Showing posts with label #44DD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #44DD. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Could the Jig Finally Be Up for Huma Abedin?

A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's chief assistant. This follows this post about fake "hate crimes." This follows this post about Muslims refugee resettlement in the U.S., such as in Idaho. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
You can follow me here.


Robert Spencer, FrontPage: Could the Jig Finally Be Up for Huma Abedin?

Huma HillaryIn FrontPage this morning I explain why the current mini-controversy over Huma Abedin bespeaks a much larger problem with America’s contemporary political culture.
They got Al Capone for tax evasion, and they may get Huma Abedin for “violating rules regarding vacation and sick leave” and for the “possible exchange of unsecured, classified data.” To be sure, these are serious charges, and the available evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is ample warrant to investigate and perhaps even charge Abedin. However, it is a sign of a serious problem with today’s political culture that even more serious allegations regarding Abedin have never been investigated, and almost certainly never will be.
Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections have been fully exposed by Andrew McCarthy and bruited about for years. The facts are quite public, albeit largely ignored: Abedin’s parents are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but her links to the organization are not just familial. Abedin was for twelve years the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), which was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood operative and al-Qaeda financier. Naseef and Abedin both appeared on the JMMA’s masthead from 1996 to 2003.
Consider that Abedin worked closely for seven years with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who financed al-Qaeda in light of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy during the years that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Everyone acknowledges that Abedin and Clinton are extremely close, and that Abedin controls access to Clinton and has tremendous influence over her. Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department was distinguished by the remarkable sight of Egyptian anti-Muslim Brotherhood protestors holding signs denouncing the President of the United States for supporting terrorism, and by the Benghazi debacle, when the Secretary of State sat back and did nothing as jihad terrorists murdered four Americans, including an ambassador.
Then there was the Benghazi cover-up, during which Clinton vowed to have a man who made a video criticizing Muhammad arrested and imprisoned for supposedly provoking the riots, thereby placing herself firmly in opposition to the freedom of speech and aligning herself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to compel Western governments to criminalize criticism of Islam (under the guise of “incitement to religious hatred”).
Is it at all possible that Huma Abedin, whose parents were active in the Brotherhood and who worked for twelve years for a journal closely linked to the Brotherhood, had anything to do with the pro-Muslim Brotherhood orientation of the Obama/Clinton State Department? In today’s poisonous political culture, it isn’t possible even to ask the question without incurring charges of “Islamophobia” – as we saw in 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had the temerity to call for an investigation of possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government.
Bachmann explained: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.” And that was to say nothing about Abedin’s association with Naseef and work with the JMMA.
Now that Abedin is suspected of mishandling classified material, Bachmann’s questions about Abedin’s security clearance are piquant in retrospect. But when she first raised them, Bachmann was ridiculed and vilified, even earning a denunciation from John McCain: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”
It was actually about more than just Abedin’s family, and a perfectly sound case could be made, in light of Obama’s foreign policy disasters, that Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood links possibly did harm and threaten the United States. But Bachmann’s name was dragged through the mud in 2012 for talking about all this, and now none of the new allegations against Abedin raise any issue with her possible Muslim Brotherhood connections.
That few people care about those connections, and that those who do are dismissed as “far-Right bigots,” shows how myopic and foolish our contemporary political culture is. If Huma Abedin had a hand in the pro-Muslim Brotherhood tilt of the Obama/Clinton State Department, that would be a far graver offense than anything she is accused of now, just as old Capone was guilty of far greater crimes than tax evasion. But on the other hand, those tax evasion charges ended Capone’s operations for good, and so if Hillary’s infamous email server does the same to Huma Abedin, no one who values America’s historic role as leader of the free world will have any reason to complain.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Sofia Vergara: Genie Grants Actress Her Wish! (Photoessay Over the Years)

A timely post about from http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com about Sofia Vergara. This follows this post about Obama supporters and Ronald Reagan.
You can follow me here.

Sofia Vergara: Genie Grants Actress Her Wish! (Photoessay Over the Years)
By Nicholas Stix

In the May issue of Vanity Fair, actress Sofia Vergara says, “Believe me, I wish I had fake boobs.”

Well, I am a magic genie, and I hereby grant Vergara her wish: Fake boobs!

If we look at the first three pictures below, from early in Vergara’s career, we see that she was virtually flat-chested—perhaps a 34A.









The next picture shows her as a B-cup.




Here, she's a top-heavy D or DD-cup. While it may be possible--I'm not sure--for a real cruncher of a push-up bra to give a woman a top-heavy look, this bikini is much too flimsy to pull off the trick, and top-heavy D-cup breasts, which defy the law of gravity, are a typical giveaway that the blessings are man-made, and not thanks to Mother Nature.




The next picture, which is the cover of the May issue of Vanity Fair, depicts what is likely a 38D, and possibly a 38DD bosom.


“Photo: Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair”


No grown woman develops like that, any more than a grown man puts on 40 pounds of solid muscle, without PEDs.

Google Images has hundreds of pics of a bikinied Vergara as a 34A, 34 or 36B, 36C, and 38D (or DD), with and without cleavage, and with both top-heavy and with gravitational breasts.

My verdict, as a breast man and investigative journalist, while taking into account what different bathing suits, outfits, and brassieres can for a woman: Not only has Vergara gone under the knife, but she has gotten more than one boob job.

The ultimate test would be to find a recent picture of Vergara lying on her back. If her boobs spread out and flatten out, as she says they do, they’re real. If they stand up, they’re fake. I’ve yet to find such a picture.


Sofia Vergara wishes she had fake boobs
By David K. Li
April 8, 2015 | 10:12 a.m.
New York Post

“Modern Family” babe Sofia Vergara really knows how to fill out a dress — but the naturally busty actress says she’s gotten a little too much of a good thing.

“Believe me, I wish I had fake boobs,” Vergara says in the May issue of Vanity Fair, complaining that her God-given assets sag more than silicone stand-ins would.

“I lay down and they completely go down like all the way, like here,” she said. “It’s not fun.”

Vergara, 42, is one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood, earning $37 million for endorsements and her role in “Modern Family,” Forbes has reported.

She tells VF that she took speech classes and tried for years to lose her thick Colombian accent — before realizing it was her meal ticket, adding, “I’ve been in this country for 20-something years and I still sound like this.”

Monday, May 4, 2015

Sofia Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos “Have a Right to Live,” Opposes “Killing Them”

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Sofia Vegara. This follows this post about censorship of pro-life literature.For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.



Sofia Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos “Have a Right to Live,” Opposes “Killing Them”

Home Posts Steven Ertelt      Washington, DC



Sofia Vergara’s former fiance’ Nick Loeb is continuing his battle to protect his children — even though they are in the embryonic stage of life.
 
As LifeNews previously reported, Loeb has filed a lawsuit against Modern Family actress, Sofia Vergara, in an attempt to stop her from destroying a pair of frozen embryos they created while they were engaged. Now, he’s speaking out more forcefully and taking a decidedly pro-life tact in how he describes his embryonic children, saying they have a “right to live” and that he opposes “killing them.”
In May 2014, the couple broke off their engagement after four years of dating. A source close to Loeb explained that he didn’t want to see the embryos destroyed because he’s always believed that life begins at conception. The couple created the embryos through in vitro fertilization.
The lawsuit was filed under a pseudonym and states, “John Doe seeks to ensure that the Female Embryos are not destroyed, but Jane Doe [Vergara] refuses to agree to their preservation under all circumstances.” The lawsuit also alleges that Vergara was both physically and emotionally abusive toward Loeb.
However, other sources say that Loeb is just trying to stay apart of Vergara‘s life. One source told Radar Online, “If these embryos were implanted into a surrogate, Nick would almost certainly go after Sofia for child support. As the highest paid actress on television, the financial incentive needs to also be considered.”
On Thursday, he penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live,” and argued that keeping the embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.”
“Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?”
“When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent?”
Here’s the latest from the op-ed in the New York Times from Loeb:
LAST August, I filed a complaint in Santa Monica, Calif., using pseudonyms, to protect two frozen embryos I created with my former fiancée. I wanted to keep this private, but recently the story broke to the world. It has gotten attention not only because of the people involved — my ex is Sofía Vergara, who stars in the ABC series “Modern Family” — but also because embryonic custody disputes raise important questions about life, religion and parenthood.
When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent? A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects? These are issues that, unlike abortion, have nothing to do with the rights over one’s own body, and everything to do with a parent’s right to protect the life of his or her unborn child.
In 2013, Sofía and I agreed to try to use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify — as California law requires — what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.
Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our current fundraising campaign with a donation!
My lawyers have identified 10 other cases in the United States in which a parent tried to have a fertilized, frozen embryo taken to term against the wishes of an opposing parent. In eight of those cases, the parent seeking custody lost. In the other two cases, one in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois, a woman was awarded custody of fertilized embryos over the man’s objections. In both cases, the woman had undergone chemotherapy treatment and the embryos were her last chance to have a biological child; judges ruled that the woman’s interest in becoming a parent outweighed the man’s interest in not becoming a parent. In the Illinois case (now on appeal), the judge found that the form the couple signed was not the binding contract, and instead enforced a verbal promise the man made to help the woman have children.
Many have asked me: Why not just move on and have a family of your own? I have every intention of doing so. But that doesn’t mean I should let the two lives I have already created be destroyed or sit in a freezer until the end of time.
For as long as I can remember, I have dreamed of being a parent. I was only a year old when my parents divorced. My father gained custody, and my mother virtually disappeared from my life. I did not see her again until I was 9, and she died when I was 20. This made me yearn for the type of family based on the images one might see in a Norman Rockwell painting.
When I was in my 20s, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, and the decision was entirely out of my hands. Ever since, I have dreamed about a boy at the age he would be now.
sofiavergara2