Connect with us

Politics

Michelle Obama Shakes Things Up With Major Announcement

After Biden’s shaky claim to the frontrunner spot coming under heavy fire on Wednesday, the democrats appear to be in trouble.

Published

on

Given just how disheveled the current field of 2020 democratic candidates appears to be, there were sure to be rumors and intimations regarding the possibility of salvaging the party’s chances come next November.

With Joe Biden’s shaky claim to the frontrunner spot coming under heavy fire on Wednesday, the democrats are in trouble.  On both nights of this week’s debates, the most-searched candidates were far, far from the mainstream .  Night one saw a massive boost in popularity for spiritual guru and self-help author Marianne Williamson – known for her New Age nuances.  On night two, it was Tulsi Gabbard who stole the show after annihilating top-tier candidate Kamala Harris over her hypocritical stance on marijuana.

In short:  The democrats are none too impressed with whom the party has already aligned themselves.

This has led to a number of pundits and prominent democratic voices to speak up regarding a possible late-entering, dark horse candidate – often believed to possibly be Michelle Obama.

Trending: Kellyanne Conway Rips Impeachment Witness: ‘Who The Hell Are You, Lady?’

The former First Lady addressed those possibilities head-on this week.

In a new interview published in Amtrak’s magazine The National, Obama sat down with 12-year-old journalist Hilde Lysiak to promote her Better Make Room campaign aimed at engaging college students.

Lysiak pressed Obama about seeking the highest office in the land, something she has previously expressed no interest in.

“A lot of people want you to run for president. You’ve publicly said that you aren’t interested, but everyone says that until they actually run,” Lysiak said. “Just between us, if you thought the country needed you and you thought you could really help our nation, is there even a one percent chance you’d consider running?”

So, what did Michelle say?

“Just between us, and the readers of this magazine — there’s zero chance,” Obama responded. “There are so many ways to improve this country and build a better world, and I keep doing plenty of them, from working with young people to helping families lead healthier lives. But sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office will never be one of them. It’s just not for me.”

Earlier this week, provocative liberal filmmaker Michael Moore implored Michelle Obama to run for President, claiming that she would handily outperform incumbent President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Politics

Biden Refuses To Admit It Was Wrong For Hunter To Serve On Burisma Board

He’s playing the “deflect” game.

Published

on

Biden Refuses To Admit It Was Wrong For Hunter To Serve On Burisma Board

Joe Biden refuses to say it was wrong for Hunter to serve on Burisma’s board while he was Vice President.

In an interview with Telemundo anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, pressed on the matter Joe Biden did not budge. In fact, he tried to spin his way out when Diaz-Balart questioned Hunter’s business ethics by responding that his son’s actions were not unlawful. Biden then attempted to shift the focus back to Trump.

Here’s the video:

Translation: I never thought this would ever be revealed. IOW: You can’t give me money directly, because that would be considered bribery. But on the other hand, my unemployable wastrel son could use a lucrative no show job.

Twitter jumps on:
Continue Reading

Politics

Democrat Rep Charged With Stealing $500K From Non-Profit For Mentally Ill

Published

on

Democrat Rep Charged With Stealing $500K From Non-Profit For Mentally Ill

Pennsylvania Democrat State Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell has been charged with stealing more than $500,000 from a mental illness charity.

Democratic Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell, who founded Motivations Education & Consultation Associates, allegedly diverted Medicaid and Social Security disability funds from the nonprofit and spent them on designer clothing, vacations, luxury car payments, real estate purchases, and other personal expenses, according to a press release by AG Josh Shapiro.

“Representative Johnson-Harrell continuously diverted Medicaid and social security disability funds from her charity to help Philadelphia’s most vulnerable communities for her own personal use. She spent almost $15,000 on clothing, including online shopping sprees at Ralph Lauren and fox fur coats. She traveled to Mexico, Orlando, Georgia and Maryland on lavish trips costing $16,000 of MECA funds. She spent $2,000 on overdue car payments on her Porsche. Another $4,000 on tuition for a relative. And, she spent almost $20,000 on overdue mortgage payments.”

TDW:

Democrat Pennsylvania State Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell, the first Islamic woman elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, was charged by prosecutors this week for allegedly stealing over $500,000 from a non-profit for the mentally ill, perjury, and tampering with public records.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, announced the charges on Wednesday which came at the conclusion of an investigation into her operation of a non-profit, Motivations Education & Consultation Associates (MECA).

In a statement, Shapiro said that Johnson-Harrell turned herself in on Wednesday to law enforcement officials, and “is taking responsibility for her crimes, plans to plead guilty, and has agreed to resign from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives effective December 13th.”

The statement from Shapiro’s office noted just a few of the items that Johnson-Harrell allegedly spent the stolen funds on:

  • $5,500 on multiple fox fur coats,
  • $16,000 on vacations to Mexico (twice), Atlanta, and Ocean City, MD,
  • $2,065.95 to cover past-due Porsche payments,
  • $6,976 for designer clothing,
  • $3,000 for an overdue IRS tax bill,
  • $3,830 in tuition for relatives,
  • $3,200 to Philadelphia Gas Works,
  • $4,741.20 for City of Philadelphia taxes, and
  • $7,979.54 to cover a restitution payment for a 2014 criminal conviction where Johnson-Harrell failed to pay unemployment compensation tax.
More

I know both parties have their own dirtbags but this lady takes the championship. Living high off the hog with other people’s money. True Democratic values, taxes everyone and take the money for themself.

Who could possibly think she was fit to be a state representative? Way to do your due diligence Pennsylvania.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Anti-Impeachment Witnesses Threatened After Rebuking Democratic Narrative

The “resistance” is driving the nation apart, and Vladimir Putin is smiling about it.

Published

on

At one point in our not-so-distant past, We The People were able to hold civil discussions with one another despite our differences of opinion.   We could look one another in the eye and understand that these disparate diatribes were the strength of our nation, not a wedge that should be weaponized for the sake of winning some pathetic political argument.

What has changed?  We have the “resistance” now.

The anti-Trump narrative of the naive and nasty radical left has infected our national discourse.  There is no room for civility among them, as signaled early on in the Trump presidency by the infamous Kathy Griffin-Trump beheading photoshoot, and the attempted assassination of the GOP charity baseball team just 14 days later by a former Bernie Sanders campaign worker.

Now, thanks to this carte-blanche opposition to the duly-elected President, no act was considered too extreme; no threat deemed too ruthless.

This violent sentiment continues today, as we learn of the threats leveled against the single anti-impeachment witness allowed to speak before Congress on Wednesday.

A law professor called by Republicans as a witnessin this week’s impeachment proceedings said he’s received threats over his testimony.

Jonathan Turley said the nasty messages began rolling in before he could even finish telling the House Judiciary Committee that impeaching President Trump was a bad idea on Wednesday.

“My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, tweeted on Thursday. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.”

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to tout her “all roads lead to Putin” soundbite, we must recognize that the egregious threats of the “resistance” are playing directly into the hands of the Russian leader, who wants nothing more than for the Untied States to devolve into chaos and violence.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Dem Senator Spreads Rumors of Defecting Republicans as Impeachment Support Wavers

Of course, it is quite likely that this statement is pure political theater, meant to goad any who are on the fence into the ever-dwindling Democratic corner. 

Published

on

Judging by what we are seeing in the polls and in the media, the Democrats don’t have quite the “slam dunk” case on impeachment that they would like you to believe.

Polling appears to be steady, with only about half of the nation on board with the escalation of the inquiry.  This is, of course, a far cry from the bipartisan standard set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in the spring, with Pelosi herself explaining that this latest UkraineGate conspiracy theory has caused her to renege on this requirement.

Now, as members of Congress will soon become the sole deciders of the fate of this President, it appears that there are some concerns regarding who will be voting which way, with this possible confusion being touted by a number of lawmakers within the media.

Sen.Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Friday said that he has spoken with a “handful” of Republican colleagues who would consider voting to remove President Trump after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House will move to impeach him

Asked during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether he has spoken with “a single GOP colleague in the Senate who’s even considering voting for impeachment,” Murphy answered affirmatively.

“Yes,” he said, while declining to name any colleagues.

“It’s a small list, on one hand,” Murphy said.

The senator also pushed back against calls for an anonymous removal vote.

“I don’t buy this secret ballot thing. If there was a secret ballot, there’d still be only a handful of them that would vote to impeach this guy,” he said.

Of course, it is quite likely that this statement is pure political theater, meant to goad any who are on the fence into the ever-dwindling Democratic corner.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrat Impeachment Witness Behind Idea For “Facebook Supreme Court”

Free speech is either absolutely free, no matter what is said, or it is not at all free.

Published

on

Democrat Impeachment Witness Behind Idea For “Facebook Supreme Court”

Anti-Trump Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman played an instrumental role in the creation of Facebook’s content oversight board.

As reported by Breitbart News’ Kristina Wong: Gaetz then pointed out that witness Noah Feldman, professor at Harvard Law School, had written articles entitled: “Trump’s Wiretap Tweets Raise Risk of Impeachment” and “Mar-a-Lago Ad Belongs in Impeachment File.” Gaetz also noted that Feldman was the subject of an article that said, “A Harvard law professor thinks Trump could be impeached over fake news accusations.” Gaetz also got Feldman to admit that he once wrote an article entitled, “It’s Hard to Take Impeachment Seriously Now.”

My next discussion on the future of technology and society is focused on freedom of expression and governance. I'm joined by Jenny Martinez, the Dean of Stanford Law School, and Noah Feldman, a Professor at Harvard Law. They're both experts in constitutional law, and Noah is also an advisor to Facebook helping us define the independent oversight board where people will be able to appeal our content decisions. The idea is to create a separation of powers so that while Facebook is responsible for enforcing our policies, we aren't in the position to make so many decisions about speech on our own. This board will be tasked with upholding the principle of free expression while ensuring we keep our community safe.This morning we also released a report with all the feedback we've gotten from experts about how to best set up this board based on almost 30 workshops we've hosted around the world. It also covers many of the questions asked in our live discussion, including how the board members should be selected to ensure independence, what the scope of their decision-making should be, the importance of publishing their deliberations, and more. You can check out the full report here: https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/oversight-board-consultation-report-1.pdfThis is a major experiment in governance, and if it's successful, this board could become an important part of how online expression and communities work going forward. This is a nuanced topic and I'm grateful to Jenny and Noah for their input, as well as everyone who participated in these workshops and shared their thoughts on how to get this right.

Posted by Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday, June 27, 2019

Breitbart:

Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, one of the anti-Trump witnesses at yesterday’s impeachment inquiry, is reportedly playing a critical role in Facebook’s establishment of its content oversight board, colloquially dubbed the “Facebook Supreme Court.”

The oversight board will, among other things, review cases from banned Facebook users who argue that the termination of their accounts was unwarranted. It is meant to give banned users the right to appeal — but this is corporate due process, not state due process. The “Facebook Supreme Court” will be set up by Facebook and could be shut down at any time by Facebook.

According to a report by Harvard Law Today, Feldman was the one who first proposed the idea of a “Facebook Supreme Court” in January 2018. The purpose, according to the report, is to help Facebook “balance competing values that range from supporting free expression to combating hate speech.”

The idea intrigued Facebook, which brought Feldman on as an adviser. The social network then asked him to produce a white paper on the idea, according to Harvard Law Today. Plans to establish the Oversight Board were officially announced by the company later in the year.

Feldman, a professor of constitutional law, was one of the Democrat-selected expert witnesses at this week’s impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump. More

Think you’ll be a Supreme Court Justice Noah? The Truth is no longer allowed on Social Media Platforms. Let’s speak the truth while we are still allowed to. If we don’t fight for our rights (by whatever legal means are available), they will eventually take away our free speech.

Continue Reading

Politics

Kellyanne Conway Rips Impeachment Witness: ‘Who The Hell Are You, Lady?’

Given the unspoken alliance between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, this sort of partisan tomfoolery doesn’t look to be going anywhere anytime soon, either. 

Published

on

Despite the patent absurdity of it, political discrimination seems to be at an all time high here in the United States, thanks to the mainstream media’s constant need for conflict to drive rantings.

The infotainment industry needs the US population to be divided, and angrily, in order to bring in the beaucoup bucks that their advertisers give them for commercial break real estate.  This means that, every time we engage in pedantic arguments with one another on the basis of politics, we are feeding the machine that aims to drive us apart.

And it’s not just the angry leftists on Facebook who are a problem here, it’s also those who find themselves with a soapbox from which to spout their divisive drivel.

Longtime White House adviser Kellyanne Conway recognizes just what’s at stake here, and is taking one of the Democrats’ impeachment witnesses to task for their attempts to keep us at each others’ throats.

One of the star witnesses for Congressional Democrats in President Trump‘s impeachment inquiry, Professor Pamela Karlan, should be ashamed of herself for showing such arrogance and looking down on half of America, said Kellyanne Conway on “Fox & Friends” Thursday.

Conway accused Democrats of using Trump’s Ukraine phone call as an excuse to boot him from office, before highlighting Karlan’s comments about conservatives, which were read aloud on Wednesday by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

The Stanford law professor was quoted as saying, “Liberals tend to cluster more. Conservatives, especially very conservative people, tend to spread out more, perhaps because they don’t even want to be around themselves.”

Conway was rightfully brutal in her assessment.

“Let’s stop pretending it has a damn thing to do with the 15 witnesses over two committees, the Democrats have called over the last couple of weeks,” Conway told Fox News. “One, out of those 15 witnesses, has said that he or she has ever talked to the president about Ukraine.

Conway accused Karlan of “look[ing] her nose down” at average Americans and blue-collar workers

“She thinks that you are less than her. And I’ve had it… who the hell are you lady, to look down on half the country?”

Given the unspoken alliance between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, this sort of partisan tomfoolery doesn’t look to be going anywhere anytime soon, either.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nancy Pelosi Snaps at Reporter, Scolds Him for Saying She ‘Hates’ the President

Where there was once a calm confidence with Nancy Pelosi, there is now little more than angst-ridden finger wagging and invocations of past patriots whom she has never met.

Published

on

After years of “resistance” to the very idea of President Donald J. Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now insisting, in no uncertain terms, that she doesn’t “hate” him.

Yesterday’s impeachment hearings were a bit of a sideshow.  With no fact witnesses present, the entire affair was reduced to little more than an attempt by the left to somehow justify the thin evidence they’ve gathered so far.  By stacking the deck with three Democratically-called witnesses to the Republicans’ single scholar, the hearing appeared to be nothing more than a maneuver meant to convince the nation that they hadn’t been working to impeach the President simply because they wanted to.

That didn’t work, however, with Georgia Rep. Doug Collins openly and loudly demonstrating that the Democrats have been looking to impeach Donald Trump for years, based solely on their disdain for him personally.

When confronted with Collins’ words this morning, Nancy Pelosi lost her cool.

Sinclair reporter James Rosen had asked Pelosi: “Do you hate the president?”

“I don’t hate anybody,” she initially shot back. She wagged her finger and pointed at Rosen, telling him not to accuse her of hating someone. Rosen denied doing so.

Pelosi wasn’t done there.

“As a Catholic, I resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. And I pray for the president all the time, so don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that,” she said.

President Trump even weighed in on Pelosi’s tantrum.

Where there was once a calm confidence with Nancy Pelosi, there is now little more than angst-ridden finger wagging and invocations of past patriots whom she has never met.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend