Hillary Clinton

Police Departments and Progressives (The Five Update)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Minneapolis officials vow to dismantle city’s police department.

Brian Fallon was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager; and is now a leading
member of the resistance movement serving as Executive Director for Demand Justice.

A friend called the below “Evil Masquerading as Virtue” – yep, couldn’t put it better.

(My Facebook intro to this video) June 7th — take Note MC Hammer was on stage — A veto-proof majority of Minneapolis City Council members announced during a rally at Powderhorn Sunday that they are planning to dismantle the police department.

So, I have noticed that many of these Leftie’s look young, or at least think in childlike terms. Take for instance POWERLINE commenting on their home states Minneapolis Mayor:

Today at a rally in Minneapolis, Boy Mayor Jacob Frey addressed a crowd that was even more left-wing than he is. Dutifully wearing a mask, he told the crowd that he doesn’t favor defunding the Minneapolis Police Department.

I’m actually not sure what “defunding the police department” means. I take it that these people really want to live in a city that has no police services. So, if you see that someone is trying to break into your house, what do you do? One possible answer is, pull out the semiautomatic pistol that you keep next to your bed, and blow him away. But I don’t think that is what these people have in mind. To put it politely, I don’t think they are serious.

But even Jacob Frey’s modest engagement with reality was too much for Minneapolis’s leftists. They booed him off the stage:

[I INSERT THE LONGER VERSION]

THE DAILY WIRE notes the interview of Minneapolis’ City Council President on CNN. (A previous story by the DAILY WIRE may be worth your time for context) I will HIGHLIGHT the magic words/phrases:

Speaking with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Monday morning, the president of the Minneapolis City Council, which has stated it intends to “dismantle” the city’s police department, was asked what a citizen should do if an intruder broke into their house in the middle of the night and there were no police to call. In response, she blithely suggested that the opportunity to call police “comes from a place of privilege,” adding that those citizens should “step back and IMAGINE what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm.”

[….]

Bender answered, “Yes, I mean, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and I know, and myself too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and IMAGINE what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”

[HERE IS A SLIGHTLY LONGER VERSION]

And to finish off DAILY WIRE’S post, they say this [quoting]:

  • Bender continued, “Our commitment is to do what is necessary to keep every single member of our community safe and to tell the truth that the Minneapolis Police are not doing that. Our commitment is to end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department, to end policing as we know it, and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.”

These kids are all influenced by their professors and most hyper politically correct influences from their work environment. Take Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender, she has her master’s degree in City and Regional Planning from University of California, Berkeley.

Berkeley.

Which is why she can say things like, “end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department,” or, ““step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality,” or, “and I know that that comes from a place of privilege.” Because of the atheistic, progressive bull-crap spoon fed her there.

Anyways, when a friend posted this, he intro’ed it by saying:

  • The definition of “woke” may as well be “evil masquerading as virtue”.

To which I added,

  • Wow. She is a child (watched the video in the DW article). Thinks in child like terms. Uses words like “imagine”. A “Blackwater type organization” will have to be used as contracted security… and the “well-off” [rather than everyone through 911] will truly have a system that works JUST for them. And conceal carry should be allowed fully to everyone without a record.

Here is another conversation with said friend and the intelligent analogy with Pakistan:

(Joshua P.)
Minneapolis will officially disband their police department and replace it with “community law enforcement”.

If you value your life and property, get out of Minneapolis and avoid the city like the active war zone it will be.

(Brandon P.)
I refuse to step one foot in a city without a Police Department.

(Joshua P.)
Yeah, they basically want to replace the police with publicly sanctioned gangs. It will be interesting to watch an American city model it’s security on Kabul, Afghanistan.

I wouldn’t go in the city unless I was in a tank, and then only if I had to, and I had air support.

Yep, the same thing will happen as in other parts of the world, since there is a large Somoli Muslim area in Minniapolis, no-go zones may be the norm? (via CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE, June 4th)

…This “community policing” process is already taking place in many European communities the results create what are known as “no go zones.” Neighborhoods, and entire parts of cities, where local Sharia compliance enforcement officers have replaced the police force; and the rules, regulations and enforcement are detached from the larger social compact. Considering that Minneapolis has a large concentration of Somali Muslims within the local population, it makes sense this approach is now discussed for their city.

Minneapolis – […] Now the council members are listening to a city that is wounded, angry, fed up with decades of violence disproportionately visited upon black and brown residents. Various private and public bodies – from First Avenue to Minneapolis Public Schools – have essentially cut ties with the police department. Council members are trying to figure out what their next move is.

Their discussion is starting to sound a little more like what groups like Reclaim the Block and the Black Visions Collective have been saying for years. On Tuesday, Fletcher published a lengthy Twitter thread saying the police department was “irredeemably beyond reform,” and a “protection racket” that slows down responses as political payback.

[….]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the man now in charge of the prosecution of Derek Chauvin and the Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s death, is a very well known Muslim activist and supporter of the sharia doctrine….

Are ‘No Go Zones’ where non-Muslims are not allowed and Sharia Law prevails coming to the West. Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam takes a closer look in new book:

Media and Democrats Spreading Lies About Trump

Published by Papa Giorgio
  1. Tear Gas Used On “Peaceful” protestors;
  2. Trump Held Up Bible To Mimick Hitler Holding Bible Up;
  3. Hillary Clinton “compares” Obama and Trump Whitehouse;
  4. Hodge Twins and Larry O’Connor Show BUNKER BONUS.


PEACEFUL PROTESTORS

THE NATIONAL PULSE was one of the first places I could find a story (hat-tip to theWANAB3), Here is an excerpt from their story:

U.S. Park Police have told reporters they did not use tear gas in LaFayette Square last night ahead of the President’s walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, police officers used smoke canisters to disperse protesters who were hurling bottles at them.

The news – from Park Police themselves – potentially renders virtually every mainstream media organization and Twitter verified user guilty of spreading misinformation.

WTOP’s Neil Augenstein reported this morning: “U.S. Park Police is explaining its decision-making in clearing Lafayette Square, at least 20 minutes before DC’s 7p curfew, on night 4 of protests. A source says tear gas was never used — instead smoke cannisters [sic] were deployed, which don’t have an uncomfortable irritant in them.

“And, the source says Park Police didn’t know President Trump would be walking across the park several minutes later. Park Police say the reason the crowd was disbursed with smoke cannisters is that at that moment, officers were being pelted with water bottles. Another factor was that protesters had climbed on top of the structure at the north end of Lafayette Square that had been burned the day before.”

Adding to this, Augenstein said: “In theory it’s possible another agency used tear gas, in addition to Park Police using smoke cannisters [sic], but my source was on the scene, got a dose of smoke, but didn’t feel the irritants of tear gas.”

[….]

UPDATE 11:40AM – WTOP reports: “DC Police Chief Peter Newsham just said the only time his agency used tear gas and pepper balls last night was later in the evening, when protesters had gotten “very aggressive” near Judiciary Square.”

Then I cam across the FOX NEWS story: Attorney General William Barr gave the order to push protesters out; Kristin Fisher reports from the White House.

A really good article on this comes from THE FEDERALIST, and it is worth adding some emphasis to a portion of it:

For the media, however, these actions were further proof that Orange Man Bad is literally the worst, restoring rule of law is criminal, and standing in front of a church holding a Bible is an assault on the American conscience. They focused on how the Park Police had cleared the area ahead of the city-wide curfew declared by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Facts were no barrier to their narrative. They spun a tale of violent, jack-booted cops running rampant through the streets over innocent docile protesters, using tear gas to clear the area. It turns out none of that was true.

Every single major media outlet falsely reported that Park Police were unprovoked when they used “tear gas” to clear the area. If any of that were true, it might mark the first time in history that cops without gas masks launched tear gas in an area that the president of the United States easily walked through minutes later.

After thousands of false tweets, print stories, and broadcast stories to the contrary, local journalist Neal Augenstein of WTOP reported that a Park Police source said “tear gas was never used — instead smoke canisters were deployed, which don’t have an uncomfortable irritant in them.” Further, the source said the crowd was dispersed because of projectiles being thrown by the “peaceful protesters” at the Park Police and because “peaceful protesters” had climbed on top of a structure in Lafayette Park that had been burned the prior night.

Sgt. Eduardo Delgado, the public information officer for the Park Police, confirmed the agency did not use tear gas. And later this afternoon, United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan exploded the entire false narrative:

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Prior to getting the actual facts, nearly every major media outlet falsely reported that canisters of tear gas, not smoke canisters, were used against peaceful protesters. ….

TRUMP IS HITLER

THE FEDERALIST then goes on to document just how wide-spread the lie was.

Some other lies not so widely picked up are these two. LEGAL INSURRECTION details one of them by Debra Messing (actress):

I already covered one fake photo today. Now the left claim President Donald Trump held a Bible yesterday as Hitler did during his reign of terror.

It was photoshopped. Why would people fall for this? Hitler hated religion….

[….]

HIDDING IN BUNKER

TWITCHY has a story about the second photoshopped (not really photoshopped but mislabeled year-wise). They note this and then the TWITTER response:

There’s a “Trump’s afraid” narrative going around on the Left, and Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell has done her best to try and reinforce that perception:

Hillary Clinton appears to have used the same photograph in her “compare/contrast” tweet of Obama vs. Trump:

[….]

BUNKER BONUS

I combine a segment from a recent Hodge Twins video (https://youtu.be/rGwAjPgo8Jc) along with yesterdays Larry O’Connor Show (790-KABC: https://tinyurl.com/yaak4jkd). The Hodge Twins play Don Lemon’s audio that Larry O’Connor plays and refutes as well with President Trump actually speaking out on the issue of the riots. Kinda a hodgepodge, but well worth the listen.

Kimberley Strassel: “Honey We Shrunk The Impeachment”

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Adam Schiff spent six weeks lecturing the country on the proper definition of bribery, which was something removed from all statutes or the history of the country, but it was the way they had to define it in order to pack it in what they say Donald Trump did,” she explained. “And then suddenly it disappears and this is because someone in the Democratic Party realized, if you’re going to expand the definition the way they did and say any time any politician asks for something from another country in a way that might benefit them in some way, that their own party would be implicated.”

Kimberly wen after Hillary as well on Twitter:

Circling Wagons Around Google (MSM Bias)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Robert Epstein discusses how the Left alienated him for researching the effects of Google’s search bias and why Google is working with China and ICE. The article from VANITY FAIR is entitled, “Trump, Cranking the Crazy To 11, Says Google Cost Him ‘16 Million Votes’”. The first thing I would say is (learned from Apologetics) one should say “may” and not “will.” But Dr. Epstein humorously points out a truthism about Trump. But Glenn, Stu Burguiere, and Dr. Epstein dismantle the obviously biased article. The same bias can be found at POLITIFACT

You Want Real Collusion? Here Ya Go:

Published by Papa Giorgio

I hope the peeps are following the latest by:

Here is the segments from Hannity w/John Solomon and itthe lead up:

 

Hillary’s New Zealand/Sri Lanka Tweets (UPDATED: The C Word)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(JUMP TO UPDATE) The headlines are in stark contrast to how the corporate media zealously covered the Christchurch terrorist attack by a white supremacist that killed 49 last month, which highlighted not only the attacker’s identity, but his white supremacist motives. But how they and politicians do not report on more than 400% more murders on Easter.

EASTER WORSHIPERS

One of my son’s pointed this out, and so I wish to UPDATE the post with the noting of this odd phenomenon. In all my religious studies I never came across this denomination.

Over at LIBERTY NATION, Leesa Donner writes about Obama and Hillary (in their Tweets) coming up with a new sect of Christians: “Easter Worshippers“

…Those pitching their tent on the left of the American political spectrum can’t seem to make themselves utter the “C” word. Many do verbal somersaults to avoid addressing, writing about, or publicly recognizing those who laud Easter. Are we on some sort of right-wing paranoid rant here? Well, let’s take a moment and see where the facts lead us.

Liberty Nation was first alerted to this odd assault on Christians by PATRICK HAUF, who seems to be a rather savvy college student. Perhaps he isn’t the progenitor of this phenomenon, but that’s where we spotted it. Hauf astutely noticed Hillary Clinton’s tweet that referred to Christians as “Easter worshippers.”

Then he did a taste-test, comparing HRC and former President Obama’s tweets about Easter and how they referred to people in the aftermath of the synagogue terrorist attack in Pittsburgh and the horrific killing of Christians in Sri Lanka.

This naturally led to tongue-in-cheek tweets like this one from LN’s Jeff Charles, “Can anyone actually tell me what an ‘Easter Worshipper’ is? Do these people worship the holiday Easter? Are they going to start calling us ‘Christmas Worshippers’ in December?”  Then Charles doubled down with: “What happens if a terrorist targets Jews during the same time period as Easter? Are we supposed to call them ‘Passover Worshippers’?”

[….]

Here we might take a moment to hearken back to a salient proverb of George Orwell. “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell could have added another rubric to language distortion that works just as well: Never write or say the word you despise – just put it on extinction. Then in a generation or so people will ask one another: “Christian? What is a Christian?”

Evidence Supports That Hillary Lied Under Oath

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUDICIAL WATCH has gotten documents to support the July 2018 comments by Rand Paul that Hillary lied under oath. GATEWAY PUNDIT has the skinny:

Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony (under oath) in early 2013 after the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack.

Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.

In late July 2016 Julian Assange told Democracy Now that the Wikileaks DNC emails contains information on the weapons shipments to Syria……..

Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller (Wall Street Journal)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller. Wall Street Journal, 10 December 2018.  A16. (Click image if you prefer to read it from the paper – image will enlarge)

Last week was supposed to be earthshaking in Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, with the release of sentencing memos on three former members of the Trump universe—Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Yet Americans learned little new and nothing decisive about the allegations of Russia-Trump collusion that triggered this long investigation.

The main Russia-related news is the disclosure, in Mr. Mueller’s memo on Mr. Cohen, of a previously unknown attempt by an unidentified Russian to reach out to the Trump presidential campaign. “In or around November 2015, Cohen received the contact information for, and spoke with, a Russian national who claimed to be a ‘trusted person’ in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level,” the memo says.

The Russian also offered the possibility of a meeting between Mr. Trump and Vladimir Putin. Alas for conspiracy hopefuls, MR. COHEN “DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THIS INVITATION,” the memo says, because Mr. Cohen says he was already talking to other Russians about a Trump Tower hotel project that has been previously disclosed. Mr. Trump has said he shut down that hotel negotiation in 2016 because he was running for President.

So a Russian wanted to insinuate himself into the Trump orbit but nothing happened. Why drop this into a sentencing memo? The press is breathing heavily that it signals Mr. Mueller’s intention to promote a narrative that the Trumpians were all too willing, for commercial and political reasons, to hear Russian solicitations.

This would make Trump officials look dumb or naive, as Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were when they took that famous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. Such a narrative would be politically embarrassing, but it’s not conspiring to hack and release the email of Democratic Party officials.

The Manafort memo is even less revealing. The memo says Mr. Manafort lied about his contacts with a Ukrainian business partner, Konstantin Kilimnik. But the memo redacts the details about those lies, so it’s impossible to know if they concern Russia or the tax and other violations that Mr. Manafort has pleaded guilty to. We are left again with media speculation about what else Mr. Mueller knows, not with evidence of any attempt to steal an election.

More legally troubling is the separate sentencing memo on Mr. Cohen from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Mueller handed off the probe into Mr. Cohen’s business practices, including the legal grifter’s payoffs to porn actress Stormy Daniels and another woman who claim to have had affairs with Donald Trump and threatened to go public during the 2016 campaign.

This was another example of dumb and dumber, SINCE ANY SENTIENT VOTER KNEW MR. TRUMP HAD A BAD HISTORY WITH WOMEN. Voters ignored it in 2016 because Hillary Clinton spent years apologizing for worse behavior by her husband. But the payoffs are now a political problem for Mr. Trump because Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to violating campaign-finance laws and implicated Mr. Trump.

Campaign violations are often treated as CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, VIOLATIONS, and the Justice Department dropped criminal charges against Democrat John Edwards in 2012 for payments made by campaign donors to his mistress. But acting U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami is playing up Mr. Trump’s role, saying in the memo that Mr. Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” (Mr. Trump).

The memo waxes on about the importance of campaign-finance law to American democracy, which suggests Mr. Khuzami would indict Mr. Trump if he could. Justice Department guidelines advise against indicting a sitting President, so Mr. Khuzami’s memo looks more like a road map for House Democrats. So much for all the media handwringing that Mr. Trump has interfered with the independence of the Justice Department. He has less influence at Justice than any President since Richard Nixon in his final days.

The political dilemma for Democrats is that lying about sex and paying to cover it up are wrong, but they’re a long way from collaborating with the Kremlin to beat Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump lied to the public about his dealings with Mr. Cohen. Bill Clinton lied to the public and under oath in a legal proceeding, yet Democrats defended him. Good luck trying to impeach Mr. Trump for campaign-finance violations.

* * *

All of this argues for Mr. Mueller to wrap up his probe and let America get on with the political debate over its meaning for Mr. Trump’s Presidency. Mr. Mueller has been investigating for 19 months, and the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign began in July 2016, if not earlier. The country deserves an account of what Mr. Mueller knows, not more factual dribs and drabs in sentencing memos.

 

Clinton Foundation Investigation Update (John Solomon)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is from the Hannity Radio Show as well as Sean’s Fox News Show.

John Solomon has broken two stories that are Yuge!

Some funny comments via my Facebook:

  • Remember the name… Andrew Kessel. When he shoots himself 3 times in the back of his head, this is why.
  • While also drowning himself, while driving a car into the only 2″ creek in a 400 mile radius.

More from ZERO HEDGE. (BTW, I am not a fan of Zero Hedge… too much conspiracy stuff. But this story is on the money as it uses good sources):

The CFO of the Clinton Foundation, thinking he was “meeting an old professional acquaintance,” admitted to investigators that the charity had widespread problems with governance, accounting and conflicts of interest, and that Bill Clinton has been commingling business and personal expenses for a long time, reports The Hill’s John Solomon [“Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing” — https://tinyurl.com/ydy8kzvx).

Clinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel made the admissions to investigators from MDA Analytics LLC – a firm run by “accomplished ex-federal criminal investigators,” who have been probing the Clinton Foundation for some time.

Kessel told MDA “There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds, according to MDA’s account of the interview. “Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does not listen, and there really is no talking to him.”

MDA compiled Kessel’s statements, as well as over 6,000 pages of evidence from a whistleblower they had been working with separately, and which they filed secretly over a year ago with the FBI and IRS. MDA has alleged that the Clinton Foundation engaged in illegal activities, and may owe millions in unpaid taxes and penalties.

In addition to the IRS, the firm’s partners have had contact with prosecutors in the main Justice Department in Washington and FBI agents in Little Rock, Ark. And last week, a federal prosecutor suddenly asked for documents from their private investigation.

[…]

The memo also claims Kessel confirmed to the private investigators that private lawyers reviewed the foundation’s practices — once in 2008 and the other in 2011 — and each found widespread problems with governance, accounting and conflicts of interest.

“I have addressed it before and, let me tell you, I know where all the bodies are buried in this place,” the memo alleges Kessel said.

[…]

The 48-page submission, dated Aug. 11, 2017, supports its claims with 95 exhibits, including internal legal reviews that the foundation conducted on itself in 2008 and 2011.

(THE HILL)

What Bias? Podesta (Team Clinton) vs. Manafort (Team Trump)

Published by Papa Giorgio

From 1966-to-2015, seven people were charged with the FARA Act… over 50-years. In recent months three people have been charged. What is the common thread? They worked for Trump.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER notes this about the above example of the Clinton Machine still tumbling along:

Tony Podesta, founder of the now-shuttered Podesta Group and brother to former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, has been offered immunity by special counsel Robert Mueller to testify against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, according to a report.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson announced on his show Thursday evening that two separate sources confirmed the offer.

“In other words, for a near identical crime, Bill and Hillary’s friend could escape and emerge completely unscathed while Paul Manafort may rot in jail. Only one of them made the mistake of chairing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” Carlson said.

[….]

Manafort and Podesta’s firms worked together in a public relations campaign for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine nonprofit, which was believed to be backed by the pro-Russian and oligarch-funded Ukrainian political group Party of Regions. Sources who spoke with NBC News in October said the Podesta Group became of significant interest because it may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA states Americans who lobby for foreign governments, leaders, or political parties must disclose their activities with the Justice Department.

This Is What REAL Treason Looks Like

Published by Papa Giorgio

(JUMP TO ADDED ARTICLE LINK) 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)

I just wanted to add this updated article that is actually older (new to this particular post). Here is the intro of the reprinted article at FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE:

Editors’ note: In light of the Left’s deranged hysteria in response to President Trump’s recent press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, marked by pathological accusations that Trump has engaged in “treason,” Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin — by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy’s outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan. There were no screams of moral indignation, or accusations of treason, about this matter from the Left at that time — nor since.

Three Courses On The Electoral College (Civics 101)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Do you understand what the Electoral College is? Or how it works? Or why America uses it to elect its presidents instead of just using a straight popular vote? Author, lawyer and Electoral College expert Tara Ross does, and she explains that to understand the Electoral College is to understand American democracy.

  • James Madison (fourth President, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the “father” of the Constitution) – “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general; been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
  • John Adams (American political philosopher, first vice President and second President) – “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
  • Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration) – “A simple democracy… is one of the greatest of evils.”
  • Fisher Ames (American political thinker and leader of the federalists [he entered Harvard at twelve and graduated by sixteen], author of the House language for the First Amendment) – “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will provide an eruption and carry desolation in their way.´ / “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”
  • Governor Morris (signer and penman of the Constitution) – “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate… as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism…. Democracy! Savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
  • John Quincy Adams (sixth President, son of John Adams [see above]) – “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
  • Noah Webster (American educator and journalist as well as publishing the first dictionary) – “In democracy… there are commonly tumults and disorders….. therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
  • John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence) – “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
  • Zephaniah Swift (author of America’s first legal text) – “It may generally be remarked that the more a government [or state] resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

Take note that as well ArticleIV, Section4 of the Constitution reads:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…“

Right now, there’s a well-organized, below-the-radar effort to render the Electoral College effectively useless. It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our presidential elections into a majority-rule affair. Would this be good or bad? Author, lawyer, and Electoral College expert Tara Ross explains.

You vote, but then what? Discover how your individual vote contributes to the popular vote and your state’s electoral vote in different ways–and see how votes are counted on both state and national levels.

CATO Article:

Critics have long derided the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority president. That day has arrived, assuming Gov. Bush wins the Florida recount as seems likely.

The fact that Bush is poised to become president without a plurality of the vote contravenes neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. The wording of our basic law is clear: The winner in the Electoral College takes office as president. But what of the spirit of our institutions? Are we not a democracy that honors the will of the people? The very question indicates a misunderstanding of our Constitution.

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these two-fold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.

How did the terms “Elector” and “Electoral College” come into usage?

The term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to “the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors,” but he does not use the term “electoral college.”

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 – 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term “college” (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800’s, the term “electoral college” came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as “college of electors.”

Hillary wants a pure Democracy.