Sunday, July 31, 2016
Without absolutely OWNING the liberal media, HillaryClinton wouldn't stand a chance
Donald J. Trump
"@RealJamesWoods: Without absolutely OWNING the liberal media, HillaryClinton wouldn't stand a chance. #VoterFraud and #MSM her only hope."
Related:
Mike Cernovich: Email Leak Scandal 'Proves DNC... by debunkerbuster
Lame Stream Media
Most of the present-day U.S. media outlets, which have been shown by studies to be biased in their reporting and not uncommonly influenced by wealthy, elitist leftists. You'll hear little to nothing about the corruption and secrecy of the Obama administration from the Lame Stream Media; you'll need to check foreign news sources, or maybe Fox. #bias #liberal #corruption #leftist #obama #democrat
JM Talboo Reviews Ghostbusters - Official Endorsers of Hillary Clinton for President 2016 - A Good Film Gone Bad by Aggressive Agenda-Driven Promotion
No major spoilers of any kind in this review itself beyond a few minor details and many of the links lead to spoilers. If you don't want to know anything, like even the mention of a ghostly character that appears on screen then best avoid.
The Bad News First:
I personally can say that I enjoyed this flick on the big screen a few nights ago with my wifey after receiving some free tickets. That being said, those responsible for this production, meaning everyone from the studio, to the director, to the actors, do not in any way deserve your hard earned money. Why? Because of the disingenuous and agenda-driven way that they have all promoted the film. The decision by the studio execs to get involved in the the culture war and surrounding politics was quite possibly not driven by genuine ideological motives so much as financial ones, but the aftermath is the same either way. And the director Paul Feig quite obviously is a man hating (male) Social Justice Warrior type. I recommend this positive review of the film that also attempts to psychoanalyze Feig, so as to, in the immortal words of Bill Murray, find out what makes him tick. As they state in the review video description, "paul feig is a lolcow. ghostbusters was cute. but is it worth giving money to someone who hates you (and himself)?"
I don't think the movie itself is anywhere nearly as tainted by an SJW agenda as Mundane Matt (below video) and others have made it out to be. Although some of those criticisms have merit, while other things are being understandably overly scrutinized leading to conclusions of an agenda where they likely was none.
Another downside is that there are noteworthy amounts of really corny (not funny corny) parts and failed attempts at humor.
Next up, is the majorly overused CGI special effects, which is not in keeping with the original films that by comparison took a less is more type of approach, which makes the viewer appreciate the razzle dazzle moments much more. Furthermore, a substantial amount of said effects are cartoonish, very Disney's Haunted Mansion-esque and were an actual major cause for the early heavy criticisms of the film trailer, earning it the title of most disliked video in YouTube history. This innocent critical observation was among the things viciously and ignorantly spun into unfounded allegations of misogyny, see first link above. Case in point on the bad effects, is that Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man look better in the 1984 version. I recently rewatched the 1984 original and the special effects hold up quite well and are overall better than this film. The one exception in the original is the goofy looking claymation part where the demon dog is running around, when it's stationary the animatronic version of the dog looks great. Now don't get me wrong, there are also some great modern effects that surpass anything in the older film as well, some of which I'll get to in a sec. However, better visuals should be expected with the advancements in the tech available. This is why I say overall the effects are better in the old film, because they didn't use a lot vs this incarnation and what they did use always aimed and largely succeeded in coming off as realistic.
The Good News:
Overall I give it a solid 2 1/2 stars. It's at least as good if not better than Ghostbusters 2. The material that misses the mark in the laugh department is countered by a fair share of smile inducing and lol worthy material from some very funny ladies. I think they all did a great job and I particularly liked Kristin Wigg's performance, which includes a hip-hop dance performance that I found impressive and due to the situation it occurs in it got me chucking. I also thought Kate McKinnon's character was great, much wilder but reminiscent of the beloved Dr. Egon Spangler in her eccentricity and role as the brains of the brainy crew. Actor Harold Ramis, who is now decreased, gave life to Dr. Spangler and there is an Easter egg in the new film that pays him tribute. The cameos from the former Ghostbusters stars I also thought were great and did not seem out of place and forced as some have argued. I also left the theater with the opinion that the criticism that Leslie Jones is playing a black woman stereotype is unwarranted. It was not the over-the-top cringe fest I was told so often to expect. She herself has rejected this notion saying that "if I'm stereotype, so be it." This was in reference to her character being an average Joe in comparison to the 3 other genius scientist Ghostbusters. I'd go one step further and say that from what I can tell she talks very much like her character in real life, so she's not playing a stereotype, but rather proof that stereotypes don't materialize out of thin air as do the ghosts in the movie.
One thing nobody has mentioned that I've come across, is that the 3D version of the movie makes the best use of that technology that I have seen and I'm a huge 3D fan. The film masterfully uses the trick of adding a letterbox to create the illusion of things literally coming out of the screen and the 3D is just really good in general. And contrary to appearances from the trailer, the film does respect the subject matter of the paranormal. They do a pretty good damn job with that aspect and made a pretty good damn film really.
I'm just one guy, but I bet I'm not alone in saying that if those involved in this film series can just keep the politics to a minimum, treat the fans with respect, and not turn a true misogynistic minority into a monolithic majority, that I'll pay to go see the planned sequel. I'll buy the Blu-Ray of this one when it comes out, but I think they deserved getting slimed at the box office.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
SORRY, HILLARY, TRUMP IS RIGHT: AMERICA IS IN DECLINE
Numerous statistics vividly demonstrate Trump's point
During a speech delivered at Temple University in Philadelphia today, Hillary Clinton criticized Donald Trump for saying America is in decline.
Clinton and the Democrats obviously do not want to admit their policies over the last eight years have accelerated America’s economic and social decline.
As we reported on Wednesday after the Obama administration tweeted “America has come a long way over the past 7.5 years,” the nation has experienced a steep decline across the board.
Clinton’s faithful supporters may fool themselves in the belief America is on the rise, but a wide variety of statistics demonstrate otherwise.
“America is declining, in large and important measures, yet policymakers aren’t paying attention,” Fortune reported last July, citing a paper released by the Social Science Research Network.
Fortune pulled the following from the report:
• America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece, devastated by a euro crisis, and eastern European nations such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.• Median adult wealth in the US ($39,000) is 27th globally, putting it behind Cyprus, Taiwan, and Ireland.• Even when “life satisfaction” is measured, America ranks #12, behind Israel, Sweden and Australia.Overall, America’s per capita wealth, health and education measures are mediocre for a highly industrialized nation. Well-being metrics, perceptions of corruption, quality and cost of basic services, are sliding, too. Healthcare and education spending are funding bloated administrations even while human outcomes sink, the authors say.
In large part, the decline can be attributed to crony capitalism, according to the authors. Globalist trade deals are also responsible.
Clinton and her husband are directly responsible for the decline of America. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and Hillary was an enthusiastic supporter of the trade bill that created what Ross Perot described as the “giant sucking sound” as jobs were exported to third world nations.
America’s industrial base was systematically looted and destroyed by the globalists. 5.5 million jobs or over 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs since October 2000 were outsourced. Over 54,000 factories were shipped overseas beginning in 2001, several years after NAFTA went into effect.
Millions of Americans saw hourly wages fall from $35-45 per hour to $7-8 per hour. More generally, according to the Brookings Institute, the average worker displaced from manufacturing went from earning an annual income of $40,154 to $32,123 when re-employed, a drop of 20% in earnings. A large portion of the new jobs are in retail and service industries.
The decline is exacerbated by illegal immigration and “guest workers.” According to a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service, wages for middle class Americans have dropped below 1970s levels as immigration has surged 325 percent over the past four decades, notes theAmerican Nationalist Party.
“The percentage of Americans self-identifying as ‘middle class’ has dropped significantly in recent years, while the percentage considering themselves ‘lower class’ or ‘lower middle class’ has risen,” writes Katie Rose Quandt.
Between 2000 and 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas examined by thePew Research Center.
The federal government and its cartel of private bankers at the Federal Reserve have worked diligently to camouflage the fall of America by artificially inflating the stock market. The Fed has pursued “bubbles, gimmicks and palliatives” instead of doing what was needed to stabilize the economy.
Hillary Clinton would never admit it—she is, after all, supported by the very banksters destroying America—but America is currently in the middle of a very “dark” depression and has been since the bankers blew out the economy in 2008.
Since that time, a bevy of economists and even leaders of the Federal Reserve—including Ben Bernake, Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, Joesph Stieglitz, Paul Krugman, and many others—have said the current economic decline may be worse than the Great Depression.
Donald Trump is spot on about the economy and the state of America. It remains to be seen if he can reverse the tide of economic dissolution.
Unlike Hillary and the Democrats, however, Trump is not telling lies to the American people.
PROOF: TWITTER IS CENSORING DONALD TRUMP TO BLOCK FUNDRAISING EFFORTS
Social media giant shadow bans presidential candidate's tweet
Twitter is provably censoring Donald Trump in order to prevent him raising money for his presidential campaign.
A tweet sent out by Trump yesterday to promote his #MillionDollarMatch donation drive does not appear on Trump’s profile page nor did it appear on the feed of anyone following him.
You can check for yourself. Here is the tweet sent out by Trump yesterday and here is his main profile page – which doesn’t show the tweet. The tweet has been buried as if it never existed.
This is yet another example of Twitter shadow banning – where people on a designated ‘blacklist’ have their tweets relegated on search results and hidden from users’ timelines, while leftist politicians and commentators on a ‘whitelist’ have their tweets promoted.
A Twitter insider admitted to Breitbart back in February that Twitter had indeed begun shadow banning politically incorrect users, a claim verified by a senior editor at a major digital publisher.
I can confirm via archive.
See timestamp of tweet:archive.is/ESFrc
Archive of Trump's feed:archive.is/5fVMT@iloveluluco
Twitter is interfering with the election. Suppressing tweets like this from appearing in feed or search@ilovelulucopic.twitter.com/kMpfiEvrVH
A Trump tweet in which he declared that “the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country” was also shadow banned by Twitter back in April.
While Twitter is censoring Trump, it has repeatedly been accused of gaming its algorithms in support of Hillary. Back in February, users were irate after the social media giant appeared to censor the anti-Hillary hashtag #WhichHillary after it started trending.
The revelation that Twitter is shadow banning Trump comes on the heels of Google claiming that a ‘technical bug’ was to blame for Donald Trump not appearing when users searched for “presidential candidates”.
Twitter’s shadow banning of Trump also follows its controversial decision to slap conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos with a lifetime ban.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter:
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
Latest Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reaffirms Primaries Were Rigged For Clinton
On July 18, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released a new batch of documents obtained from DNC servers. Among the files given exclusively to The Hill is a DNC memo to Clinton political operatives on March 24, 2015—before she formally announced her candidacy—outlining how to legally solicit pro-Clinton super-PACs. “The memo was sent to political consultant John Podesta, now Clinton’s campaign chairman; Clinton fundraising guru Dennis Cheng; and campaign manager Robby Mook,” reported The Hill.
(Article by Michael Sainto)
The memo is just one of several documents released by Guccifer 2.0 proving the Democratic National Committee rigged the system for Clinton. Before the primaries began, DNC strategies were developed with Clinton in mind as the presidential nominee. The leak affirms claims by Bernie Sanders’ supporters that the Democratic primaries were not an election, but rather a coronation for Hillary Clinton.
Because many of the documents implicate mainstream media outlets in their complacency to adhere to the DNC’s strategy, the Guccifer 2.0 hacks have gone largely unreported. Some of the documents even unveil how the Clinton campaign fed specific stories to the media in order to boost their political agenda.
In May 2015, The Intercept alluded to similar strategies, when it discovered that a CNN op-ed published under Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s name had actually been written by a Clinton lobbyist, edited by a Clinton super-PAC, and sent directly to CNN from the super-PAC. In June, Daily Beast reporter Olivia Nuzzi tweeted that she might lend some credence to the Bernie Bros narrative if the Clinton Campaignhadn’t pitched her Bernie Bros stories to write. In refusing to cover how the DNCand the Clinton campaign united, mainstream media has rewarded corruption.
Instead of confirming or denying the validity of the documents, the DNC has reverberated the same tired excuse, claiming Russian hackers are responsible: “Our experts are confident in their assessment that the Russian government hackers were the actors responsible for the breach detected in April and we believe that the subsequent release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians. We’ve deployed the recommended.”
While the DNC and Clinton campaign have called for party unity, Clinton has continued the politically-expedient tactic of adopting several of Sanders’ popular ideas. Even though Clinton claimed to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United, she has profited off of the decision in the past—receiving millions of dollars from super-PACs and wealthy billionaires, including George Soros, James Simons and Haim Saban. Her highly-publicized support to overturn Citizens United comes shortly after Sanders’ formal endorsement for Clintonresulted in a wave of backlash and resentment against Clinton—rather than the increase in favorability her campaign had hoped to generate.
Although Hillary Clinton’s coronation may have widespread Establishment support, the Democratic Party has disenfranchised millions of voters—hurting Democrats’ chances not only in the upcoming general election, but for years to come.
Mike Cernovich: Email Leak Scandal 'Proves DNC... by debunkerbuster
Friday, July 29, 2016
Clinton Cash
This week, as Democrats fawn over Hillary Clinton, I’m struck by how both Clintons continue to thrive despite their remarkable record of sleazy dealings.
(Article by John Stossel)
The just released documentary Clinton Cash, based on a book by Peter Schweizer, explains how they make big money by selling access to themselves.
On my TV show, Schweizer said the Clintons use “speaking fees” to get around bribery laws.
“If somebody gave a politician or family member money for a favor, that’s breaking the law. But if you say it’s a speaking fee, and you pay double or triple the normal rate, that seems to be legal.”
Since Bill Clinton left office, he’s earned more than $126 million giving speeches. Nothing wrong with that. Bill likes to talk, and if people want to pay big bucks to hear him or just to say they were near him, so be it. It’s their own money.
Since Bill Clinton left office, he’s earned more than $126 million giving speeches. Nothing wrong with that. Bill likes to talk, and if people want to pay big bucks to hear him or just to say they were near him, so be it. It’s their own money.
But what suggests influence peddling, says Schweizer, is that before Hillary became secretary of state, Bill’s usual fee was less than $200,000. But after Hillary became secretary of state, he made as much as $750,000 per speech.
That’s “evidence that people paying him expect to get something in return,” says Schweizer. “She becomes appointed secretary of state, a friend of the president of Nigeria suddenly offers (Bill) $700,000 apiece for two speeches. An investment firm in Moscow that’s tied to the Kremlin who had never paid for him to speak before suddenly gave him $500,000.”
Those are just two of many examples cited in Clinton Cash.
Sometimes the Clintons launder the money through the Clinton Foundation. It’s collected more than $2 billion to “improve global health and wellness.”
But Sean Davis of The Federalist examined Clinton Foundation records and concluded only about 15 percent of the money goes to actual charity work to help needy people.
Most is spent paying Clinton cronies and other well-connected people to schmooze with governments and charities, which supposedly helps those governments and charities help people. I doubt it helps much.
Even the earthquake in Haiti became a moneymaking opportunity for the Clintons. After the earthquake, the Clinton Foundation announced that it would work with governments and businesses to help rebuild Haiti. Actual rebuilding has been meager.
A Clinton Foundation press release promised an industrial park that would create “up to 60,000 jobs.” Just 7,000 jobs have been created.
What the Foundation has managed to do is help Clinton “friends.” One, Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, runs Digicel, a company that wanted a grant to build Haiti’s cellphone network.
“Four weeks after their application,” says Schweizer, Digicel sponsored a speech for Bill Clinton in Jamaica and “paid him $225,000. Within four months of that speech, Digicel would receive the first installment of that grant money.”
Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, even managed to cash in. The Haitian government awarded an exclusive gold mining contract to a company called VCS mining. VCS, says Schweizer, “has no experience in mining, very little experience in Haiti, and it raises the question, of all the companies out there, why did the Haitian government pick this one company?”
The Clintons will tell you that it had nothing to do with the facts that Hillary’s brother got a job with VCS and the chairman happens to be a Democratic donor.
The worst example in Clinton Cash, says Schweizer, is the Ericsson telecom deal. The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes.
Says Schweizer, “WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we’re not going to take further action against Ericsson. We’re going to ask them to police themselves.”
Hillary Clinton would like you to believe that electing a woman (Electionbettingodds.com shows she is favored 67 percent to 32 percent) means you’ve picked an “outsider” who will put a stop to Washington favoritism. Don’t believe it.
I hope “Clinton Cash” gets the attention it deserves.
Read more at: reason.com
Related:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)