LEFTIST TERROR AT U.C. BERKELEY: TRUMP SUPPORTERS BEATEN, PEPPER SPRAYED; FIRES STARTED; VANDALISM OF PROPERTY

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

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/prominent-leftists-defend-justify-violent-riot-at-uc-berkeley/; 

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
 http://i2.wp.com/www.dailycal.org/assets/uploads/2014/10/cropped-Jesse-Arreguin_MDrummond.jpg?resize=210%2C300
Berkeley Mayor Blasts “Ultra-Nationalist Far Right” 
in Response to Anti-Milo Riot
 Mayor downplays terrorism in his city
BY KIT DANIELS
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?”
BY STEVE WATSON
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:

________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
http://www.infowars.com/moscow-trains-anti-trump-us-radicals-cnns-putintrump-link-debunked/ 

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO SUES TRUMP TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT SANCTUARY CITIES

SAN FRANCISCO SUES TRUMP TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT SANCTUARY CITIES
BY WARREN MASS
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

NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SEEKS TO ENSHRINE ABORTION IN STATE CONSTITUTION IN CASE ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED

 http://media.vogue.com/r/pass/2017/01/31/social-still-andrew-cuomo-cecile-richards-planned-parenthood.jpg
NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SEEKS TO ENSHRINE ABORTION IN STATE CONSTITUTION 
IN CASE ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED
BY HEATHER CLARK
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.

SCREAMERS, SNOWFLAKES AND MS. SARSOUR

SCREAMERS,
SNOWFLAKES AND MS. SARSOUR
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By Ronnie Herne


February 2, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
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.
ALL
THROWN UNDER THE BUS!!
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?
SENDING
OUT THE SNOWFLAKES….
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…..
SEEDS
OF SHARIA
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.
ABORTION
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 zawaj.com 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.
HITLER,
AND TOUPEES……
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…))
THE
OTHER MARCH
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!
GO
TRUMP!!
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.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
GOD BLESS DONALD TRUMP!
AND GOD BLESS YOU AND ALL YOUR DREAMS!

LIBERAL DREAMLAND: DELAWARE SENATOR TOM CARPER’S REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING JEFF SESSIONS

 THIS LIBERAL “DELAWAREAN” THINKS HE CAN TWIST SCRIPTURE AND USE IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO JUSTIFY HIS OPPOSITION TO JEFF SESSIONS
HIS EMAIL RESPONSE DENIES THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS CRIMES BEING COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ISLAMIC JIHADISTS, AND THE IMMORALITY OF THE LGBT AGENDA
PROMOTER OF MORAL DECAY ALLEGEDLY READS THE SAME BIBLE AS SESSIONS, BUT HAS A DIFFERENT SPIN?
HOW ABOUT UPHOLDING OUR LAWS & THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? 
http://www.delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Carper.png
“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,

Sincerely,

Tom
Carper
United
States
Senator
http://carper.senate.gov/contact