~ Featuring ~
The Academy Awards for 
Hypocrisy and Narcissism 
by Mark Alexander
Mark Levin Interviews Devin Nunes 
on FISA Court Abuse by DOJ and FBI
by sundance

{ } ~ Mark Levin interviewed House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes on the overall FISA Court abuse and political investigation...
 by the DOJ and FBI.  In a comprehensive interview Levin walks through a timeline of media reporting. The hour long interview in three video segments.
Loesch Warns Hollywood Libtards, Media
Propagandists and Dirty Politicians 
{ } ~ As the self-obsessed of Hollywood held their awards pageant for each other to perpetuate the myth that they’re better than the rest of us... and trick some of the more feeble-minded Americans into caring what happens there, Dana Loesch had a message. Time is running out for the corrupt left and their tools of mind control and subversion. In an advertisement for her new program on NRATV, Loesch told the anti-American globalist Democrats and their various identity factions how things are going to be. She said, “We’ve had enough of the lies, the sanctimony, the arrogance, the hatred, the pettiness, the fake news. We are done with your agenda to undermine voters’ will and individual liberty in America.” She continues, “So to every lying member of the media, to every Hollywood phony, to the role model athletes who use their free speech to alter and undermine what our flag represents, to the politicians who would rather watch America burn than lose one ounce of their own personal power, to the late night hosts who think their opinions are the only opinions that matter.”...
Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder 
Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative
by Tyler Durden 
{ } ~ As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election... a conclusion based solely on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the Washington Times by retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations - however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a memory stick, and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.  In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery," forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking... 
This New Technology Could 
Transform The Oil Industry
by Ian Jenkins
{ } ~ Across the world’s big energy markets, the energy war rages on... OPEC and U.S. producers have been competing for years, but it’s now clear who’s winning this fight. American production of crude oil rose to an all-time high, surpassing 10 million bpd. In February, the International Energy Agency predicted that U.S. shale output could meet all new global demand, thanks to its “extraordinary growth.” Petroteq doesn’t want to just produce oil from oil sands much more cheaply—it intends to license advanced technology globally, targeting not only the 1 trillion-plus barrels of oil equivalent in sands in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, but the trillions of barrels worth everywhere around the world...
Could federal watchdog tamper with Trump
wiretap evidence? It may not be a first
{ } ~ Everyone hopes the Department of Justice’s inspector general (IG) will fairly investigate surveillance activities conducted on U.S. citizens by the FBI and intel agencies... Just like we hope the IG’s office will reach fair conclusions in its probes of alleged FBI misconduct concerning the liar-Hillary Clinton investigation, leaks to the media and conflicts of interest. But, for me, there’s reason to be wary. I turned to the IG’s office in 2013 after independent forensics proved my computers had been infiltrated by remote intruders using software proprietary to a federal intel agency. Instead of fair findings, I got a lot of mischief and stonewalling.  By way of background, in 2013, I filed a complaint with the IG’s office asking it to investigate the government-based computer surveillance. CBS News — where I worked at the time — would not allow the IG to examine my CBS laptop, which had been infiltrated as CBS publicly announced on Aug. 7, 2013. But I asked the IG to examine one of my personal home computers that was also compromised... 
The Academy Awards for Hypocrisy and Narcissism 
by Mark Alexander:  The latest annual confab of self-congratulatory celebrities, the 90th Academy Awards, is over.

          If you are reading this, you likely did not watch that self-aggrandizing parade of pomp and pretense from mostly mindless Hollywonks and have already seen headlines about who won which awards. There are still a few great movies being made, but some of the biggest “entertainment industry” grossers are devoted to the unmitigated violence saturating the minds of young people.
          The centerpiece celebrity of the event was its host, Jimmy Kimmel, who, as I wrote last week, deserves an Oscar for “Serial Misogyny Based on a True Story.” Kimmel is an unapologetic misogynist, but he gets a pass because he has established himself as the loudest of the elitist celebrity voices defaming grassroots Patriots and those who represent them.
          If not for Hollywood’s abject hypocrisy, Kimmel would not be hosting the Academy Awards — which is to say, he is the perfect host.
          As I noted last week, given the recent report that 94% of Hollywood women report have been harassed, Kimmel was asked if he would use his Oscars platform to take up the mantle of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements.
          He fired back, “This show is not about reliving people’s sexual assaults. It’s an awards show. … And the last thing I want to do is ruin that for someone … by making it unpleasant. You know, that’s not what I want to do. I’m not going to stop any bad behavior with my jokes.”
          In other words, Kimmel knows that if he focused too much on the #MeToo mantle, somebody might actually call him out for his sordid history of wholesale misogyny as creator of “The Man Show,” where he spent four years building his career on the gross objectification and denigration of women prior to being picked up by Disney/ABC.
          Though he regularly uses his “Jimmy Kimmel Live” monologues as a platform to promote leftist political causes, he has not devoted a single monologue to condemn the sexual harassment in Hollywood. Wonder why? He’s a hypocrite’s hypocrite — but Disney/ABC isn’t about to derail its advertising revenue gravy train.
          Despite his assertion last week that he would not mention #MeToo, somebody tapped on his shoulder and let him know he had to mention it because it’s going to be a significant component of the Democrats’ midterm election strategy.
          According to the tabloid Washington Post headlines, between his attacks on President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, Kimmel’s “#MeToo Oscars monologue revealed a painful truth.” But of course, not the truth about his own well-documented, unapologetic serial denigration of women.
          Kimmel joked about #MeToo: “Oscar is the most beloved and respected man in Hollywood. And there’s a very good reason why. Just look at him. Keeps his hands where you can see them. Never said a rude word. And most importantly, no penis at all.
          He crassly offered this pun about the most noted of executive abusers in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein: “The academy, as you are no doubt aware, took action last year to expel Harvey Weinstein from their ranks. There were a lot of great nominees, but Harvey deserved it the most.” Apparently the other “great nominees” are now being more discreet with their harassment and abuse.
          He took cheap shots at easy targets. “Here’s how clueless Hollywood is about women,” he said. “We made a movie called ‘What Women Want’ and it starred Mel Gibson.”
          No, actually, here’s how clueless Hollywood is about women — they selected a serial misogynist to host their biggest celebrity confab of the year.
          On a serious note, Kimmel declared, “We can’t let bad behavior slide anymore. The world is watching us. We need to set an example.
          The next “example” should be exiling Kimmel from his celebrity seat at Disney/ABC.    ~The Patriot Pos

Views: 20


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service