Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 412

Thread: The Commie Revolution Thread

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default





    PLEASANT HILL, Calif. – Anti-Trump high school protesters ignited a scuffle at College Park High School Thursday that led to several teachers getting roughed up by the unruly teens.
    At least one teacher was punched and shoved as a large crowd of protestors from other area schools descended on College Park in an attempt to recruit students there to the massive walkout, KTVU reports.

    A video posted online shows “Dr. Thomas” being thrashed around in a school hallway by several students, some of whom can be seen landing blows on the teacher as others screamed for them to stop.
    “That teacher and the other teacher that got punched were trying to block the hall but it didn’t work out,” student Armon Aziz told the news site.



    Principal Joseph Alvarez said police alerted school officials that a mob of protesting students – carrying Mexican flags and anti-Trump signs — were heading toward the school, and he sent out a notice to teachers to allow students to do what they will.
    School officials also warned protestors to be peaceful, and did not lock the gates to the school to prevent them from coming in.
    “When we heard from Pleasant Hill Police we had about 15 or 20 minutes before students arrived on campus, so at that time I sent an email to all the teachers saying that this is a possibility and to please not bar students from leaving but to take account of who they are,” Alvarez told KTVU. “We provide students the opportunity to express themselves but I do not condone at any time when you impede educational progress at any campus.”
    The melee occurred around 11 a.m. while classes were in session, and involved about 200 students from numerous area schools. A second teacher who came to Dr. Thomas’ aid was also attacked, according to the Pleasant Hill Patch.
    Alvarez said the attacks occurred shortly after he instituted a lockdown and teachers closed classroom doors.
    “I have accounts from the teacher and students,” Alvarez told KGO-TV. “We are taking it seriously and looking at the entirety of the investigation.”
    “Hopefully we’ll be able to identify the student in that video,” he said.
    Students said the scene was chaotic and terrifying.
    “Everybody was kind of trampling each other, so everybody just went at everybody,” an unidentified female student told KTVU.
    The teacher attacked in the video declined to comment about the brawl but told the news site he did not suffer serious injuries.An unidentified College Park teacher told KGO-TV her college who was attacked Thursday is “beloved” at the school.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default

    Pro-Israel Artist Threatened With 5 Years in Jail for Anti-Terror Posters at GMU

    November 14, 2016
    Daniel Greenfield

    It's not a story out of the Soviet Union though Oleg Atbashian, an artist, activist and commentator, had gotten in trouble for defying the authorities there too.
    "Back in my Soviet dissident days, when I was collecting signatures in defense of Andrei Sakharov, I was screamed at, threatened, and lectured by the KGB and Communist funcionaries. What I never imagined was that in the United States, the land of the free, I would not only be subjected to similar treatment, but go to jail," Oleg writes.
    But that's exactly what happened to him.
    Oleg's mixture of art and satire took off with Communists for Kerry. He's the mastermind behind The People's Cube and his tweaking of the radical left and its alliance with Islamic terrorists allowed him to continue the same fight he had pursued in the days of the Soviet Union. But as the US comes to resemble the USSR, political satire and activism carries a serious price.
    This is what happened to Oleg when he put up some of his Freedom Center posters challenging the anti-Semitic environment created by the left's alliance with Islamic terrorists on campus.
    This was supposed to be a two-day poster campaign, to counteract the George Mason University hosting an official national conference for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is an anti-Semitic organization with well-documented ties to Hamas - a terrorist group whose stated goal is to exterminate the Jews. The GMU poster campaign was conceived by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
    My part in it was to create provocative artwork for the posters and to hang them around the GMU campus, as well as to distribute flyers in order to raise awareness among the students, faculty, and the administration about the true meaning of their support for the SJP conference.
    On the first day, my friend and I placed a few stickers on walls, poles, and signs around the GMU campus. We also placed paper flyers inside and outside the university buildings. We had decided to hang the larger posters on the following night, right before the start of the SJP conference.
    Arriving at the campus in the evening, we noticed a large police presence everywhere, including the campus Starbucks. From what we overheard at the tables, the police were on the lookout for people posting "disturbing" flyers. At one point we considered canceling our mission due to this higher risk, but then decided to hang a few posters in new locations, in order to get the message out more effectively.
    We only had time to hang three large posters when, at about 4am, our car was pulled over by a GMU PD cruiser with flashing lights. As we found out later, they already had a description of our rental KIA Optima. Officer M.J. Guston and his female partner, Officer Daniels, requested to see our drivers' licenses, which they took away. Then they inquired if we had any weapons and proceeded with the visual search, noticing our bucket with mixed wallpaper paste and some rolled posters on the back seat, covered with towels.
    The police officers took pictures of the contents of our car and retrieved some of the loose fliers from the floor as evidence. They claimed that since we were covering the posters and flyers with towels, we intended to conceal our wrongdoing. We explained that the towels were needed to wipe our hands, to prevent the bucket from spilling, and to stop the papers from rolling around the car, which was the honest truth.
    The story sounds Kafkaesque. But it only gets more so.



    Officer Daniels told us that the content of our posters was violent and disturbing to some students, especially the one with the Hamas terrorist standing in pools of blood over his dead victims. Such interpretation flipped our message on its head entirely, turning it from sympathy for the victims of violence into a threat of violence.
    Since they couldn't find any weapons and our message was protected by the First Amendment, the officers decided to charge us with "destruction of property worth of at least $2,500," which was a "class 6 felony." They claimed we had "super-glued" our fliers to school signs and it was impossible to peel them off.
    It didn't matter that we never used permanent glue, or that there could be other volunteers on campus who posted the stickers they could have downloaded online. Our wallpaper paste was made of wheat and water; we only used it on three large posters, which could be easily removed with water and would be washed off by the first rain. The rest were stickers, printed on regular self-adhesive paper found in any office store.
    The intent was quite clearly punitive. The goal was to make GMU safe for Islamic terrorists and anti-Semites.
    The magistrate's decision was quick: $8,000 bail for each of us and a mandatory court hearing within several days. As we were led away to be processed into the system, Officer Guston said, somewhat triumphantly, his final words to us: "You can't come to GMU ever again."
    That's the goal. It's doubtful that this much momentum and energy had been invested without pressure from George Mason University. Which means that GMU should be held accountable for it.
    Our posters contained a hashtag, #StopCampusSupport4Terrorism. The just and moral choice here is clear to any decent human being. But when political correctness comes into play, morality becomes blurry and justice switches the polarity. As a result, terrorist supporters ended up having a safe space and vigorous protection, while their non-violent opponents were subjected to brutal force, thrown in jail, and were robbed blind by the system.
    When Steven Salaita lost his cushy academic gig for celebrating assault on Jews, the media turned out vocally in his support. But when George Mason University calls out the dogs for protests against anti-Semitism and does its best to intimidate and brutalize a Soviet dissident, there is a great echoing silence. The only mainstream media story on these events quotes "officials" claiming that there was $2,500 in damage. That's nonsense. As we've already seen.
    The actions of GMU and its campus thugs need to be challenged. The alternative can be seen above.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default Another link between the Hard Left and Islam's destruction of the West

    The Gay British MP Fighting for the Anti-Gay Muslim Brotherhood

    Is the Brotherhood really a non-violent democratic movement that loves Christians and Jews?

    November 14, 2016
    Daniel Greenfield

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
    Crispin Blunt, the gay Tory parliamentarian, has emerged as one of the most vocal British defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is an odd figure to head up the defense of Islamists. After two decades of marriage in which he denounced “homosexuality,” Crispin dumped his wife, who had allegedly helped finance his career, and came out of the closet.
    The timing was perfect. As one source put it, “Despite his recent gaffe, his position as a minister is safer now than ever before.” The unpleasant white aging politician was now an official minority.
    But Blunt often appears less animated by gay rights, aside from a vocal defense of the dance club drug “poppers,” than by Islamism. The former chair of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding was a known opponent of the Jewish State. He had even accused Israel of perpetrating “a Holocaust of equal proportions” against its Muslim attackers.
    At the time, Blunt suggested that the British government was inconsistent in favoring military intervention in Kosovo, but not Israel.
    Crispin Blunt’s current crusade though extends far beyond opposing Israel. Instead he has launched into a defense of “political Islam,” especially the Muslim Brotherhood, from government criticism. Even before the UK government’s inquiry into the Brotherhood had been conducted, Blunt rushed in to preemptively attack it and asserted that listing the terror group as terrorists would be a “betrayal of our values.” The mind boggles at pondering what values would be betrayed by listing the terror group whose members included Osama bin Laden and the current leader of Al Qaeda as such.
    Blunt threw a tantrum over the visit of President Sisi to the UK. In the smeared pages of Al-Guardian, he fumed that Egypt must be “prevented” from suppressing the Brotherhood and putting its leaders on trial. “We must make clear that failure to find a way to allow the Islamists back into the democratic space is simply unacceptable.” He insisted that, “These forces have their... place here in our democracy and we will support them having their place in democracy elsewhere.”
    One wonders how long Crispin Blunt would avoid being thrown off a building if political Islam truly wins a place in the UK. But Blunt’s latest shot across the bow in defense of a hateful Islamic ideology is here.
    The report, "'Political Islam' and the Muslim Brotherhood Review" claims that Islamists are “notable” as “the historic and current victims” of political violence in the region. One might say the same thing about Nazis in Europe with equal validity.
    It admits that there “there are cases where political Islamist groups have inspired individuals to commit violent acts,” but argues that, “no political movement can entirely control its individual members or supporters, particularly under extreme provocation”. It insists, with little regard for history or current events, that the Muslim Brotherhood is not violent and it presents as proof that “if the Muslim Brotherhood supported or condoned violence, then Egypt would be a far more violent place today.”
    That’s the defense of a serial killer who contends that if he were truly a monster, he would have a hundred bodies buried in the backyard instead of only eight. If the Muslim Brotherhood were truly violent, wouldn’t it be engaged in violent campaigns in all of the countries in the region instead of barely a third of them?
    The report perversely states that the ability of theocrats to run for office should be “one of the key criteria for defining free elections in the MENA region”. Defining free elections based on the ability of unfree political movements to use them to seize power and eliminate free elections is backward.
    But the whole report is shot through with this sort of ten pence Comintern in green nonsense.
    The miserable enterprise becomes obvious when the report dedicates a section to trying to separate Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood entity, from the Muslim Brotherhood. The actual exchange with Ibrahim Mounir, the Deputy Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, is unintentionally hilarious.
    The Muslim Brotherhood is “unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional” in rejecting violence. Furthermore “violence has no place within the ideological nor operational construct of the Muslim Brotherhood.” But the Brotherhood disavows responsibility for what its “local” branches will do in a country “in response to provocation and abuse by a regime”. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more.



    The report laughably informs us that the Deputy Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood had rejected Hamas terrorism because it violates “the four Geneva Conventions’ and “numerous United Nations Resolutions.” If there’s anything that an organization whose motto is, “The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” is governed by, it’s UN resolutions.
    Before that, Mounir had already stated that, “The Muslim Brotherhood firmly believes that it is not acceptable to carry out any violent attacks outside Palestinian territories.” Which is to say Israel.
    So much for the four Geneva Conventions which don’t hold a candle to one Koran.
    Mounir piously assures us that the “Muslim Brotherhood condemn any narrative which contains anti-Semitism” and respects Christians and Jews. That would come as news to all the Coptic Christians whose churches were being burned by Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
    And news to the “Spiritual Leader” of the Brotherhood, Sheikh Qaradawi ,who had declared, “Allah imposed Hitler upon the Jews to punish them. ...Allah willing, next time it will be at the hands of the believers (Muslims).” He defended killing Jewish babies. His greatest wish was to make it to Israel where, “I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews.” Maybe Crispin can meet up with Qaradawi and talk Holocaust.
    The Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi had called for “raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” When the Hamas leader met with Badi, he claimed that it was the "jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.”
    And yet the best part of the Mounir exchange comes when the Muslim Brotherhood man is asked about corporal punishment. Mounir answers that he supports imposing the corporal punishments of Sharia. Crispin Blunt ought to be a little more interested in that one. Qaradawi had called for lashing gay men.
    "'Political Islam' and the Muslim Brotherhood Review" insists that Islamists can be democratic. Badi and the Brotherhood would beg to differ. Referring to gay marriage, Badi stated that democracy stops at the Sharia line. “It is not permissible for democracy to allow what's forbidden or forbid what's allowed even if the entire nation agreed to it.” Perhaps Blunt can explain why he is defending the democratic participation of a Muslim movement that is clear about its opposition to democracy and to him.
    At a meeting chaired by Crispin Blunt, Mounir replied to a question about sexual freedoms by claiming that, “We in the Muslim Brotherhood did not have a chance to make a real and thorough study of the issue.” One would have thought that over a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence would be enough.
    This is the same event at which he claimed that “there is no such thing as animosity or hatred towards Judaism or Jews” and that Hassan al-Banna loved Christians. Hassan’s idea of love involved fighting Christians until they paid tribute.
    This sort of “Who do you think you’re fooling” stuff pervades the report. Every possible excuse and defense of Islamists is tossed out on the table. We are told that it’s not their fault that Islamists are bad. They’re just the “products of societies where illiberal attitudes were prevalent.” You almost expect Crispin and Co. to break out into a rousing chorus of, “Gee, Officer Krupke.”
    Why did our poor Islamist lads wind up as products of societies with “illiberal attitudes”? Because those societies are Islamic. You might as well argue that Goebbels was a victim of his own propaganda.
    There is a magnificent perversity to the whole affair.
    Crispin Blunt is fighting for a violent and intolerant ideology that would have to choose between having him whipped or thrown off a building. Blunt raged over a government ban on “poppers.” The political Islam that he adores would do far worse than prevent him from having his “poppers.”
    And yet it is those who have the most to lose from the triumph of Islam over freedom who fight the hardest for the former over the latter. That is not only true of Blunt, but of our civilization
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default

    Austin Communists Arrested for Attacking Trump Supporters

    Communist group that attacked Infowars' Planned Parenthood protest responsible for latest assaults


    Members of “Red Guards Austin,” the six Communist agitators were taken into custody by Texas Department of Public Safety officers and charged with multiple crimes.
    According to CBS Austin, 34-year-old Jarred Roark was charged with felony aggravated assault, evading arrest and resisting arrest while the 5 others were charged with “interference with public duty and resisting arrest.”
    The other 5 others included Taylor Tomas Chase, 21, Joseph Wayne George, 36, Samuel Benjamin Lauber, 21, Jason Peterson, 24 and Jade Tabitha Shackelford, 19.
    Unsurprisingly, Roark and his fellow Communists have a history of violence against anyone not espousing their radical views.
    A May 2015 protest held by Infowars outside a local Planned Parenthood, which called on the political left to say that aborted black lives matter, was met with violence by the “Marxist Leninist-Maoist” group.

    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default

    Man Wearing Donald Trump ‘Make America Great Again’ Hat Choked, Pinned On NYC Subway 5 Train

    No one on the train did anything to help

    Registered Democrat’ Arrested For Slamming Trump Protester Down StairsThe crowd chanted “shame!” as he was led away

    http://www.infowars.com/


    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default


    Read.
    At GMU, no less.
    George Mason wiki
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default

    Dear Marty,

    The computer forecasted perfectly the Trump victory. Now some people are trying to prevent a Trump presidency. Is President Elect Trump going to be impeached or obliged to resign ?

    What does the computer is forecasting and what do you think about it ?

    Thank you very much,
    LB
    ANSWER:




    No. Trump cannot be impeached.

    There is an attempt to create a socialist revolution in this country led by the youth and Obama and Hillary seem happy with that. This is a very dangerous situation and the computer does show rising civil unrest.

    The Democrats seems to be intent on burning down democracy if they do not win. I have never seen this get so out of hand in my lifetime.

    There is a lot of evidence surfacing showing that these protesters are being paid by organizations alleged to be funded by George Soros, which is why Hillary remains silent. Ads recruiting these people are appearing on Craig’s List around the country.

    Clearly, this is an anti-democratic movement to reject the election and take government in a unilateral move producing anarchy. We are spiraling toward civil war if this is not stopped.

    Divergent

    By Richard Fernandez November 14, 2016
    chat 203 comments

    The Ties that Blind
    It's not coming together

    The liberal response to the shock election of Donald Trump resembles Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' model of dying with the steps out of order. In the 2016 case the steps in their order are: depression, acceptance, bargaining, denial and finally ... anger. David Brooks relates his particular journey to defiant anger in a New York Times op-ed. First shock, then disbelief, then white hot anger and hatred took their places in turn.

    I was on PBS trying to make sense of what was happening while trying to text various people off the ledge. At one point I was opining about the results while a disbelieving text flashed across my phone: “Change It! Change It! CHAAAANGE IT!”Those emotional reactions were a fitting first-night response to the greatest political shock of our lifetimes. Still, this is probably not the best mentality for the coming era. ...
    Trump’s bigotry, dishonesty and promise-breaking will have to be denounced. We can’t go morally numb. But he needs to be replaced with a program that addresses the problems that fueled his ascent.
    After all, the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year. The future is closer than you think.
    Sponsored

    But Brooks may have started his story too late in the timeline. The tale really began in 2008, or to an even earlier when many Democrats refused to concede the 2000 presidential elections to George W. Bush. In each case the effects were similar, but growing in amplitude. "Not my president" replaced by "not your president". The 8 years of George Bush led to Barack Obama, determined to undo his predecessor and "fundamentally transform America". The 8 years of Obama have similarly led to Donald Trump who is equally determined to uproot what his predecessor planted.
    Neither side appears ready to accept the legacy of the other. We have a series each step of which consists of undoing the previous term. The result is divergent. Each election creates a backlash which drives half the country away from the other half. There is no coming together in consensus but rather a growing drifting apart. What David Brooks offers with his vision of impeaching Trump within a year is more conflict, the same old, same old at a higher tempo. Why wait till 2020 when they can begin changing the president now? Why wait a year when you have now?
    Readers of the Belmont Club will remember in this development the sorrowful fulfillment an earlier prediction: that 2016 would mark the beginning rather than the end of conflict, because neither side could completely govern though either side could sufficiently give offense. Two factors will continue this explosive trend. The first is the Internet, especially social media, which has made it possible to recreate the sectarian quarters of the Ottoman Empire, where each side can retreat into its ideological echo chamber. It is now convenient to rabble rouse and doubtless everyone will continue to.
    The second is a genuine crisis in the Left. It's dying, having exhausted the intellectual content of the Communist Manifesto. The 20th century has proved its program futile, unsuccessful and homicidal. The future in which it lived had at last been caught in the form of the EU and the gigantic Federal government, and upon examination that future looked just like the past.



    What it had left was habit. On it shambled like a zombie. The residual power of the Left in Western institutions masked its intellectual bankruptcy until when tested that strength proved insufficient to stop Brexit or the election of Trump. Now it faces a bleak future: sans faith, sans conviction, sans power and sans tomorrow. It must reinvent itself, as the conservatives did after 2008 with its Tea Parties that never became parties but served as incubators for ideas that have not yet full hatched. The Left must reinvent itself, perhaps even stop being Left and becoming something wholly new. For the moment they're lost and confused. As David Brooks clearly demonstrates, they're in hell and they hate it.
    One of the main challenges of the next decade is to manage the conflicts caused by the simultaneous dying of radical Islam, the demise of the Western progressive project and the dissolution of the post-WW2 international order. Trump is not himself the problem, but part of a phenomena so big that we may not even grasp its full extent.
    The status quo is shattered and not even George Soros can put it back together again. New ideas will be necessary to successfully find a way forward. It will not be enough, as some have suggested, to warm over the old ones. To Corbynize the Left by choosing Keith Ellison or Bernie Sanders as the new standard bearer of "tomorrow" will do nothing. Tomorrow for them was a long time ago.
    For the moment both sides of the political spectrum are cut adrift from old certainties united only in their conditioned resentment for each other, rivals facing off in a wood surrounded by darkness, both more in peril from the unknown than from the known. In such cases only time can resolve the dilemma. The task should be to avoid any more divergence than absolutely necessary in order to survive one more day.
    Sponsored

    Perhaps time and history will bring a new beginning, a lasting consensus, another age that suits us all. No one can predict how the 21st century will develop. Perhaps humanity will go its several ways, divided into affinity groups, or even among the several planets. The one likely thing is the solution is probably not what we now imagine. All the pundits in the world couldn't even predict Trump. How can they know the future? All we know is that we are lost, but given time we will find a way. Humanity always has.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/307836-l...-white-people/

    Rutgers University Lecturer Visited By NYPD After Threatening To Kill All White People With A Gun…UPDATE: Threatened Trump Supporters As Well, Blames Trump For Being Questioned


    Aptly named Kevin ALLRED
    I wish I could load the entire article as this guy is a hysterical homicidal Leftist who also threatened to use his car to run-down Trump supporters. No great surprise that he's probably white as well, between the white boy dreads and the Tats hard to tell
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default








    Keith Olbermann Calls for Open Resistance Against Donald Trump
    Keith Olbermann Calls for Open Resistance Against Donald Trump

    By PJ Staff November 16, 2016
    chat 126 comments

    Ironically ending this video with the word "peace," Keith Olbermann shows extreme delusion, saying that we don't have to accept the results of this election. He calls for open resistance against Donald Trump. He claims he's not inciting violence, but you be the judge:
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    55,035

    Default


    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •