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

Connect with us

News

Stuttering Hillary Just Sucker Punched With Karma While On Rampage About ‘Nasty’ Melania

Let’s play “spot the hypocrite!”

Published

on

Twice-failed presidential candidate and former First Lady Hillary Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans, Conservatives, and supporters of the current Trump administration as she continues to remind everyone over and over again that there is simply no low she will not sink too.

Hillary jabbed at First Lady Melania Trump and blasted President Donald Trump with steaming hatred and vitriol over the current enforcement of long-standing immigration laws. Hillary’s well-known narcissism and selective memory were on full display as she accused the right of what she termed “bothsideism.”

She argued in a recent interview with the British newspaper The Guardian it is hypocritical for Trump administration officials to be treated civilly in public while they separate children from their parents who illegally crossed through the U.S.-Mexico border.

Hillary expressed her manufactured faux outrage when asked about the recent calls for civility in a lengthy tirade, stating – “Oh, give me a break! Give me a break! What is more uncivil and cruel than taking children away? It should be met with resolve and strength. And if some of that comes across as a little uncivil, well, children’s lives are at stake; their futures are at stake. That is that ridiculous concept of bothsideism.

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

Well, you know, somebody made an insulting, profane remark about President Trump, and he separated 2,300 children from their families, that’s both sides, and we should stop being uncivil – oh and, by the way, he should stop separating children. Give me a break, really! I mean, this is a crisis of his making that will damage kids for no good reason at all, and I think everybody should be focused on that until the children are reunited.”

When asked about the jacket Melania wore to troll the media bearing the logo “I really don’t care” hours after she visited illegal-alien children at a Texas shelter.

“That, I have no idea. I have no idea. I can’t even … I don’t have any idea. I don’t know, ” an irate Hillary told the Guardian. “I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.”

The mainstream media propaganda mouthpiece attempted to ascribed sinister motive to Melania’s $39.00 jacket, creating nonexistent controversy much as they did with her high heeled shoes in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in Houston, Texas. They relentlessly pushed the narrative that the jacket had a hidden message and Melania was stating she did not care about the welfare of illegal immigrant children.

Yet her actions clearly stated otherwise, unlike Hillary. “But her jacket…” the anti-Trump media collectively blathered on at every opportunity.

The Guardian’s Decca Aitkenhead writes – “I ask how [Clinton] interpreted the jacket the first lady wore to visit a child detention centre, bearing the opaque and intriguing slogan: ‘I really don’t care, do u?’ Clinton slumps back in her chair, wide-eyed, arms spread, defeated by the mystery. ‘That, I have no idea. I have no idea. I can’t even … I don’t have any idea. I don’t know.’ Does she feel sorry for the first lady? ‘I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.’”

Meanwhile, in reality, Melania continues to visit border shelters showing with her actions that she does indeed care very much about the plight of those seeking asylum and refuge in the United States. Rather than simply play lip service and pretend to care with more empty words along the lines of Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Laura Bush, Melania let her feet do the talking and rather than talk? She simply did.

Twitter user Tiff pointedly noted: “All 3 of these ladies husbands’ policies separated families while putting children in cages.”

The self-proclaimed champion for women made the remarks while dismissing the stalking, harassment, and flat out bullying of women currently serving in the Trump administration and the targeting of their children. Hillary seemingly gives a stamp of approval to recent events where protestors disrupted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s dinner last week and later mobbed her while at her home. Or similarly when White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia on Friday because she worked for President Trump, and though she left without complaint members of her party were stalked by the restaurant staff to their next locale.

Actor Peter Fonda also recently sent out vile tweets calling to “rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”  He also called for violence against Nielsen and Sanders, as well as advocating for Sanders’ children to be kidnapped.

“Give me a break, really,” Hillary ranted. “I mean, this is a crisis of his making that will damage kids for no good reason at all, and I think everybody should be focused on that until the children are reunited.”

Yet Hillary was uninterested in addressing her own hypocrisy. In an incredible demonstration of her lack of self-awareness, Hillary continued to raise eyebrows as she compared herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

“I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn’t they?” she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee then immediately claimed she wasn’t actually comparing herself to Churchill, before going on to elaborate on the analogy.”

Actor James Woods had a field day with that remark with a crack about cigars.

When asked if she believed the recent accusations regarding the Trump administration wading into a fascistic territory, Hillary stated –

“Well, here’s what I believe. There are certain characteristics of authoritarian leaders trying to isolate and demonize minorities, which we see happening,” she said. “Looking to undermine the rule of law in as many ways as possible, some of which we have seen happening. Going after the press — and recently he called the press the nation’s No 1 enemy. There are certain behaviors that I think would raise anybody’s alarms.”

It seems that Hillary’s hypocrisy knows no bounds as Hillary herself was demanding that illegal migrant children be deported in 2014.

Hillary was also conspicuously silent throughout the eight years of the Obama administration as illegal migrant children were separated from their illegal migrant parents during his eight years in office. Not once did Hillary acknowledge or address reports of the mistreatment of migrants while she served as Secretary of State, nor did she do anything about their plight while she served as a U.S. Senator from 2001-2009, nor did she address the separation of families while she was serving as First Lady herself during her husband’s presidential term from 1993 to 2001.

Former President Barack Obama expressed similar sentiments himself in 2014.

It seems Hillary’s hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

 

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.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

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