Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘America Strong’ Category

Rivera Refutes ‘Fake News’ Stories About Trump Admin’s Response To Puerto Rico

Trump Officially Guts Obama’s Job-Killing Coal Regulations

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt made it official on Monday, announcing that the Trump administration was set to completely scrap President Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations that was intended to cut down on emissions generated by coal-fired power plants. At an event in Hazard, Kentucky, Pruitt made the announcement that the administration would eliminate the program on Tuesday, bringing to an end a matter the Supreme Court put on hold nearly a year ago.

Several months ago, President Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA to do a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the Clean Power Plan, demanding to know if the program was necessary to achieve U.S. policy goals regarding environmental protection. The answer, of course, is a resounding no. President Obama’s EPA devised the regulations as part of the administration’s efforts to play climate saviors, recklessly moving forward despite the obvious perils. Supporters praised Obama for taking proactive steps towards curbing emissions, but detractors said that the vague climate goals outlined by the EPA were not enough to excuse the federal overreach.

In a draft proposal leaked last week, the EPA said it had found that the CPP represented an expansion of regulatory power unauthorized by existing U.S. law.

“The EPA proposes to determine that the CPP is not within Congress’s grant of authority to the agency under the governing statute,” the agency wrote. “It is not in the interests of the EPA, or in accord with its mission of environmental protection consistent with the rule of law, to expend its resources along the path of implementing a rule, receiving and passing judgment on state plans, or promulgating federal plans in furtherance of a policy that is not within the bounds of our statutory authority.”

The CPP’s real-world effects were never tested because of a Supreme Court ruling that put the program on ice until several legal challenges could be heard by the courts. Those challenges may or may not be dropped at this point, but their conclusions will likely become moot seeing as how the administration has decided to revoke the rules.

Even without going into effect, however, Obama’s federal overreach had a detrimental impact on the economy. Utilities in several states had to cancel coal projects because they expected the regulations to be codified into law and coal-fired plants were forced to schedule full shut-downs in preparation for the rules. These plants determined it would not be possible to reduce emissions to fit within the boundaries of the regulations and remain fiscally viable.

How many jobs were lost? How much did energy prices go up in areas affected by just the THREAT of the Clean Power Plan? These questions will be answered soon, and they will form another piece of Obama’s sorry legacy.

The damage is done in some respects, but we salute the Trump administration for making sure that no further damage will be inflicted on America’s energy sector. This president can’t cure all of the ills of his predecessor, but he can damn well make sure that Obama’s eight-year reign of terror does not significantly outlive his tenure in office.

Trump Just ENDED It For Obama With A Single Swipe Of The Pen

It has almost been a year of President Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk, and even though we have had some ups and downs, it has been glorious watching liberals lose their minds on a daily basis. President Trump has been determined not only to get America back on track but also to end policies that have been harmful to our economy. One of those policies that have been harmful to the country is exorbitant pensions given to former presidents. We have witnessed Barack and Michelle Obama traipsing around the world on the American taxpayer’s dime living a life of luxury. Well, that is about to come to an end and you can already hear the left screeching in horror.

Over the last year, the American people have watched the Obama’s travel the world in style all on our dime. The Obama’s have been photographed staying in ritzy resorts such as the Four Seasons Resort Bali in Indonesia that has a price tag of $2,500 per night, and, that is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, a new report has just been released by government watchdog group Judicial Watch that states the total cost of the Obamas’ vacations and travel stands at $105,662,975.27

Here is how it breaks down.

  • The Obama family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard in August 2016 that cost taxpayers $2,684,271.36
  • Obama’s trip to LA in October 2016 for two campaign fundraisers and an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” that cost taxpayers $195,855
  • Michelle Obama’s infamous trip to Morocco that cost taxpayers $244,218.01
  • How much the Secret Service spent during the Obamas’ final vacation in Hawaii, which cost taxpayers $1,862,230.74

That seems to be a little on the high end, don’t you think?

Apparently, Congressional Republicans feel the same way and have been working on a bill to cut back those presidential pensions. So, on Wednesday a bill was to the Senate by Joni Ernst that would scale back those hefty stipends to past presidents, and guess what? It passed.

Here is more from The Daily Caller:

A Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday to reduce the salary former presidents can make, years after former President Barack Obama vetoed similar legislation in 2015.

The update to the Former Presidents Act would reduce how much former presidents receive in pension from the taxpayers and reduce the total amount of money taxpayers contribute to former commanders in chief.

“Our national debt now exceeds $20 trillion; this bipartisan effort is another important step toward reigning in Washington’s out-of-control spending,” Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, sponsor of the Senate legislation, said in a statement.

“It is ridiculous to continue asking taxpayers to help foot the bill for former presidents’ perks at a time when they already rake in millions of dollars from book deals, speaking engagements, and more.”

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the language of the bill, and it awaits a vote by the full Senate chamber. The House is set to consider a companion bill, proposed by Georgia Republican Rep. Jody Hice.

Former presidents receive a salary set at the highest level of federal pay that cabinet-level officials make during their service, currently about $207,000 annually. Ernst’s proposal would cap stipends at $200,000 per year, adjusted each year for cost of living increases.

The bill clearly states that it would not change the security a former president is entitled to.

In the 2017 fiscal year, the five living former presidents cost taxpayers $2.8 billion for salary, security, staff and other perks of office, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Another provision of the bill would push former presidents who find an additional stream of income slowly off the taxpayer’s support. For every dollar a former president makes above $400,000 from speaking engagements or other post-presidential work, the annuity would be reduced by $1 in the Senate proposal. Obama made around $400,000 in one speech to a Wall Street private equity firm earlier this year, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

A similar proposal passed the House and Senate in the last congressional session, but Obama vetoed similar legislation in 2016. Former White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the bill would remove staffers from their jobs assisting former presidents instantly, “leaving no time or mechanism for them to transition to another payroll.”

It is no wonder Barack Obama vetoed this bill last year at all. This man wanted to continue to live the life of a king all on our dime with no regard for how the rest of make ends meet. Barack Obama needs to get it through his head that he is no longer president and he is now a private citizen, and if he wants to stay in Park Avenue hotel in New York City then he should get a job to pay for it.

We do not have the money in the budget to pay for his or his families high-end taste anymore, and that goes for the rest of the former presidents too.

Welcome to the real world guys, isn’t it grand?

REMEMBER THE GOOD TIMES........

Black and White

Black and White

(Under age 45? You won’t understand.)

You could hardly see for all the snow,

Spread the rabbit ears as far as they go.

‘Good Night, David.

Good Night, Chet.’

My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs and spread mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn’t seem to get food poisoning.

My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter and I used to eat it raw sometimes, too. Our school sandwiches were wrapped in wax paper in a brown paper bag, not

in ice pack coolers, but I can’t remember getting E.coli.

Almost all of us would

Have rather gone swimming in the lake instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), no beach closures then.

The term cell phone would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system.

We all took gym, not PE… and risked permanent injury with a pair of high top Ked’s (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic shoes with air cushion

soles and built in light reflectors. I can’t recall any injuries but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now.

Flunking gym was not an option… Even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.

Speaking of school, we all said prayers and sang the national anthem, and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention.

We must have had horribly damaged psyches. What an archaic health system we had then. Remember school nurses? Ours

wore a hat and everything.

I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself.

I just can’t recall how bored we were without computers, Play Station, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital TV cable stations.

Oh yeah… And where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed!

We played ‘king of the hill’ on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites, and when we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48-cent bottle of Mercurochrome (kids

liked it better because it didn’t sting like iodine did) and then we got our butt spanked.

Now it’s a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $99 bottle of antibiotics, and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving

a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.

We didn’t act up at the neighbor’s house either; because if we did we got our butt spanked there and then we got our butt spanked again when we got home.

I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front stoop, just before he fell off.

Little did his Mom know that she could have owned our house.

Instead, she picked him up and swatted him for being such a jerk. It was a neighborhood run amuck.

To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family.

How could we possibly have known that?

We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we didn’t even

notice that the entire country wasn’t taking Prozac!

How did we ever survive?

LOVE
TO ALL OF US WHO SHARED THIS ERA; AND TO ALL WHO DIDN’T, SORRY FOR WHAT YOU MISSED. I WOULDN’T TRADE IT FOR ANYTHING!

Pass
this to someone and remember that life’s most simple pleasures are very often the best.

Environmentalists are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for suspending environmental regulations in order to construct a border wall along the U.S. Environmentalists are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for suspending environmental regulations in order to construct a border wall along the U.S.

Trump plants aides in Cabinet agencies to root out saboteurs

President Trump has reportedly stationed at least 16 politically appointed aides in several government agencies to monitor Cabinet secretaries’ loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.

“This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary’s suite,” the Washington Postreported Monday.

The advisers are stationed at departments including Energy and Health and Human Services and smaller agencies like NASA, according to paper, which obtained records through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The White House aides report to the Office of Cabinet Affairs, which is overseen by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn. The Post reported that top Dearborn aide John Mashburn holds a weekly conference call with advisers “who are in constant contact with the White House.”

The aides reportedly act as policy liaisons for the White House and the agencies.

“Behind the scenes, though, they’re on another mission: to monitor Cabinet leaders and their top staffs to make sure they carry out the president’s agenda and don’t stray too far from the White House’s talking points, said several officials with knowledge of the arrangement,” the Washington Post reported.

In some agencies and departments, government administrators have ridiculed and even rejected the Trump aides, according to the paper.

For example, the Trump appointee who oversaw Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides was excluded from staff meetings after just four weeks of offering advice, two senior administration officials said.

And at the Pentagon, a high-ranking defense official told the Post a senior Trump aide  – a former Marine officer and fighter pilot – has been nicknamed “the commissar.” The name references Soviet-era Communist Party officials who oversaw military units and ensured commanders were loyal.

Former Trump campaign adviser Barry Bennett applauded Trump’s embed strategy.

“Especially when you’re starting a government and you have a changeover of parties when policies are going to be dramatically different, I think it’s something that’s smart,” Bennett told the newspaper. “Somebody needs to be there as the White House’s man on the scene. Because there’s no senior staff yet, they’re functioning as the White House’s voice and ears in these departments.”

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Post in an email: “The advisers were a main point of contact in the early transition process as the agencies were being set up. Like every White House, this one is in frequent contact with agencies and departments.”

Many of the advisers have business or political backgrounds, and they lack include Trump campaign aides, former Republican National Committee staffers, conservative activists, lobbyists and entrepreneurs.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump adviser, told the Post Trump must send his allies to the agencies and departments because the president has big plans to scale back bureaucracy.

“If you drain the swamp, you better have someone who watches over the alligators,” Gingrich said. “These people are actively trying to undermine the new government. And they think it’s their moral obligation to do so.”

The Post noted that Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even Abraham Lincoln used similar arrangements with embedded aides.

“Trump’s approach may not be so different from Abraham Lincoln’s. Coming into the White House after more than a ­half-century of Democrats in power, Lincoln worked swiftly to oust hostile bureaucrats and appoint allies,” the newspaper reported. “But he still had to deal with an Army led by many senior officers who sympathized with the South, as well as a government beset by internal divisions.”

Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo said Lincoln was “surrounded by smiling enemies,” so he assigned his friends to oversee army camps and some departments.

Guelzo said, “I think that presidents actually do this more than it appears.

Bill O'Reilly's Accuser Arrested for False Allegation of Crime

Bill O’Reilly (AP)

By David A. Patten

A 2015 arrest by Detroit police of a key accuser of Bill O’Reilly for giving a false report of a crime has raised serious doubts as to her credibility.

In April, O’Reilly was fired from Fox News shortly after Perquita Burgess claimed the host made sexually suggestive comments to her, including calling her “hot chocolate.”

Burgess worked at Fox News for several weeks in 2008 as a clerical temp.

Shortly after an April 1st New York Times report detailed sexual harassment allegations by several women against O’Reilly, Burgess called a 21st Century Fox hotline claiming alleged workplace misconduct by O’Reilly. 21st Century is the parent company of Fox News.

At the time her charges emerged, O’Reilly’s program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” was already in the throes of an advertiser-boycott campaign being pushed by several liberal organizations.

All of the allegations included in the Times report were more than a decade old.

Burgess’s more recent allegations, however, played a significant role in O’Reilly’s termination at the network, a source close to Fox News told Newsmax.

“I had no idea who this woman was,” O’Reilly told Newsmax. O’Reilly denied ever having a conversation with her.

“So when it came out, it was stunning,” he said.

The day after O’Reilly was fired, Burgess went public with her account in a high-profile appearance on ABC’s “The View.”

Burgess told the audience she noticed O’Reilly making a “grunt noise,” or clearing his throat, when he passed by her desk.

She said on another occasion he remarked, “Looking good there, girl!”

Burgess, an African-American woman, also said O’Reilly once called out to her, “Hey, hot chocolate.”

She said the remark was “very plantational.”

According to Burgess’s account, she found the alleged remarks and leering behavior “uncomfortable” and “embarrassing.”

Burgess stated she shared her experiences with her sister and boyfriend, but did not report them to the network.

The day Fox announced his departure from the network, O’Reilly issued a statement saying the charges leveled against him were “completely unfounded.”

Newsmax has obtained two documents that cast doubt on Burgess’s credibility.

A Detroit Police report dated Feb. 11, 2015, documents Burgess’s arrest on charges of making a false report and obstructing a court order.

According to the police document, Burgess called authorities and alleged her boyfriend had struck her in the face with a gun. Police said when they arrived at the scene Burgess “appeared intoxicated.”

The arresting officer stated: “I asked Ms. Burgess where the gun was that she was struck with in the face, she replied there is no gun. I again asked her where the gun was, and if she had been assaulted. Ms. Burgess stated there was no gun, and he didn’t assault me!”

The boyfriend told police she had threatened him, saying she would call “the cops saying you hit me with a gun!”

According to the police document, Burgess was arrested for filing a false felony report and for violating a personal protection order.

In a statement provided to Newsmax, Lisa Bloom, Burgess’s attorney, acknowledges the police report involving her client, but states that Burgess and her former boyfriend “both believe the charges were based on a misunderstanding and were not pursued by the police or prosecutors.”

In another document, a social media user thought to be Burgess tweeted on Nov. 24, 2012: “… up until 10 years ago Laurence Fishburne could get every oz. of my hot chocolate.”

Addressing that tweet, Bloom stated: “Ms. Burgess has used many terms to refer to herself, including on occasion ‘bitch’ and the N word. That does not give others – especially her superiors in her workplace – permission to use offensive language about her.”

O’Reilly voiced frustration that the media had published harshly negative accounts about him without checking on the background of the accusers.

“The press just printed everything she said,” he said. “She’s on ‘The View,’ and nobody’s even checking her out? I mean, come on.”

“This is why people use the term witch hunt,” he said.

O’Reilly, a best-selling author and star of the No. 1-rated cable news show for 16 years, maintains there is “not one shred of evidence to back any of these accusations.”

In his 42-year career working for 12 major news organizations, O’Reilly says, he was never the subject of a single human resources complaint regarding his behavior in the workplace.

O’Reilly described the push to get him kicked off Fox’s airwaves as “a well-organized political hit, very well-funded,” and did not rule out future legal action against those who orchestrated it.

He added that he expects more revelations relating to his departure from Fox News.

“We have evidence, I can tell you, that is shocking. Physical evidence that will come out that is shocking,” he said with emphasis. “I’ve seen it. So this is the first. There will be others.”

Shots Fired: Leftists Declare War on Harvey Rescue Efforts

by Martin Walsh

As the whole country watched, Hurricane Harvey wreaked havoc on Texas, leaving destruction and vulnerability in its wake.

The impact is still being felt directly by thousands of people dealing with miserable conditions on the ground, but leftist groups have wasted no time firing the first shots in what is likely to be a  long-running battle over what is already a huge pot of money from charity donations for relief and recovery efforts.

Self-proclaimed activists are discouraging generous Americans from donating to Harvey relief efforts to established organizations and instead asking them to donate to left-leaning causes.

Many of these groups are hardly engaged in relief efforts and are potentially using the devastation as an opportunity to solicit political funds, according to The Washington Times.

Linda Sarsour, the Muslim activist who called for jihad against the Trump administration, sent out a tweet last week asking her hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers to donate to the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund.

 

TOP, a group currently fighting against voter ID laws and supports sanctuary-state status, claimed it was part of a joint effort with the Hurricane Harvey Community Relief Fund.

Trump Decision on Federal Lands Could Curtail Obama- and Bush-Era Land Grab Abuse

The ongoing controversy about the federal government’s role in managing land may soon come to a head.

Earlier this month, in accord with a presidential executive order issued in April, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke delivered recommendations to the president on national monument lands that are being reviewed by his department.

Details about the report—whether lands should be reduced, and if so, which ones—are expected from the White House in the coming days.

The highly anticipated report has stirred a great deal of angst this summer, particularly among environmental activists who are convinced the Interior’s review is an unprecedented ploy to sell off or sully federal lands.

For example, luxury outdoor retailer Patagonia argued the following in its first ever television ad: “Public lands have never been more threatened than right now because you have a few self-serving politicians who want to sell them off and make money.”

Beautiful scenes of the Grand Tetons, Yosemite, and Zion pan across the screen as the company urges viewers to defend these lands and hold Zinke accountable.

The Patagonia commercial and much of the conversation this summer have been muddled with hyperbole and misinformation. It’s worth taking a step back to understand the issue.

Who’s Involved

In April, President Donald Trump requested that Zinke review all presidential national monument designations or expansions since 1996. In particular, Trump requested review of designations of areas over 100,000 acres and/or those that were “made without adequate public outreach and coordination” to determine if revisions were necessary.

Other presidents have reviewed and altered national monuments—among them Presidents William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Ike Eisenhower.

 

The subject of Interior’s report is presidential use of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The law allows presidents to unilaterally designate federal lands as “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” These designations change how land is managed and who has access to it.

Trump is considering the need to reduce the size of, or altogether eliminate, some of these monuments.

Contrary to what the Patagonia commercial and many others would imply, reducing the size of a national monument or even rescinding its status does not open up the federal land to be overrun by oil interests or clear cut by the foresting industry.

Federal lands are managed by a web of laws determining who can do what and when. For example, at least nine other laws also address artifact preservation on federal lands.

The Lands in Question

Perhaps where environmental groups most mislead the public is in explaining which lands are being reviewed. National monuments are distinct from other land designations like national parks, which are created by Congress.

Zinke’s review covered 27 national monuments, mostly in the western United States, though some are located in New England and in offshore federal waters. In other words, this debate has nothing to do with the Grand Tetons, Yosemite, or Zion—all of which are national parks.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that the federal government owns hundreds of millions of acres in America. To put that in perspective, that’s about the same size as all of Western Europe. (See Congress’ official map of federal lands below.)

Why Trump’s Upcoming Decision Matters

The reason this 110-year-old law has become so contentious is complicated.

In part, it has to do with past presidents abusing the purpose of the law. The Antiquities Act directs the president to protect artifacts on federal lands according to the “smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

However, in recent history the Antiquities Act has instead been used to pull vast swathes of land out of use.

President Barack Obama in particular used this power aggressively. The Sutherland Institute reports that 66 percent of all national monument acreage was designated so under the Obama administration, and 25 percent under President George W. Bush.

It also has to do with ensuring quality management of lands. It is no secret that the Department of Interior is facing $15.4 billion in maintenance backlogs, and $11.9 billion of that is in the National Park Service alone.

Holly Fretwell of the Property and Environment Research Center reports that “[o]nly 40 percent of park historic structures are considered to be in “good” or better condition and they need continual maintenance to remain that way.”

The “why” also has to do with who should get the most say in decision-making.

The Patagonia ad encourages people to oppose changes to national monuments because “this [land] belongs to all the people in America—it’s our heritage.” But this glosses over decades and generations’ worth of contentious debate about who “our” refers to.

Does it refer to fly fishermen, hunters, hikers, and bikers as Patagonia would have its customers believe? Does it refer to the Native Americans and locals who are directly impacted by federal land management decisions, but who have little say in the matter?

Are American natural resource industries to be excluded from the collective “our”?

If Congress doesn’t like what the Trump administration is doing, it ought to act to clarify the law. Zinke rightly noted that “the executive power under the Act is not a substitute for a lack of congressional action on protective land designations.”

At the very least, Congress ought to amend the law to give states more say in the matter.

Land management decision-making has been contentious for decades. Shifting more control from Washington to those with direct knowledge of the land in question and a clear stake in the outcome of decisions would be a step in the right direction.

Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.

Antifa Mugshots Released – Now We See Their Faces

San Francisco erupted in Alt-Left anarchy over the weekend during a series of counter-protests which were scheduled to rebuff the “Patriot Prayer” and “No to Marxism” protests held by concerned conservatives.

Over 4,000 Alt-Left activists took to the streets in Berkeley, California on Sunday to protest the “No to Marxism” rally scheduled for the same day. Black-clad anarchists attending the counter-protest with their faces covered quickly turned violent, forcing police to intervene and arrest 13 activists. Now, according to The Daily Wire, the Berkeley Police Department has released the mugshots and identities of 11 of the 13 activists charged, revealing their faces to the world.

The 13 Alt-Left protestors range in age from 20 years old to 47 years old with an average age of 30. Each has been charged with a variety of crimes, ranging from violations of the Berkeley Municipal Code to felony assault, and assault with a deadly weapon. Their identities are as follows:

  • Seth Vasquez, 25-year-old male from Berkeley
  • Mark Misohink, 23-year-old male from Berkeley
  • James Dominic, 23-year-old male from Oakland
  • Kristopher Wyrick, 39-year-old male from Alpine
  • Harlan Pankau, 38-year-old male from Jamul
  • Levi Smith, 32-year-old male from Sparks, NV
  • Sean Hines, 20-year-old male from Santa Rosa
  • Brittany Moorman, 26-year-old female from Oakland
  • Yesenia Mandez, 22-year-old female (unknown city)
  • Emily Gillespie, 24-year-old female from Berkeley
  • Sean Dougan, 47-year-old male from Portland, OR
  • Rachel Moore, 40-year-old female from Oakland
  • Joshua Phillips, 36-year-old male from Oakland

A handful of the Alt-Left protestors arrested traveled to the San Francisco Bay-area to join in a series of counter-protests that were scheduled over the course of the weekend.

Patriot Prayer, a pro-free speech organization, had scheduled and received a permit to hold an event in Crissy Park on Saturday, but the event was canceled last minute out of fear of left-wing violence, accord to USA Today. Kyle Chapman, one of the organizers of the Patriot Prayer rally, explained, “What you’re seeing here is a perfect example of the systemic oppression people of right-wing thought and ideology have faced within these liberal enclaves.”

Alt-Left activists still descended on Crissy Park to protest the canceled rally. These counter-protests soon swelled in the liberal enclave into a city-wide festival, including drinking, dancing, and music. Organizers even established the supposedly family-friendly “Cutest Lil Counter Protest,” where young children were encouraged to protest against so-called fascists.

Organizers behind the canceled “Patriot Prayer” rally instead held an impromptu press conference in Alamo Square, accompanied by a heavy police presence.

Alt-Left anarchists celebrated their victory over free-speech activists through Saturday evening, only to take a violent turn Sunday morning. Six people were injured by Alt-Left counter-protesters, including two who required hospitalization. An officer was also injured and others were assaulted by thrown objects, including paint.

Berkeley Police quickly identified and arrested the 13 protestors mentioned above. They continue to investigate the violence that erupted in their city over the weekend and are requesting that citizens send them video or photo evidence of violent clashes.

Nobody dons a mask to help others. The Alt-Left protestors arrested were thugs and nothing more.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor