Archive for the ‘America’s Past’ Category

All the Myths of the Democrat Party Have Been SHATTERED!

As you read this transcript from The Rush Limbaugh Show, you will learn that all the myths of the Democrat Party have been shattered. Rush points to the facts that reveal that the Dems are not a party of the majority. The have moved far left and have isolated themselves from the majority of Americans. Rush also is very plain on what he would like The Donald to do to shut down the protestor-rioters. Rush would have President-Elect Trump to lay it all in the laps of Obama and Clinton. All that and more from Rush. A great read, if you dare.

As Written By and for Rush Limbaugh:

Obama and Hillary Must Shut Down Their Riots: The Democrat Party’s Illusion Is Shattered, and It’s the End of Their Ruling Against the Will of the American People.

RUSH: We have been governed by a dwindling minority for the last eight years, made to look like a supermajority trending up. I’m gonna go through the numbers and the details again to remind everybody about just how deeply the Democrat Party has sunk and how they have just been shellacked and how Obama’s specific policies were repudiated in this election.

You believe the hypocrisy here? These people, you know, eight years ago I came on the air here and I said, “I hope he fails,” and now we’ve got even liberals on the audio sound bites admitting they knew what I meant, led by Bill Maher. They knew what I meant because now they knew they’re engaging in hypocrisy. I said, “I hope he fails.” Meaning I do not want his policy implemented, socialism and all that sort of stuff.

Now these protesters and rioters are being lionized and celebrated as great Americans. And what are they hoping for? They are openly hoping the Trump presidency fails. I never said that about Obama. I didn’t want anything but his policies to fail to be implemented. But these people who excoriated me all over this country for four years, and in fact some continue to, now hypocritically look the other way and claim that these protesters and rioters are legitimate and all that. And they’re bought and paid for. They are bused in.

I’ve got three different websites which have pictures of lines of buses, 10 to 15 buses in Chicago and in other places where these people are bought. They’re the same people that show up at Black Lives Matter protests. They’re the same people that showed up in Ferguson, in Baltimore, you name it.

Anyway, greetings, my friends, great to have you, Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB Microphone. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.

The reason Obama and Hillary are not gonna shut it down is they love it. Obama loves the look and he loves the media telling everybody that the country is objecting to the election results. And the election results, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you again, and I’m not, by the way, angry or in a bad mood. I’m loving every minute of this. But I do think it’s time to knock some heads. And the fact is the Democrat Party was totally repudiated. And I am gratified I have found two substantive news stories….

Full Story Here:
Obama and Hillary Must Shut Down Their Riots: The Democrat Party’s Illusion Is Shattered, and It’s the End of Their Ruling Against the Will of the American People – The Rush Limbaugh Show

DIRTY George Soros meets with Democratic donors to plot plan to ‘take back power’ from Trump


After their millions of dollars failed to elect Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton last week, billionaire George Soros and his fellow wealthy liberals have gathered in Washington, D.C., to determine how to spend their money to block President-elect Donald Trump throughout his term in the White House.

The three-day meeting at the Mandarin Oriental hotel began Sunday, according to Politico, and is sponsored by the Democracy Alliance donor club. The event will feature keynote addresses from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), whose name is being floated for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

While some of the sessions are focused on winning the 2017 and 2018 elections, many of the discussions will be centered around determining how to thwart the goals Trump hopes to achieve in his first 100 days, all of which the group defines as “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”

In addition, Democracy Alliance President Gara LaMarche sent an email to donors last week informing them that the D.C. meeting will assess “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power” from the Republican-controlled city.

The event comes as Democrats and progressive activists wonder how it is possible Trump bested Clinton on Election Day.

“The [Democracy Alliance] itself should be called into question,” one strategist who has been involved in the group said. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”

Soros founded the Democracy Alliance in 2004. Members of the organization are required to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups, according to Politico, and must also pay a $30,000 annual fee to fund the Democracy Alliance staff, meetings, catered meals and entertainment.
Soros donated more than $13 million in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to block Trump from winning the presidency.


Soros believes his vision of an “open society” trumps self-governmen

by Joseph Klein

George Soros and other left wing advocates are seeking to foment a “Purple Revolution” against those who dared to reject their preferred presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and vote instead for President-elect Donald Trump. After all, Soros alone is reported to have “committed $25 million dollars to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton,” and refuses to accept that his investment was wasted. What’s a few hundred million more to pay for imposing his preferred result through civil unrest rather than through the ballot box? As Zero Hedge explains, “The Purple Revolution will…seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.”

Left wing groups, some supported by Soros, are even paying protesters to take part in disruptive demonstrations.

Of course, Soros is doing his best to keep his fingerprints off the protests, as a hedge in the event that violence continues to spread. “George Soros is not funding these (anti Trump) protests,” Soros spokesperson Michael Vachon said in an interview. “This is a fiction promoted by the alt-right.”

The problem for the Soros shadow government network is that it has a long established blueprint abroad for the kind of disruptive organized actions it appears to be supporting in the United States. Soros has plenty of history in disrupting economies (recall Soros’ “break the Bank of England”) and undermining governments in countries whose citizens’ democratically elected choices he opposes (Poland, for example).

Soros has supported mass refugee migration to Europe, which he would like to see occur in the United States as well. As Breitbart reported last November, “A group masquerading as conservative but backed by left-wing foundations including billionaire George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society (FPOS) has launched an online advertising campaign in defense of bringing Syrian refugees to the United States.” This reportedly followed criticism by Donald Trump and others of plans to expand the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States.

Aside from his own Open Society Foundation, Soros has funded numerous left wing organizations in the United States, ranging from Media Matters to They collaborate with each other and with other left wing groups such as Black Lives Matter. Indeed, Soros donated $100,000 in 2011 to the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, which is run by the co-creator of Black Lives Matter.

Even well before the presidential election, Soros was busy behind the scenes fomenting combustible street protests that burst out of control. For example, the Washington Times has reported that “Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.”

Soros is anti-police. He tweeted a reference to an article published by his Open Society Foundations, entitled “Let’s Reduce, Not Reform, Policing in America.” The author described policing as “the armed enforcement of the interests of the most powerful over those who would challenge that power.” Her proposed solution was not better police training or accountability, but simply to “shrink the size and scope of police forces, reduce the number of gadgets at cops’ disposal, and constrain their ability to ensnare us.” Without adequate police to prevent or constrain riots, protesters will have free rein to intimidate those whom they see as their political enemies.

Thus it is no surprise that disruptions at Trump rallies during the presidential campaign have been attributed at least in part to supporters of Hillary Clinton, “paid for mostly by George Soros and and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America.”

Now that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, the “Purple Revolution” is the next step for Soros-funded groups and other far left organizations to pursue.

Soros’s is one of the leading organizers of the anti-Trump protests streaming through cities across the country. “This is a disaster. We fought our hearts out to avert this reality. But now it’s here,” staff wrote to members the day after the election. Such “a disaster” must be resisted, even before Donald Trump takes office and makes his first presidential decision. In a press release issued shortly after the election, boasted that within two hours of “the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide.” Buses of protesters arrived in cities such as Austin, Texas, which obviously took significant planning and funding to accomplish.

George Soros does not believe in the democratic process. He believes in imposing his definition of an “open” society, which he sees as ultimately a borderless world run by so-called enlightened progressives. He has contempt for ordinary people engaging in the process of self-government, particularly whenever the result is not to his liking. Four years ago, Soros predicted that riots would break out in the streets. Now that the Left’s preferred candidate did not win the 2016 presidential election, Soros and his other left wing allies may be on their way to make his prophecy come true.

Leonard Cohen dies at 82

Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”

For weeks, rumors have circulated the web that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by Presidential hopeful, Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally on Saturday in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.” Horner continued, “It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.”

A screenshot of the Craigslist ad that Horner says he responded to. The actual ad has since been removed.
A screenshot of the Craigslist ad that Horner says he responded to. The actual ad has since been removed.
“I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart,” said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. “I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em’ and stuff.” Downey continued, “I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time.”When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally.“Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”Sarah Bradley, a spokeswoman for Sock It Forward, a group that provides the homeless and those less fortunate with brand new socks told ABC News that she does not understand why Trump protesters would need to be paid.“I’ll protest that guy for free,” Bradley said. “Trump is creating a place for like-minded, hate-filled, individuals to gather. You wouldn’t have to pay me anything to protest that.”Horner said the group had a mandatory six-hour training class that had to be completed before protesting at Trump’s rally.“During training we were taught chants to shout like ‘Dump Trump’ and ‘Trump Is A Racist’, things like that. We were told how to respond to anti-Trump comments too. If a Trump supporter said something about how great his wall will be, the Latinos in our group would say, ‘We’re just going to tunnel underneath it.’ They even gave me a shirt to wear at the rally which said ‘F*ck Donald Trump’ along with a sign to hold that said ‘Make America White Again’.”Hillary Clinton’s campaign crew refused to respond.


We’ve been reporting on votes for Trump being changed to Hillary and this is happening all over the country. Many Americans, especially Republicans are concerned about vote-rigging and election fraud as we should be- we see it happening right before our eyes.

The media plays it off as if there no problem and that we are all just a bunch of paranoid right wingers.

But take a look at this.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, who is a computer programmer and former employee of ExxonMobil and NASA claims that he was told to write a special program for electronic voting machines that would rig close elections for whoever had control of the program.

Conservative Tribune reports that Curtis was questioned before Congress in 2004, in this video uploaded by hacktivist group Anonymous. He was asked by attorney Cliff Arnebeck, “Mr Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?”
When he responded affirmatively, he was asked, “How do you know that to be the case?”

“Because in October of 2000 I wrote a prototype for present Congressman Tom Feeney, at the company I work for in Oviedo, Florida, that did just that,” Curtis said. “It would flip the vote 51 – 49 to whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win.”

“And would that program that you designed be something that elections officials, that might be on county boards of elections, could detect?” Arnebeck asked.

“They’d never see it,” Curtis said. “You would have to view it either in the source code, or you’d have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won’t see it.”

The Chick Who STARTED Chicago Trump Riots Was Getting PAID BY DNC

Zulema Rodgriguez, paid thug. You won’t believe who is footing the bill.

An activist who bragged about disrupting multiple Donald Trump campaign events in a recent Project Veritas video was on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign payroll, a search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reveals.
In a Veritas video released Monday, filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe recounts meeting activist Zulema Rodriguez at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. In the video, Rodriguez takes credit for violent protests in Chicago that forced Trump to cancel a March rally.
…Notably, a search of FEC records reveals that Rodriguez was paid by the Clinton campaign shortly before she disrupted the Chicago rally. The campaign paid her $1,610.34 as a “payroll” expense, and also gave her a $30 payment that is described only as “phone.”
Read more: The Daily Caller
Rodriguez also admits to involvement in an Arizona protest that shut down the highway.

Since two cops were injured in Chicago, maybe Rodriguez can pay their hospital bill. After all, she’s bringing in the big bucks from Hillary’s campaign.


Is there a depth that these people WON’T sink to?

Well, there are still 20 days left.

We’re sure to find out.

Hillary and Her Pal Lester Holt are Wrong, Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional

by Warner Tod Houston
serrano130527_2_560Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional
During the first presidential debate of the election year, Donald Trump and moderator-cum second Democrat debater Lester Holt clashed over the police policy of stop and frisk. Siding with Hillary, shill Holt insisted the policy was deemed unconstitutional while Trump disputed that notion. But in fact, Holt is wrong. Stop and frisk is perfectly legal.

One of Trump’s suggestions for how to put a dent in the wildly rising rates of violent crime in America’s Democrat-controlled big cities is to reinstate and expand the stop and frisk policy. Trump said as much during the September 26 debate.
ut, as Trump spoke the third debater interrupted him saying it was an illegal policy.

“Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men,” so-called “moderator” Holt told Trump.

“No, you’re wrong,” Trump responded. “It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”

So, who is right? Well, all signs point to Trump.

For those unaware, stop and frisk (sometimes called a “Terry stop”) was legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court way back in 1968 when the court ruled that a police officer could legally frisk a suspect without obtaining a search warrant or first arresting them if the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed or carrying contraband (such as drugs).

But the concept goes back even farther than 1968 and can be found in the English Common Law upon which the American system of justice was based. In any case, it is a concept of very long standing and has already been ruled a legal policing tool.

The trick, though, is in the way stop and frisk is observed and put into use. In practice, the officer needs a “reasonable” cause to perform a stop and search and that is where the whole policy can get political. Should a department indulge the process too much it could result in calls of harassment by members of the community and that is what happened in New York City. Stop and frisk was ended due to political pressure, not really legal pressure.

Holt did have a minor point in that a 2013 lawsuit against the New York Police Department put a halt to stop and frisk by the NYPD saying that its process was flawed. But the lawsuit did not deem the policy of stop and frisk itself to be unconstitutional. Holt was 100% wrong on that.

In the 2013 case, Bill Clinton appointed Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan essentially ruled that New York City’s version of the policy was improper–calling it an example of “indirect racial profiling”–and demanded that the NYPD put a halt to its policy.

After her decision Judge Scheindlin was criticized by an appeals panel saying she had compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation” by taking the case to the media instead of remaining properly aloof during the process.

Even after she issued her decision it wasn’t necessarily the end of the case as the city had initially begun to file an appeal of the ruling. The appeal could well have over turned Judge Scheindlin’s obviously liberal political ruling but the appeal was canceled by incoming, self-avowed socialist mayor Bill de Blasio whose decision was arrived via political considerations, not legal ones

So, even the NYPD’s version of stop and frisk never reached its final legal challenge to determine its legality.

But don’t take my word for it. After the debate the policy was immediately defended by one-time New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The former mayor said that stop and frisk helped bring about an 85 percent reduction in crime in the Big Apple and is a perfectly legitimate, legal and constitutional tool used by America’s police departments.

Giuliani took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal the day after the debate to side with Trump and asserted the efficacy of the stop and frisk policy.

Rudy insisted that the policy saved black lives.

Over a 20-year use of this policy, spanning the administration of two New York City mayors and four police commissioners, stop and frisk played a material part in reducing homicides in New York City. It helped to change New York City from the crime capital of America to the safest large city in the country. In each of those 20 years, approximately six of 10 murder victims in New York City were African-Americans. In other words, stop and frisk saved many black lives.
Rudy also pointed out that during his tenure the U.S. Department of Justice constantly reviewed the NYPD’s policy and never filed any sanctions or actions against the city.

It wasn’t until the liberal Manhattan judge appointed by a leftist president who wanted to make her mark in social justice before she retired that the policy was s maligned.

Rudy slammed both Hillary Clinton and “moderator” Lester Holt for their attack on Trump during the debate.

“Donald Trump was right. Hillary Clinton was wrong. Lester Holt should apologize for interfering and trying so hard to help Mrs. Clinton support her incorrect statement that stop and frisk is unconstitutional,” he wrote.

But Rudy Giuliani isn’t alone in his contention that stop and frisk is a good policy.

Even FBI Director James Comey noted that stop and frisk is a useful and legal tool for police. Comey recently told the House Judiciary Committee that the policy is perfectly fine when used properly.

Of course, many claim the policy is “racist” because it affects so many black citizens. But a study by the RAND Corp. found that “black pedestrians were stopped at a rate that is 20 to 30 percent lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.”

In any case, the decision on how to or whether to implement stop and frisk is firmly in the political realm because in the legal realm the policy is perfectly constitutional.

FBI Director Comey Took Millions from Clinton Foundation Defense Contractor

Is anyone surprised by this corruption? When FBI Director James Comey said that the organization would not be seeking to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her illegal email server, anyone paying attention knew there was a deep level of corruption. Now, it’s been made clear. James Comey received millions of dollars from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, and his brother’s law firm also does the Clinton’s taxes.

According to a letter sent by 200 Republicans who stated Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” Comey was asked why he would not bring charges against her. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”

MiniPlanet reports:

A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
In the report, Comey is noted as receiving $6 million in one year along from Lockheed Martin, who is a Clinton Foundation donor, and became a donor in the same year Comey received those funds.

Additionally, Mr. Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings in 2013. HSBC has also partnered with The Clinton Foundation, where records indicate that the bank projected $1 billion in financing through the Clinton Foundation for “retrofitting” 1,500 to 2,000 housing units to conserve energy.

Additionally, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report.

DLA Piper is number five on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list. DLA also performed an independent audit of The Clinton Foundation in November.

So, is anyone else going to question the motives of FBI Director Comey when it comes to failing to call for charges against Hillary Clinton regarding her blatant disregard for the law, national security and the American people? I think not.

Harry Reid Disgraces Himself With Parting Speech

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) is set for retirement, but he couldn’t resist unleashing a barrage of unwarranted attacks on his Republican colleagues before lurching back to his home state. Reid, who has been one of the most divisive politicians on Capitol Hill for the last decade, used the final day of the congressional term to lash out at the GOP and their 2016 presidential nominee.

“I feel compelled to comment on how Republicans have treated the president of the United States during the last eight years,” Reid said Thursday. “History will look back and note the Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect.”

Well, you get the respect you give.

Reid said that Senate Republicans “have not done the basic work of government,” which, in Reid’s twisted mind, means going along with whatever Barack Obama dreams up in the Oval Office.

“They have not stood by their commitments to restore regular order or to pass a budget,” he said. “Republicans have spent their time doing everything in their power to discredit President Obama and empower Donald Trump.”

That’s a laugh. Republicans in Congress are doing everything possible to empower Trump? If that jab is limited to Mitch McConnell’s refusal to hold confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee, we can forgive this otherwise-ridiculous comment, but Reid didn’t specify. In fact, as he continued, it became clear that he has a very distorted view of how the GOP establishment has treated their presidential nominee.

“The only thing Republicans have done this year was to prove that they are the party of Trump,” he said. “They are the party of Trump. They would have us believe that Trump just fell out of the sky and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of the party, but that’s not the way it is.”

First of all, Reid needs some help when it comes to keeping his tenses straight. He’s all over the place with “was” and “is.” Maybe he can consult an elementary English book in his retirement.

Second, Reid was all too happy to use the filibuster when Democrats were in control of the Senate, so his criticism of Republicans reeks of hypocrisy.

Third, he’s out of his gourd if he thinks congressional Republicans paved the way for Donald Trump. If anything, it was their inability to stand on principle and block the worst of Obama’s agenda that gave rise to Trump. Trump isn’t the ultimate manifestation of the Republican Party; he’s a message from Republican voters to the party elite: You had your chance, now we’re doing this.

“He is their Frankenstein monster,” Reid said.

No, sir. He’s OUR Frankenstein monster. And much like the one in the movie, he’s unjustifiably demonized and willfully misunderstood by the village idiots on Capitol Hill, including both Republicans and Democrats. They’re coming after him with their torches and pitchforks, blithely unaware that in attacking him, they are attacking us. And if they keep it up, they may be joining Harry Reid in the world of the unemployed very soon.