Former President Donald Trump said he would “absolutely” debate Vice President Kamala Harris, even adding that he would do more than one, while on a press call Tuesday. On a call with reporters, Trump was asked about debating Harris since Biden dropped out of the race, to which Trump said he was not thrilled with […]

Kamala Harris was rated the 'most liberal' senator

In addition to her huge payout, her trip also appears to be all-expense-paid

A British experiencer contacted me about an encounter that she had at home with a Reptilian that left her paralyzed during the ordeal. She was assaulted during the encounter.I received the following account:"Hi, Lon. I awoke one night, several years ago, in a state of which I can only explain as a spasm, my body was in a rigid state. I could not move a muscle and felt like something was on top of me.I fought to get movement back in my body. I could not turn my head or move at all. It was like I was having a fight to get control of my body.After a few panic-stricken moments, I could just barely move my fingers, only a little bit. I then felt that there was more than just a spasm. I felt dirty and touched. It was a horrible feeling from deep inside me.I could barely move my toes, again very slightly. My throat felt like it was being held. I could feel something was on top of me. My hands were by my side, but it felt like they were around my own throat, holding tightly. I was using all my might to break free from this spasmodic state.Then could feel something breathing into my left ear, the sound of a growl-like noise right next to my ear. I struggled to move my head to the left, like breaking free from a stranglehold.I could barely see the outline of a head, a big long head next to my own face. As the spasm-like feeling started to wear off, a tiny bit at a time, I could work out that this thing on top of me looked like a lizard/newt thing. It was like a blending together of all that was around it, or maybe invisible. I'm not very sure which, but I could see it clearly as the seconds passed.It was a Reptilian. I growled at it, or I think I did. My mind and my body gave all it could to do so. I bared my teeth at it and I could feel it could read my mind. I was swearing at it and shouting all sorts of obscenities at it. I felt violated and used.The next thing, it was quickly off of me and was standing to one side of the bottom of my bunk bed. A light came through the thin gap in the curtains. There were different shades of golden light which also had very small particles inside it, like dust or small stars that moved around like little bright lights.This reptilian creature was about 6 feet tall. I could sense it was either proud or happy with itself, maybe both. I tried to sit up as best I could and through my mind, I swore at it again.The creature walked forward and stepped into the light beam. As it did, the feet and legs vanished into the light. The more the creature moved forward towards the window, the more of it vanished.After it was gone I felt relaxed, but I could still feel where I was held around my throat. I felt I was horrendously assaulted by this monster.I awoke to a bright sunny day. I could hear my mother downstairs, washing up and doing housework. I lay in my bed and didn't move a muscle. I ran the incident through my mind again and, yes, I could still feel where I was held around my throat.I know this happened. My mind, heart, and soul know that this happened. For the life of me, I could not run downstairs to explain to my mother about this. Who would have believed it? How would my parents have handled such a thing? I did not know what to do?Since that night, my stepfather passed away. I asked my mother if she believed in aliens or UFOs. She replied that my stepfather said once that he saw a UFO near Brighton while at sea in the 1960 and he swore that it was a UFO, but only told my mother this.I never told my mother about my experience, as I thought it would be too harrowing for her to hear.What do I do about my experience? I would love to do something about it. It may help somebody, as I am being very honest. Things like this should be disclosed. An answer has to be found on why this is happening." WNOTE: I contacted the experiencer and we corresponded several times. The personal details of this incident will remain private. Below is an image, submitted by the experiencer, of what the Reptilian looked like. LonThe Secret History of the Reptilians: The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien MythosA New Order of the Ages: A Metaphysical Blueprint of Reality and an Exposé on Powerful Reptilian/Aryan Bloodlines Volume 2The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim: The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins**********POLL: WHAT DO YOU THINK? Vote & comment on paranormal, cryptid & unexplained mysteries!CREEPY CAMPING ENCOUNTERS - ABOMINABLE CREATURES | LIVE CHAT | Q & A (REAL EYEWITNESS REPORTS!)LISTEN TO NARRATIONS OF PHANTOMS & MONSTERS REPORTS & CASES - PLEASE SUBSCRIBE, LIKE & SHAREPHANTOMS & MONSTERS RADIO Podcasts on SpotifyPHANTOMS & MONSTERS READING LISTCHICAGO MOTHMAN / O'HARE BATMAN YouTube PlaylistHave you had a sighting or encounter?Contact me by email or call the hotline at 410-241-5974Thanks. LonJOIN AMAZON PRIME - Unlimited Movie/TV Streaming& FREE 2-Day ShippingRegister a SNAP EBT CardTry Audible PlusBigfoot and Other Cryptid Videos on YouTube'KILLER BIGFOOT' HUNTED BY U.S. SPECIAL FORCES / GLIMMER MAN / MANTIS HUMANOIDSCRAWLER HUMANOIDS - GRUESOME INVADERS! (REAL EYEWITNESS ENCOUNTERS!)WEREWOLVES: DO THEY EXIST?'DOGMAN IN OUR YARD!' - AN OHIO FAMILY'S 12-YEAR SAGA WITH CRYPTID CANINES----------Become a Phantoms & Monsters Radio member - just $2.99 monthly, and receive these perks. Thanks for your support!-Members-only live chats-Exclusive members-only videos-Priority reply to members' commentsHave perks suggestions? LMK-----YOUR SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED! THANKS-----LYCANS! - PENNSYLVANIA'S CRYPTID CANINES UPDATE | LIVE CHAT | Q & A (REAL EYEWITNESS REPORTS!)Cryptid canine sightings and encounters have been reported by Pennsylvania's residents for centuries! Dwayyo, Werewolves, Lycans, etc. There are various monikers used by witnesses throughout the Keystone State. The physical descriptions and characteristics also vary.For several years, I have collected many of these intriguing incidents, as told to me and my colleagues by the witnesses. I look forward to your opinions, discussions, and questions about these intriguing cryptids.-----Project Threshold: Finale-----Have you had a sighting or encounter?Contact us by email or call the hotline at 410-241-5974Thanks. LonAlso available with audiobooknarration by Terry Springs,CBS-TV Las Vegas affiliate.This blog and newsletter are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Work 3.0 United States License.Registered trademark PHANTOMS AND MONSTERS ® / PHANTOMS & MONSTERS ® - USPTO #90902480 - Lon D. Strickler© 2005-2024 Phantoms & Monsters - All Rights Reserved

News The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Meet The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power’s New Ringsmith, Mirdania By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on July 23, 2024 Credit: Ben Rothstein / Prime Video Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Ben Rothstein / Prime Video Amazon MGM Studios has revealed a new character we’ll see (besides sexy elven Sauron) in season two of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Polygon broke the news about the new elven character, Mirdania, played by relative newcomer Amelia Kenworthy. Mirdania is the protégé of the master smith Celebrimbor (played by Charles Edwards, who is pictured above with Sexy Sauron/Annatar/actor Charle Vickers) but, according to a statement from Amazon, her “loyalty will be tested when an unexpected visitor arrives in Eregion, with the potential to alter the destiny of the Elven-smiths forever.” Those well-versed in Tolkien lore will know that Mirdania isn’t a character found in the appendices on which The Rings of Power is based. It does seem, however, that she will be close at hand to the events that occur at Eregion (IYKYK). I also bet you a loaf of lembas bread that the “unexpected visitor” Amazon mentions in its statement is none other than sexy Sauron, who ingratiates himself with the elves at Eregion, including Celebrimbor and, it seems, Mirdania. While we don’t know details, odds are good that things won’t turn out so great for Mirdania, especially since things certainly don’t end well for Celebrimbor. How she will or will not fare against Sauron remains to be seen, of course. Luckily, we only have to wait a few more weeks to see her in action: Season two of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premieres on Prime Video on August 29, 2024. [end-mark] The post Meet <i>The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power’</i>s New Ringsmith, Mirdania appeared first on Reactor.

Retired Sen. James Inhofe passed away recently and, in addition to the glowing tributes from others, I wanted to share a personal anecdote about how the Oklahoma Republican made a difference in an unexpected way. Here’s the backstory. Civics 101 tells us that bills and resolutions introduced by a House member or senator are first sent to a legislative committee, and then possibly to a subcommittee. The House or Senate may consider the measure after it emerges from that process and the committee sends it to the full chamber. Sounds simple enough. But what if a member doesn’t like a resolution that lands in a committee where he serves, knows the House will pass it if it has the chance, and, therefore, decides to kill it by preventing it from ever getting out of the committee? The House, after all, can’t pass a resolution it cannot vote on. For the past century or so, the House has had a rule allowing a majority of House members to “discharge” a measure from a committee that has not released it by signing a discharge petition. This happens only rarely. Since 1980, an average of just 13 discharge petitions have been introduced each year and only a fraction of those succeed in getting at least 218 signatures, the minimum number needed in the 435-member House. In the past, the discharge petition process was secret. The names of House members signing a particular discharge petition were not made public until the total reached the threshold of 218 and the list was published in the Congressional Record. That allowed a member to, say, receive praise for co-sponsoring a resolution he knew was stuck in a committee while refusing to take the step of signing a discharge petition that could actually help get the measure passed. Inhofe, who died July 9 at the age of 89, changed that. On March 18, 1993, Inhofe—then a member of the House—introduced House Resolution 134 to change House rules to require public disclosure of discharge petition signatures from the time the petition was filed. He knew, however, that then-Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif.), the second-most senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, opposed that rules change and would block the resolution from ever reaching the House floor. Inhofe, therefore, introduced a discharge petition for his discharge petition resolution on May 27, 1993, and it reached the requisite 218 signatures on Sept. 8. Less than three weeks later, the House adopted this reform by a vote of 383-40. (Edwards voted no.) But I digress. In October 1991, the Justice Department secured the conviction of Stephen Knox for knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography. Knox challenged his conviction, arguing that the videos he received were not child pornography because the young girls depicted were at least partially clothed. That was an important consideration because the porn industry responds quickly to how courts interpret and apply these statutes. The Justice Department defended the conviction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed it on Oct. 15, 1992, holding that such an exhibition does not always require nudity. Bill Clinton was elected president less than three weeks later. On June 7, 1993, the day Clinton appointed Drew Days to be solicitor general, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Knox’s appeal. To everyone’s surprise, Days filed a brief in September reversing the Justice Department’s position and agreeing with Knox that the child pornography statute should be construed narrowly. Within weeks, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., joined by 57 co-sponsors, introduced House Resolution 281 denouncing the about-face and asserting the “sense of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice repudiate its reinterpretation of federal child pornography laws, defend the conviction won in the lower courts in the Knox case, and vigorously prosecute sexual exploitation of children.” The Smith resolution was sent to the House Judiciary Committee. You’d think that a resolution like this one, calling for more vigorous prosecution of child pornography, would breeze through Congress. On Nov. 4, 1993, the Senate voted 100-0 for an amendment to a crime bill offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, denouncing the Justice Department’s flip-flop in the Knox case. But for some reason, while Smith’s resolution was adding co-sponsors by the day, it sat languishing in the Judiciary Committee. When Smith filed a discharge petition for Resolution 281 on Feb. 9, 1994, it already had 251 co-sponsors, far more than the number needed to pass, but dozens of these members had apparently not signed the discharge petition to help make that happen. It turns out that Edwards—who had opposed making the discharge petition process more transparent—also opposed Smith’s child pornography resolution. The organization for which I worked at the time had established a television network with programming, including a daily political show that I hosted, available by satellite and cable in a growing number of markets. Thanks to Inhofe, the names of the Resolution 281 co-sponsors who had not signed its discharge petition were now in the public record. I called each of those offices (as a courtesy, of course) to tell them that this would be a topic on an upcoming show and their names would appear on television screens across America. Reactions varied—some accompanied by language too impolite to repeat here—but dozens of members quickly signed that discharge petition. Smith offered Resolution 281, which by then had 265 co-sponsors, as an amendment to a major crime bill on April 20, 1994, and the House voted 425-3 to include it. (You guessed it, Edwards voted no). When Clinton signed that crime bill into law on Sept. 13, 1994, it included the Smith amendment, asserting that the Justice Department’s position in the Knox case “did not accurately reflect the intent of Congress.” Inhofe’s determination that more sunshine was needed on this aspect of the House’s legislative activities made it possible for Americans to participate more effectively in the political process; in this case, on an issue of great importance. What might have seemed in the beginning like an inside-congressional-baseball tweak to House rules turned out, thanks to Inhofe, opening the window just a bit so that House members could not say one thing in public and do the exact opposite behind closed doors—and so that the House might be a little more responsive to the American people. The post Giving a Late Lawmaker’s Commitment to Legislative Transparency the Belated Credit It’s Due appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Trying to refute collusive practices involving major social media companies is probably not high on the agenda of the US government right this moment; nevertheless, the evidence of the highly controversial practice keeps rolling in. America First Legal (AFL), a conservative non-profit, has disclosed a new batch of documents obtained through litigation, this time against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It concerns May 2021 communications meant to set the tone online and “manage” the government agenda around topics related to Covid vaccines. The emails were exchanged between Facebook and CDC – and the documents focus on the activities of CDC spokesperson Carol Crawford, who also “happened” to be involved with Twitter’s Partner Support Portal around the same time. This Twitter program’s “secret superpower” was that it allowed government-affiliated individuals to participate in flagging content for censorship. Genelle Adrien (of the Politics and Government Outreach Team over at Facebook) and Crawford “star” in the email chain obtained by AFL, with the latter being asked point blank that the CDC approve Facebook’s “COVID-19 Information Center FAQ.” Of concern to Adrien was particularly what the platform’s users should be allowed to say about the vaccine’s side effects. And CDC provided that guidance – some words were replaced, and other sentences were removed. Thus “joint pain” was gone, but “nausea” was added as a possible side effect. And then these whole two sentences disappeared from what Facebook had prepared as its Covid vaccine safety FAQ: “More serious side effects are extremely rare. A person is far more likely to be seriously harmed by a disease than by its vaccine.” There are various ways to interpret this decision, but one is that CDC (by proxy, as Facebook’s guidance adviser) may have wished to avoid the risk of getting sued (alas, it did get sued – but for colluding with Facebook). Even though the original language was fairly “soft” – if anything, the social platform looked keen to minimize any serious side effects, and promote the vaccines – it was too much for CDC to stand behind. In one of the emails, Crawford writes that the CDC had no “cleared language, as far as I know, to support the second and third sentences.” However, the Biden administration continued to urge people to get the jab throughout that year, with Biden himself spreading seemingly unfounded fear that the unvaccinated people would “soon overwhelm hospitals” with “a winter (2021/22) of severe illness and death” up ahead. But, as AFL notes: “The CDC appears to have admitted that in May of 2021, months after the vaccine had already been rolled out, they could not confirm that the vaccine was safer than contracting COVID-19 itself and developing natural immunity. Nonetheless, the CDC continued to push the American people to take the vaccine.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New Emails Reveal Big Tech-Biden Admin Collusion on COVID-19 Narratives, Involving CDC and Twitter Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Site has no Description

Today's point-and-laugh bit on Conservative Twitter is remembering how Politico columnist Jonathan Martin proclaimed back in February that it was a cuckoo conspiracy theory that Biden would be replaced on the ticket. Who looks like a failed prognosticator now?  This was the snotty headline:  Get Used to It: Biden Isn’t Going Anywhere The GOP fantasy crowd is so accustomed to conspiracy theories that they’re betting the Democrats will switch candidates at the last minute. Have they actually paid attention to politics? It's easy for an expert to pooh-pooh inevitable crystal-ball notions like "Michelle Obama for President." Talk radio can go on for days with that sort of grist. But the swagger just looks like it had boomeranged in the most awful way for "J-Mart."  On Sunday even Nikki Haley, ostensibly the GOP’s Team Normal candidate for president, put down her cash at the window. “My bet is 30 days from now, I don’t think Joe Biden is going to be the nominee,” Haley told supporters. She and other Republicans are about to look as bad as those who took the 49ers. In the spirit of helping the GOP understand their Democratic counterparts, and to avoid any more bad bets, I’ve put together a primer for Republicans on why Biden will be his party’s standard bearer once more. I especially enjoy his argument that Republicans were spouting this because "Too many of them, even those in elected office, don’t believe or understand the mainstream media." Lab Leak theory of electoral politics, 2024. https://t.co/iZ6elG3XmY — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 22, 2024 Martin allows the caveat the Biden could have a "health crisis," but this was more of a...health exposure. Martin proclaimed the window had passed: "Democrats had their chance to speak out against Biden running for reelection at nearly 82, they failed to do it and there is no “they” now poised to intervene." He thought Donald Trump was the inevitable reason why no one was going to step in Biden's way -- but Donald Trump became the inevitable reason why Biden had to go.  Martin relies on the conventional political view, that the "red trickle" election of 2022 lowered the panic: "If Biden loses to Trump this fall, it will be in part because Democrats were lulled into security, or denial, by an electorate which favors their coalition more in midterms than in presidential elections." He observed "Republicans always tend to think Democrats will stop at nothing to win and there exists some powerful forces who can swap out Biden for a younger candidate. But Boss Daley isn’t walking through that door." Martin certainly believed that the age issue could be damaging for Biden. We noted Martin's article in November 2023 strongly suggesting Biden was losing his capacity to do The Job.  2024 will be an extraordinary election, and it demands extraordinary measures. That’s in part for reasons Biden refuses to accept: his capacity to do the job. The oldest president in history when he first took the oath, Biden will not be able to govern and campaign in the manner of previous incumbents. He simply does not have the capacity to do it, and his staff doesn’t trust him to even try, as they make clear by blocking him from the press. Biden’s bid will give new meaning to a Rose Garden campaign, and it requires accommodation to that unavoidable fact of life.

Back in 2020, Joe Biden made it a point to pick a black woman to be his running mate. In 2024, now that Vice President Kamala Harris is running for president in her own right, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell declared it “clearly racist” on Tuesday for Republicans to point this out. Addressing former RNC chairman Michael Steele, Mitchell whined, “It took only a day for the Republicans to attack Vice President Harris in clearly racist terms. Republican Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee says the vice president is a diversity hire. I mean, here’s a former senator, attorney general of California, our largest state. Take a listen.”     Mitchell then played a clip of Burchett with CNN’s Manu Raju, where Burchett condemned Biden for excluding women of other races. After Raju asked if Harris was a DEI hire, Burchett replied, “One hundred percent. She was a DEI hire.” Mitchell’s only response was to do whataboutism with JD Vance, “That was to CNN, of course. Michael, compare that to JD Vance's two years in the Senate, she's been vice president for almost four years and before that a senator on the Judiciary Committee and, as I say, attorney general and a prosecutor.” Despite proving he is fully in the Kamala Cult less than two hours earlier by tweeting a picture of Harris as Captain America, Steele tried to claim that he is still a Republican, “Yeah. You know, it's a familiar theme. It's a sign of, and this has been a problem that, you know, many of us in the party have had to confront and help through for many, many years, how to actually engage a conversation when they're confronting an African-American or person of color that— in the political space.”   Hey @realDonaldTrump. You ready for this? pic.twitter.com/GHBy697yRI — Michael Steele (@MichaelSteele) July 23, 2024   He then claimed Burchett and anyone else making a similar point is just trying to appeal to white men, “And so they revert to themes that appeal to white men, essentially, conservative white men who have these views about a successful black female in this particular case. It is a stupid thing for him to say, and, you know, look, the reality of it is, what else are you going to do?” Lacking any citation, he proceeded to claim that Republicans are scared of her, “A lot of Republicans didn't want JD Vance and they were dreading the conversation between him and Kamala. Now that's shifted to Donald Trump, and so, there's a little bit of panic going on.” When Republicans were arguing over who would make the best VP for Trump, the ability to debate Harris was at the bottom of the list. Nevertheless, Steele rolled right along, “You know, the name-calling is just getting started.” Steele concluded by claiming: It is transformative, and, you know, where it's going to land the strongest, I think, is with those younger voters who have started to check out of the process, and this kind of conversation does not help with those voters when they check in and so the Democrats have got to now work their system to get through the process to the convention, but Republicans now have to figure out how they're going to run against a Kamala Harris, who is a little bit more than a DEI hire, Republicans. I just want to let you know that. The same network that is constantly throwing horrible names at black conservatives is upset that Republicans simply noticed what Democrats said out loud, but refused to positive spin on it. Here is a transcript for the July 23 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 7/23/2024 12:26 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: Michael Steele, it took only a day for the Republicans to attack Vice President Harris in clearly racist terms. Republican Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee says the vice president is a diversity hire. I mean, here’s a former senator, attorney general of California, our largest state. Take a listen. TIM BURCHETT: What about white females? [jump cut] When you go down that route, you take mediocrity and that's what you have right now as a vice president. MANU RAJU: Are you suggesting she was a DEI hire? BURCHETT: One hundred percent. She was a DEI hire. MITCHELL: That was to CNN, of course. Michael, compare that to JD Vance's two years in the Senate, she's been vice president for almost four years and before that a senator on the Judiciary Committee and, as I say, attorney general and a prosecutor. MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah. You know, it's a familiar theme. It's a sign of, and this has been a problem that, you know, many of us in the party have had to confront and help through for many, many years, how to actually engage a conversation when they're confronting an African-American or person of color that— in the political space.  And so they revert to themes that appeal to white men, essentially, conservative white men who have these views about a successful black female in this particular case. It is a stupid thing for him to say, and, you know, look, the reality of it is, what else are you going to do? What are you going to put up against Kamala? Now you've got, you know, JD Vance out there floundering.  A lot of Republicans have second guessed— are starting to second guess, that there were a lot of Republicans didn't want JD Vance and they were dreading the conversation between him and Kamala. Now that's shifted to Donald Trump, and so, there's a little bit of panic going on. You know, the name calling is just getting started, but what I think you see, Andrea, you put your finger on an important part in the question to Garrett is the energy level now on the Democratic side has shifted.  It is transformative, and, you know, where it's going to land the strongest, I think, is with those younger voters who have started to check out of the process and, this kind of conversation does not help with those voters when they check in, and so the Democrats have got to now work their system to get through the process to the convention, but Republicans now have to figure out how they're going to run against a Kamala Harris, who is a little bit more than a DEI hire, Republicans. I just want to let you know that.