Democrat and Hollywood Hypocrisy – Harvey Weinstein

Larry Elder takes us on a Democrat infested mine-field courtesy of Harvey Weinstein. For more on the mentioned “Nuts or Sluts defense,” see Larry’s detailed explanation HERE. And more anti-woman positions by Hillary, see HERE.

Gay Patriot grabs this excerpt to point to how good of a progressive Weinstein was….

In 2015, [Weinstein’s] company distributed “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about campus sexual assault. A longtime Democratic donor, he hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in his Manhattan home last year. He employed Malia Obama, the oldest daughter of former President Barack Obama, as an intern this year, and recently helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name. During the Sundance Film Festival in January, when Park City, Utah, held its version of nationwide women’s marches, Mr. Weinstein joined the parade.

ALSO…

It Looks Like Trump Won New Hampshire – Voter Fraud

Click To Enlarge

It is looking like New Hampshire may need to be in the Trump column for the 2016 Presidential election.

….Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes out of 745,000 cast. Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte lost her seat to Democrat Maggie Hassan by a mere 1,017 votes out of 739,140 cast.

[…..]

Wonder how Mr. Bissonnette will spin the news about those 5,526 out-of-state voters who never bothered to get New Hampshire driver’s licenses?….

(WASHINGTON TIMES)

So instead of Trump being at 306 in the electoral college, he may be at 310. And Hillary should be lowered to 221.

Oh, and don’t think CNN would miss an opportunity to “racialize” this.

 

California Sen. Kevin de Leon “The Rise of White Supremacy”

I have an addition to the HOT AIR story, but first the main idea:

…The most recent example of this is California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, who grandstanded to colleagues on Monday he wanted to have a series to public hearings to make sure “California is adequately prepared for Nazi rallies.”

“We’ve already seen this repugnant ideology rear its ugly head on our own college campuses … even right here at our great state Capitol,” De Leon dramatically intoned while reading from pink pages. “In fact, after last year’s fiasco, where a melee occurred on these Capitol Grounds, CHP, the California Highway Patrol, at my request, has fully reviewed what transpired and has made a number of arrests and completed an assessment.”

What’s interesting, yet completely unsurprising, is de Leon’s decision to not reveal exactly how many were arrested and whether they were actual Nazis. The truth is only four people, out of the 106 CHP wanted charged are actually facing prosecution: one a Nazi, while the other three were counter-protesters, aka Antifa. De Leon also failed to mention whom the fine folks in law enforcement believe are to blame for said melee. For that, we have to turn to comments made by CHP in June 2016. Via the Los Angeles Times:

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The permitted group, for those wondering, is The Traditionalist Worker Party, which openly admits to supporting National Socialism aka Nazism. Their philosophy is completely execrable, but at least the loathsome Neanderthals ask for permits.

The Antifas, who are as execrable and Neanderthalic as the Ratzis, did not have a permit, and showed up to stop the rally from happening.

Now, I personally don’t believe organizations need to implore on bended knee “if it pleases the Crown, pretty please give us a piece of paper” in hopes of promoting some sort of cause. The First Amendment does protect the freedom of speech and assembly, as long as the group doesn’t trample on private property.

However, the Antifas showed just how fascist they are by deciding the best way to protest is with a fist to the face instead of fist in the air, proclaiming, “Down with Nazis! Down with hate!” After all, Antifa did cause $100K in damage to UC Berkeley, something de Leon conveniently forgets, then decided to cause more damage downtown.

So why doesn’t de Leon acknowledge the facts of what happened and admit the so-called Antifas started the violence? Why should that interfere with a good story for voters? After all, de Leon is yearning for a promotion to lieutenant governor and it behooves him to pretend to be “doing something, anything!” to cajole Democrats to cast their vote for him. Besides … everyone hates Nazis, except those who share their beliefs, so might as well make them out to be the problem instead of admitting something is rotten in the state of California.

This is why this entire “left wing vs. right wing” classification is as ridiculous as dress shoes in an ice hockey game. The true battle is between ideologues who believe in freedom versus those who believe in totalitarianism…..

My only addition to De Leon’s LACK of understanding is that these racist groups are primarily Left leaning… as I noted in this Larry Elder [short] clip “California’s KKK Grand Dragon Endorsed Hillary”

OH!!! And don’t furget about de Leon’s GHOST GUN bit:

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)

Morning Joe and the “Russian Connection” (UPDATED)

You just can’t make this stuff up!

NEWSBUSTERS hilariously notes…

…First, the Clinton Campaign made use of the same law firm during the 2016 election! Yes, Hillary Clinton, in fact, hired James Hamilton, a partner at Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius and a well-know DC attorney who also previously worked for Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Barack Obama!

Second,the law firm founded by Howard Dean received the same Russian Law Firm of the Year Award in, get ready, 2013, 2014, and 2016!…

If you need any reminding, the Democrats have a long history of “coziness” with the Russians, you need to look no further than the “Lion of the Senate” (Ted Kennedy) to see what REAL treason looks like:

…If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan. That’s no exaggeration.

According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

(More at The Federalist Papers)


Let’s not forget this episode:


Also note the “coziness” of Bill Clinton via his wife’s Secretary of State position, detailed well in the documentary found HERE. But a quick reminder via NATIONAL REVIEW seems in order:

The Democrats and old-guard news media (forgive the redundancy) are pathologically obsessed with the hypothesis that Team Trump and Russia rigged last November’s presidential election. If Donald J. Trump so much as played Tchaikovsky’s Marche Slav on his stereo, these leftists deduce, he was in cahoots with the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, the same folks who spy a KGB agent behind every filing cabinet in Trump’s White House are aggressively apathetic about Hillary and Bill Clinton’s policies, decisions, and actions that gave aid and comfort to Russia.

Hillary’s much-mocked “Russian reset” established the tone for the Clintons’ coziness with the Kremlin. On March 6, 2009, during a trip to Geneva, she presented Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a small, red button. Hillary thought it was emblazoned with the Russian word for “reset.” Her team mistranslated and the button actually read “overload.” Nonetheless, Clinton and Lavrov jointly pressed the symbolic button. And a new era in U.S.–Russian relations erupted.

While visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary explained the Reset’s purpose: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

[Video at National Review]

Hillary said this in an interview with veteran broadcaster Vladimir Pozner of Russia’s First Channel TV network. Pozner is a Soviet-era relic who still communicates in barely accented English. During the Cold War, he popped up on American TV and radio programs and presented the views of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Pozner’s pleasantries made him and his totalitarian bosses seem blandly benign.

The shadiest deal that the Clintons hatched with Russia is called Uranium One. This outrage should mushroom into Hillary and Bill’s radioactive Whitewater scandal.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul and major Clinton Foundation donor, led a group of investors in an enterprise called Uranium One. On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in the Canadian company, whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity.

Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel.

On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech.

While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” began. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”…

(Read It All)

Democrats Were Against Comey Before They Were For Him

The most urgent matter that Attorney General Sessions will face is that of deciding the fate of FBI director James Comey. Comey was appointed in 2013 for a statutory term of ten years. In principle, however, he can be removed by the president at any time. President Bill Clinton removed FBI director William Sessions about halfway through his term on charges that Sessions had misused official resources. Although President Clinton discharged Sessions for cause, the statute creating the FBI director does not limit the grounds for termination, and we believe that the president’s constitutional authority of removal would allow him to fire Comey for any reason. Rather than firing the FBI director, however, it is more likely that the president would first request his resignation. We think that Director Comey should leave office for the good of the FBI and the nation.

(NATIONAL REVIEW – November 2016).

I posted the following Tweet on my FB…. and I got this:

  • Not, you too….

Now. Knowing the person who made the comment and how he thinks, he was somehow — surely — connecting a belief in Vince Foster being a conspiracy (cover up) to my comparison. He would be wrong. Whatever you think of Vince Fosters death, it has no bearing on the media attention and narrative from then and now.

I simply responded:

These reporters, columnists, talking-heads all sound like Jerry Falwell (CNN MELTSDOWN):

What a joke the media has become. Forget the professional Democrat politician… the regular Nancy and Joe Bloe dislike Comey a lot… because of this:

The Clinton campaign blasted the FBI director, James Comey, for “jaw-dropping” double standards on Monday after claims that he had sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Donald Trump for fear of influencing next week’s US election.

In a sharp escalation of their unprecedented war of words with federal law enforcement authorities, Clinton’s key aides contrasted this apparent caution with Comey’s controversial decision to release new details of its investigation into Clinton’s private email server to lawmakers on Friday.

“It is impossible to view this as anything less than a blatant double standard,” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, told reporters, claiming the decision “defied all logic”, especially as other intelligence agencies had favoured disclosure of suspected Russian involvement….

B-U-T N-O-W he is their martyr. Oh what a difference a day makes. RUSH LIMBAUGH thinks Trump is trolling the media… something I don’t think this is Presidential, if true. But this is the state of politics as I type. Comey. unlike the Left, is a man!

Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday sent a letter to agents and friends following President Trump firing him the previous day.

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,” he wrote, according to CNN. “I’m not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed.”

He continued: “I hope you won’t either. It is done, and I will be fine, although I will miss you and the mission deeply.”….

(THE HILL)

POST-SCRIPT: I find it comical that the Left says Trump just blurts out senescence when he speaks about topics, people, or his job. BUT THEN have a video of him saying he respects Comey for what he did with opening up the email case against her. Either Trump doesn’t know what he says or makes vapid statements… or the opposite.

Hillary Clinton’s Necromancy (Spirit Guides)

I remember this from an old documentary on the Clinton’s or an old documentary on spiritism. At any rate, here are some of the latest information on Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the occult as it get’s renewed in recent news cycles. I will start first with my most recent run-into the topic via POWERLINE:

This Washington Post story about a journalism dispute between Bob Woodward and ghost writer Barbara Feinman Todd is of little interest qua dispute. However, it pertains to a remarkable story about which I had forgotten — Hillary Clinton’s imaginary conversations, during her time as First Lady, with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

As far as I can tell, the matter was not raised or noted by the mainstream media during the 2016 presidential campaign. I didn’t mention it either, but would have had I remembered it.

If there were evidence of Donald Trump communing with the dead, even if twenty years ago or more, the mainstream media very likely would have been aired the story. It would have been touted as evidence of Trump’s weirdness.

Clinton’s seance, which her defenders call a “psychological exercise,” is evidence of her weirdness. According to Woodward, Hillary’s ghost writer, the aforementioned Feinman Todd, told him she found the seance, which she witnessed, troubling….

The media is trying to say this was merely a physchological excersise (even SNOPES is on this band wagon), but Hillary’s ghost writer wouldn’t describe this as “troubling.” Here Bill Clinton mentions it in public:


“I know that because, as all of you famously learned when I served as president, my wife, now the secretary of State, was known to commune with Eleanor on a regular basis. And so she called me last night on her way home from Peru to remind me to say that. That Eleanor had talked to her and reminded her that I should say that.” 


A good commentary on the New Age guru that became Hillary’s confidant can be found at WOMEN OF GRACE (11-2010):

The talk all weekend was about Delaware GOP Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell’s confessed dabbling in witchcraft during her high school years, but where was the rage when then First-Lady Hillary Clinton was taking advice from New Age guru Jean Houston who taught her how to hold imaginary conversations with the dead?

[….]

Hillary Clinton had a long and serious relationship with New Age guru Jean Houston, the same woman who taught her how to use guided imagery to conduct imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Ghandi.

Houston is well-known and even revered in New Age circles. In her own brochures, she describes herself as a “leading pioneer in the exploration of human potentials and human consciousness.” 

According to the New Age Encyclopedia, Houston claims a first grade teacher in a Catholic school treated her so harshly she escaped into some kind of profound mystical experience that was described as “pantheistic” and “monistic.”  (I guess this means it was the Church’s fault.)

Houston later married Robert Masters, the psychotherapist and sexologist who co-authored the notorious Masters-Johnson report. The Encyclopedia states that she and her husband experimented with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs, believing that drug-induced altered states of consciousness were the best way to convey “psychic truth” to people.

Although she claims to have earned a number of Ph.D.’s, records show that she received a doctorate in psychology in 1973 from Cincinnati Union Institute, “an alternative education program,” that did not become accredited until 1985.

Needless to say, Houston has a definite New Age occultic world-view whose books attempt to teach students how to make contact with an entity called “Group Spirit” which is supposedly the collective consciousness in which we can find the wisdom and creativity of us all.

The fact that someone like this was spending long hours in the White House counseling a First Lady was first reported by CNN in 1996 when famed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward published a revealing behind-the-scenes look at the Clintons, entitled The Choice.

In it Woodward describes Houston as an influential advisor who urged Hillary to write her book, It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us, and in the process “virtually moved into the White House” for days at a time to help with revisions.

Naturally, the White House hoped to keep her relationship with Houston a secret….

One should note that maybe, yes, seances were not actually done… but in New Age occultism finding a spirit guide or communing with these “spirit guides” is a path to communication with the dead (in the Christian view, these are demonic forces).

A good book on encountering such things is The Beautiful Side of Evil, by Johanna Michaelsen (the foreword is by Hal Lindsey). Johanna takes you on a personal whirlwind tour of her encounters while trying to find meaning in her young life. (As a disclaimer, I do not endorse every premise presented in that book.)

Again, such seances are not required to allow communication with entities which are known as “familiars” that had attached to the individual in question, during their lifetime. Another good example of this “spirit guide” seeking in in the following documentary:

Here is a bit more info on Jean Houston and the non-seance/seance via GOD REPORTS:

….One was Jean Houston, co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, which studies psychic experience and altered and expanded consciousness. “She was a believer in spirits, mythic and other connections to history and other worlds,” Woodward noted in his book.

Houston describes herself and her late husband, Robert Masters, as founders of the human potential movement. In the 1980s, Houston launched The Mystery School, where students embark on a year-long study of mythic stories which are meditated upon and enacted.

“Houston believed that her personal archetypal predecessor was Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom. She conducted extensive dialogues with Athena on her computer that she called “docking with one’s angel. Houston wore an ancient Hellenistic coin of Athena set in a medallion around her neck all the time.”

[….]

Unusual sessions in the solarium

On her visit to the White House in early April 1995, Houston proposed that Hillary dig deeper for her connections to Mrs. Roosevelt. Houston and Bateson met with Hillary in the rooftop solarium, set atop the White House with windows on three sides.

It was afternoon and they all sat around a circular table with several members of the first lady’s staff. One was making a tape recording of the session. (One can only wonder if the tape still exists and if it formed the basis for the remarkable recounting of details by Woodward.)

“Houston asked Hillary to imagine she was having a conversation with Eleanor. In a strong and self-confident voice, Houston asked Hillary to shut her eyes in order to eliminate the room and her surroundings, and to focus her reflection by bringing in as many vivid internal sensory images as she could from her vast knowledge of Eleanor,” according to Woodward’s source.

Hillary sat back in her seat and closed her eyes. “You’re walking down a hall,” Houston said, “and there’s Mrs. Roosevelt. Now let’s describe her.”

Hillary proceeded to describe what she saw.

Houston instructed Mrs. Clinton to go to Eleanor and speak to her, according to Woodward’s book.

Hillary entered into a long discourse directed toward the former first lady. Houston asked the first lady to further open up herself to Mrs. Roosevelt, borrowing a technique “practiced by Machiavelli,” who used to talk to ancient men. “What might Eleanor say?”

Houston encouraged Hillary to respond as Mrs. Roosevelt. “I was misunderstood,” Hillary replied, her eyes still shut, speaking as Mrs. Roosevelt. “You have to do what you think is right. It was crucial to set a course and hold to it.”

Regarding the first lady’s controversial role in governing the country, Eleanor reportedly told Hillary, “You know, I thought that would have been solved by now. You’re going to have to just get out there and do it and don’t make any excuses about it.”….

(Read it all)

Um, occultism is occultism. For more on this topic, see my post HERE.

Totalitarian/Fascist Fits – Violence from the Democrat Left

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.”

This is a quick comparison of the Tea Party vs. Leftist protesters (Volume warning):

More Unfaithful Electors Defected from Hillary Than Trump (Updated)

GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:

8 Clinton defectors

  • 4 WA (successful)
  • 1 HI (successful)
  • 1 MN (attempted)
  • 1 ME (attempted)
  • 1 CO (attempted)

2 Trump defectors

  • TX (successful)

Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:

The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:

Here are Democrats showing support for this Republic in Wisconsin:

…and Pennsylvania:

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes:

President Barack Obama’s election was supposed to be the kickoff of a new progressive era. The Democrats were in line to win everything, pass anything they wanted through Congress, run the table in most of the states and leave the Republicans holed up in a redoubt somewhere between Idaho and Utah.

It didn’t happen. In fact, it is almost as though the reverse is true. Under Obama, the Democrats lost control of both congressional chambers and more than 800 state legislative seats, with the result that more states will be under unified GOP control than at any time since the 1920s. Not that you’ll hear much about that, as it runs counter to a narrative that reached a fevered pitch during the last election.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to win the presidency, ensuring the progressive tilt would continue despite opposition from a Republican-led House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate was supposed to flip too, something the pundits started saying right after the last election, because so many Republicans were up in swing states in what was going to be a bad year for the GOP.

The icing on the cake was New York real estate developer Donald Trump, who almost everyone (specifically with the exception of me) wrote and said time and again was not just “unelectable,” but was so unqualified he’d take the rest of the party down with him like the Nixon legacy of Watergate did in 1974.

[….]

The GOP has fissures it will need to address over the next few years. Not everyone in the party is behind what Trump wants to do on every issue. But that’s nothing compared to the way the Democrats, whose national leadership has said it sees little reason to change the party’s overall approach to government or its underlying philosophy, are falling apart. In several states “the party of conscience,” as the Democrats have been casting themselves during a week and a half of earnest lobbying of Trump electors, needed to have “faithless electors” of their own removed from the Electoral College and replaced by Clinton loyalists who would vote as directed….

Fake News – Bill Whittle

What cost Hillary Clinton the election? Well obviously it could not have had anything to do with her creepy, fake smile, her human-like warmth or the swamp of corruption and even treason that she has made for herself. It must be the Russians! And FAKE NEWS! In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle picks apart this nonsense and places the blame squarely on the head of the sore loser responsible for her thrashing.

(HOTAIR H-T)

The Hillary Campaign and the DNC Refused FBI Help

SOOPERMEXICAN notes this about the CNN video that follows:

While Democrats are still running around like chickens with their heads cut off about the election, the FBI is saying that they repeatedly warned the DNC about their getting hacked, and they ignored them.

That’s hilarious. Things are really unravelling now – Hillary is blaming Comey while Comey just backed up the CIA claiming Putin ordered the hacking. Democrats are all angry at Obama for not revealing the interference, but he just claimed that he got Putin to stop it way back in September!! It’s all Democrats freaking out because the electors will vote on Monday, and Trump will defeat the crappiest Democratic candidate in recent memory.

Apparently, this was the norm with them (from July):

The Clinton Campaign was warned by the FBI that they were the target of a cyber attack but they REFUSED TO COOPERATE.

Earlier today the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee announced it was hacked too.

Mark Levin Discusses the Electoral College (Plus: WaPo)

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.