In a recent British interview, Jennifer speaks of “Mother Nature’s” wrath.
Mother nature or the worship of the elements is a common pagan practice. In fact that is what they worship or evoke.
In an attempt to “Bind” President Donald Trump, from accomplishing his agenda to: Fix the economy, Rebuild Airports, Dams, Highways and other infrastructure, all of which take money, “THE WITCHES” have evoked some of the most powerful hurricanes to date costing the Global Economy hundreds of billions of dollars, effectively blocking any good, President Trump was trying to do.
Destruction and it’s worshipers are blinded to the fact that they did not bring good to America, but rather hurt millions upon millions of innocent people.
“THE WITCHES”, have brought this destruction not wether you believe in global warming Jennifer.
“THE WITCHES” have brought destruction to millions of “Muggle’s” as J.K. Rowling so eloquently channeled from the dark side,
Wealthy people are not usually hurt by this destruction, instead the poor, needy, immigrant are usually hurt the most, including if the economy falters.
Is witchcraft really something Jennifer should be promoting?
Jennifer says “Mother Nature” did this because Trump doesn’t believe men created global warming. So suddenly mother nature or the goddess responds in her wrath?
More accurately, the hate of humans and witches against President Trump, who evoke the same deities to create these hurricanes are directly to be credited for these storms and also prosecuted for the destruction and financial toll they created.
And for the record, one idiot witch please explain how this did ANYONE ANY GOOD?
The homosexual agenda’s you promote do not take money to block.
This administrations leaders in key places still make policies.
The only thing the witches did was put American further in debt and hurt untold millions of people. For no good reason.
So who is the real devil here that all of society should hold accountable?
Those that practice these dark arts.
In fact this is not the first time the inhabitants of the world had to face these facts and deal with this:
Exodus 22:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Despite its fearsome legacy, witchcraft is rising in popularity in New York state and especially in the Hudson Valley.
News 12’s Tara Rosenblum spent four months exploring and gaining access to a mysterious, secretive world that most people don’t even know exist: a thriving underground community of witches.
Watch “Speak No Evil,” only on News 12, starting Tuesday to learn about the modern-day magic and ancient rituals at the center of their faith. Tune in to meet some of the most powerful witches in New York and see what happens when they come together to perform a white magic ritual and summon sacred spirits.
Part one of the series airs Tuesday starting at 4:30 p.m., and part two airs on Wednesday at 4:30 p.m
Google revealed in a blog post that it is now using machine learning to document “hate crimes and events” in America. They’ve partnered with liberal groups like ProPublica, BuzzFeed News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to make information about “hate events” easily accessible to journalists. And now, there are troubling signs that this tool could be used to ferret out writers and websites that run afoul of the progressive orthodoxy.
In the announcement, Simon Rogers, data editor of Google News Labs, wrote:
Now, with ProPublica, we are launching a new machine learning tool to help journalists covering hate news leverage this data in their reporting.
The Documenting Hate News Index — built by the Google News Lab, data visualization studio Pitch Interactive and ProPublica — takes a raw feed of Google News articles from the past six months and uses the Google Cloud Natural Language API to create a visual tool to help reporters find news happening across the country. It’s a constantly-updating snapshot of data from this year, one which is valuable as a starting point to reporting on this area of news.
The Documenting Hate project launched in response to the lack of national data on hate crimes. While the FBI is required by law to collect data about hate crimes, the data is incomplete because local jurisdictions aren’t required to report incidents up to the federal government.
All of which underlines the value of the Documenting Hate Project, which is powered by a number of different news organisations and journalists who collect and verify reports of hate crimes and events. Documenting Hate is informed by both reports from members of the public and raw Google News data of stories from across the nation.
On the surface, this looks rather innocuous. It’s presented by Google as an attempt to create a database of hate crimes — information that should be available with a quick Google search, it should be noted. But a quick glance at the list of partners for this project should raise some red flags:
The ProPublica-led coalition includes The Google News Lab, Univision News, the New York Times, WNYC, BuzzFeed News, First Draft, Meedan, New America Media, The Root, Latino USA, The Advocate, 100 Days in Appalachia and Ushahidi. The coalition is also working with civil-rights groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and schools such as the University of Miami School of Communications.
ProPublica poses as a middle-of-the-road non-profit journalistic operation, but in reality, it’s funded by a stable of uber-liberal donors, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and Herb and Marion Sandler, billionaire former mortgage bankers whose Golden West Financial Corp. allegedly targeted subprime borrowers with “pick-a-pay” mortgages that led to toxic assets that were blamed for the collapse of Wachovia. The Southern Poverty Law Center, of course, is infamous for targeting legitimate conservatives groups, branding them as “hate groups” because they refuse to walk in lockstep with the progressive agenda. And it goes with out saying that The New York Times and BuzzFeed News lean left.
President Trump is right, relations with Russia are “at an all-time & very dangerous low,” and the US political-media establishment is making them worse.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Pointless and recklessly irresponsible new sanctions recently adopted almost unanimously by Congress against Russia are, as Cohen has long argued, evidence that the new Cold War is more dangerous than was its 40-year predecessor. Still worse, the sanctions, inspired more by unverified “Russiagate” allegations against Trump than by anything Moscow has actually done recently, further prevent him from seeking cooperation instead of conflict with the Kremlin, as previous presidents did and indeed as President Trump has tried to do. In themselves, sanctions are expressions of petulant attitudes, not real policy-making, and Moscow will cope with these as it has with many previous ones. After all, Russia has been under one kind of US sanction or another periodically for one hundred years, ever since Washington refused to recognize the new Soviet government in 1917 for 15 years, and without interruption since the Jackson-Vanick sanctions of the 1970s, followed by those of the Magnitsky Act, the ones leveled by former President Obama, and now these new ones. But today’s US-Russian relations really are, as President Trump has tweeted, “at an all-time & very dangerous low.” Consider, says Cohen, the following combination of factors, which are without precedent:
Following the deletion and retraction of an article Friday on CNN’s website of a story involving a Russian investment fund and the Trump transition team, the network is placing tough restrictions on stories published that involve Russia, according to BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed’s deputy news editor Jon Passantino tweeted:
In wake of story retraction, CNNMoney exec editor sends memo to staff mandating all “Russia-related content” must be cleared by him or VP
No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason first. This applies to social, video, editorial and MoneyStream. No exceptions. I will lay out a workflow on Monday. Thanks
Rothschild the Largest Bank in Europe who controls the French and Europe media, funded accused pedophil Cohn Bedit French-German campaign. Should Emmanuel Macron win French elections, he (Macron) has been instructed to put Bedit in top government seat to help Rothschild banking establish their goal of the one world order. Donald Trump was a total surprise to the powers that be and they do not want a repeat of Brexit, namely Frexit. French controlled media has a “Black Out” order and the government has blocked many weblinks prior to the French Election.
Wikipedia Cohn Bedit as follows:
Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (French: [kɔn bɛndit]; German: [koːn ˈbɛndiːt]; born 4 April 1945) is a French-German politician. He was a student leader during the unrest of May 1968 in France and was also known during that time as Dany le Rouge (French for “Danny the Red”, because of both his politics and the colour of his hair). He was co-president of the group European Greens–European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. He co-chairs the Spinelli Group, a European parliament intergroup aiming at relaunching the federalist project in Europe…
Cohn-Bendit published a number of provocative statements regarding “sex with children” in the 1970s and early 1980s, notably in his 1975 book The Great Bazaar (Der grosse Basar) where he describes erotic encounters with five-year-olds in his time as a teacher in an anti-authoritarian kindergarten.
Since at least 2001, Cohn-Bendit has been accused of defending paedophilia during the 1970s. This controversy re-surfaced in 2013: as Cohn-Bendit received the Theodor Heuss Prize, there was a rally by anti-paedophilia activists. The president of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court cited the book as grounds for his refusal to give the speech at the awards ceremony. The affair triggered wider research into the pro-pedophilia activism which prevailed in the German Green Party (without direct involvement on the part of Cohn-Bendit) well into the 1980s.
An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung uncovered several “repulsive” passages in Pflasterstrand, a leftist magazine for which Cohn-Bendit was, under press law, responsible. It cited a 1978 defence of Cohn-Bendit’s of this editorial practice, as well as an appearance of Cohn-Bendit in a French television talk-show in 1982 where he described a five-year-old undressing herself as an “erotic game”. Cohn-Bendit reacted to these allegations by claiming that his descriptions of erotic encounters with pre-pubescent girls were not based on true events but were merely intended as what he today calls “obnoxious provocation” aimed at questioning sexual morals at the time that “shouldn’t have been written that way”
On the heels of major shakeups at the Fox News Network, an alternative conservative network is being actively discussed amongst conservative fat cats.
A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left. The source, who is engaged in the talks, says a meeting is planned for today with two prominent high-powered television executives, some underperforming conservative networks and people who have an interest and the ability to fund a new network.
The potential aim? Putting “the old band” back together. There are certainly plenty of (out-of-work?) conservative powerhouses to pick from that could star on a new network, and perhaps even some executives from within Fox News who might be lured by the new opportunity.
Could the new channel include stars like the ousted Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t waste much time hitting the podcast waves after he was fired amid a sexual harassment scandal? Could Tomi Lahren, the conservative mega star, who was recently sidelined at The Blaze also take on a prominent role? The exact “who” won’t be clear until the deal is more defined but the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.
This news comes on the heels of a long profile in last weekend’s New York Times which paints a picture of a changing Fox News Network with Murdoch’s sons, James and Lachlan, CEO and co-chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox, at the helm. The piece struck fear into the minds of some Fox News’ hardcore conservatives with talk of the sons wanting to rid the company “of the old-guard culture on which their father built his empire” and bringing “a warmer and fuzzier workplace” that would move away from an “anti-politically correct environment.”
On Thursday, New York Magazine‘s Gabe Sherman, a constant thorn in the side of Fox News, reported that “sweeping management changes” may be coming to the network as well. Sherman’s report cited three anonymous sources that contend that the network’s co-President Bill Shine recently asked the Murdoch sons to release a statement in support of him amid the roiling lawsuits and scandals. Both Fox News and 21 Century Fox have vigorously denied that Shine made such a request but the report by Sherman prompted a rather mysterious tweet about the “total end of the FNC as we know it” by the network’s biggest remaining star, Sean Hannity:
“I just don’t see Fox News and Sean having a long relationship. If Sean becomes available, you have 100 percent turnover in primetime and a huge opportunity,” a television executive, who didn’t want to be identified, but is involved in some of the talks, told Mediaite.
“I’m working on it (the new conservative channel) hot and heavy,” the source said. “It’s live, it’s real.” The new channel could come to fruition within the next 10 to 12 months, the executive said.
It is no surprise that a savvy investor would see the turmoil within Fox News as a major opportunity. As The Times piece noted, analysts estimate that Fox News produced 25 percent of 21st Century Fox’s operating income last year or a whopping $6.6 billion. Conservative news remains a cash cow for investors, but the media landscape is quickly changing with younger viewers “cutting the cord” and turning to alternative over-the-top live streaming platforms like Hulu, Amazon, Roku and YouTube TV. Could a conservative alternative channel with some big names have an edge on the 20-year-old conservative network? Stay tuned. Our source is convinced it can happen.
There was no press honeymoon for President Trump during his first month in office. A meticulous new study by the Media Research Center finds that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of Mr. Trump and his team was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office.
The coverage was intense and plentiful. The study, which analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS, found that the “Big Three” networks produced 16 hours of coverage on the new president and his staff. That is over half — 54 percent — of their total coverage for the month.
“Our measure of media tone excludes soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” write Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog, and fellow analyst Mike Ciandella.
“In their coverage of Trump’s first month, the networks crowded their stories with quotes from citizens angry about many of his policies, while providing relatively little airtime to Trump supporters.” the pair noted. “And the networks’ anchors and reporters often injected their own anti-Trump editorial tone into the coverage. ‘It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality,’ CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley snidely began his February 6 broadcast.
“A new American president is always a big story, but TV news is obsessed with the Trump administration — and not in a good way,” they observed.
The study found that Mr. Trump’s call for a temporary ban on travel from seven specific Middle Eastern nations drew the most negative coverage — over three hours. Other favorite showcases for negative coverage of Mr. Trump included the border war between the U.S. and Mexico, battle over his cabinet confirmation picks and the president’s “complicated relationship” with Russia.
“Further highlighting the hostile tone of these newscasts, nearly an hour of coverage (56 minutes) was given over to anti-Trump protests on various topics, with nearly one-fifth (82 out of 442) of the Trump stories or briefs aired during these 30 days including at least some discussion of an anti-Trump protest,” the study reported.
Mr. Trump may be accustomed to the treatment by now, however. A previous Media Research Center report found that 91 percent of the broadcast coverage about his campaign was also negative — deemed “twelve weeks of Trump bashing” by Mr. Noyes and his team.
House Republicans thought they were writing a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Instead, on Thursday, they found themselves running a traveling circus.
Following reports that a major chunk of their health-care legislation was being held for House GOP review in a secret room somewhere in the Capitol complex, Democrats and Republicans who hadn’t been invited started the hunt. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was first on the scene of the supposed secret location.
“It’s the secret office of the secret bill,” Paul told a gaggle of reporters. After being denied entry by a security guard and staff aide, he quickly turned the moment into an impromptu press conference about legislation transparency.
“I suspect public pressure will make them release it,” he said.
Except, as it turned out, the bill wasn’t there. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady was in the room, but the Texas Republican said the bill wasn’t.
The audience gathered outside — including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland — was skeptical, so in they went to inspect. Out they came about 30 seconds afterward.
“No bill here. We cannot find the bill,” Hoyer said.
One Republican lawmaker and a committee aide had said Wednesday that House Republicans would be allowed to review the overhaul plan — but only in a dedicated reading room, and they wouldn’t be given copies to take with them. Republican leaders are trying to avoid a repeat of what happened last time. When an outdated draft leaked last week, it was quickly panned by conservatives.
(Daily Caller News Foundation) China released its first strategic report Thursday, outlining its view of how cyberspace should be governed.
The Chinese government demands that all nations should respect sovereignty and avoid conflict and asserts that no single country should control the internet, a clear message to the U.S., the China Daily introduced.
The new strategic report states that “countries should reject the Cold War mentality, zero-sum game and double standards, uphold peace through cooperation and seek one’s own security through common security on the basis of full respect for other countries’ security,” rhetoric typically reserved for criticisms of the U.S.
Beijing is a staunch advocate of shared governance of the internet and aims to “vigorously promote the reform of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to make it a truly independent international institution.” Under the Obama administration, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) moved to transfer overall control of the internet’s domain name system (DNS) — the “yellow pages” of the world wide web — to a global entity.
China is eager to take advantage of that shift.
“No country should pursue cyberhegemony, interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, or engage in, condone or support cyberactivities that undermine other countries’ national security,” the Chinese report explained, adding that countries should be free to “choose their own path of cyberdevelopment.”
China has come under fire many times for engaging in state-sponsored hacking and human rights violations in the form of internet censorship. The Chinese government asserts that it is a victim of cyber crime and that instead of engaging in censorship, China practices internet management.
The U.S. has accused China of engaging in cyber espionage and stealing intellectual property. For many years, China allegedly used the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to carry out cyber crimes against the U.S., both commercial and government entities. The Chinese Ministry of State Security is believed to have carried out the infamous Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hack, when countless files containing personal data for more than 21 million former and current government employees were compromised.
China has dismissed all accusations as baseless.
Last year, for the second year in a row, China ranked last on Freedom House’s internet freedom list. Using the Great Firewall of China, the most well-known component of the Golden Shield Project, China practices a kind of systematic censorship to prevent Chinese citizens from accessing content deemed unacceptable by the state.
China promotes “cyber sovereignty,” which suggests that it can do as it pleases with its corner of the internet. Beijing focuses on national sovereignty, social order, and national security in all endeavors.
In its new report, China said it will be boosting its military capabilities in cyberspace. “China will give play to the important role of the military in safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, security and development interests in cyberspace,” which could involve targeting foreign entities while promoting its own interests; however, China asserts that its aim is to “prevent arms races and conflicts in cyberspace” and “prevent cyberspace from becoming a new battlefield.”
Chinese observers believe that China’s new strategy represents “a major contribution” to building a new order of governance for cyberspace.
Jeff Baron, a web pioneer who managed millions of domain names before a judge allowed ICANN to give his registry to China without permission, previously explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Eric Lieberman that “if a government or non-state actor were to obtain control of the internet’s technical infrastructure, it would be able to engage in global censorship and mass propaganda, among other transgressions.”
“In the wrong hands, ICANN could be used as a weapon to dictate who has access to the internet,” he added.
China states in its new report that it supports “formulating universally accepted international rules and norms of state behavior in cyberspace,” but China’s long-term ambitions are unclear.