Donald Trump

Totalitarian/Fascist Fits – Violence from the Democrat Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

GAY PATRIOT notes just how different the Left is:

It would not be fair to judge the left on the violence and property destruction carried out by unhappy anti-Trump protesters. After all, didn’t Anti-Obama conservatives smash windows, assault Obama supporters, and set fires after Obama won the election?

Oh, wait, we didn’t do any of those things, did we?

These people call themselves Anarchists, and yet they are committing violence because they want more socialism, socialism being a maximized amount of Government control. Do they see the irony? Or are they just violent and stupid and have latched onto the progressive left because that side of the political spectrum is more accepting of hate and violence?

And I’m sure some lefties are saying (nasal, high-pitched, know-it-all liberal voice), “Oh, I think violence is wrong no matter which side does it.” Yeah, nice virtue signaling, but you’re just evading the reality that most of the time… an overwhelming amount of the time… it’s *your side* that’s doing it. Mainly because, your side tells people that temper tantrums and hatred are okay if they are directed against…. [insert name here]

I laughed out loud when I saw this.

I have a tag [VIOLENT DEMOCRATS] for posts I use detailing the violence from the left. It extends to the violent environmental groups (like ELF), to violent unions/members, and other instances like the Democrats getting very violent at Trump rallies (and often time being paid to do so), I have even asked for analogous actions by conservative as well as noting the joke of “this week in hate” via the New York Times, etc., yada-yada-blada.

Another example that makes me put “tolerant” Leftists in air-quotes is this story via MOONBATTERY:

Some entertainers have refused to participate in the inauguration because they are moonbats who put their self-indulgent leftist posturing ahead of their profession — others, because they are afraid:

  • Opera star Andrea Bocelli backed out of singing at Donald Trump’s inauguration after receiving death threats, The Mail on Sunday has learnt.

It was rumored that Bocelli backed out because he didn’t want to face a boycott from intolerant liberal fans…

[….]

Bocelli isn’t alone:

The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect’s festivities after being threatened and branded an ‘Uncle Tom’.

[….]

Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was ‘determined’ to sing for Trump despite voting against him.

She also denounced the abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.

However, she knuckled under to this attack, not only canceling her performance but validating the thugs who forced her to….

NEWSWEEK points out that “A new survey report shows that 8.5 percent of current college freshmen expect to participate in a student protest while in college. That figure is up 2.9 percentage points from 2014, and it is the highest percentage to respond that way in the annual survey since 1967.”

  • As the rapper Tef Poe sharply pointed out at a St. Louis rally in October protesting the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.: “This ain’t your grandparents’ civil rights movement.” (WaPo)

GAY PATRIOT notes this violence in trying to feel as relevant as the 1960s generation:

Left-wing protesters seeking to deny Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli their right to free speech, and the right of their audience to peaceably assemble, demonstrated their superior debate skills by literally throwing feces and assaulting a cameraman.

[….]

…The protests began peacefully, but quickly escalated into violence as protesters jumped the barricades set up by campus police. The news station confirmed that one anti-Milo protester threw hot coffee at its camera crew and their equipment.

Also, Andrea Boccelli has bowed out of performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration because leftists have threatened to murder his family.

The DAILY CALLER notes the anti-free-speech movement of the fascist left:

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.

It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.

Around 27 percent of Generation X’ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.

The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation.

Some of the demands include restrictions on offensive Halloween costumes at Yale University to the deletion of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s image and name at Princeton University to “anti-oppression training” for employees at Brown University….

(NEWSBUSTERS) The Anti-Capitalist Anti-Fascist Bloc’s DisruptJ20 Inauguration protest quickly turned violent Friday morning as protestors gathered at Logan Circle in D.C. and marched down 13th Street. Footage shot by MRC Culture and CNSNews.com during the march show protestors vandalizing local businesses, destroying a limousine, and chanting “no cops, no borders, fight law and order.”

More BLACK BLOCK violence:

Public Schools Are for Brainwashing – California Democrat

Published by Papa Giorgio

In this great short review of an article in the LOS ANGELES TIMES speaking about Santa Monica’s own Stephen Miller, we find an admission of the goals of public school education:

Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village), who was the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s board president at the time, remembered Miller showing up at events in coat and tie — “unlike any other student” — to argue against special treatment for immigrants and others.

“He had very conservative views — the exact opposite of what we were trying to accomplish in the school district,” she said.

A good heads up on the article as well as commentary!

Violent Leftists Plan Inaugural Disruption (Part I)

Published by Papa Giorgio

In this video, Project Veritas investigators uncover a group known as the DC Anti-fascist Coalition plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during the Deploraball event scheduled for January 19th.

The meeting, captured on hidden camera, was held at Comet Ping Pong, a DC pizza restaurant that is better known as the location of the Pizzagate controversy. The coalition members discuss the steps they would need to take to halt the Deploraball event. Project Veritas notified the FBI, Secret Service and DC Metro Police of the content of this video prior to its release.

Juan Williams Plays a Race-Card Straight

Published by Papa Giorgio

A must watch exchange that included Juan Williams and Laura Ingraham via NEWSBUSTERS:

During the panel discussion on the January 8 episode of Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams claimed that last week’s torture of a mentally handicapped white man by four black adults “stirs up racial tensions already hot from the campaign rhetoric of Donald Trump,” and that “white nationalists” would see this as an excuse to “legitimize acts of white racism.”

After the panel spent a couple of minutes dealing with a viewer’s question about a perceived overemphasis on the “politics” of this crime instead of the fact that it was “a racial hate crime,” Laura Ingraham circled back to criticize Williams’s comment as “completely off base.”

First, we’ll see Chris Wallace’s introduction of the panel segment, followed by some video from the horrific crime originally broadcast live on Facebook, and then by Williams’s comments:

[….]

Here is Ingraham’s later response:

Larry Elder Slays Fools About Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe Speech

Published by Papa Giorgio

I previously uploaded some segments of Dennis Prager dealing with the issue as well (https://youtu.be/Hmr3cinSuSI). Since then more videos of Trump’s mannerisms have come out. In this show by Larry Elder, he takes calls from people who believe Trump really did mock a reporter’s disability. In fact, these mannerisms pre-and-post date the event Meryl Streep comments on showing her #Fakenews bully pulpit to spread miss-truths. Even Randy Quaid was moved to pen a forceful open letter to Meryl Streep.

Here is part of the article in the DAILY MAIL by Piers Morgan:

…Last night, Streep received a Lifetime Achievement award at the Golden Globes, and chose the moment to launch a very personal attack on Donald Trump.

She began by saying that Hollywood, foreigners and the press are ‘the most vilified segments of American society right now’.

At which point the cameras panned out to hundreds of the richest, most privileged people in American society sitting in the audience in their $10,000 tuxedos and $20,000 dresses, loudly cheering this acknowledgement of their dreadful victimhood.

She then said that if all the ‘outsiders and foreigners’ were kicked out of Hollywood, ‘you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.’

Wow.

I haven’t heard such elitist snobbery since Hillary Clinton branded Trump supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’. 

For your information, Ms Streep, tens of millions of ordinary Americans love football and the MMA and would be quite happy watching their favourite sports at the expense of the next Woody Allen film.

Her real target, though, was Trump. She’d come to take him down, and that is exactly what she proceeded to do.

‘There were many powerful performances this year that did breathtaking, compassionate work,’ she said. ‘But there was one performance that stunned me. It sank it hooks in my heart, not because it was good – there’s nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege and power and the capacity to fight back.’

Meryl’s bottom lip began to tremble.

‘It kind of broke my heart when I saw it,’ she cried, ‘and I still can’t get it out of my head. This instinct to humiliate when it’s modelled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, filters down into everybody’s life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.’

Hmmm.

Really, Meryl?

For starters, the incident to which she referred didn’t happen last year, it happened in 2015. There’s even been another Golden Globes in between then and now, at which it was never mentioned.

Second, Trump has always furiously denied – and has again today on Twitter – he was mocking the reporter’s disability and a Conservative website produced video evidence of numerous other instances where he made the exact same gesture to fully able-bodied people when attacking them. (See here and decide for yourself)….

Ouch!!

A Veteran’s Dying Words To President and Vice-President Elect

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “General Mattis, it appears I am out of ammunition but I continue to fight with my last breath. I do not fear death for I know where I am going and I am only going home for a rest.”

Dr. Larry, a Marine, Gives Final Farewell to Donald Trump from His Death Bed… A close family friend notes:

  • “Larry passed a few mins ago please keep all his family in your prayers” I’ve reached out to her for support. Please respect the family’s privacy, but do offer condolences and prayer!

THE DAILY WIRE has more:

Former Marine combat photographer Dr. Larry Lindsey made a career shooting pictures and video for big names, including Animal Planet, National Geographic, The Discovery Channel, Fox Sports Network, and others.

But being an ardent and vocal Trump supporter in his last years and posting videos to his Youtube channel in favor of The Donald while railing against the wickedness of Crooked Hillary garnered him quite an internet following. 

On Saturday, Dr. Lindsey posted his final video (below) while in the hospital hooked up to an oxygen machine and monitors. He addressed president-elect Donald Trump, vice-president elect Mike Pence and General James Mattis, saying that is was the “greatest honor” of his life waging battle with them on their way to the White House. He added, “I have been prouder of being a Marine than anything I’ve ever done in my life. Having a hand in some small way in fighting for my country has meant the world to me. There is no greater honor for me than to have great men like you leading this country back to its foundation and back to God. Mr. Trump I have no doubt in my heart and my mind that you will be perhaps the greatest president in the history of our country.”…

Mark Levin Discusses the Electoral College (Plus: WaPo)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a portion of the article by ALLEN GUELZO and JAMES HULME Mark Levin was reading from:

…After last week’s results, we’re hearing a litany of complaints: the electoral college is undemocratic, the electoral college is unnecessary, the electoral college was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push it down the memory hole.

All of which is strange because the electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism. The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided. The great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that “if we are to establish a national Government,” the president should be chosen by a direct, national vote of the people. But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy. “An independence of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.” Sherman was not trying to undermine the popular will, but to keep it from being distorted by a president who mistook popular election as a mandate for dictatorship.

Quarrels like this flared all through the convention, until, at almost the last minute, James Madison “took out a Pen and Paper, and sketched out a mode of Electing the President” by a “college” of “Electors … chosen by those of the people in each State, who shall have the Qualifications requisite.”

The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation. It prescribes in precise detail how “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”; how these electors “shall vote by Ballot” for a president and vice president; how they “shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate” the results of their balloting; how a tie vote must be resolved; what schedule the balloting should follow; and on and on.

Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Some historians have branded the electoral college this way because each state’s electoral votes are based on that “whole Number of Senators and Representatives” from each State, and in 1787 the number of those representatives was calculated on the basis of the infamous 3/5ths clause. But the electoral college merely reflected the numbers, not any bias about slavery (and in any case, the 3/5ths clause was not quite as proslavery a compromise as it seems, since Southern slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 5/5ths for determining representation in Congress, and had to settle for a whittled-down fraction). As much as the abolitionists before the Civil War liked to talk about the “proslavery Constitution,” this was more of a rhetorical posture than a serious historical argument. And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery.

If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.

[….]

Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.

The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate. It may appear inefficient. But the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing “the blessings of liberty.” The electoral college is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.

Over-Simplifying the “Business” of Trump’s Presidency

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the article Dennis Prager is reading from, and it is by Edwin Williamson via the WALL STREET JOURNAL (saved at Free Republic). Mind you, I wasn’t going to upload this audio, but after reading the article over at THE BLAZE,  I figured this myopic view that deconstructs things in a simplified manner may need a counterweight. At any rate, this whole “what Trump should do with his businesses” is more complicated than the media will allow for [both sides of the isle]. People like Ralph Nader are “already” calling for impeachment:

The media are full of warnings by self-appointed ethics watchdogs about President-electDonald Trump’s potential conflicts of interests. That Mr. Trump’s vast, complicated business empire presents a piñata of targets is undisputed. For his part, Mr. Trump has promised to hold a news conference on Dec. 15 to discuss his plans to leave his business operation “in total” so that he can “fully focus on running the country.”

Concerns stem from the fact that the Trump business empire extends to the far reaches of the globe, including to countries that may present tough policy decisions for President Trump. In both Turkey and the Philippines, the local Trump partner has close ties to a problematic government. Businesses in which Mr. Trump has an interest, such as Trump National Doral golf complex in Miami and an office building at 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York, have substantial borrowings from entities that will be regulated by the Trump administration or that are owned by potentially rival states, such as China.

The watchdogs fear that third parties, again including foreign state-owned entities, will lavish favorable deals on the Trump businesses, including staying at Trump hotels or entering into new partnerships, in the hope of currying favor with a Trump administration.

While no one outside the Trump family appears to know the details of the Trump businesses, a few key facts are known. They are complicated and based on two illiquid assets—real estate and the Trump name. Although the basic federal conflict-of-interest ban specifically exempts the president, some have proposed measures designed to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest, generally based on the federal rules.

This newspaper editorialized on the subject, suggesting that Mr. Trump “liquidate his stake in the company” through a plan similar to one endorsed by Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and President Obama, respectively. They have called on Mr. Trump to divest all of his holdings in the Trump Organization through an initial public offering or a leveraged buyout. Yet divestiture is unrealistic for many reasons. Besides their complexity and the time required to see them through, an IPO or buyout would generate other ethical issues.

An IPO would have to be cleared by the Securities and Exchange Commission. By the time Mr. Trump becomes president, there will be three SEC vacancies, and in the time required to organize and implement an IPO, the other two commissioners’ terms would expire. Mr. Trump would thus be appointing all five members of the agency regulating his IPO. Similarly, a leveraged buyout would require lending by Trump-regulated banks.

But the biggest problem with divestiture is that the value of Trump businesses is significantly dependent on, and inextricably tied to, the Trump name. Even if a buyer could be found who would pay what the Trump family considers the name to be worth, the buyer would certainly insist on perpetual, exclusive use of the Trump name. This would require that all users of the name—including Mr. Trump’s first wife, his minor son Barron and present and future grandchildren—relinquish their rights to the name.

In recent tweets on the subject, Mr. Trump has said he would turn over the running of his businesses to his children, and that “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.” The watchdogs want him to go further by establishing a “firewall” between himself and those running the Trump businesses, i.e., his children.

Clearly, this is unrealistic and would constantly generate allegations of unauthorized communications, shifting the focus from real conflicts of interests to whether the firewall has been breached. This would likely lead to demands for the installation of an intrusive “corporate monitor,” typically a $1,000-1,500 an hour ($2 million a year) ex-federal prosecutor.

[….]

Appearances of conflicts will be impossible to avoid. Almost any decision Mr. Trump makes as president will have an effect—good or bad—on his business interests. There is nothing that he can do to prevent those who believe that staying in his hotels or otherwise doing business with the Trump Organization will improve their relationships with the U.S.

There has been much talk about the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust . . . shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The problem is that no court or the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has considered the clause in a context that is helpful in discerning how it will apply to the Trump businesses. So, we do not know what the clause means in the Trump context—other than that paying a market price to stay at a Trump hotel is not a violation….