The Commie Revolution Thread

[Lenno]

Fights, Shooting and Mayhem Break Out At Malls Across The U.S….

Posted on December 26, 2016 by sundance
There were numerous incidents throughout the U.S. today as police responded to fights, shooting, looting, bloodshed and general mayhem in multiple States.


The mall issues and/or violence was reported in: Manchester Connecticut, Beachwood Ohio, Monroeville Pennsylvania, Aurora Colorado, Fayetteville North Carolina, Elizabeth New Jersey and Aurora Illinois…
Various terms like “youth“, “kids“, “teens” and/or “students” appear amid the general media reports which accompany each story. However, beyond the words there appears to be something the PC media are trying to avoid. Something transparently obvious to those who are looking at each story.
Something’s missing. Perhaps they all have something in common.
Let’s see:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...s/#more-126303

[Lenno]

From a reader, with scorn.
Here are better ideas.

white communist college professor, who advocated for the genocide of white people in a tweet on Christmas, has a well-documented history of hateful comments towards “crackers.”



George Ciccariello-Maher, an associate professor of political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, tweeted on Sunday “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.”



In addition to his position at Drexel University, he has previously written for The Huffington Post, The Nation, Salon, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.
After a public backlash, the tweet was deleted and his account was subsequently blocked from public view.


“While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University,” Drexel University said in a statement. “The University is taking this situation very seriously.”


“We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail.”


Ciccariello-Maher, a self-described communist who joined Drexel University in 2010, has a well-documented history of anti-white comments on social media despite being white himself.


Also on Sunday, Ciccariello-Maher suggested the massacre of nearly 4,000 white people during the Haitian Revolution in 1804 was a “good thing.”


“Yacub made a lot of white folks,” he tweeted on February 3, 2013. According to the theology espoused by the Nation of Islam, Yacub was a black scientist who created white people as a “race of devils.”


In response to a video, now proven to be a hoax, that appeared to show two men being kicked off a plane for speaking Arabic, Ciccariello-Maher tweeted “#Gulag these Racist Crackers.”


Ciccariello-Maher’s racist comments come after a decision by the University of Wisconsin-Madison to defend its offering of a “Problem of Whiteness” course to incoming students.


The course, taught by Professor Damon Sajnani, is part of the university’s African Cultural Studies program.


“Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably ‘no.’ But here is your chance!,” the course description reads.
Wisconsin Representative Dave Murphy, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities, has called on the university to cancel the course.


“I am extremely concerned that UW-Madison finds it appropriate to teach a course called, ‘The Problem of Whiteness,’ with the premise that white people are racist,” he said in a statement. “Even more troubling, the course is taught by a self-described ‘international radical’ professor whose views are a slap in the face to the taxpayers who are expected to pay for this garbage.”


The university responded by stating “we believe this course, which is one of thousands offered at our university, will benefit students who are interested in developing a deeper understanding of race issues. The course is a challenge and response to racism of all kinds.”


Arizona State University offered a similar course last year.
“All of the books have a disturbing trend, and that’s pointing to all white people as the root cause of social injustices for this country,” student Lauren Clark said at the time.

http://www.infowars.com/white-commun...hite-genocide/

[Lenno]

Sign the petition here, folks: https://www.change.org/p/drexel-univ...cariello-maher The SJWs already have a petition in support of the racist professor, with over 2,000 sigs: http://archive.is/w5uEa Please note: Any call for violence, overt racism or anything of that kind will see you banned from my comment sections. If you want to let off steam, go to 4chan. My comment section is not the place for it.

[Lenno]

[Lenno]

When Did Leftism Go Bad, or Was it Ever Any Other Way?

Posted on December 31, 2016 by Baron Bodissey
Below is the latest in an occasional series of essays on the Left by our English correspondent Peter.

The Red Evolution II: When did leftism go bad, or was it ever any other way?
by Peter
I was amazed last August when the head of the Roman Catholic church, His Holiness Pope Francis, asserted that the most dynamic and rapidly growing religion in the last 100 years has been neither Christianity nor Islam but leftism. Leftism? When I got over the shock I had to ask why the demented old buffer chose to make this outrageous statement at all, never mind that it was only a matter of days after two Muslims slit the throat of a French Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 85, while he was saying Mass in his church. I am still at a loss.
I have no doubt at all that leftists believe in nothing, represent nothing and support nothing. They will bitch, bellyache, gripe and grouse for hours telling you what they are against, i.e. democracy, capitalism, Christianity, Western culture, nation states, conservatism; in fact everything that we in the West hold sacred. And they will overwhelm any contradicting view with raging torrents of well-rehearsed, high-decibel gobbledygook, generally as a diversionary tactic to prevent their victims from asking questions or, indeed, articulating any form of coherent riposte.
So how did leftism, progressivism, communism, liberalism, radicalism or whatever else you choose to call it become such a malign and malevolent force? It is commonly believed that the basis of Leftism evolved from The Enlightenment, but if so, how did such high-minded and principled people such as John Locke, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, Isaac Newton, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francois-Marie Voltaire and many others associate themselves with a movement that would degenerate into so much evil? Many leftists deny the malignancy of the movement of which they have become part, but that is only to be expected. To the rest of us, the evil of leftism is only too clear.
The era of the Enlightenment ended with two momentous revolutions, both of which significantly and irrevocably changed the world. The American Revolution was a war fought against a colonial power by colonists who demanded and gained the right to self-determination and, in so doing, created a nation that would eventually become the figurehead of the free world. In contrast, the French Revolution in many ways became an inspiration to those who would enslave that world and, in the process, substantially undermine any meaningful discourse.

A great deal has been written about the French Revolution, and I do not propose to add to it. The revolution covered a period from 14 July 1789 until 27 July 1794, beginning with the storming of the Bastille and ending with the execution of Maximilian Robespierre. In between there occurred the Reign of Terror, a five year blood-bath, in which the royal family, so-called counter revolutionaries, moderates, reformers, priests, aristocrats along with anyone else whose face didn’t fit or who was adjudged to have looked sideways at a member of the Committee of Public Safety, were systematically put to death. Following the death of Robespierre, those who remained alive and in power decided, purely on the grounds of self-preservation, that the Reign of Terror had run its course and something approaching normality should now return. It has been estimated that 17,000 people went to the guillotine as the result of the terror, while over 100,000 were imprisoned after being denounced as counter-revolutionaries. This was relatively small beer when compared with the later excesses of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty and Mao but it was clearly enough to shock the rest of the population into submission.
While the revolution was at its height, those who were engaged in its pursuit thought that not only was it a good thing to cut off the heads of their own erstwhile rulers and anyone else who incurred their ire, they should spread their new-found wisdom to their European neighbours, encourage them to decapitate their rulers, too, and ally themselves with France to form a coalition of like-minded nations — rather like today’s European Union. Unfortunately for the French, the leadership of the rest of Europe did not share their revolutionary zeal, especially the part about having their heads cut off. As a result of their attempts to export their revolution, the newly established Gallic collective found itself at war with Austria, Prussia, Holland, Spain and, the old enemy, Great Britain.
The prime movers in the revolution were, inter alia, the “Sans-Culottes”, the masses, along with the Girondins a radical group and the Jacobins, a revolutionary political movement led by Robespierre. The Jacobins were members of a political club that met at the Parisian Dominican convent in the Rue St. Jacques — Jacobus in Latin — from which they derived their name. It was they who set up the revolutionary dictatorship that dominated the Committee for Public Safety and the French Parliament, and it was they who instigated the reign of terror. It has been argued that the Jacobins were the forefathers of today’s political militants, and that the French Revolution itself was the birth of today’s leftist movement. Indeed, the behavior of the Jacobins bore a striking similarity to that of groups such as Antifa and Unite Against Fascism, who have assumed the right to assault and physically damage anyone who expresses thought processes incongruent with their own leftist template. The Jacobins were not very nice people but neither were the Herbertists, a radical revolutionary group that also played a significant role in the Revolution. They were fiercely anti-Christian, and actively supported the proposal later attributed to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that “all property is theft,” using that premise to enforce state seizure of goods, often for their own enrichment. Their leadership went to the guillotine on 24th March 1794, following that of the Girondins, and nobody was sorry to see them go.
The year 1848 was ultimately referred to as the year of Revolution, as people rose up all across Europe and parts of South America to take part in the most widespread series of revolutionary actions in European history. Although this had all but fizzled out within a year, at its height, over fifty countries were affected and were changed significantly by events. At the same time tens of thousands of people were killed, and many more forced into exile. The revolutions were most important in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy, and the Austrian Empire, and resulted in significant lasting reforms, including the abolition of serfdom in Austria and Hungary, the end of absolute monarchy in Denmark, and the introduction of parliamentary democracy in the Netherlands. Curiously enough, none of this had anything whatsoever to do with Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels, but their time would come.

In February 1848, while much of Europe was erupting into violent revolution, Marx and Engels delivered the document that would be published as the Manifesto of the Communist League to a printer in London, just three months before Marx’s thirtieth birthday. It is unlikely that either the Jacobins or the French Revolution were directly responsible for the ideologies of Communism or socialism, but they surely contributed to the political and social environment that nurtured and developed both, and it is unlikely that Marx or Engels would have reached their conclusions without them.

In the years prior to 1848 Marx completed his education and gradually developed his understanding, analysis and assessment of the world around him. He had been born into a wealthy middle class family in Trier, Prussia, the son of a successful lawyer. Through his Dutch mother, Henrietta Pressburg, he was related to the Philips family that later founded the Philips electronics conglomerate in Eindhoven. The connection proved to be beneficial to Marx in later years, as he was able to obtain loans from his maternal uncle Lion Philips at times when his family was experiencing financial difficulty in London.
In October 1835 Marx entered the University of Bonn to study law, but as he did not appear to be taking his studies seriously, his father transferred him to Berlin the following year, where he ultimately gained a law degree. He subsequently secured his doctorate from the University of Jena in 1841, with a paper entitled The Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. Presumably the faculty of the University of Jena understood what this was about, but I suspect they were in a minority and a lot further up their ivory tower than anyone else.
Much has been made of the contention that Marx was born Jewish, though these days this is often a device utilized by leftists to deflect criticism of Marxism by accusing detractors of anti-Semitism. His father, Heinrich (formerly Hershel) renounced Judaism in favour of Lutheranism before Karl was born and his son was baptized into the Lutheran faith. When Marx married the minor aristocrat Jenny von Westphalen, he did so in a protestant church in Kreutznach. They must have made a striking couple, the beautiful aristocratic Jenny and the incredibly hirsute Karl, who, even then, resembled a cross between a werewolf and a lavatory brush. When he declared himself later to be an atheist, it was not Judaism that he renounced, but Christianity.
As a post-graduate Marx became interested in the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel while writing prolifically both fiction and non-fiction. In 1842, he became a journalist in Cologne writing for a radical paper known as Rheinische Zeitung (Rhineland News), producing articles that were critical of not only of European right-wing regimes but also of those on the left that he and his colleagues considered to be insufficiently radical. The writings and other activities of Marx and his associates soon drew the attention of the authorities, and Rheinische Zeitung was subjected to close scrutiny and censorship before being banned altogether by the Prussian Government under pressure from the Russian Czar, Nicholas I. At this point Marx decided to relocate to Paris. It was here that he met his future friend and long-time collaborator Friedrich Engels.
While he was in Paris, Marx continued to study intensely while writing a number of significant volumes, including The Holy Family, published in 1845. He also became co-editor of the leftist Parisian newspaper the Deutsch Franzosische Jahrbucher (German-French Annals). Only one issue was ever published, but it had to be considered worthy of note since it was instantly banned by the German states although imported copies were circulated secretly and read widely. After the closure of the Annals, Marx started to write for the only uncensored far left journal in Paris, Vorwarts (Forward). This paper was connected with the self-styled League of the Just, a clandestine, utopian socialist organization with whom Marx considered himself a close associate and fellow traveller. In the meantime, his activities and writings were still being monitored, this time by the French authorities, who closed down Vorwarts at the request of the King of Prussia and in February 1845 expelled Marx from their country.
Having just upset the King of Prussia, Marx did not feel that a return to Germany was a good idea, so he made the comparatively short journey to Brussels where he continued to study capitalism and economics. Two months later he was joined by Engels and a growing number of exiled socialists from all over Europe in addition to many members of the League of the Just. In order to obtain permission to remain in Belgium, Marx had to give an pledge to the authorities that he would refrain from publishing anything that was controversial or politically sensitive, but that did not guarantee that he would be left alone or that he would not write anything that could be published later. In November 1847 he and Engels started to write what would ultimately become known as the Communist Manifesto. Now, all he needed was a group of people to energize the working classes into a mass movement, and he approached members of the League of the Just to undertake this role. Initially they were reluctant to do this, as up until then they had been a secret organization and, for obvious reasons, the membership did not want to reveal themselves, especially in the prevailing political climate. However, Marx proved to be very persuasive, and by June 1847 he had convinced them to come out of the shadows and form a new political party to be called “The Communist League”.
Later the following year, 1848, after he had published the Communist Manifesto Marx was on the move again, having been accused by the Belgian Ministry of Justice of funding the supply of arms to a section of Belgian workers to enable them to stage a revolutionary uprising. While he might well have sympathized with such activities and, due to a substantial legacy, he had the means to provide them with funding, there was no evidence to prove that he was actually guilty of the charge, but he knew he was a marked man and he briefly fled back to France before moving on to Cologne, where he continued to work on behalf of the Communist League in the hope that the Europe-wide revolution would spread to Germany. With that in mind, he launched the publication of a new newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New Rhineland News).
While he was in Cologne, Marx was continually harassed by the police. On several occasions, he was arrested and tried on trumped-up charges, the contemporary equivalent of Hate Speech and incitement, but was acquitted each time. Following a change of government in Prussia, pressure was being applied to left-leaning activists and, following the enforced closure of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung by the Prussian state Marx returned to Paris, only to find himself expelled from there, too, as a political undesirable. Having run out of all other available options, he sought sanctuary in London, where he remained until his death in 1883.
While he was in London, Marx achieved a great deal and wrote prolifically thereby enhancing his reputation as a philosopher, economist, sociologist, political theorist and, above all, a revolutionary socialist. Yet there was no working class uprising in England, a situation which led to Marx’s being branded as a failure by certain historians. This has been compounded by the fact that much of his writing, including the final two volumes of Das Kapital, were only published after his death. However, the assertion that Marx had in some way failed was refuted by Eric Hobsbawm, the late leftist historian, who pointed out that while Marx had not achieved a large following in his lifetime, his writings and theories remained an influence long after his death and they continue to be such, though he did not earn a great deal of money from them. However, the true measure of a man should not be represented by the amount of wealth he managed to accumulate during his lifetime, nor has it been with Marx, who died a pauper.
Whatever one might feel about Marxism — and I am by no means a supporter — it is beyond dispute that Marx never killed anyone neither did he order anyone’s death or imprisonment. It might be argued that by making statements to the effect that the bourgeoisie must overthrow the aristocracy before the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie and impose a proletarian dictatorship, his writings had been an incitement to violence. That such violence did subsequently occur in a multitude of uprisings and revolutions involving millions of deaths instigated by others in the name of Marx cannot be directly laid at his door. But for all that, Marxism was a failure.
Most of those countries whose economies were based on Marxist theories, such as the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, reverted to democracy and capitalism after the Marxist experiment collapsed. Indeed, any political, social or economic system that has to be imposed and maintained by compulsion, violence and fear is eventually destined to fail.
My own theory on why Marxism failed so spectacularly is quite simple: his writings lacked clarity. Some months ago I purchased a copy of Marx’s and Engels’ Communist Manifesto. Containing a mere 44 pages of narrative, I thought I would get through it in a couple of hours but I was mistaken. It was forbidding enough that the front cover flaunted photographs of both hirsute authors each exuding an air of icy malevolence, but the content also proved to be a challenge, rather like dissecting a corpse with a set of chopsticks. What antagonized me most was the reluctance of either Marx or Engels to present any cogent, well-presented or reasoned argument to support what was little more than a convoluted list of unsubstantiated statements, many of which have subsequently been disproved.
I bought the book for the same reason I once bought The Observer’s Book of Reptiles before I left the UK for India, that is, to know my enemy. However, all I succeeded in doing was to reinforce my original view that Marx lacked clarity. Marx’s written works have been translated into every known language, even though most are difficult for the non-academic or the layman to decipher and, for that reason, probably lost a little of their meaning each time they were translated. This would explain a lot. For example, take a country such as Albania, officially the poorest country in Europe by the time it abandoned Communism. The whole place had been laid waste politically, socially and economically under the paranoid leadership of Enver Hoxha, who suppressed dissent and banished dissenters to a series of prison camps modeled on Soviet gulags, where they were forced to work in government-controlled mines or on construction projects, and a great many of them died as a direct result of the atrocious and inhumane conditions. The people who were not confined to camps fared little better in a climate of endless political murders, chronic food shortages and little contact with the outside world. The citizens lived under intense state scrutiny. There was a general disregard for their well-being, not to mention the rule of law by the elite, which brought about realistic comparisons with North Korea, give or take a few nukes.
When the Albanian communist system finally collapsed, people were leaving in droves by ship, ferry, rowing boat or raft, and, missing out Yugoslavia, which had troubles of its own, they headed straight for Italy any which way they could. The Albanian economy had become so bad that, even if the entire workforce had sat down, lit up a cigarette and done absolutely nothing for the previous fifty years, the country could not have been left in a worse state. Yet they claimed to have used Marxism as their blueprint.
Maybe they had the Bulgarian version.
As for Marx, himself, I suspect he was less of a blazing beacon for the repression that came after him and more of a scapegoat. Either way, Marxism certainly got the blame. However, none of the above addresses my original question, that is: when did leftism go bad, or was it ever any other way? I do not claim to have an answer, only another theory. Leftism turned bad when it divorced itself from the moral constraints imposed by Judeo-Christianity. It lost its compass, its compassion and its humanity, ultimately leading to the atrocities committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Castros and the Kim dynasty. Clearly there were many others but these were the worst of the worst.

At this point, I was about to illustrate the contrast between the Victorian Christian Philanthropists and the burgeoning trade union movement operating in western countries at around the same time, but I fear I might have already strained the attention span of those readers who are still with me. Instead, I will conclude by quoting my favourite definition of a Communist. It comes not from a politician, cleric or philosopher but from a long-dead English music hall entertainer by the name of Charlie Chester.
He said that a Communist is a man who wants all the money in the world shared out equally among all the people in the world… and when he has spent his, he wants it all shared out again.

[Lenno]

NY Times Ad From Bill Ayers' Group Calls for End of 'Trump/Pence Regime' Before it Starts

"Don’t Conciliate… Don’t Accommodate… Don’t Collaborate!"

1.4.2017
News
Mark Tapson
19
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to Facebook
17Share to Twitter
Share to Google+
Share to More
5Share to Print








An organization called Refuse Fascism has placed a full-page ad in The New York Times Wednesday calling for "a month of resistance" and activism "outside normal channels" in order to bring a halt to the "illegitimate" election of Donald Trump and the "fascism" he threatens to bring to the White House.
Calling itself a "movement" (because neither "group" nor "organization" really inspires revolutionary zeal), Refuse Fascism declares that it "aims to rapidly transform the deep anguish and outrage, the something and outright terror that is felt by millions and millions in this country, into resistance and defiance and acts of political rebellion and radical art and No! Powerful enough to STOP Trump and Pence BEFORE they start."
Among the group's "initiators" are Bill Ayers, described as "activist, educator" (somehow "domestic terrorist" didn't make the list), radical academic Cornel West, and Carl Dix, "founding member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA." Dix is seen in the video above which is one of "the videos from the Emergency Organizing Meeting that launched this movement."
"In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE To Accept a Fascist America!" the ad announces. "Donald Trump, the President-elect, is assembling a regime of grave danger. Millions of people in the US and around the world are filled with deep anxiety, fear, and disgust. Our anguish is right and just. Our anger must now become massive resistance –before Donald Trump is inaugurated and has the full reins of power in his hands" -- otherwise, "the consequences for humanity will be disastrous."
The ad calls for "a month of resistance" beginning on December 19th and "reaching a crescendo" by the January 20th inauguration. "Millions must rise up in a resistance with a deep determination such that we create a political crisis that prevents the Trump/Pence fascist regime from consolidating its hold on the governance of society."
It goes on to say that Trump's presidency is "illegitimate" because he lost the popular vote. The electoral college is dismissed as a legacy of slavery.
They hysterical fear-mongering, including the obligatory comparison to Hitler, rises to a crescendo from there (emphasis in original):

Fascism foments and relies on xenophobic nationalism, racism, misogyny, and the aggressive re-institution of oppressive “traditional values.” Fascism feeds on and encourages the threat and use of violence to build a movement and come to power. Fascism, once in power, essentially eliminates traditional democratic rights. Fascism attacks, jails, even executes its opponents, and launches violent mob attacks on “minorities.” In Nazi Germany in the 1930s and ’40s, fascism did all these things. This is where this can go. And yes, Hitler himself could “talk graciously” when he felt it would serve his interests and lull his opponents.

... The Trump/Pence cabinet and judiciary will coalesce all of this and worse at the highest level of power, with horrific consequences. No election, whether fair or fraudulent, should legitimize this. “Reaching across the aisle” only legitimizes that which is illegitimate.

If you work with fascists you normalize the road to horror. You cannot try to “wait things out.” Those who lived through Nazi Germany and sat on the sidelines, looking on as Hitler demonized, criminalized, and eventually rounded up one group after another, became shameful collaborators with monstrous crimes. Don’t Conciliate… Don’t Accommodate… Don’t Collaborate!

"Starting now," the ad urges, "distribute this Call everywhere and on social media, host house meetings, fundraising events concerts and forums. Everywhere step up the resistance: walkouts from schools and work, protests against attacks and threats on Muslims, women, people of color, LBGT people – all linked to the objective of Stopping the Trump/Pence regime. The struggle must grow."
Trump Derangement Syndrome is shaping up to be even more irrational than Bush Derangement Syndrome, which we didn't think humanly possible.

[Lenno]

[Lenno]

Sharpton Promises ‘Season of Civil Disobedience’ in Response to Sessions Nomination

By Nicholas Ballasy January 7, 2017
chat 3996 comments

Sharpton Promises ‘Season of Civil Disobedience’ in Response to Sessions Nomination
Rev. Al Sharpton talks to the media after a breakfast meeting with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Feb. 10, 2016, in Harlem. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

WASHINGTON -- National Action Network president Rev. Al Sharpton promised a “season of civil disobedience” in reaction to the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general in the Trump administration.
Sharpton, an MSNBC host, said activists have planned a march in Washington on Jan. 14 during the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend to protest the Sessions nomination. Sharpton recalled spending 90 days in jail for protesting on U.S. Navy land against military exercises on the island of Vieques in 2001 when George W. Bush was president, adding that civil disobedience usually works because it changes policy.
“We’re not just doing this to be doing it. We do it because it can lead to change and, believe me, there will be a season of civil disobedience particularly around the Sessions nomination,” he said Friday on a conference call with other civil rights organizations’ leaders such as Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the NAACP, and Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza.
Sponsored
African-American Hill Staffer: In 20 Years, Sen. Sessions Hasn't Said 'Anything Offensive or Racist'
Sharpton offered a preview of the mass march, explaining that activists plan to outline their intent to visit senators’ offices and make some house calls to “make them understand” they will be held accountable for voting in favor of Sessions, whose confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.
“Make them understand that if they think they are voting based on some courtesy of a Senate colleague and will not face a real backlash in their own states, then they have another thing coming. This is not going to be some regular ceremonial procedure that they’re going to be able to bluff their way through,” he said.
“We intend to make this a critical stand in terms of where people are with civil rights and voting rights in this country. No one will be given a pass to say ‘I had to vote for my colleague.’ This is an affront to everything the civil rights and voting rights community has stood for historically and a vote for Sessions should be held accountable and punishable by the voters,” he added.

[Lenno]

What kind of week would it be without someone comparing President-elect Donald Trump to Hitler? Speaking on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox, crazed leftist professor Cornel West, who never seems to sit still for three seconds, appeared with Revolutionary Communist Party USA spokesman Carl Dix to warn of America's coming Hitler in the rise of Trump.
When O'Reilly asked the dynamic duo why they wouldn't give Trump a chance, they dropped the Hitler bomb.
"People gave Hitler a chance and we saw what that meant for humanity," Dix said. "With Donald Trump look at what we’re talking about."
He then went on to list various phantom calamities in the coming administration, saying words like "law and order" meant persecution of black people.
"Muslim registry. Wall on the border with Mexico. Law and order which is code word for unleashing harsher repression against black and Latino people."
Trump has proposed no Muslim registry and made numerous proposals to blacks and Hispanics about making their lives better, which cleaning up crime in their communities will certainly do.
"Working people are suffering. Poor people are suffering. Women are suffering. Black people are suffering," he continued.
They most certainly are, especially after 8 years under leftists like Obama.

[Lenno]

Left-Wing Protest Group Admits Goal Is to 'Prevent Peaceful Transfer of Power'

By Debra Heine January 12, 2017
chat 95 comments

Left-Wing Protest Group Admits Goal is to 'Prevent Peaceful Transfer of Power'


A left-wing group that is planning a massive protest on Inauguration Day openly admitted during a press conference Thursday that their intention is to prevent the peaceful transition of power. The group, #DisruptJ20, held the press conference to proudly announce their plans to obstruct the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20.
The group’s website reads: “We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over.”
Their efforts to obstruct the inauguration have been endorsed by Michael Moore:

It's not clear if Moore would have been equally supportive of their efforts had Clinton won the election, but this same group apparently planned to disrupt her inauguration, too.
“We do see ourselves as preventing a peaceful transition of power,” Legba Carrefour, one of the DisruptJ20 movement leaders, said at the press conference at St. Stephen’s Church in Washington, D.C. “We're not in favor of the peaceful transition of power.”
The young anarchist also rejected the calls for calm from various Democrat leaders.
"You saw Democratic luminaries from Obama to Hillary Clinton say, ‘Tamp this down, please stop this. The peaceful transition of power is of the upmost importance to the core element of democracy,'” Carrefour continued. "To me that says they value the continuity of government over who runs the government, be it a fascist or not. So if you ask me, stop the peaceful transition of power, and stop this kind of fascist government from taking power."



Fellow #DisruptJ20 organizer Lacy MacAuley agreed with Carrefour, saying: “We absolutely are opposed to the transition.”
Via the Need To Know Network:


According to the Washington Post, police officers and National Guard members from across America will be assigned to Washington for the event.

“Along with D.C. police, the city will bring in 3,200 law enforcement officers from across the country to mainly work the parade route,” the Post reported. “Seven thousand members of the National Guard will also be in the District, unarmed and watching over the route. U.S. Capitol Police, which will also have a large security presence, would not comment on its inauguration plans.”

Bikers for Trump has also secured space among the protesters on Inauguration Day.
It is clear that there are going to be many incredibly ugly scenes, disruptions, and arrests on Inauguration Day, which the mainstream media will allow to overshadow the inaugural events.
It's a pity. As disappointed, fearful, and upset conservatives were when Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012, no one on the right protested his elections or tried to ruin his inaugural events. This kind of vulgar indecorum and poor sportsmanship is strictly a left-wing thing.
Sponsored