Connect with us


Hillary All Wrapped Up in Boston HEATWAVE – Humiliates Herself In Front Of Everyone

This is weird…



What is this woman hiding?

Earlier this year in a university press release, Radcliffe Dean Lizabeth Cohen characterized Clinton’s life and career as an inspiration to people around the world.

And this past Friday the failed 2008 and 2016 Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton was in Boston Massachusetts to receive the “Radcliffe Award” from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. The Radcliff Award is supposed to be an award that recognizes individuals who have had a “transformative impact” on society and Past award recipients include Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Republican former Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

Although she lost 2 presidential campaigns that which were widely viewed as uninspired, the former Secretary of State basked in a fairly fawning reception from fans in Cambridge. They who swarmed her by the dozens to seek selfies and autographs. One of the most memorable lines of her career “that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights” was quoted by no fewer than three speakers during the day’s events.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

But what was possibly the oddest part of an event that was like something out of the 60’s TV show The Twilight Zone was perhaps what Clinton was wearing for the event.

Although it was close to 90 degrees in Boston on Friday the former First Lady wore a long coat and a scarf? Now isn’t that odd? And judging from one of the pictures that were posted on The Gateway Pundit from the event, it seems like she’s definitely hiding something behind that large thick coat.

Makes you wonder what’s wrong with this woman? We all know she seems to fall a lot, but under that coat, she seems to be hiding a brace of some kind that she wants no one to see. What other explanation would anyone have to wear a think coat and a scarf in 90-degree weather?

Here is more on this ridiculousness that is Hillary Clinton  via MSN News:

“The friendly crowd in liberal Cambridge nonetheless groaned, laughing, when Clinton said in her remarks that she didn’t want to get political. Without mentioning the name of the president, Clinton bemoaned the polarized state of politics and the radicalization of groups of Americans — particularly on the right.

“There are forces and leaders in our country who blatantly incite people with hateful rhetoric, who stoke fear of change, see the world in zero-sum terms so if others are gaining, then everyone else must be losing,” Clinton said. “That is a recipe for polarization and conflict.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton talked with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey at Harvard University.© Suzanne Kreiter/Globe staff Hillary Rodham Clinton talked with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey at Harvard University.
In response, she called for “radical empathy” — reaching across the divides of race, class, and especially politics to try to “return to rational debate, to try to disagree without being disagreeable, to recapture a sense of common humanity.”

“When we think about politics and judge our leaders, we can’t just ask, ‘Am I better off than I was four years ago?’ ” she added. “We should also ask: ‘Are we all better off? Are we as a country better, stronger, and fairer?’ ”

Clinton exhorted the audience to fully engage, by taking stands on issues, subscribing to newspapers, running for office, and making sure to vote in every election.

“You’ve got to find an issue that you really care about and go deep and go long,” she said. “We’re not going to change things overnight. We have to be persistent and sustain the opposition. I’ve been pleasantly surprised how well it has been sustained.”

Clinton urged the crowd to stand up for freedom of the press, as well as truth and reason, saying all are under assault. And she urged Americans to pursue democracy with “new moral conviction, civic engagement, a sense of devotion to our democracy and our country.”

Quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, she said, “You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, ‘I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.’ ”

“That takes resilience,” Clinton added. “Resilience has been on my mind a lot. Everyone gets knocked down.”

“It’s not been an easy time for more than half of our country since the 2016 election,” she said. “And I still think that understanding what happened in that weird and wild election will help us defend our democracy in the future.”

The event marked Radcliffe Day and drew a crowd of 1,850 people split between Radcliffe Yard where Clinton spoke, and Greenleaf Yard, where a simulcast was shown.

The day had its awkward moments. In a wide-ranging conversation onstage, Healey asked Clinton about the “best ceremonial swag” she had ever received. “The good stuff you can’t keep,” Clinton said.

When Healey asked who had inspired Clinton as a girl, Clinton cited her mother as a role model and recalled a time she’d tried to hide inside when the neighborhood kids were picking fights.

“There is no room for cowards in this house,” her mother told her, she recalled. “Get back out there.” Nudged outside, she was egged on into fighting a 4-year-old girl.

“I pushed back really hard, knocked her down,” Clinton said, joking that “there were no weapons or anything like that,” and that “she became my best friend growing up.”

When Healey asked Clinton which company she would choose, if she could be CEO of any one, Clinton blurted: “Facebook.”

“It’s the biggest news platform in the world,” she explained, while calling for improvements in the platform that circulated fake news stories during the 2016 election. “It really is critical to our democracy that people get accurate information on which to base decisions.”

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Right Wing News!

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’



Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading


Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!



President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook



No trending posts found at this time.