Women

Hillary Clinton on Friday defended her 2016 campaign strategy after 2020 Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg criticized his party’s previous nominee for being too hopeful and not understanding the struggles of everyday Americans.

“I really do believe that we always have to appeal to our better selves because the wolf is at the door, my friends,” Clinton said during an appearance at the 10th Annual Women in the World New York Summit. “Negativity, despair, anxiety, resentment, anger, prejudice, that’s part of human nature and the job of the leader is to appeal to us to be more than we can be on our own, to join hands in common effort.”

“I was well aware that we had problems that we had to solve, but it’s been my experience that anger, resent, prejudice are not strategies,” the former first lady, secretary of state and senator from New York added. “They stop people from thinking. They don’t enlist people in the common effort to try to find solutions.”

Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., told the Washington Post in a profile published January that President Trump connected with the concerns of ordinary Americans in a way Clinton did not.

“Donald Trump got elected because, in his twisted way, he pointed out the huge troubles in our economy and our democracy,” he said. “At least he didn’t go around saying that America was already great, like Hillary did.”

A senior Clinton adviser blasted Buttigieg’s comments last month via Twitter as “indefensible.”

“[Hillary Clinton] ran on a belief in this country & the most progressive platform in modern political history. Trump ran on pessimism, racism, false promises, & vitriol. Interpret that how you want, but there are 66,000,000 people who disagree. Good luck,” Nick Merrill tweeted.

“It’s pretty simple. Slam HRC…lose my vote,” and another who chimed in: “It is unfortunate when people as smart as @PeteButtigieg engage in this fantasy fiction about 2016. And as a gay American it is disappointing because @HillaryClinton ran a campaign which amongst its many values championed our community,” Merrill also wrote.

FILE PHOTO: Super Bowl LIII - New England Patriots v Los Angeles Rams
FILE PHOTO: NFL Football – Super Bowl LIII – New England Patriots v Los Angeles Rams – Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. – February 3, 2019. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft celebrates with the Vince Lombardi Trophy after winning Super Bowl LIII. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

April 12, 2019

(Reuters) – A lawyer for New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft on Friday asked a Florida judge not to make public a video that led to the billionaire being charged in a prostitution sting at a massage parlor, calling the evidence “basically pornography.”

Media companies including ABC and ESPN clashed with Kraft’s defenders, saying the judge would violate Florida’s public records laws by suppressing the video of Kraft receiving sexual services at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida.

The owner of one of the National Football League’s most successful franchises and winner of this year’s Super Bowl was one of hundreds of people charged in February after an investigation unveiled widespread trafficking of young women at Florida day spas and massage parlors.

The 77-year-old billionaire businessman has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor charges of soliciting sex and requested a jury trial in March.

William Burck, Kraft’s attorney, argued in Palm Beach County Court that surveillance footage from the spa should not be released to the media because it would violate Kraft’s privacy rights, compromise his right to a fair trial, and interfere in an active criminal investigation.

“It’s basically pornography,” Burck told Judge Leonard Hanser. “There’s no interest in actually seeing the video unless you have a prurient interest in seeing the video.”

Kraft’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the video in March, further suggesting that police did not have a valid search warrant to collect the video as evidence.

Dana McElroy, an attorney representing the media outlets, argued that sealing the video would violate the state’s public records law.

Kraft apologized for his actions in a written statement issued last month.

(Reporting by Gabriella Borter in New York; Editing by Scott Malone and Bill Berkrot)

Source: OANN

A group of 33 Haitian citizens who recently apprehended for attempting to sail to the U.S. and illegally enter were deported Friday to face possible prosecution back home for drugs that were found aboard the boat they commandeered, according to the Coast Guard.

The Department of Homeland Security agency said Friday Coast Guard Cutter Spencer spotted a 25-foot-long motor boat in the water about 35 miles north of Tortuga, Haiti, early Monday. The Boston-based ship deployed a small crew to inspect the suspicious boat.

While on the way to the boat, the guardsmen noticed six softball-sized bundles floating in the water about 300 feet from the boat. The packages were seized and later tested positive for marijuana.

Once at the boat, the guardsmen found 27 adult Haitian men and six Haitian women, as well as three more packages of marijuana and one of amphetamines. The narcotics all tested positive.

1000w_q95.jpg

All 33 migrants were taken into custody aboard the Coast Guard ship and given food, water, shelter, and basic medical attention, the agency said.

A Coast Guard spokeswoman in the Miami office said they have encountered several groups this size in recent months.

“The Coast Guard diligently patrols the Florida Straits and Caribbean Sea to ensure the safety of life at sea and the security of the United States,” Lt. Cmdr. James Hodges, District 7 response officer, said in a statement. “Neither illegal migration nor drug smuggling will be tolerated, and the Coast Guard will continue to enforce federal laws while maintaining a strong presence out on the water.”

The drugs were seized and destroyed by the Coast Guard.

In the end, the man who reportedly smeared feces on the walls of his lodgings, mistreated his kitten, and variously blamed the ills of the world on feminists and bespectacled Jewish writers was pulled from the Ecuadorian embassy looking every inch like a powdered-sugar Saddam Hussein plucked straight from his spider hole. The only camera crew to record this pivotal event belonged to Ruptly, a Berlin-based streaming-online-video service, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of RT, the Russian government’s English-language news channel and the former distributor of Julian Assange’s short-lived chat show.

RT’s tagline is “Question more,” and indeed, one might inquire how it came to pass that the spin-off of a Kremlin propaganda organ and now registered foreign agent in the United States first arrived on the scene. Its camera recorded a team of London’s Metropolitan Police dragging Assange from his Knightsbridge cupboard as he burbled about resistance and toted a worn copy of Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State.

Vidal had the American national-security establishment in mind when he wrote that polemic, although I doubt even he would have contrived to portray the CIA as being in league with a Latin American socialist named for the founder of the Bolshevik Party. Ecuador’s President Lenín Moreno announced Thursday that he had taken the singular decision to expel his country’s long-term foreign guest and revoke his asylum owing to Assange’s “discourteous and aggressive behavior.”

According to Interior Minister María Paula Romo, this evidently exceeded redecorating the embassy with excrement—alas, we still don’t know whether it was Assange’s or someone else’s—refusing to bathe, and welcoming all manner of international riffraff to visit him. It also involved interfering in the “internal political matters in Ecuador,” as Romo told reporters in Quito. Assange and his organization, WikiLeaks, Romo said, have maintained ties to two Russian hackers living in Ecuador who worked with one of the country’s former foreign ministers, Ricardo Patiño, to destabilize the Moreno administration.

We don’t yet know whether Romo’s allegation is true (Patiño denied it) or simply a pretext for booting a nuisance from state property. But Assange’s ties to Russian hackers and Russian intelligence organs are now beyond dispute.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 cyberoperatives for Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate for the General Staff (GRU) suggests that Assange was, at best, an unwitting accomplice to the GRU’s campaign to sway the U.S. presidential election in 2016, and allegedly even solicited the stolen Democratic correspondence from Russia’s military intelligence agency, which was masquerading as Guccifer 2.0. Assange repeatedly and viciously trafficked, on Twitter and on Fox News, in the thoroughly debunked claim that the correspondence might have been passed to him by the DNC staffer Seth Rich, who, Assange darkly suggested, was subsequently murdered by the Clintonistas as revenge for the presumed betrayal.

Mike Pompeo, then CIA director and, as an official in Donald Trump’s Cabinet, an indirect beneficiary of Assange’s meddling in American democracy, went so far as to describe WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” For those likening the outfit to legitimate news organizations, I’d submit that this is a shade more severe a description, especially coming from America’s former spymaster, than anything Trump has ever grumbled about The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Russian diplomats had concocted a plot, as recently as late 2017, to exfiltrate Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy, according to The Guardian. “Four separate sources said the Kremlin was willing to offer support for the plan—including the possibility of allowing Assange to travel to Russia and live there. One of them said that an unidentified Russian businessman served as an intermediary in these discussions.” The plan was scuttled only because it was deemed too dangerous.

In 2015, Focus Ecuador reported that Assange had aroused suspicion among Ecuador’s own intelligence service, SENAIN, which spied on him in the embassy in a years-long operation. “In some instances, [Assange] requested that he be able to choose his own Security Service inside the embassy, even proposing the use of operators of Russian nationality,” the Ecuadorian journal noted, adding that SENAIN looked on such a proposal with something less than unmixed delight.

All of which is to say that Ecuador had ample reasons of its own to show Assange the door and was well within its sovereign rights to do so. He first sought refuge in the embassy after he jumped bail more than seven years ago to evade extradition to Sweden on sexual-assault charges brought by two women. Swedish prosecutors suspended their investigation in 2017 because they’d spent five years trying but failing to gain access to their suspect to question him. (That might now change, and so the lawyers for the claimants have just filed to reopen the cases.) But the British charges remained on the books throughout.

The Times of London leader writer Oliver Kamm has noted that quite apart from being a “victim of a suspension of due process,” Assange is “is a fugitive from it.” Yet to hear many febrile commentators tell it, his extradition was simply a matter of one sinister prime minister cackling down the phone to another, with the CIA nodding approvingly in the background, as an international plot unfurled to silence a courageous speaker of truth to power. Worse than that, Assange and his ever-dwindling claque of apologists spent years in the pre-#MeToo era suggesting, without evidence, that the women who accused him of being a sex pest were actually American agents in disguise, and that Britain was simply doing its duty as a hireling of the American empire in staking out his diplomatic digs with a net.

As it happens, a rather lengthy series of U.K. court cases and Assange appeals, leading all the way up to the Supreme Court, determined Assange’s status in Britain.

The New Statesman’s legal correspondent, David Allen Green, expended quite a lot of energy back in 2012 swatting down every unfounded assertion and conspiracy theory for why Assange could not stand before his accusers in Scandinavia without being instantly rendered to Guantanamo Bay. Ironically, as Green noted, going to Stockholm would make it harder for Assange to be sent on to Washington because “any extradition from Sweden … would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom” instead of just the latter country. Nevertheless, Assange ran and hid and self-pityingly professed himself a “political prisoner.”

Everything about this Bakunin of bullshit and his self-constructed plight has belonged to the theater of the absurd. I suppose it’s only fair that absurdity dominates the discussion now about a newly unsealed U.S. indictment of Assange. According to Britain’s Home Office, the Metropolitan Police arrested Assange for skipping bail, and then, when he arrived at the police station, he was further arrested “in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States.”

The operative word here is provisional, because that request has yet to be wrung through the same domestic legal protocols as Sweden’s. Assange will have all the same rights he was accorded when he tried to beat his first extradition rap in 2010. At Assange’s hearing, the judge dismissed his claims of persecution by calling him “a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests.” Neither can his supporters.

A “dark moment for press freedom,” tweeted the NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden from his security in press-friendly Moscow. “It’s the criminalization of journalism by the Trump Justice Department and the gravest threat to press freedom, by far, under the Trump presidency,” intoned The Intercept’s founding editor Glenn Greenwald who, like Assange, has had that rare historical distinction of having once corresponded with the GRU for an exclusive.

These people make it seem as if Assange is being sought by the Eastern District of Virginia for publishing American state secrets rather than for allegedly conniving to steal them.

The indictment makes intelligible why a grand jury has charged him. Beginning in January 2010, Chelsea Manning began passing to WikiLeaks (and Assange personally) classified documents obtained from U.S. government servers. These included files on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and U.S. State Department cables. But Manning ran into difficulties getting more documents, owing to the limitations of her modest security clearance.

At this point, Assange allegedly morphed from being a recipient and publisher of classified documents into an agent of their illicit retrieval. “On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist [Chelsea] Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Networks, a United States government network used for classified documents and communications,” according to the indictment.

Assange allegedly attempted to help Manning do this using a username that was not hers in an effort to cover her virtual tracks. In other words, the U.S. accuses him of instructing her to hack the Pentagon, and offering to help. This is not an undertaking any working journalist should attempt without knowing that the immediate consequence will be the loss of his job, his reputation, and his freedom at the hands of the FBI.

I might further direct you to Assange’s own unique brand of journalism, when he could still be said to be practicing it. Releasing U.S. diplomatic communiqués that named foreigners living in conflict zones or authoritarian states and liaising with American officials was always going to require thorough vetting and redaction, lest those foreigners be put in harm’s way. Assange did not care—he wanted their names published, according to Luke Harding and David Leigh in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. As they recount the story, when Guardian journalists working with WikiLeaks to disseminate its tranche of U.S. secrets tried to explain to Assange why it was morally reprehensible to publish the names of Afghans working with American troops, Assange replied: “Well, they’re informants. So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” (Assange denied the account; the names, in the end, were not published.)

James Ball, a former staffer at WikiLeaks—who argues against Assange’s indictment in these pages—has also remarked on Assange’s curious relationship with a notorious Holocaust denier named Israel Shamir:

Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache. Such was Shamir’s controversial nature that Assange introduced him to WikiLeaks staffers under a false name. Known for views held by many to be antisemitic, Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers—myself included—when he asked for access to all cable material concerning ‘the Jews,’ a request which was refused.

Shamir soon turned up in Moscow where, according to the Russian newspaper Kommersant, he was offering to write articles based on these cables for $10,000 a pop. Then he traveled to Minsk, where he reportedly handed over a cache of unredacted cables on Belarus to functionaries for Alexander Lukashenko’s dictatorship, whose dissident-torturing secret police is still conveniently known as the KGB.

Fish and guests might begin to stink after three days, but Assange has reeked from long before he stepped foot in his hideaway cubby across from Harrods. He has put innocent people’s lives in danger; he has defamed and tormented a poor family whose son was murdered; he has seemingly colluded with foreign regimes not simply to out American crimes but to help them carry off their own; and he otherwise made that honorable word transparency in as much of a need of delousing as he is.

Yet none of these vices has landed him in the dock. If he is innocent of hacking U.S. government systems—or can offer a valid public-interest defense for the hacking—then let him have his day in court, first in Britain and then in America. But don’t continue to fall for his phony pleas for sympathy, his megalomania, and his promiscuity with the facts. Julian Assange got what he deserved.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Gillette decided to insert itself in yet another unnecessary controversy of its own making, this time tweeting out an advertisement of a morbidly obese model.

While no one ought to be mocked or vilified for their weight, the ongoing trend of normalizing morbid obesity under the guise of “body positivity” is dangerous and unhealthy. Why would anyone want to trade one body extreme for another?

Here’s a novel idea: what about featuring an average-sized model?

By design, runway models have to be interchangeable, wafer-thin, and extremely tall. That won’t change just because the woke brigade demands it, but there’s a legitimate void in commercial modeling for women who fall in the middle range of weight and height distributions.

The average runway model has a body mass index of 16, between being “severely” underweight and “moderately” underweight, according to the World Health Organization. Again, the functionality of having androgynous models, who look more like coat hangers than people, benefits the frenetic environment of fashion shows, but there’s no real reason for women so thin or obese that they lose their menstrual cycles to be lionized by the advertisement industry. Don’t believe me? Just look at the data.

A 2012 study found that Caucasian men consider a body mass index of 18.8 as ideal. For reference, that would mean a 5’6″ woman would be 116.5 pounds, while her runway counterpart would be under 100 pounds. The average supermodel has a waist-to-hip ratio, a key component of secondary sex characteristics, of just 0.68, but men in the study prefer a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.73. A 2018 survey of 1,000 Americans found that while the average woman considers a body mass index of 21.3 ideal, the average man would prefer she had one of 24.3.

And a 2004 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that, all modeling be damned, the ideal female body has a normal body mass index, ranging between 18.5 and 24.9, and a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7.

Some companies have begun to catch on to the lack of normal women in fashion. In the first quarter of 2018 alone, sales at Aerie, a lingerie brand which famously casts average — not obese or emaciated — models, grew by a whopping 38%. And Victoria’s Secret notably replaced Adriana Lima with Barbara Palvin, who’s a dress size 2 or 4, on their “Angel” roster.

The “ideal” woman is still smaller than the average American, but that’s because America has a crisis of obesity, not because our aesthetics have changed. One in 4 Americans suffers from obesity, costing the country $147 billion annually and leading to the top causes of preventable, premature deaths. Why celebrate a condition that kills in the name of wokeness when the science shows that everyone’s attracted to healthy, fit women?

At a House Democrats conference this week, model Chrissy Teigen and musician John Legend shared their political ideas with an adoring crowd.

The celebrity couple, who addressed how to deal with internet trolls, could certainly contribute a unique perspective on civility.

But they failed. When moderator Melissa Harris-Perry asked Teigen and co-panelist House Speaker Nancy Pelosi what women should say more, Pelosi suggested “no.” Teigen, without missing a beat, recommended “fuck you.”

Because when our political discourse is in the mud, what we need is more dirt.

Teigen clarified on Twitter that what she meant was that women should express the expletive, if not in words, at least with their eyes and their vote.

It’s unclear what it means to say that phrase with your eyes. Maybe it means staring aggressively at politicians on the other side of the aisle? So the purest expression of feminism is now the angry glare?

Whether women actually go around saying “fuck you” to those they disagree with, which is not advisable as a path to success, or whether they express their fury with their votes, there’s the same underlying problem: rage.

Feminists and members of the #Resistance like to capitalize on anger to drive activism. But fury against the other side doesn’t help anyone accomplish anything. Same goes for Republicans. When women and men are confronted with the opportunity to pick incivility over rational discourse, they should take a cue from Pelosi and say “no.”

Outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced Tuesday night her acting deputy secretary is resigning.

Claire Grady, who was next in line after it was announced by President Trump over the weekend that Nielsen was resigning, was reportedly pushed out of the position to make room for Trump’s pick, Kevin McAleenan, the chief of Customs and Border Protection.

The resignation is the latest in a massive shakeup at the department. Trump announced over Twitter on Sunday that Nielsen was leaving after a tense meeting on immigration and the border. Soon after, Nielsen shared her letter of resignation and said she would officially depart Wednesday after helping with the transition.

Randolph “Tex” Alles, director of the Secret Service, left the White House on Monday after reports that he was told he had 10 days to exit. Trump picked Secret Service assistant director of the Office of Protective Operations, James Murray, to take over May 1.

Two other immigration officials who are reportedly expected to leave the Trump administration soon are L. Francis Cissna, the head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and John Mitnick, a senior member of Nielsen’s team.

Nielsen announced Grady’s resignation in a string of tweets.

“Acting Deputy Secretary Claire Grady has offered the President her resignation, effective tomorrow. For the last two years, Claire has served @DHSgov w excellence and distinction. She has been an invaluable asset to DHS – a steady force and a knowledgeable voice,” Nielsen said.

“Claire has led the men and women of DHS who support our operational staff. Her sound leadership and effective oversight have impacted every DHS office and employee and made us stronger as a Department. Clair has had a remarkable career in public service,” she added. “- 28 years at the Departments of Homeland Security & Defense – that is coming to a close. I am thankful for Claire’s expertise, dedication & friendship & am filled w gratitude for her exemplary service to DHS & to our country. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.”

The War Room gets proven right again as new reports suggest that 1.5 million illegal immigrants are set to cross the US border in 2019. Also, all the videos and images of Joe Biden groping women and children are going viral. Will Joe still run?

GUEST // (OTP/Skype) // TOPICS:

Source: The War Room

Spread the love

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., recalled Margaret Sanger’s — founder of Planned Parenthood — racist and eugenicist politics in a Friday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host Rick Manning.

Manning and Mansour asked King to address the Trump administration’s Friday issuance of a rule regarding federal taxpayer funding of family planning. The new rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), could block about $60 million of federal government funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

“I was absolutely delighted, because now the regulations are being addressed and we are really seeing clearly where some of the money that Planned Parenthood gets from our tax dollars comes from,” remarked King.

King noted, “[Planned Parenthood] gets over half a billion dollars a year, and several million dollars a day in tax dollars. Some of that money does come out of Title X. So you have several million women who are served by organizations that are funded through Title X, Planned Parenthood getting a lion’s share of that.”

King added, “So what we in the pro-life movement have been saying for a long time — especially in the African-American community — we said, ‘Okay, they don’t use their Title X money specifically to do abortions, but they pay for many of the other things that they’re doing, and that leaves some of their other funding streams available to do the abortions.’”

King continued, “So we knew there had to be some sort of regulation there to go ahead and fund those dollars to organizations that do not perform abortions, but give all of the other services like health screenings, opportunities being directed to other female health services, or to provide some of those services themselves without doing abortions on site, and that includes not just the surgical abortions, but the chemical and the medical abortions, as well.”

King went on, “If you take away those tax dollars from those organizations that also provide abortions on-site, even referrals for abortions under certain circumstances, if they’re pressuring the women to get those referrals and get those abortions, that’s going to prove to be a problem, as well.”

King anticipated Planned Parenthood’s opposition to the aforementioned HHS directive.

“Planned Parenthood will try to fight it, and that’s why need the court of public opinion to kick in,” stated King. “They need to hear from the communities that understand what they have been doing. They’re using our tax dollars to take care of their business and still provide those abortions. So we have to begin to blow that whistle to expose this. I think that the American community need to hear from folks who do not agree who are paying money to abortion providers with tax dollars.”

King declared, “Abortion is a crime against humanity, because the little baby in the womb is a human being. We know now from New York and Virginia with those measures that they were trying to do to even say — well, New York actually passed it and Virginia was on the way to passing it until the big scandal came with the governor — so even when the baby is born, if the intent was to abort the baby, then you keep the baby comfortable, and go ahead and let the baby die or help the baby die once the baby is born. So that is a crime against humanity.”

King said, “Abortion takes the life of a human being, and it is proven that that is a human being; a human by-product. Science proves it, philosophy agrees, and certainly religion has been saying that a long time.”

“If we can begin to connect those dots between abortion providers and tax dollars, then we’re going to be able to give those services to organizations that do not abort children,” predicted King.

Mansour noted the racist, eugenicist vision of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder.

King said, “[Margaret Sanger] thought about the unfit, that included Negroes, as we were called at the time. The unfit, those who maybe had physical disability or some mental disability, or things like that. She wanted to erase all of that out of the human population, and her plan was — first, before abortion became legal — to have birth control measures, and the negro project, tying women’s tubes and giving men vasectomies; free tubal ligations and free vasectomies in the negro community.”

King added, “People just don’t know [Margaret Sanger] was doing all that. She was also an adviser to the Ku Klux Klan. A lot of people don’t know that.”

Read More: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/23/alveda-king-delighted-trump-restricted-funding-to-planned-parenthood-founded-by-kkk-adviser-margaret-sanger/

Source: The Washington Pundit


[There are no radio stations in the database]