Mediaboss Marketing

Rethinking her loss in the presidential race as a mere setback after her long walks in the woods and lots of sleep, Hillary Clinton bravely stated recently that she was ready to get back up and keep going.

But whilespeaking ofgirl power in the U.S. in the 21st century last Tuesday, Clinton likely didnt suspect she was fighting a more powerful obstacle: acurse by the lady-shaman of Siberia, with whom she had the misfortune of crossing pathsabout 20 years ago.

Afuzzy photograph of Clinton by the mummy of the Princess of Ukok is one of the most revered exhibits atthe City Museum of Novosibirsk, in the capital of Siberia.

Will heracquaintance with the Princess bestowacurse on Hillary tonight? askedone headlineonelection day. (The Princess did not like Clintonand Clinton lost! avictorious readerremarked the next day, in the comments section beneaththe article.)

The remains of the immaculately dressed 20-something princess, preserved for several millennia in the Siberian permafrosta natural freezerwere discovered in 1993 by Novosibirsk scientist Natalia Polosmak during an archaeological expedition, The Siberian Timesreported in 2012. Six saddled and bridled horses, her spiritual escort to the next world, were buried around hera symbol of her evident status as a healer or a holy woman.

Ameal of sheep and horse meat was placed by her side, as well as ornaments of felt, wood, bronze and goldand a small container ofcannabis.

This discovery,in the middle of theUkok Plateauthe holiest place of the native people of the Altai Mountains, direct relatives of Native Americanshas beencalled one of the most important archaeological momentsof the modern era.

Even today, only a chopper can deliver one to this unreachableplace.

Both of the ancient girls armsfrom shoulders to wristswere covered with exquisite, modern tattoos. It is a phenomenal level of tattoo art. Incredible, Dr. Polosmak, who found the mummy, said. The tattoos on the left shoulder of the princess show a fantastical mythological animal: a deer with a griffons beak and a Capricorns antlers.

Her head was completely shaven and she wore a horse hair wig. She died over 2,500 years ago.

She was called Princess by the media. We just call her Devochka, meaning Girl,' explainedIrina Salnikova, head of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography.

Herbrain andinternal organs had been removed, so it was not possible to determine the cause of death. The Princess of Ukok was not related to any of the Asian races, scientists areconvincednor was sherelated to the present day inhabitants of Altai. She had a European appearance and blond hair before shaving her head.

Local shamans declared that the mummy belonged to the Altai Princess Ochi-Bala or White Lady of Ak-Kadynthe progenitor of the Altai people, the keeper of peace, who stood guard, preventing evil from penetrating our world.

Leave her in peace, rebury her inthe same spot, or there would be dire consequencesher ire and curse, for anybody who would cross her paththe shamans warned.

From day one, many Altai locals were alarmed by the removal of the ancient girls remains from thesacred burial moundsknown as kurgansregardless of the value to science of the discovery.In a land where the sway of shamans still holds, they believed that the princess removal would immediately lead to consequences.

Locals insisted the excavation disrupted her protective mission and the revenge she would inflict would reachglobally.

Archaeologists confirmed that as soon as the mummy was found, there wasthundereven there wasnt a cloud in the sky above. When the remains were removed, anearthquake began.

Some say the curse of the mummy caused the crash of a chopper carrying her remains out of Altai. Then, in Novosibirsk, her bodypreserved so well for so longsuddenly beganto decompose. The mummy had been stored in a freezer used to preserve cheese and fungi began growing on the flesh, it was claimed.

The princess remains had to be taken to Moscow and to be treated by the same scientists whotook such great care of the body of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet state.

After the body was brought to Novosibirsk (some 400 miles from the burial site), the constitutional crisis of 1993 began in Moscow. Ordered byRussian President Yeltsin, Russian tanks shelled Russian Parliament.

Soon after, economic disaster followed.

Even the war in Chechnya that began in 1995 was blamed on the Princess of Ukok.

Back in Altai, many ills had been explained by the princesss removal: forest fires, high winds, illness, suicides and an upsurge in earthquakes in the region,The Siberian Timesreported.

In November 1997, first lady Hillary Clinton visited Russia during her solo Human Rights Tour. One of her stops was in thecity of Novosibirsk.

On November 16, while on her trip, Clintonwas lured into the most dangerous trap: to meet face-to-face with the scientific sensation, the Princess of Ukok.

At the History and Archeology Institute of Novosibirsk Akademgorodok, in the company of archeologists Vyacheslav Molodin and Natalia Polosmak, the first lady observed the remains of the Princesson exhibit just for Clinton herself.

Was it a trap deliberately set by the Russian Secret Service?

Clinton was greeted by the local governor, sharedvodka and tea with him, and then paid a visit to atraditional Siberian familythe Vdovins. Father Vdovin was an engineer and mother Vdovin was anEnglish teacher at the local school, NGS Newsreported.

Clintons life, as well as the lives of those she met whilethere, dramatically changed soon after.

The governor lost his post two years later and died, while the Vdovin family split and moved to Canada.

In January, 1998, exactly two month after Clintons visit to the mummy of the Siberian Princess of Ukok, the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and the course of U.S. history was changed forever.

And, most importantly, Hillary Clintons goals became ever more elusiveno matter how hard she workedto reach them.

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton Was Cursed to Fail by Siberian Mummy - Observer

Story highlights

"If Hillary had won, I was ready to go home," Pelosi said after her interview at The Monitor Breakfast, hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, in Washington. "It was really shocking that someone like Donald Trump would be President of the United States. We yearn for the day of a Mitt Romney or a George Bush or someone. But anyway, that motivated me to stay now."

Pelosi, who has led the House Democrats since 2003, said she was staying to protect the Affordable Care Act -- a signature item dubbed "Obamacare" but one she was heavily decisive in crafting eight years ago as then-House speaker.

Pelosi faced a surprisingly tough re-election battle to head House Democrats in November, just weeks after Trump won the White House. As the party did some soul-searching, a group led by Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat, said it wanted a new direction.

Pelosi would not say Friday whether she would seek to run the House Democrats again in 2018, saying she takes everything now "day to day."

Read the rest here:
Nancy Pelosi says she would have retired if Hillary Clinton won - CNN

In an article for the Women section of Huffington Post, writer Emma Gray asks Can We Finally Admit It Was Always About Sexism, Never Emails? She was talking, of course, about former presidential candidate Hillary Clintons use of a private email server to conduct government business while she was secretary of state.

Grays evidence of sexism being the reason for the intense scrutiny of Clintons emails was the fact that Vice President Mike Pence also used a private email account to conduct official businessan account that was hacked in 2016yet Pence has not received anywhere near the amount of scorn that Clinton did. Pence is a man, and Clinton is a woman. Therefore, sexism!

A few paragraphs into Grays piece, she acknowledges that these two incidents were not exactly the same and links to a Washington Postpiece explainingthe differences, but then proceeds to ignore all of themexcept mentioning that the State Department explicitly discourages the use of personal email accounts.

Gray even cites some of President Donald Trumps advisers use of email accounts through a private Republican National Committee system as further evidence that Clinton was treated differently. At no point does Gray offer evidence that it was Clintons gender that caused the disparate treatment. Indeed, she mentions Kellyanne Conway as one of the Trump advisers who used an RNC account. It seems a more believable claim forthe differing treatments would be Republican vs. Democrat, though that would be difficult considering the political slant of most newsrooms.

But the comparison to Pence was even more strained, since the Washington Post explainer Gray links to goes into great detail about how Clintons email scheme was different. First and foremost, its legal in Indiana for government officials to use private emails to conduct official business. Its not illegal for State Department employees to do so, but its strongly advised against. Clinton herself sent staff an email saying not to use personal email for day-to-day business, even as she used exclusively a personal server to conduct business.

The Posts Amber Phillips wrote that Pence may have needed a private account since its illegal in Indiana for a government official to use her or his official account for political business.

Pence alsoaccording to Penceis preserving his emails consistent with Indiana law. Clinton, by contrast, destroyed some 30,000 emails she and her staff deemed personal, even though thousands of recovered emails revealed work-related content.

Further, as Phillips notes, the FBI launched an investigation into Clintons emails and her mishandling of classified information. No investigation has been opened into Pences emails. FBI Director James Comey spoke at length of Clintons extremely careless treatment of classified information, but ultimately declined to prosecute her, citing a nonexistent intent provision of federal law. In the end, Comey made it clear that Clintons use of a private email server was borderline incompetent, but that same incompetence got her off the hook.

Clinton also lied repeatedly after her personal server was discovered. She claimed she used the server for convenience and so shed only have to carry one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. Clinton would go on to admit to having a Blackberry, an iPad and an iPhone. She also claimed that no classified information was sent over her private server, but FBI investigators found 110 emails that contained classified information when they were sent or received.

So far, Pence doesnt appear to have lied about his emails, while Clinton lied repeatedly.

Theres also the glaringly obvious difference that the secretary of state would have a lot more sensitive emails than the governor of Indiana.

If Pence is discovered to be using a private email to conduct official government business while vice president, things will certainly be different. He would then have been putting our national security at risk, which is what Clintons server did. Though Comey said it was possible that hostile actors gained access to Clintons private server, no such hack has been proven. Pences email account was hacked, which prompted him to close it and open a new AOL account (AOL? Seriously?).

The bottom line is that the situations are completely different, and thatnot sexismis why they have been treated differently. Even though the situations are not the same, it was still dumb for Pence and other Republicans to criticize Clinton for using private email accounts while they used one themselves. Even the appearance of hypocrisy should have been avoided.

Go here to see the original:
It Wasn't Sexism That Caused Concern Over Hillary Clinton's Emails - Observer

"I'd win." That's how Hillary Clinton responded when asked at Wellesley College what she would do differently in her failed run for the presidency in 2016. She's deceiving herself.

The Clinton candidacy suffered from many things, but nothing more so than a self-imposed feeling of invulnerability and inevitability. Just do a random search on YouTube if you don't believe it and watch how all the soi-disant experts yammered on and on about how Hillary couldn't lose, Trump was already finished, the election was over.

And her appearances at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia last summer, which IBD attended, seemed more like coronation events than an actual election battle.

Of course, we know how that turned out. But now, inher talk at Wellesley, Hillary suggested not only that she would win if the election were rerun, a bit of wishful revisionism, but that her actual defeat might have been because of her gender sexism.

"You know you're going to be subject to unfair and besides-the-point criticism," she said about being the first woman nominated to be president by a major party, and broadly hinting that this is what brought her down.

But, as investigative reporter Amber Athey at the Campus Reform website reported, two New York University professors tried to show just how bad the bias against Hillary was. They created an experiment to "reveal bias by re-enacting the presidential debates with the candidates' genders reversed."

It was an intriguing and creative idea. What the two impeccably progressive professors expected to find, of course, was that if Hillary were a man, she would be embraced and loved; and that Trump, as a woman candidate, would be despised. Gender bias, proved.

Boy, were they surprised.

"The two NYU professors who designed the experiment were 'unsettled' to discover that audience members actually found Trump's style more endearing when it came from a woman," Athey wrote of the NYU "Her Opponent" project. "One female audience member even remarked that she found the male version of Clinton 'very punchable' because he smiled so much."

Ouch! So much for the postelection notion of Hillary as a feminist victim of all those angry white men in the Midwest. What Democrats, and the Clinton camp, have trouble recognizing is she was simply an unpopular candidate with an unpopular message, beaten by an unpopular candidate with a more widely popular message.

Lest you think this is making too much of just one little experiment, a new poll out by Suffolk University shows that Clinton has left a bad taste in the mouth of much of America.

In July 2016, 53% of those polled held favorable views of Hillary Clinton, while just 42% rated her as "unfavorable." But in the poll's most recent sounding taken this month, Hillary Clinton's unfavorability rating had soared to 55%, while her favorability had plunged to 35%. Her favorability fell sharply among both Democrats and independents.

Yet another study, this one from the Wesleyan Media Project, found that Hillary Clinton's campaign was, in the words of Heat Street, "without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years."

The study itself didn't mince words, calling her campaign "devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential elections."

The truth is, as the saying goes, Hillary's support last year was a mile wide and an inch deep. Nor did she lose because she was a woman; that's a cop out, a cheap bit of undeserved victimhood that no doubt makes her feel better about losing to the big bully Trump.

No, in the end, she lost because voters across America found her profoundly unsympathetic and out of touch. Her proposed policies doubling down on ObamaCare, increasing Dodd-Frank financial regulation, higher taxes, more federal spending, attacks on coal country workers and industry through strict climate-change rules, not to mention nonstop gender, class, culture and race warfare reeked of a continuation of the failed Obama years.

Oh yes, and did we mention the lies then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made about her illegal home-brew email server and about what happened at Benghazi, where four Americans were killed? Those didn't help a bit in Middle America.

Contrary to what Hillary Clinton might believe, sexism had nothing to do with it or at least, very little. Hubris and an overweening sense of entitlement did. Voters were tired after eight years of Obamaism, and didn't want a reprise. They wanted deep changes to Washington, D.C., and its corrupt, cozy culture.

In short, they went looking for a wrecking ball that would knock the whole corrupt mess down. And they got him. His name is Trump.

RELATED:

Why Hillary Clinton Lost: An Election Post-Mortem

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead, But Not The Case Against Hillary

Clinton Scandals: Let The Investigations Continue

Lookout, Hillary! On The Economy, It's Advantage Trump

Read the original:
Sorry, But Hillary Clinton Didn't Lose Because She Is A Woman - Investor's Business Daily

Womens voices have never been more vital than now.

They were the words of Hillary Clinton when she spoke at Vital Voices Global Leadership Awards in Washington DC.

It was her second appearance in as many days, after earlier attending the Girls Inc. New York Luncheon.

Rocking a new hairdo and the same red worn by many in support of International Womens Day the 69-year old praised those who had taken part in the day, including the largely female audience at Vital Voices.

Our voices have always been vital but they have never been more vital than they are right now, Hillary said.

Not just in far away countries but right here.

And we are just getting started.

She saidInternational Womens Day was always important but this year it felt even more significant.

These are uncertain, even trying times. But as we all stop to look fear in the face the result has not only been passion but action, she said

And I have never been more confident that we can take the next thing that comes along and move forward with optimism into a better future for women, for men, for all.

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton shares a vital voice for woman - Starts at 60