Report: Lawyer Caught Offering Woman $200,000 to Accuse Trump of Sex Assault

by V Saxena


Two months ago former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly revealed the existence of a tape that he claims shows what he described as “an anti-Trump attorney” offering a woman $200,000 during the presidential election last year to issue false sexual harassment claims against then-GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“It exists,” he said to Newsmax at the time. “We have urged the person who has the tape to hand it over to the U.S. attorney, because my investigative team believes there are three separate crimes on the audio tape.”

On Friday, O’Reilly doubled down on that claim during an interview with conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, though he declined to offer a deadline for when the tape might finally be released.

“There is an audiotape of an anti-Trump person offering $200,000 to a woman to accuse Donald Trump of untoward behavior,” he said.  When Beck asked whether this tape will ever be released, O’Reilly replied by maintaining that he “may have to go to the U.S. attorney” himself.  “I don’t want to have to do that and inject myself into the story … but I had my lawyer listen to the tape,” O’Reilly said. “There are at least three crimes on the tape. So as a citizen, I may have to do this.”  He cautioned, though, that the tape isn’t in his possession but rather with “someone who knows the seriousness of this situation.”

Then, Beck asked, why won’t this mysterious someone simply release the tape to the public?

“I can’t really get into that at this point, but I can tell you, Donald Trump knows about the tape,” O’Reilly said. “And I, for the life of me, am sitting here going, ‘Why on Earth are you allowing a movement to try to smear you when you have such a powerful piece of evidence that shows this is an industry — that there are false charges and money changing hands?'”

But Trump doesn’t “have such a powerful piece of evidence” at his disposal; the actual owner of the tape does, and until he or she chooses to release the tape, there might not be much the president can do about it.  Keep in mind that the former Fox News host first mentioned this tape two months earlier, and yet it still remains unpublished. 

My honest recommendation to O’Reilly would be to try his hardest to obtain a copy of the tape and then simply distribute the copy to conservative media.

The fact is that talk is cheap, and allegations come easy. It’s only surefire, indisputable evidence that’ll make any difference against the left’s ongoing war on our president.



Another One For The Transhumanist Scrapbook: Draconian Punishments

by Joseph P. Farrell


So many people sent me versions of this important and significant development that it was simply a kind of moral imperative that I alert readers here to it, and say something about it. In this case, there are four different articles, each of which reveals, almost immediately, what the new concern is:


Is Biotech Seeking Ways to Make People Suffer Eternally?

Should Biotech Make Life Hellish for Criminals? 

Enhanced Punishment: Can Technology Make Life Sentences Longer? 

Could we condemn criminals to suffer for hundreds of years? Biotechnology could let us extend convicts’ lives ‘indefinitely

When Dr. de Hart and I were writing Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, one of the questions we were impelled to raise, one which the transhumanist movement itself raises repeatedly, is what does it mean to be “human”? And this, we implied, was not simply a philosophical question. Nor was it a question of biological or chemical “scientism” with its convenient, and largely useless, materialist reductionisms. It was a question of culture, society, jurisprudence, and morality. 

Within the transhumanist “vision” there is a common underlying theme, regardless of whether or not one accepts the “heaven scenarios” of such advocates like Ray Kurzweil, or the more sobering assessments of transhumanist researchers like Joel Garreau and their “hell scenarios”, for in both cases, the favored transhumanist “GRIN” technologies – genetics, robotics, information processing, and nano-technologies – open both favorable and horrific vistas of the future.

In this case, we are concerned with the horrific ones, for as the articles suggest, what if such technologies made life extension possible as a matter of judicial punishment? This unpleasant prospect, as the articles aver, is actually being not only entertained but its advocacy is even being implied in some circles. What if, in addition to this, other technologies are super-added to life extension, technologies of the “androgynous and alchemical fusion” of man and machine, to implant criminals with chips, to subject them to forms of “virtual torture” and suffering? Some transhumanists have envisioned the downloading and uploading of individual’s personal memories as a technique of virtual life extension. But what if such technologies could recover the memories of victims of crimes? Would criminals then be punished by making them relive in some sort of “virtual reality” the horrors of the crimes they committed on their victims? Could criminals of the future be sentenced to “life extension and ‘hard reliving’ of their crimes from the victim’s point of view” for “x” number of years, without hope of parole or reprieve? While such questions sound like science fiction, as the above articles point out, they are already being entertained, and they are being entertained, because the technologies impelling them are already under development.

Indeed, one can envision a state of development where such technologies were so advanced that a sentence of life in prison with “at hard virtual labor” would be so horrific, that the death penalty, far from being a thing to be avoided by defendants, might become a thing sought.

But there are yet other possibilities as well, possibilities that were, in fact, explored in the television science fiction series Babylon Five in the 1990s: the “death of personality.” In that series, convicted murderers are subjected to a kind of “death of the ego”: the erasure of the personality, memories, and emotions of the perpetrator. 

While some may view all of this favorably, and argue that it is “ethical,” I incline to the other opinion, and hold that it is barbaric, and a measure of the dehumanizing that such philosophies and technologies are inevitably bringing with them. I submit that such punishments are indeed “cruel and unusual” and little other than a form of torture.

 But whatever one’s opinion may be, the cultural transformation of culture and society that the transhumanists are championing or, in a few cases, decrying, are indeed hurtling down the tracks toward us and will force each of us to deal with the types of questions these articles are pointing out.


See you on the flip side.


The article first appeared here.


Hillary Clinton Cannot win the 2020 Presidential Race

by Wayne Flaherty


There is no way Hillary can win the presidency when 66 % of the people believe she is not trustworthy and 58 % also believe that she is corrupt. She cannot run on her record since that will only bring more proof of her corruption. If she falls back on her tried and true technique of lying her way out of a situation, what lie can she tell that would facilitate her escape? How do you lie your way out of 25 years of corruption?

She cannot win a debate with Donald Trump. He will not only defeat her, he will annihilate her. He will ask her the questions she has so desperately tried to avoid. As of today, it has been 221 days since she has held a press conference. She will not hold a press conference because she has no answers for the questions that are sure to be asked. She depends totally on her 3 media outlets (ABC, CBS, & NBC) to whitewash her image. No other media outlet will give her the free pass that she gets from these 3 co-conspirators. The silence of her media trio cannot hide the millions of dollars she has accepted from foreign nations hostile to America. What she promised them in exchange for her 30 pieces of silver is unknown but you can be sure it won't be good for America.

She must find a squeaky-clean Vice Presidential running mate - a person who is her exact opposite in temperament, honesty, and corruption. What sane person would use their hard earned reputation in an attempt to prop up a candidate that the people distrust to the degree the public distrusts her? Maybe there is someone who wants to be the captain of the Titanic but I seriously doubt it. Not only will squeaky-clean fail to pull her up in the polls, she will pull them down so far that she will essentially end their political career. Already, one person discussed for her VP has been eliminated because he is just as corrupt as Hillary. She will never win by attempting to run on her VP's record. She will still be 'Crooked Hillary'.

Bill Clinton sealed Hillary's fate in the email scandal when he met with Attorney General Lynch. If the FBI recommends Hillary be indicted, the AG would be forced to proceed with the criminal charges. If the AG finds her not guilty, everyone will know the fix is in. If, as many people say, AG Lynch is an honorable person, she will have only one way to salvage her already damaged career - find Hillary guilty. If the FBI does not recommend a future indictment, then everyone will know the fix is in and Bill Clinton was just giving the AG her marching orders.

Hillary's time in Washington stands as stark evidence of 25 years of lies and corruption. Time after time, the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, demonstrate contempt for the law, and assure us common folk that the law does not apply to them. One area of proof is the number of books written about the Clinton corruption that increases almost weekly.

Like a caged animal, Hillary huffs and puffs, feigns indignation, and declares "It's time to move on!" Unfortunately, fate has decreed otherwise, and the people are choosing not to move on. They are demanding accountability and they will get it - at the polls if necessary.


Trackside - Malaria cases increase with Ban of DDT

by John D'Aloia


What would you call an action, knowingly taken, that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, people who lived in a certain part of the world? Does the word "genocide" come to mind? Consider these grim statistics - 50 million killed since 1972; almost 90 percent of the victims are in sub-Saharan Africa.

The perpetrators are the ecofascists who in 1972 convinced the federal government to ban DDT, a known eradicator of mosquitos, the malaria vector. The unindicted co-conspirators are the American people who, bowing to the ecofascists, have allowed the ban to remain in place in spite of the medical and scientific data that has shown that DDT "used according to the label directions" is not a danger to the environment or humans. (A DDT data synopsis is posted at https://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/.)


Socialists are enamored with environmentalism. It provides a rationale for a one-world government - we need a one-world government to be able to control population so as to be able to protect the environment. Think it far-fetched? As cited in "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, Bertrand Russell expressed it thus: "I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing…A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government…" In the same book, Jacques Cousteau, interviewed by the United Nations UNESCO Courier in November of 1991, is cited to have said of death by cancer: "Should we eliminate suffering diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit in the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."


With this mindset, malaria is a useful tool - the millions of deaths resulting from the ban on DDT produces the desired result. The death toll has raised up a new foe for the ecofascists, the civil rights organization Congress for Racial Equality. In a May 2003 press release, announcing a protest against a Greenpeace fund raiser, CORE stated: "Across Africa, malaria kills 2 million people every year, half of them children. Over 250 million more get this horrible disease and are unable to work for weeks or months on end, costing their countries $12 billion annually. Malaria also threatens Asia and Latin America. DDT and other pesticides, used in tiny amounts, can slash malaria rates and deaths by 80% or more. But Greenpeace absolutely opposes this and pressures the European Union to ban fish and agricultural exports (including tobacco!) from any African nation that uses DDT. Even the liberal New York Times says ‘wealthy nations should be helping poor countries with all available means – including DDT.’ But the callous eco-radicals refuse to budge."


CORE’s anti-Greenpeace protest was not a one-shot deal. A petition, in the form of a letter with as many signatories as CORE can muster was prepared to present to President Bush. The letter’s first two sentences set the tone: "There is no more important human right than the right to live. Without life, all other human rights are irrelevant." CORE went on to ask the President to take four actions: ask congressional leadership to schedule hearings and to ensure that taxpayer money funds the use of DDT and other measures that work; abolish the ineffective USAID’s malaria program; instruct government agencies to promote and fund the use of DDT when requested by officials in developing countries; and reduce or eliminate funding of any agency, U.S. or foreign, that obstructs or fails to support the use of DDT or other pesticides. CORE closes by stating "On behalf of hundreds of millions of parents and children in countries where malaria continues to take a terrible, unnecessary and intolerable toll, we thank you for taking a leadership role in helping to make this a humanitarian effort that transcends religious, racial, or political affiliations."


The ban on DDT not your problem? Think again. Malaria is found in the U.S. - and think West Nile, another disease transmitted by mosquitos. (Kansas had 731 confirmed cases of West Nile in 2003, with seven deaths.) These disease agents, and others, exist in this country - and so do the carriers, the zillions of little buzzing critters. A bit of DDT goes a long way towards the drastic reduction of the diseases they carry at a cost that compares not with the death and misery they cause.


See you Trackside.




Republished from the old Eponym site in honor of former Editor John D'Aloia.