Model Quits Twitter after Backlash to Tweet Bashing America

After being called out for using the October 22 terror attack on Canada as an opportunity to bash America on Twitter, super model Chrissy Teigen is leaving Twitter for Instagram to escape criticism.

It all started while the police response to the terror attack was still ongoing, and Teigen tweeted, "Active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in america, wednesday."

The response to Teigen's tweet was swift and relentless, and she tried to diffuse the outrage by explaining that she was knocking America, not Canada. She tweeted: "Sorry you don't understand that is a knock at america and our issues with gun control. No one is minimizing the Ottawa shooting."

As the outrage continued, Teigen made clear she would not recant her tweets nor would she apologize.

more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/23/After-Getting-Cal...

Views: 625

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

maybe she should tweet about her cocaine habit and her model whoredom. It is people like her that Jeb Hensarling declares are the reason we can't impeach obama.

I ALREADY CALLED HIS SENIOR REP IN DALLAS MIKE LEE ON MONDAY AND ASKED ARE THEY GETTING READY TO IMPEACH SINCE WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE THE SENATE. HE SAID NO. THEY WON'T BE DOING THAT. WE GOT INTO IT HEAVILY AND HE SAID IT IS WHAT THE VOTERS WANT NOT THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

I REMINDED HIM OF THE BLM,ETC. HE NEVER WOULD SAY THAT WHAT THEY DID IS WRONG. THEY THINK IT WAS OK SINCE BUNDY DIDN'T PAY TAXES. I ASKED HIM IF HE THINKS WE WON'T HAVE ANOTHER REVOLUTION BECAUSE WE WILL NOT GIVE UP OUR FREEDOM. HE WOULDN'T ANSWER. YES I THREATENED THEM WITH AN REVOLUTION. IT IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO WARN THESE POLITICIANS THAT THEY ARE TREADING ON THIN GROUND. I TOLD HIM WE WILL NOT LAY DOWN AND GIVE IN TO COMMUNIST/MUSLIMS. WE WILL FIGHT AND WIN JUST LIKE 1776.

I still don't understand why people keep talking about impeachment. It takes BOTH impeachment AND conviction to remove a sitting president, not one or the other.  Only the Senate can convict, and that takes 67 votes. The GOP will be very lucky to gain a bare majority of 51 votes after 4 November, and don't expect 16 Democrats to vote for conviction, which is why articles of impeachment will not be filed. 

If the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment and there is no conviction, we will be looking as dumb as we did when we couldn't convict Scumbag Bill. 

While I somewhat agree with you, I don't discount the rush of angry voters, after November 4th, for an Impeachment.  The same voters that will turn over the Senate, will be looking for blood and to run Obama's Administration out of the Country.  With all of the "Lawyers" that sit in the Senate, one would hope that there are some that could put together a good legal case for the conviction.  The House, with the backing of a Senate Majority, will be hard pressed to not file for Impeachment, and while Obama is under the Impeachment, he will not be signing EOs until it is concluded.

Viper, In fact the voters will have nothing to do with an impeachment and a conviction trial. Only the House can file Articles of Impeachment and only the Senate can convict according to the U.S. Constitution, not the voters.  Angry or not, voters have no power to convict, and screaming at their representatives will do not good because there will not be enough votes to convict and remove Obama from office.  The "backing" of 51 senators when it takes 67 to convict means that at best, impeachment will be a symbolic gesture. and one that could easily backfire, as there is zero chance of conviction.  I don't know why you think that impeachment will stop Obama from issuing executive orders, as he will still hold the office unless he is convicted in the Senate. Until convicted he remains in office. According to http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Impeachment_in_the_United_States The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Forget about impeachment unless 16 Marxists walk across the  aisle in the Senate and decide they are no longer Democrats. That is not going to happen because the voters elected the wrong people. 

remember, Marxists have weak spines and can be bent back...  that's how they got were they are currently.  It's the "in-group, out-group" phenomena.  They aren't powerful enough on their own, so they will convert as they see fitting to their own best interests. 

Agree!  That he won't sign any more EOs is obvious while under impeachment proceedings - logically, at least.  If he did, he would be toast.

but the "impeachment" proceedings will stop Obama's recklessness while ongoing.  And given the number of Senate Dem's who will be campaigning for their own 2016 re-election(s), I don't find it so implausible to not be able to sway that number with the evidence, that is ample!!!, in the news during the proceedings.

I say, impeach the felon, then indict.

And I believe impeachment is the only way to bring back our country to what is right.  Without attempting (even) the whole nation is saying, "it's okay for our President to break the law."  And it will happen again and again and again - until we are through.  Same principle as with murderers or wife beaters or thieves... or even just the bad behaviors of children if not corrected when they do wrong;  if everyone knows they are doing something very wrong yet nobody attempts to stop them, in the [wrong-doers' mind] the actions are being condoned; and those around (unless they are totally self-guided and beyond corruption) are thinking:  'he got away with it, so I can to.' 

The message being sent by not holding Obama accountable for his crimes is ruining our country as much as Obama's crimes are.

and just think:  without Impeachment proceedings going forward - the path Hillary will follow if she gets into the WH in 2016.  Precedent will have been set - and onward the destruction will be implemented without a course to reign her in.  If that happens, I doubt there will be any sympathy left for anyone who continues to shout, "reform."  So, impeach Obama or we all need to shut up and just live with the consequences.

Katherine Hovey

You said, "but the "impeachment" proceedings will stop Obama's recklessness while ongoing." That's an assumption. He might even use the "pen and phone" more during that time, especially if he knows he will not be convicted. There is no restriction on his activities during a conviction trial.   Besides, wouldn't we would want him to be reckless in a situation like that to help convince some of his party to convict him? He might even ACT sorrowful to get off  the hook -  he is an actor when need be. And if a conviction fails, what do you think will happen then? Payback time, and the American people will be on the receiving end. 

There is no certainty that we will even get a majority of 1 in the Senate after 4 November. 

But I wonder what makes you think that Democrats will be swayed by evidence?  I believe that is a bad assumption. Democrats are only swayed by votes, and as I noted below the voters on the left are none too bright.  And just how many Democrats will be running in red states or red districts  in 2016? And will there be enough illegals voting from now on to ensure that Democrats can't lose?

Besides, no matter what the evidence or proof, it will be turned into race, race, race and/or economic lies.  It is easy to forget that many voters are so pathetically ignorant that  they don't know right from wrong, and if they don't encourage their reps to vote for a conviction, it will not happen.  Senators only listen to their constituents.

The American people gave away their country by failure to mount strong enough protests against universal suffrage and the election of senators among many other failures. We did not ensure that voters were educated, and that was probably the biggest failure of all.

Sounds like Mike Lee joined the other side.  Who said he was a conservative?  He's more interested in saving obola's worthless hide than following the Constitution.

 Wrong Mike Lee? I suspect the Mike Lee you are thinking about is Senator Mike Lee from Utah, while Jeb Hensarling is a member of the House of Representatives from Texas, and Mike Lee is not Jeb Hensarloing's senior rep in Texas.

good for you..I also believe that we should have another revolution as this government is corrupt&out of control...They do not LISTEN to WE THE PEOPLE who PAY their wages..IRS,EPA,Congress,etc...I think that we patriotic civilians/militias need to coordinate to start the movement.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service