Connect with us

Conservatism

Watch: Trump at CPAC implicating Bill Clinton at Epstein Island

Published

on

Full quote:

Sean Hannity: Bill Clinton

Donald Trump: a nice guy, got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein, a lot of problems.

What does it mean?

Trump heavily implied Bill Clinton partook in the sexual acts at the infamous acts on Jeffrey Epstein’s island. However there are a number of reasons Trump could be saying these things. Donald Trump is not afraid to take a conspiracy theory by the horns, especially since his campaign was built on saying that which other candidates won’t. Violating conventional wisdom was part of his appeal, and very few politicians at the time, 3 plus years ago, would have made that claim. Therein lies the possibility, however slim, of Trump blowing smoke.

Secondly, Trump could be outing Bill Clinton because he knows it’s true. Bill Clinton’s finger prints on this pedophile playland are well documented. There are a score of flight logs and those flight logs contain the initials of several, what are believe to be victims. Fox News reported back in 2016:

Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

The flight logs are required to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration.

There report also included a picture. Still, if Trump knew about all of this, it raises questions why he did not champion this during his campaign, seeing as many Americans if they knew such things were going on would raise hell about it. Raising awareness and making this issue the focal point of the news cycle was certainly achievable for the Trump campaign. Instead, Trump’s comments are almost in passing and rather unemotional, given the gravity of the accusations. At best for Bill Clinton, Trump is merely implying that Bill Clinton could have legal trouble, not necessarily that he’s guilty of anything.

Trump could also have something to hide, in regards to his association with Jeffrey Epstein. This would be the worst case scenario: “a takes on to know one” sort of affair. If Trump is fully aware of Bill Clinton’s escapades, it could be because Trump is also a participant. This is not a statement of what is likely; instead it is honest speculation of what possibilities are conceivable. What I am saying is that it is more conceivable that Trump partook in these activities than Brett Kavanaugh raped some professor, simply because the connection between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is well-documented. Vice referred to Sex Island as “The Salacious Ammo Even Donald Trump Won’t Use in a Fight Against Hillary Clinton” back in 2016. And while that is the Leftist media talking, The Daily Wire also floated such suspicions. Though the Daily Wire alleged Trump visited the island, though the aforementioned Vice article it linked to only asserted that Trump visited Epstein’s stateside residences. While Trump’s connections with Jeffrey Epstein can be explained by two New York moguls networking, other comments by Trump cannot be. Specifically his 2002 comments in New York Magazine:

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Perhaps Trump doesn’t know how young, but Trump would have to be really bad at being a pedophile to make a slip up this bad. 2002 was during the period of time when Bill Clinton was flying to Sex Slave Island. This quote is more damning, less explainable than Epstein pleading the fifth when questioned about Donald Trump in 2010. But in anticipating a light sentence, perhaps Epstein didn’t want to burn bridges and perhaps he wanted to leave blackmail opportunities open in the future. Or perhaps Trump had details that would further implicate Epstein, thus pleading the fifth was the most strategic course of action. The situation leaves many questions unanswered.

Shortlist of things we do know about Trump and Epstein

Trump and Epstein are acquainted. The Trump administration is prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein with a Trump appointed attorney in the Southern District of New York. Alexander Acosta is a creature of the Bush administration. This case has the potential to be a catalyst for far more scandals.

Opinion

It’s most likely Trump is more informed on the Bill Clinton Jeffrey Epstein interactions than he let on back in 2016. However his own connection is up for debate. Conservative media cannot be an ostrich head in the sand when it comes to this, especially when in 2016, Conservative media floated the very allegations the Left is floating now. Still, if Trump is a pedophile participant, it is entirely counter to his interest to allow the Justice Department to investigate Jeffrey Epstein. If Trump is innocent, an innocent person would be cheering for the investigation allowing it to take down all involved parties. It’s a positive sign that the Trump administration is prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, especially after his sweetheart deal. The only people who do not take pedophilia seriously are people with something to hide, and, by looks, Trump is taking this more seriously than he would if he were guilty of anything.

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Published

on

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to kill a resolution to pursue impeachment against President Trump. The vote followed a resolution to condemn Trump following his tweets that enraged the left. The House got to vote on impeachment and this time 95 members all voted against killing the resolution, all 95 members in this 322-95 vote were Democrats. Not among them was Justin Amash who actually called for impeachment back in May in a 13 tweet thread.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.” Justin Amash May 20th

If you recall these tweet came weeks before he decided to name a single of the several instances of impeachable activity, instead reverting to vague tweets about the nature of impeachment. Yet since May 18th, it has become increasingly obvious Justin Amash has no intentions on following through on his calls to impeachment. As a Representative in the US Congress, he has the power only 435 people in the country have. If he feels that it is his duty to pursue impeachment, which is a view he pontificated on Twitter, then anything short of bringing forward impeachment on the specific charges he eventually laid out is grandstanding. With so few Congressmen having read the Mueller Report, his words, Democrats would defer to him on this issue if he would only do what he said he would do. But Justin Amash was only grandstanding on impeachment. Otherwise why would he have voted to kill a resolution on pursuing impeachment, the very thing he called for?

What has Justin Amash done since May 18th?

He voted for a resolution condemning Trump, but the real answer is, he’s taken some time to brand himself. After support in his own district plummeted, on July 4th, he declared his independence from the Republican Party in an op ed in the Washington Post. Seeing as Independence Day is about America’s history not a day for politicians to politicize for their own endgame, this is perhaps the most egotistical way do just that. Maybe doing it on 9/11 is worse. As he all but comes out of the closet on a 2020 Libertarian or Independent Presidential Run, Justin Amash looks to rebrand Libertarianism, removing the populism Rand Paul embraced. Daniel McCarthy at Spectator wrote a really good piece on Amash illustrating this point.

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

In not even fighting for the very thing he parted from the Republicans over, Trump, he has already lost. His district has likely turned on him and his best political prospect is being a below average 3rd party candidate. All he’s left with politically are his principles which his grandstanding calls into question.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because she’s not a wartime leader

Published

on

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because shes not a wartime leader

Some leaders are meant to bring people together. Others are made to get from one point in an organization’s development to the next stage. On occasion, an organization needs to go to war, and that’s what Planned Parenthood believes it needs to do right now. Their former president, Dr. Leana Wen, believes she is a combination of the first two types of leader – bringing people together and transitioning Planned Parenthood. She believes this is why she was pushed out the door by the board.

They want to go to war and Wen is not a wartime leader.

This may sound like a bad thing for pro-life organizations as their top nemesis is clearly positioning to be more of a political organization willing to play dirty and force the issue of abortion on as many people as possible. But an astute examination of the way things are today reveals one truth: America is polarized, so it’s better to go to fight ideology versus ideology rather than attack an organization trying to build bridges.

It may have been difficult for Wen to truly coax moderate pro-lifers, liberty-minded ant-government folks, and people on the fence on the abortion issue, but she was laying the groundwork for such things. This is why I’m glad to see her go. I know the threat of a proper radical progressive who hates pro-lifers to the core is worrisome to some, including our top pro-life writer. But the writing is on the wall: war is on. Planned Parenthood is looking for a battle-hardened fighter to shame people in Alabama, scare people in Georgia, and celebrate progressives in New York. They want someone who will push the feminine healthcare aspect of Planned Parenthood to the backburner and focus solely on advancing pro-abortion laws and planting more abortion clinics around the country.

We’re not just fighting for the lives of preborn babies, though that is plenty of incentive to fight. But we’re also fighting for the soul of the nation. For the pro-life, conservative, and Judeo-Christian worldviews to regain prominence in America, it’s important that we stake our claim to unambiguous differences between our beliefs and their’s. Some will tell me we need more unity, but the only unity that’s possible in today’s polarized society is if the left gets their way and enough on the right accept it. The left will not accept our perspectives. Therefore, we must force the issue. We must get into an ideological war. Most importantly, we need to put our truths up against their best lies.

The best lies they tell are that abortion is a right, pre-born babies aren’t people, and killing the “lump of cells” in the mother is somehow considered healthcare.

In an article posted today by the NY Times, Wen explains why she was ousted and gives hints about the direction Planned Parenthood wants to go without her:

With high-quality, affordable health care out of reach for so many, Planned Parenthood has a duty to maximize its reach. I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies, and to enhance critically-needed services like mental health and addiction treatment.

But the team that I brought in, experts in public health and health policy, faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goalsas mission creep. There was even more criticism as we worked to change the perception that Planned Parenthood was just a progressive political entity to show that it was first and foremost a mainstream health care organization.

Perhaps the greatest area of tension was over our work to be inclusive of those with nuanced views about abortion. I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions. I engaged those who identify as being pro-life, but who support safe, legal abortion access because they don’t want women to die from back-alley abortions. I even worked with people who oppose abortion but support Planned Parenthood because of the preventive services we provide — we share the desire to reduce the need for abortion through sex education and birth control.

The Planned Parenthood of the near future is one that doesn’t worry about reproductive health or the safety of babies. They simply want more abortions. There’s an evil at the heart of the organization that is actually darker than we’ve seen in the past, if that can be imagined. We need to fight this darkness, and Wen was in the way trying to make Planned Parenthood inclusive and acceptable. That went against their new goal. They want the issue forced.

Our truths are able to shine brightest when the opposition is at its darkest. A kindler, gentler, inclusive agenda isn’t as dark as Planned Parenthood’s desired goal of advancing as many abortions as possible. I’m glad to see Wen removed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because she’s a conservative

Published

on

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because shes a conservative

It’s okay to be “woke” if you’re participating in Miss World America. Several contestants have expressed radical political, cultural, and religious views that would be considered offensive to many conservatives, including support for dismemberment of preborn children, anti-law-enforcement sentiments, and one instance of clear racism against Caucasians. But it was the outspoken conservative beauty queen, Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her title and forced to disassociate herself from the competition immediately.

She posted her conversation with Miss World America Michigan state director Laurie DeJack as well as the email correspondence with the organization regarding her ousting:

Some news outlets are reporting the ousting had to do with her controversial response to being asked to “try a hijab” in 2018, but the text messages do not reflect that. It could have been cited during a phone conversation, which apparently happened in the midst of the text conversation.

But the directly attributed reason was a Tweet in which Zhu addressed an unknown person or group who was apparently complaining about African-American deaths. In response, she noted that black-on-black violence is the most prevalent circumstance in African-American homicides.

She worded it a bit differently:

“Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”

Zhu quote-Tweeted a post sent to Vice President Pence:

Yes, her post was controversial. Was it racist? No, not in context. As she noted in her letter to the pageant, she was referring to statistical facts. Is that grounds for removal? Perhaps it is… as long as they’re being consistent. But Zhu isn’t the only contestant posting very controversial statements on social media. As of now, there seems to be no others who have indicated they were removed for similar reasons even though some have social media posts that should be considered even worse relative to the rules of decorum set forth by the pageant. Of course, the posts that should be considered worse than Zhu’s are generally progressive.

It’s a shame that Zhu had her title and future participation banned, but she has an opportunity to highlight the anti-conservative bias in such organizations. She may not be competing, but she can be even more influential now within the conservative movement than she was before. She’s currently studying political science. Maybe that will translate into a life in politics.

If Miss World America were fair, they’d strip crowns from several of the contestants over their controversial social media posts. But they won’t. They located the lone controversial conservative in the group. They’ll only remove MAGA deplorable Kathy Zhu.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending