Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Funny

Chuck Schumer Thinks Rules Don’t Apply To Him On Flight, Immediately Gets Taught Huge Lesson

Who does he think he is!?

Published

on

I hope you are sitting down because it appears that Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D) has once again demonstrated his hypocrisy, demonstrating by actions and words that he will and continues to take positions, not out of any sort of principled conviction, but because he believes they will grant him political gain.

Schumer has been an outspoken and vocal critic of President Donald Trump, as he has hammered the president on alleged ties to Russia and the “election hacking” scandal. Never one to suffer fools, President Trump also routinely calls Schumer out publically via Twitter as he is prone to do.

In March 2017, President Trump called for “an immediate investigation” into Schumer due to HIS ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him a “hypocrite” due to a picture of Putin and Schumer surfaced from 2003 published in the Associated Press.

Trending: Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

Schumer is currently responding to the recent political stunt pulled by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, with regard to the 12 indicted Russian intelligence operatives. Schumer demands that President Trump demand that President Putin “hand over” the 12 Russians in question.

Yet there are significant questions regarding the indictment as investigative journalist Paul Sperry notes, “Another strange Russia indictment by Mueller: no arrests, no American co-conspirators,no seizure of servers or property, no raids & no sourcing–no informants or witnesses named,nothing attributed to intercepts. In fact,none of the findings is attributed–not even to an FBI agent”

He continued – “Did Mueller leave out the sourcing for his evidence in Russia “hacking” indictment because its merely CrowdStrike, the Democrat cybersecurity shop? Did CrowdStrike supplement the forensics in the absence of the DNC server FBI and Mueller never seized so Quantico could examine it?”

Schumer has also launched a campaign to block the nomination of President Trump’s most recent Supreme Court appointment Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanagh has been chosen to take the place of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Schumer tweeted his opposition just after the announcement of Kavanaugh’s appointment had been made, stating – “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

Yet during the prior administration, Schumer spoke out against what he termed as “obstructionist behavior” of Republican senators’ plans to filibuster former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick to replaced deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

Speaking to ABC’s This Week, Schumer stated virtually the opposite of what he is stating regarding the confirmation of Kavanaugh. Schumer stated – “Well, the job, first and foremost, is for the president to nominate and for the Senate to hold hearings and go through the process. You know, the Constitution, Ted Cruz holds the Constitution, you know, when he walks through the halls of Congress. Let him show me the clause that says president’s only president for three years…Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, no, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to lead the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time…This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last. And you know, we Democrats didn’t do this. When in the — we nominated — we voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term.”

For the record, Schumer’s last statement is highly misleading in that the only reason Kennedy was nominated in the last year of Reagan’s term was that Senate Democrats blocked and voted down his first two choices the year prior.

Schumer also took a similar stance to his current stance on Kavanaugh nine years ago. At that time, he went out of his way to make sure the George W. Bush administration knew of his plans to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee they put forth of the next two years because the ideologies of the prior nominees did not align with his own.

In a speech given on July 27, 2007, Schumer stated – “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions, not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

Apparently, Schumer objected to a 300-day delay in appointing a Justice, was perfectly fine filibustering a Supreme Court nominee for 543 days?

Yet, not only is Schumer a hypocrite, he also believes the rules simply do not apply to him. Schumer was flying with his political protégé, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on a US Airways flight from LaGuardia Airport to Washington.

Both Schumer and Gillibrand were talking on their cellphones while the plane was boarding and continued to do even after the plane’s captain made the announcement for passengers to turn them off. The two Senators simply ignored the announcement and continued to talk on their phones. This prompted a flight attendant to politely ask the two Senators to simply follow the Federal Aviation Administration rules and simply turn their phones off as all the other passengers on the plane had already done.

According to a House Republican aide who was also on the flight and seated nearby, Schumer demanded to finish his call. The flight attendant told him “No” because the entire plane was waiting on him to shut his phone off in accordance with FAA regulations so they could take off. He was holding up the entire flight.

Schumer then ended the call, but promptly began to rage at the flight attendant proclaiming he was entitled to continue his phone conversation until the cabin door was closed.

The aide then responded to Schumer’s ridiculous antics, stating – “She said she doesn’t make the rules, she just followed them.” As she walked away, Schumer was heard muttering, “Bitch!”

Rather than being embarrassed for Schumer’s sanctimonious and pretentious outburst, Gillibrand attempted to cover for Schumer. She initially claimed the senior senator was “polite” and that “he turned off his phone when asked to.”

Once the story of the true version of events was made public, circulating the news – Gillibrand’s office made a second statement with a correction.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, said later that “[t]he senator made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn’t have made, and he regrets it.”

Gillibrand’s aide, Glen Caplin, said – “Chuck did the right thing by apologizing.”

The flight attendant accepted his apology but also stated Schumer has a reputation that precedes him – “He is NOT nice!”

After the incident Schumer was very critical and extremely vocal, condemning Republicans for “trying to score cheap political points” from the incident. Yet as evidenced by Schumer’s own words and actions that this seems to be HIS issue, not that of a flight attendant, or Supreme Court Justice nominee, the Russians, or President Trump.

Schumer is too busy playing political games and pandering to this or that special interest group, as well as adding commas and zeros to his own personal bank accounts than he is in effectively serving the people that elected him to Washinton. Schumer, your hypocrisy is showing again, you might want to tuck that back in!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Culture

Melania Just Broke Her Silence On Trump-Trashing Omarosa And Drops The Hammer Hard!

Here comes the Boom!

Published

on

From the first time I saw President Trump hit the campaign trail, I never doubted that he adored Melania and she felt nothing but love and admiration for him. The left has constantly tried to allege that their marriage is in disarray and that Melania is getting ready to leave Trump at any moment. President Trump’s former aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, became one of the left’s minions in her new book “Unhinged,” where she claimed that the Trumps were on the verge of divorce.

At first, Melania seemed to have nothing much to say about the accusation. Her silence is now over and she’s dropping the hammer hard on the allegations by Omarosa. Melania’s office has issued a statement that solidly refutes claims by Omarosa that she is seeking a divorce from Trump. The statement suggests that Omarosa should be more grateful for the opportunities afforded to her by President Trump. There’s no arguing with that. Not only did Trump have her repeatedly on The Apprentice, he brought her on his White House team when her qualifications certainly didn’t merit it. He gave her a chance to serve her country and instead, she is serving herself.

Omarosa is a TV celebrity, not a marriage counselor. But that doesn’t stop her from trying to play one in real life. Evidently, the book insinuates that due to Trump’s alleged affairs, Melania can’t wait to dump him. That’s just laughable. “In my opinion, Melania is counting every minute until he is out of office and she can divorce him,” the former aide wrote. Then she really stepped over the line by suggesting that if the first lady were to divorce Trump while he was in office, he might counter by negating her citizenship. He can’t do that and anyone who knows anything about the law and the Constitution would tell you that. She’s just making stuff up and it’s not only entirely false, it’s disgusting.

Omarosa was obviously furious that Kelly fired her and that Trump let it happen. She’s being childish and petulant about it. Frankly, Kelly did the right thing. She thinks very highly of herself and because she feels she was slighted, she is turning on someone who was a very good friend to her. Way to bite the hand that feeds you.

Omarosa went on to address Melania’s fashion choices, which far outclass the TV reality star’s own fashion sense. She went after the “I really don’t care, do you?” jacket incident and had the nerve to claim it was meant to punish President Trump. Again, there is nothing to back that up and it doesn’t even make sense. I believe that happened after she left the White House so how would she even know? “I believe Melania uses style to punish her husband,” Omarosa writes. “At any time, if she so desired, she could humiliate him in public with small, ambiguous gestures, just as he’d openly humiliated her with his affairs and lascivious behavior for years.” Omarosa has no idea what Melania thinks and she has no right to pretend she does. She claims that she had a great connection with Melania. I highly doubt that assertion.

It didn’t take long for Melania to shoot down those claims. Her office indicated that they never really interacted with each other at all. Melania’s Communication Director Stephanie Grisham made that crystal clear by saying that the first lady “rarely, if ever, interacted” with Manigault Newman. Why would she? Their paths would not cross as Omarosa was an aide to Trump, not Melania. They certainly weren’t close friends. Grisham continued speaking for Melania, “It’s disappointing to her that she is lashing out and retaliating in such a self-serving way, especially after all the opportunities given to her by the president.” Very, very true.

Omarosa signed a non-disclosure agreement when she went to work in the White House. She has obviously broken the terms of that agreement and I would wager she is going to have legal troubles over all of this. And she should. This is not reality TV, this is the presidency and your actions have consequences. But her legal woes may not end there. A number of people that Omarosa has claimed were involved in incidents with the president are claiming that she is not telling the truth. She is making accusations with no proof to back them up and that will not end well for Omarosa. Her recording White House officials in the Situation Room is also something that will get her in legal hot water.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, is nixing a story about President Trump using racial epithets in addressing him. Pollster Frank Luntz also stated that Omarosa did not tell the truth when he was named as an individual who had heard President Trump use the n-word. “I’m in [Omarosa’s] book on page 149,” Lutz tweeted. “She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word. Not only is this flat-out false (I’ve never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn’t even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work.”

I haven’t heard anyone from the White House, that has left or is there presently, that backs up Omarosa’s claims. Not one bit. A furious President Trump tweeted praise for General John Kelly firing her, “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” Melania probably seconds that sentiment wholeheartedly. I know I do.

Continue Reading

Funny

Viewers Floored By What Happened After Fox News Host Ate Steak In Front Of Ultra-Liberal Vegan

The look in her eyes was pure evil!!

Published

on

Jesse Watters had some fun when he invited a doctoral candidate on his show to debate her about the effects of eating meat. His guest was Anne Delassio-Parson and she’s a candidate for getting her Ph.D candidate at Penn State. Her big thing? She thought that eating meat reinforced gender stereotypes. Sounds pretty stupid, right? Don’t worry, it gets better. The thought was that eating meat supports a “hegemonic masculinity” or a “meat-centric culture” but that’s also fairly unintelligent, right? It is because men and women both enjoy eating meat products and no one really looks at another man or woman and thinks anything different of them, of course, unless you’re a liberal with some strange identity problem.

Usually what happens is a man and woman decide what they want to eat and no one else really cares unless they’re eating monkey brains or something totally exotic that’s out of the norm. If a girl wants a double cheeseburger or a salad, then more power to them. If a guy wants to chomp a steak or have a milkshake, then more power to him. No one cares.

Either way, eating meat somehow became the topic of this bizarre woman who doesn’t seem to be the best product of Penn State. She’s certainly a better representative than Jerry Sandusky, but that’s not very hard to do.

They then talked about “doing vegetarianism” and “de-linking” meat from gender hegemony and all I could think of was “who cares?” Not me. I’m pretty sure no one living their life in any state of normalcy would care about the nonsense that this lady is spewing.

Here’s where it gets even better. Jesse Watters ate a steak right in front of her. BOOM! Absolutely hilarious and if it’s cooked any more than medium rare, then he better send it back. What’s better than that? The fact that it was recorded. Watch the Jesse Watters steak video below, then tilt your head back and laugh. Just remember folks – eat whatever you want. No one cares. It’s your life and your belly. Eat whatever makes you happy, but not so much that it makes you an obese Trump hating complainer like Michael Moore.

Fox News: “Jesse Watters on Saturday debated a doctoral candidate from Penn State University, who contended that eating meat reinforces gender stereotypes.

As FoxNews.com reported, Anne DeLessio-Parson published an article in the “Journal of Feminist Geography” after studying Argentina’s “meat-centric culture.”

An academic journal has published an article by a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University that argues eating meat maintains a society where “hegemonic masculinity” is the norm.

“I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender,’” Anne DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”

DeLessio-Parson theorizes that being a vegetarian in the South American nation is a political act that contributes to the destabilization of the gender binary, or the view that there are only two sexes, masculine and feminine.

“[V]egetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations,” she wrote. “Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism.”

On “Watters’ World,” Watters challenged her on the claim, and enjoyed a late-night snack during the debate.

DeLessio-Parson said Watters was slightly incorrect when he said consuming meat “creates toxic masculinity” because the phenomenon is “already there.”

She said it “reinforces certain social structures, including patriarchy” through its “symbolism.”

Watters then produced some symbolism of his own, as a producer laid a plate of steak — “medium rare” — in front of him.

“Is this bad — that I’m eating meat?” he asked.

DeLessio-Parson said it would be more acceptable if he hunted or procured the meat himself, rather than “enjoying the benefit [with] the blood on someone else’s hands.”

“What if you’re just hungry, and the animals are there for us to enjoy?” he asked.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend