. Hillary Rodham Cinton (Note: Tulci Now is the principal campaign committee for Tulci Gabbard):
Plaintiffs Tulsi Gabbard and Tulsi Now, Inc. (collectively, “Tulsi”) bring this lawsuit against Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton (“Clinton”) for defamation. Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain. In October 2019—whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated—Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent. Tulsi has been harmed by Clinton’s lies—and American democracy has suffered as well. With this action, Tulsi seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election….
[I]n February 2016, Tulsi believed the best Democratic presidential candidate for ourcountry was Senator Bernie Sanders. She also knew that Clinton had a stranglehold over the Democratic party and that crossing Clinton (who considered herself the “inevitable nominee”) could mean the end of her own political career….
Clinton—a cutthroat politician by any account—has never forgotten this perceived slight. And in October 2019, she sought retribution by lying, publicly and loudly, about Tulsi Gabbard. Specifically, in widely disseminated national comments, Clinton falsely stated that Tulsi—an Army National Guard officer and United States Congresswoman who has spent her entire adult life serving this country—is a “Russian asset.” Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s presidential campaign.
Clinton had no basis for making her false assertions about Tulsi—and indeed, there is no factual basis for Clinton’s conspiracy theory. Clinton’s peddling of this theory has harmed Tulsi, has harmed American voters, and has harmed American democracy. Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country’s political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election….
On October 17, 2019, Clintonwas a guest on the podcast CampaignHQ With David Plouffe. In the course of a widely-distributed national interview, Clinton stated the following regarding “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary” who “[they] are grooming . . . to be the third-party candidate”1:
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset….”
The next day, October 18, Clinton doubled down on the Defamatory Statements. A CNN reporter asked Clinton’s official spokesman, Nick Merrill, whether the Defamatory Statements were about Tulsi. Clinton’s spokesman responded: “If the nesting doll fits.” He continued:“This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality.”
Clinton’sreference to “the nesting doll” is a reference to the universally known Russian nesting dolls (Matryoshkadolls)….
Scientifically conducted opinion surveys have shown that Clinton’s false, malicious statements about Tulsi were accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states.
In short, Clinton got exactly what she wanted by lying about Tulsi—she harmed her political and personal rival’s reputation and ongoing Presidential campaign, and started a damaging whisper campaign based on baseless, but vicious, untruths.
Despite calls from Tulsi and other public figures to correct the record, Clinton did not retract the Defamatory Statements. Nor did she apologize for the Defamatory Statements.
Before bringing this lawsuit, Tulsi wrote to Clinton and advised her of the complete and total falsity of the Defamatory Statements. Tulsi also asked Clinton to retract the Defamatory Statements.
Clinton refused to retract the Defamatory Statements and instead stood by them. She continues to stand by them. She refuses to apologize. And Tulsi continues to be greatly injured….
Clinton knew that the Defamatory Statements were false, and she published them knowing they were false. Clinton also intended the Defamatory Statements to be defamatory and endorsed their defamatory nature. At the very least, Clinton acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements when she published them….
The Defamatory Statements have injured Tulsi’s reputation. As a direct and proximate result of Clinton’s intentional and malicious misconduct, Tulsi has suffered anguish and damage to her reputation, with direct and substantial injury to her positions as United States Congresswoman; Presidential candidate; and officer in the Army National Guard. These substantial injuries are continuing in nature and will continue to be suffered in the future, unless and until they are remediated by this Court.
Millions of Americans heard (or read about) Clinton’s Defamatory Statements. Scientifically conducted opinion surveys have shown that Clinton’s false, malicious statements about Tulsi, including that Tulsi is a “Russian asset” and “the favorite of the Russians,” were accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states.
The Defamatory Statements have caused Tulsi to lose potential donors and potential voters who heard the Defamatory Statements. Tulsi has suffered significant actual damages, personally and professionally, that are estimated to exceed $50 million—and continue to this day….
In addition to actual damages, Tulsi is entitled to appropriate special and punitive damages in view of Clinton’s malicious and unrepentant conduct. The amount of these damages will be proven at trial, but in no event should they be less than the amount of Tulsi’s actual damages.
Tulsi demands judgment against Clinton as follows: i. An award of compensatory, special and punitive damages in appropriate amounts to be established at trial; ii. Injunctive relief prohibiting the publication or republication of the Defamatory Statements; iii. An award of Tulsi’s costs associated with this action; and iv. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Tulsi demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
You go, Congresswoman Gabbard!
Here’s the pic:
You know the drill:
This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, January 21, 2020.
To get the contest going, here’s my caption:
“Chaired by Jerrold ‘drooling‘ Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee convenes its impeachment hearing”
For the winner of our last Caption Contest, go here.
On January 3, at the direction of President Trump, missiles shot from American drones killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, Iraq.
Soleimani was a major general in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for military and clandestine operations outside of Iran. He was described by an ex-CIA operative as “the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today” and the principal military strategist and tactician in Iran’s effort to combat Western influence and promote the expansion of Shiite and Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.
Trump justified the assassination on the grounds that Soleimani was a terrorist who posed an “imminent threat” to American lives. The U.S. Defense Department said Soleimani had approved the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019, and was planning further attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The January 3 drone attacks incinerated the two vehicles carrying Soleimani and his companions. We are told that what remained of Soleimani was his hand wearing a ring with a large, oval, red stone like the one seen in countless photos of Soleimani.
But, as Deplorable Patriot shows in his post, “Could Iranian general Qassem Soleimani fake his death if someone gave him a hand?,” the red ring on the severed hand is not the same ring seen in photos of Soleimani when he was alive. The silver metal setting that holds the red stone is different: the setting in the severed-hand ring is grooved, but the setting is smooth in photos of Soleimani.
Add to the intrigue and mystery is the discovery by eagle-eyed netizens like Mimi B that American celebrities (Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks) and political elites (Hillary Clinton, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Podesta), as well as the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, have also been seen wearing rings with a large oval red stone similar to Soleimani’s. (Note: Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be included in the composite pic below — the ring he was wearing has a blue stone.)
Go here for close-ups of the red rings on Oprah, et al.
What does the red ring signify? Membership in some secret organization?
More intrigue still.
According to the jewelry website La Blingz, Soleimani’s ring is a Free Masons ring — the Sterling Silver Masonic Masonic Red Onyx Statement Ring, now marked down from $150 to $69.99.
Tweeter Mike Bravo points out Soleimani’s associates also sport the red Masonic ring.
Notice how in the picture above, Soleimani was wearing THREE similar-looking rings with red oval stones? Below is a close-up of his two hands:
Since he owned and sometimes wore several big red-stone rings at the same time, the ring on the severed hand said to be Soleimani’s may be one of them. Does this mean the hand did belong to Soleimani and he is dead after all?