Friday, February 3, 2017


Infowars Reporter Destroys Cowardly Anti-Trump Berkeley Terrorists 

 Published on Feb 2, 2017 Millie Weaver ( @Millie__Weaver ) destroys the narrative that the leftist anti-Trump protestors are peaceful law abiding citizens. 

 Berserkeley RIOTS 

 Psychotic Rioters Brutalize Trump Supporters And Destroy Free Speech

Trump Riot Victim Attacked At Berkeley 
Gives Infowars Exclusive 
 Prominent Leftists Defend, Justify Violent Riot 
at UC Berkeley

 Women beaten, pepper sprayed by crazed thugs before Milo event



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Prominent left-wing journalists and celebrities responded to the violent
 riot and beatings of Trump supporters outside a Milo Yiannopoulos event
 at UC Berkeley by encouraging, defending or justifying the attacks.
Trump supporters were beaten with flag poles, punched and stomped during the chaos, with another woman being pepper sprayed during a TV interview.
Others were chased and stomped as the baying mob chanted “beat his ass!”
Rioters shot fireworks at the building in an effort to shut down the event.
The behavior perfectly fits the definition of domestic terrorism, and Antifa should now be officially designated as a domestic terrorist group.
President Trump responded to the mayhem by threatening to cut off federal funds to UC Berkeley.
However, instead of decrying the violence, prominent leftists across the spectrum justified and even applauded it.
Hollywood director Judd Apatow threatened Trump supporters with a since deleted tweet in which he stated, “This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?”
The Mayor of Berkeley Jesse Arreguin also legitimized the riots by calling them a reaction to “hate speech”.
After the riots, Google engineer Adrienne Porter Felt called on people to donate to UC Berkeley.
Buzzfeed’s Hannah Jewell apparently thought the beating and pepper spraying of women was funny.
MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin slammed Trump for being “upset….over a Breitbart editor,” presumably unaware of the fact that innocent people were beaten by the rioters.
VICE columnist Hussein Kesvani’s main gripe was that Milo Yiannopoulos was made to appear “reasonable”.
This is the violence that the mainstream media and the left has legitimized for the last 18 months. This process intensified after news outlets like the Nation and Newsweek celebrated alt-right leader Richard Spencer being punched in the face during the inauguration last month.
This is what happens when leftists openly call for Trump’s assassination and argue that violent attacks on his supporters should not be condemned.
It is also important to note that Antifa radicals do not care if they are loathed and hated by the vast majority of Americans. They don’t care how bad the optics look of masked thugs violently shutting down free speech. They will always resort to violence because they can safely rely on the media to report the as a “protest” and not what it actually was – a violent riot laced with instances of domestic terrorism.
The media will never acknowledge that this was a violent riot because they want to maintain the “chaos narrative” that the Trump administration is illegitimate, permanently in crisis and unstable.
In reality, the only thing that is “illegitimate” is these “protests,” because they are not protests, they are violent riots and have no place in a civil society.
  Berkeley Mayor Blasts “Ultra-Nationalist Far Right” in Response to Anti-Milo Riot
Berkeley Mayor Blasts “Ultra-Nationalist Far Right” 
in Response to Anti-Milo Riot
 Mayor downplays terrorism in his city
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In response to the anti-Milo riot at UC Berkeley, the city’s mayor blasted the “ultra-nationalist far right” despite the exhaustive news coverage showing socialists attacking Trump supporters.

“Last night, a small minority of the protestors who had assembled in opposition to a speaking engagement featuring a prominent white nationalist engaged in violence and property damage,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a press release. “They also provided the ultra-nationalist far right exactly the images they want to use to try to discredit the vast majority of peaceful protestors in Berkeley…”
But 1) Milo Yiannopoulos is not a “white nationalist,” he constantly brags about sleeping with African-American men, and 2) all the videos and photos of the riot – and there’s thousands – show it was Trump voters who were violently attacked by leftist mobs flying anarcho-communist flags and street thugs from nearby Oakland, so why not point that out instead?
Arreguín’s response may trigger a federal investigation into his city’s handling of the riot, especially after some suggested the police didn’t do enough to stop the violence.
Would Arreguín’s handling of the situation been different if it were Trump supporters – who he calls the “ultra-nationalist far right” – attacking socialists instead?  Based on his politicized tweet, in which he personally attacked Milo, it certainly appears so.
This brings to mind the city in Arizona where city officials were successfully sued after they denied prompt police service and constitutional rights to residents who were “non-believers” of the Mormon cult in control of the town.
That begs the question: were pro-Trump victims at the Milo riot denied better police protection and the right to peacefully assemble because they were “non-believers” of the socialist cult in control of Berkeley?
  Conway: Media Is "Emboldening" Violent Rioters
 Moscow Trains Anti-Trump US Radicals - CNN's Putin/Trump Link Debunked
Conway: Media Is "Emboldening" Violent Rioters
 "I don't even know if they know what they’re protesting. Really, what is it, the free speech?"
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Senior Trump aide Kellyanne Conway has blasted the mainstream media for “emboldening” rioting anarchists, in the wake of the unrest at the University of California in Berkeley.
Appearing on Fox & Friends, Conway accused the media of implicitly supporting violence and non-peaceful protest.

“What’s going on out there is what’s going on all across the country,” Conway urged.
“You have protesters who feel very emboldened. They’ve got media cameras following them, they give interviews.”she added.

“I don’t even know if they know what they’re protesting. Really, what is it, the free speech? Having someone on your campus who has a dissenting point of view or wants to present an alternative point of view?” Conway said, referring to Breitbart News editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, who was forced to cancel an appearance at Berkley due to the reaction.
Conway noted that when the rioters ‘grow up’ they are in for a shock.
“In the real world, when these kids grow up and try to find jobs – which they will in the Trump economy – [they’ll see] life doesn’t work that way, folks.” Conway said.
The rioters took on police after smashing private property, attacking motorists, and setting fires, as a demonstration of their opposition to Yiannopoulos.

Yiannopoulos blamed the cancellation of his appearance on “violent left-wing protestors,” and said that they are “absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

video has emerged of the rioters attacking bystanders and Trump supporters:

President Trump responded to the unrest by threatening to cut funding for the University:




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A group of attorneys led by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a lawsuit on January 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against President Trump, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and Acting Attorney General Dana Boente, claiming that the “President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as ‘Sanctuary City’ laws and policies.”
The lawsuit objects to an executive order signed by Trump on January 25 (“Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”) proclaiming that “Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.”
The order continues by stating: “It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.”
Title 8, Section 1373 of the U.S. Code pertains to “Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” It states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
The Trump executive order goes on to put some teeth into its enforcement by stating:
In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.

Herrera and his co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit (including Chief Assistant City Attorney Jesse Smith, and Chief Deputy City Attorney Ronald Flynn) take issue with the Trump administration order, however. In a statement quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle, Herrera questioned the constitutionality of the executive order. “Not only is it unconstitutional, it’s un-American,” Herrera said at a January 31 City Hall news conference. “It is necessary to defend the people of this city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our Constitution or the rule of law.”
“The fabric of our communities and billions of dollars are at stake,” said Herrera, who the Chronicle reported was joined by Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco Supervisor Hillary Ronen, and several deputy city attorneys at the conference. “President Trump does not appear to understand the Constitution and the limits it imposes on executive power.”
The Chronicle noted that San Francisco receives approximately $1 billion annually from the federal government, which accounts for a little more than 10 percent of the city’s budget and that federal aid is in jeopardy if the Trump administration enforces the order.
The report quoted Bill Ong Hing, a professor of immigration law at the University of San Francisco as saying, “I think there is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment here. The federal government cannot commandeer nonfederal officials to do its work.”
The language of the lawsuit also argued along those lines, stating: “The City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States of America and the above-named federal officials for violating the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. X.”
Interestingly, one portion of the suit employs language commonly used by strict constitutionalists:
The Constitution establishes a balance of power between the state and Federal governments, as well as among the coordinate branches of Federal government, to prevent the excessive accumulation of power in any single entity and reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from any government office. In so doing, the Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
That argument made in the above statement is unimpeachable, but does it apply to the case of “sanctuary cities” — or to the Trump executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”? If the San Francisco attorneys want to challenge the executive order on constitutional grounds, shouldn’t they first challenge the federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373) it attempts to enforce? If 8 U.S.C. 1373 is constitutional, then the executive order demanding its enforcement should also be constitutional. If the San Francisco attorneys think 8 U.S.C. 1373 is unconstitutional, then their fight should be with those who passed that section of the U.S. code, which was part of Public Law 104-208 (H.R. 3610 and S. 1894), passed by the 104th Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 30, 1996.
The lawsuit complains: “The Executive Branch may not commandeer state and local officials to enforce federal law"; however, the Trump executive order attempts to do no such thing. It does not propose to “commandeer” local officials, but merely have them comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (which, as noted, was signed into law by President Clinton) which specifies that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
Expecting a local government official to send information to (or receive information from) the INS about the lawful or unlawful immigration status of an individual hardly constitutes “commandeering” that official — it merely expects him or her to perform as a good citizen.
As we noted in a recent article about an illegal alien from El Salvador who filed a lawsuit on January 17 against the city and county of San Francisco for violating San Francisco’s sanctuary city law by arresting and detaining him, sharing information with federal immigration authorities is not the same as taking personal responsibility for enforcing federal immigration statutes.
In that article, we stated that a law passed by San Francisco in 1989, and signed by then-mayor Art Agnos, the City of Refuge Ordinance, also known as the “Sanctuary Ordinance,” included a prohibition on San Francisco employees assisting or cooperating with any investigation, detention, or arrest conducted by the federal agency charged with enforcement of federal immigration law. However, we wrote:
Therein lies the crux of the matter. In most circumstances, even an ordinary citizen, not to mention a city official, can be charged under federal law with “misprision of felony” for failing to inform authorities about the commission of a crime. Therefore, so-called sanctuary city laws create a dilemma for city officials, who must decide which of two conflicting laws they will obey. However, this point has not, to our knowledge, been addressed by any court, probably because “misprision of felony” charges are difficult to prove and are rarely brought.
The Trump executive order does not go so far as to attempt to bring “misprision of felony” charges against local officials who fail to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373, probably because that would be a difficult legal case to make. Instead, it relies on a tool that is based on more solid constitutional grounds — the “carrot and stick” approach. A municipality that insists on being a “sanctuary city” and refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities is not eligible to receive federal grants.
This also raises an interesting constitutional point. The strict constitutionalist would say that most federal grants are not constitutional anyway, because according to the 10th Amendment that the city attorneys for San Francisco so nicely quoted for us, they provide funding for areas not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution.
However, the San Francisco city attorneys cannot have it both ways. They cannot logically cite the 10th Amendment to stop the federal government from withholding billions for dollars from the city on the grounds that the Trump administration is intruding into areas not authorized by the Constitution when the funds they so jealously covet are going to pay for programs not authorized by the Constitution, either.
And as we noted, if the San Francisco city officials have a problem with the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, which merely serves to enforce existing law, then they should ask their representatives in Congress to introduce legislation to change that law, which was passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. In the 20 years since that law was passed, no federal court has ruled that it is unconstitutional.

Related articles:
California Advances Bills to Become Sanctuary State
 Illegal Alien Sues San Francisco for Violating Sanctuary City Law
“Sanctuary Cities” Make a Mockery of Our Laws

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 ALBANY, N.Y. — The Democratic governor of New York 
is calling for lawmakers to pass a bill enshrining abortion as a right 
in the state Constitution in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court ever 
overturns Roe v. Wade.
“As they threaten this nation with a potential Supreme Court nomination that will reverse Roe v. Wade, I want them to know today: If that’s what they do, we’re going to protect Roe v. Wade in the state of New York,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared at a “I Stand With Planned Parenthood” rally on Monday.
“I propose today a constitutional amendment to write Roe v. Wade in to the New York State Constitution so that nobody can change it—no Supreme Court nominee [can undo it],” he proclaimed to cheers and applause. “We will not allow the progress of the women’s movement to be stopped, and we must seize this opportunity to bring the state and the nation forward and stand up for women’s health.”
Cuomo had been introduced by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.

“Let’s put it out on the ballot and let the people decide,” he said. “New Yorkers want to protect a woman’s right to choose.”
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 119,940 abortions in New York in 2014, the latest statistics on file. There are 218 facilities in the state that provide abortions.
“Abortions in New York represent 12.9% of all abortions in the United States,” it outlines.

Figures released last month from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also show that there were 69,840 abortions in New York City alone, as compared to 116,777 registered births—equating to abortion being 60 percent of the birth rate.
New York legalized abortion in 1970, and only allows late-term abortion in instances when the woman’s life is deemed to be in danger.
Amendments to the state Constitution can only be made by passage in the legislature for two consecutive years, along with statewide approval by voters. Therefore, the earliest such a proposal could be passed is in 2019.
It is unclear if the Cuomo plans to defy the U.S. Supreme Court by pointing to the state Constitution should it be declared that the unborn are persons, and that none have a right to kill an unborn child. Many had said during the trial of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore that the marriage amendment enshrined in the Alabama Constitution was automatically voided due to the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
As previously reported, the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade centered on a Texas woman named Norma McCorvey who sought an abortion over an alleged rape. McCorvey later admitted that she had lied, writing in her book “I Am Roe” that she made up the rape story at the advice of her feminist attorneys to make her case more convincing.
She also never obtained an abortion, but placed her child up for adoption and went on to become a vocal pro-life advocate, even going to court in an effort to overturn the ruling.
“My decisions were wrong and I am fighting with every breath to change what has occurred,” McCorvey, a Roman Catholic, said in 2008.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Ronnie Herne

February 2, 2017
I have often wondered if the major university campuses have a special course for University Women to teach them the “F” word. Females seem so proficient at that once they graduate. Call the course, “Give Me an 'F' and I'll give you an 'A'!” Have it taught by a finger-gesticulating (wink-wink) burly, short cropped PhD female, of course, to get the full effect....... But I digress....
To the point: I have witnessed many things much more horrific than the Women's March in D.C. this past January 21st. However, I do not believe I have ever seen anything more revoltingly disgusting done in the name of women.
Ladies. Girls. The gentler sex. Peaches and cream. Sugar and spice. Mom/Mommy. Granny/Grandma. Aunt/Sister. Oh, and Pro-Life.
And in the name of what? Let me just tell you “what”. And those “sisters” out there aren't going to like it one bit, too bad.
What the whole wide world saw on display was a raging torrent of hate. At Trump, you assume? Oh sure, he was in the mix. But he was used more for venting rather than the being the full object. What actually was on display in full living pink technicolor was an unkempt force of shrieking, foul females literally and loudly hating their womanhood and all things associated with being a woman.
THAT is what we saw in that march – a bunch of females screaming about their genitalia and the functions thereof, hating themselves and their womanliness. Then crudely, vilely, viciously letting the world know all about it, – and how rough they have it in comparison to men. (Shed a tear here.)
Well, “sisters”, there are surgical options opened to you to remedy all of those complaints. Just don't do it on my tax dollars.
And “sisters”, I'll tell you something else you'll like even less. Back in the day your disgusting vitriolic diatribe was called Penis Envy. Put that in your little pink bonnets, huh?
Sean Hannity had some ditsy female guest on his radio show on Friday, January 27th. She was all PRO the march; and Madonna's threat about blowing up the White House was just artistic free speech. He asked her (several times) about partial birth abortion which she said she was good with because there is no such thing... I could not make this up. She told Sean that partial birth abortion did not create infanticide (the killing of a baby).
Apparently in her safe space no one had bothered her with the Planned Parenthood videos of selling baby body parts and suggesting different ways of performing partial birth abortions, done in the very last days of the pregnancy, ie, at or near term, so as to make better, more mature organ parts available for sale.
Clearly she had also not bothered herself with details of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, now serving time for multiple infanticides. These truly gruesome details are available in a book called “Gosnell”.
She explained to Sean Hannity - very patiently - that partial birth abortion was when the child was surgically removed by Caesarean Section. The baby was NOT killed. And if there was just more sex education then there would be less of an issue with abortion...
Wouldst that were true! It would be so easy to birth the baby and hand it over to an adoption agency. But killing the baby is just more feminine, you think?
And did you all catch Hillary when she said that the baby shouldn't be considered a baby until it's mother took it home? In case Mom changed her mind about having the baby? In fact if I recall correctly Hillary also mentioned that the baby shouldn't be considered a baby for two weeks after the birth........ I don't believe she ever indicated what should be done with the gurgling, fist-waving little thingie there in the newborn nursery.....
How could any good (?), progressive, sex pontificating, Me-First, pro-abortionist, wear-what-I-want (or not), LGBT-hugging, social justice, open borders, smoking/drinking/drugging angry socialist feminist ever trip into the waiting arms of Sharia Law? (Hey, it worked for Hillary & Huma!)
How in the name of Allah did they have a Brooklyn-born Palestinian Muslim female social worker as one of their Women's March co-chairs? Linda Sarsour. The pictures I've seen show her in a full hijab, a nun-like head covering, though in her case they are quite gaily colored. And her eyes are heavily made up. Very Western.
Maybe that's it: she wears makeup so she must be okay. Forget the mandates against women in the Qu-ran (Koran): rape, honor killings, beatings, mutilation, subjugation, and lots of motherhood. And I guess it would never occur to Linda Sarsour to throw some of the gay boys off a high roof.
Not to worry! While you're hugging Linda Sarsour like a comfortable little pink teddy bear, Islam has it all figured out for you, dear “sisters” and snowflakes. According to the Muslim site they teach that the soul enters the fetus at 120 days, or 4 months. With the fewest possible exceptions it is unlawful under Islam to abort the fetus before 120 days. With absolutely no exceptions, it is also unlawful to abort the fetus on or after 120 days. Rape and incest are not reasons.
Like Climate Change/Global Warming, clearly we have settled science by consensus here... Male Muslim consensus you understand. And devout Muslim agent Linda Sarsour is a poster girl for this Women's March? Talk about a serious disconnect.
While a “NAAAA-STEEEEE” woman was bemoaning the feel of Hitler in the streets of D.C. - a moustache exchanged for a toupee - she was apparently coincidentally mindlessly embracing devout Muslim Palestinian Linda Sarsour.
I know I mentioned this before but let's draw out a new and uncomfortable – for them – observation. In the 1940s, when Hitler's Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was romping victoriously with his North Afrika Korps, just who was Hitler's talented general aligning himself with? Why, the Muslim Arabs, of course. He was going to liberate them from British rule. Hitler, Rommel, Arab Muslims. Got it? Muslims, Rommel, Hitler: Friends.
So, when we want to talk about Hitler, let's keep it straight who was holding hands with whom.
((Speaking of the Brits, Teresa May, PM, is distressed with Trump's temporary ban on Mid-East immigration. 80 years ago the Brits were a dominant force in North Africa. Now, the most prevalent male name for newborns inside Britain is Mohammad. (Talk about the sun setting on the empire...))

I don't have a number on the tens of thousands that Marched for Life on January 27th in Washington, D.C. How thrilling it must have been for them to have the Vice-President come and speak, how hopeful that some of this will be rolled back.

But I'll make a bet that just like the Tea Party versus the Occupiers, the Right-to-Lifers left one heck of a lot less trash than did the sisters, snowflakes, and the beta boys. And no broken windows, torched cars, injured cops, graffiti...? Anyone want to take me up on that...?
Hey God! Thanks for your blessings!
PS: Given what President Trump has already done so far, what's he going to do with the last 3½ years of this first term of his presidency?
PS2: Just in. Thanks to JT. Reba sings of God. Video. Guaranteed to make the Left crazier than they already are. Enjoy and share.



Starbucks' Stance On Trump Immigration Ban Turns Bitter For Some


"Thank you for contacting me to share your support for the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to serve as United States Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter.
Senator Sessions has been my colleague and friend for sixteen years. The two of us read the same Bible  from time to time in the past, we have read it together. However, I have ultimately come to decide that I cannot support his nomination to serve as our next Attorney General. 
When Senator Sessions and I met in my office about his nomination, we talked of how our faith guides us in our lives. I reminded him of Matthew 25, which tells us of our moral obligation ‘to the least of these’ in our society. Among other things it asks the question, ‘When I was a stranger in your land, did you take me in?’ Sadly, I have concluded that Senator Sessions does not fully share the commitment to that passage and to loving our neighbors as ourselves that I believe our nation’s Attorney General should hold.
While we agree on some issues, in truth, our views on far too many important issues diverge, in some cases markedly. For example, Senator Sessions holds the same hardline views on immigration as President Donald Trump, views that sow fear and division in our communities. He has a lifetime voting record that, on balance, is hostile to our country's landmark clean water and clean air laws. He refuses to accept the science on climate change and has opposed efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to curb harmful carbon pollution from our nation’s power plants. 
At times, he has demonstrated hostility to landmark civil rights laws too, such as the Voting Rights Act, and he has opposed legal protections for LGBT Americans. I believe that too many of his views are too often inconsistent with the Golden Rule – to treat others as they would wish to be treated – for him to lead the Department of Justice at this critical juncture. Reaching this decision does not bring me joy, but I was raised by my parents to pray in church for the wisdom to know the right thing to do – and I have done this when faced with this decision. 
In closing, thank you again for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to contact me about this or other matters of concern."
With best personal regards, I am,

Tom Carper
United States Senator