Connect with us

News

Reporter Stunned By What She Caught Melania Doing In Private While Following Her For Months

A closer look reveals more.

Published

on

A reporter from the New York Times, Katie Rogers, has gone on the record telling how it is to have the job of covering First Lady Melania Trump on a consistent basis. She appears to have been following the first lady, as a reporter, for quite some time and is now giving people a closer look at what Melania might be like in private. This is just one but many glimpses into the life of Melania, as told by the specific reporter covering her.

Roger’s explained:

“From Melania’s energy in photos and memes, people have really cast her on social media as cold and modelesque and icy. In person, she’s much warmer. However, she is a Trump and she supports her husband in a lot of things that would infuriate people. She smiles pretty easily, and she has a sense of humor. I do think she has her own thoughts about her role in life, but we’re still trying to uncover them.”

She also later added that Melania is no passive spouse and will defend herself vigorously if she thinks she has to.

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

Rogers said Melania is a warm person and went on to add more about her private life.

Here is more on this via The Cut:

“On the First Lady’s (very small) circle of trust:
I think it’s important to note that the East Wing is always pretty locked down. It’s probably one of the hardest areas of the White House to cover because the staff is smaller, and First Ladies feel as if they have a certain right to privacy. So, that part is not really unusual. What is unusual, though, is that Mrs. Trump’s circle is very small. She relies really heavily on her aides, including her director of communications, Stephanie Grisham, to control the message. Stephanie is responsive, but if you ask her something that veers into anything that is considered personal, her office can lash out. That’s a little unusual — that they don’t always confirm where the First Lady is.

On what it was like reporting on Melania’s 25-day absence:
There’s been a really long-peddled theory that she doesn’t actually live in the White House. Her team is really well-aware of these theories because they get questions about it and they’re tuned into what people are saying on social media. I mean, there are some long-running theories that aren’t crazy, but they persist. And her absence has added to the list of things we think about her or feel like we need to know about her. I think what’s important to know about the First Lady is that people tend to form an opinion about her based on what they think of the presidency itself.

On Melania’s very controlled return to the public:
When I saw that she was going to be at an event that was closed to the press, I thought two things: The White House was probably easing her back into the public eye. They knew that she’d be in photos and that she would control the message. In any other White House, I think having a First Lady who’s essentially been out of the public eye for so long with so few updates would be the biggest story. But this is not a typical White House.

On her best guess for Melania’s disappearance:
I’ve spoken to people who are close to the president, and I think that as the curiosity around her grew, the East Wing dug in and said they’re not going to put her out in public or release statements to prove a point. I don’t have any guesses, but I do know that the more you press her office and the more curiosity mounts about her, the less likely she’s going to comply with it.

On what Melania has learned from Trump:
I think people tend to not remember that she came into the White House with a history of being really comfortable behind the scenes. She’s been content to let her husband sort of take the lead, and I think she’s been really unapologetic about that.

From Melania’s energy in photos and memes, people have really cast her on social media as cold and modelesque and icy. In person, she’s much warmer. However, she is a Trump and she supports her husband in a lot of things that would infuriate people. She smiles pretty easily, and she has a sense of humor. I do think she has her own thoughts about her role in life, but we’re still trying to uncover them.

I will say that if she feels things are unfair to her, though, she adopts the Trump tactic of totally punching back. She’s not a weakling.

On the hardest part of reporting on the White House:
The hardest part of my job is the job. It’s like standing in front of a tennis-ball machine every day. You think you know what the story is at 9 a.m., and then every three hours, it’s something new, and we’re talking about used mattresses. I think Melania is super fascinating in his life, and I think it’s also wild to her that she’s in this position. I think she’s really tried to embrace it, but I don’t think it has gone as she might have hoped.

On Melania’s state of mind:
I don’t know, since I’m not inside of her head. I think this role has been really hard for any modern First Lady. Michelle Obama really struggled with it, but I think she found ways to bring parts of her old life here. She always had a tight circle of friends, so she found ways to go away with them, and she also launched a platform. I mean, Michelle Obama also faced a ton of scrutiny, too, but I think as countries become even more polarized, there’s not much the First Lady can do without being super scrutinized.

On why the public is so fascinated with the First Lady:
I think there is a large group of people that is not disturbed by [her absence], and thinks that she deserves her privacy. But she and the president live in taxpayer-funded housing, and she’s a public figure at the end of the day. Also, historically, since someone like Jackie Kennedy, who also really valued her privacy, Americans have come to expect that they deserve to know the whereabouts of the First Family. Americans expect this from people who live in the White House, but the president has made it very clear that he’s not going to run the White House like other presidents have. And I think his wife is doing the exact same thing in the East Wing.”

The most impressive statement is that Melania Trump “is no weakling” because she’s strong, independent, and appears to be doing a wonderful job as the first lady of the White House.

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.

News

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

Published

on

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

News

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

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

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

Recent

Trending