RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/bill-de-blasio-calls-for-more-disruption-to-protest-donald-trump.html

Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is calling for more “disruption” to protest the election of Donald Trump.

“We have to recognize that all over this country, the more disruption that’s caused peacefully … the more it will change the trajectory of things,” he said in a radio interview on Monday, adding that Trump did not have a mandate to implement his agenda because he failed to win the popular vote.

De Blasio also pledged that New York City would not comply if Trump sought to restore “stop-and-frisk,” a controversial policy that was deemed unconstitutional by a U.S. district court judge in 2013. “They can threaten to take away money, but they cannot tell us how to police our streets,” he said.

The Democratic mayor, who aspires to be a standard bearer for the left, criticized members of his own party for failing to address the concerns of working-class voters, who “have every right to feel cheated.”

The Islamic Society of North America was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas. It was linked to two Hamas funding fronts, the Holy Land Foundation and KindHearts. ISNA’s checks were made payable to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen” or “Holy Warriors” which was a name used by Hamas.

ISNA’s co-founder Sami Al-Arian was the local head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas official listed by the Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist, received tens of thousands of dollars from ISNA.

This should have come as no surprise as both ISNA and Hamas are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the American Jewish Committee has decided to team up with the financiers of the murder of Jews to oppose Trump. The left wing Jewish group and an Islamist organization that wrote out checks to Islamic terrorists enabling them to kill Jews have formed the “Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council”.

Statements from both ISNA and the AJC made it clear that this was a reaction to Trump’s win.

“We are uniting to help the administration navigate in the proper constitutional manner, to uphold freedom of religion and constitutional rights for all American citizens,” Eftakhar Alam of ISNA said.

“It is a reaction to some of the bigotry and hate speech that came out of the campaign,” Robert Silverman, the AJC’s director of Muslim-Jewish relations said. “We’re concerned about the public discourse in the whole country. We’re also concerned about messages that originated within the two communities. The Trump phenomenon is only going to make it come together more quickly.”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is the leading contender to head up the Democratic National Committee. In announcing his candidacy for the position, Ellison said, “When voters know what Democrats stand for, we can improve the lives of all Americans, no matter their race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Ellison has the support of the progressive wing of the party, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as the so-called establishment types such as Senator Chuck Schumer.

What would a Democratic Party led by Rep. Ellison really look like? One need look no further than Rep. Ellison’s own statements, associations and actions. Under Ellison’s leadership, the Democratic Party will continue to evolve into a pro-Islamist party that helps advance the stealth jihad agenda, and a party that moves away from its traditional support of our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has a past history of working actively on behalf of the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. In 1995, writing as Keith X Ellison, he published a column for Insight News, which praised Farrakhan as “a role model for black youth” and denied that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite. In 1997, Ellison defended a statement by Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism, who was reported to have said that “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.”

When Ellison first ran for Congress, Nihad Awad, executive director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), provided his support at a fund raiser in Minneapolis for Ellison. Ellison in turn has spoken at CAIR fundraising events. He also defended CAIR against credible charges that CAIR was trying to infiltrate staff offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security and intelligence. At CAIR banquets in late 2008, Ellison urged CAIR supporters to seek jobs in the then incoming Obama administration.

Some of Ellison’s donors have “a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections,” according to Campus Watch. The Minneapolis branch of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Muslim American Society reportedly paid for Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca for the Hajj in 2008.

Trump-haters of both parties are using the president elect’s conciliatory meeting with Obama to suggest he dial back on his campaign promises and govern like the typical politicians he ran against. The old mantras of “healing the divisions” and “bipartisanship” are being chanted once again, with the usual mythic anecdotes about Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill yukking it up over drinks. These are the same sirens whose seductive songs of comity and cooperation and coming together to “solve the country’s problems” have lured many a Republican onto the rocks of policy disasters like Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the confirmation of Obama minion Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.

There are already a few signs that Trump is being influenced by such chatter. He told the Wall Street Journal that he might keep Obamacare’s disastrous mandate that insurance companies insure those with preexisting conditions. On 60 Minutes he walked back his promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s pay-for-play foundation. This might just be conciliatory rhetoric designed to tamp down the anger of Democrats. Let’s hope that’s all it is, for such accommodation is seldom if ever reciprocated by Democrats.

On the contrary, Democrats have repeatedly proven that bipartisanship to them means that Republicans roll over for whatever Democrats want. If not, Republicans are tarred as obstructionists, racists, or whatever other epithet du jour. That’s because progressives are cultists hungry for more power so they can impose their ideological vision by any means necessary. Like Goldfinger, they don’t want Republicans to talk, they want them to die. Assured of their political righteousness, they have one standard for themselves, the elect, and another for their enemies, the damned. The two terms of Barack Obama are a textbook case of progressive campaign duplicity followed by a refusal to respect competing ideas and negotiate in good faith. Exhibit number one is Obamacare, passed without a single Republican vote, and rammed through Congress with legislative legerdemain and big barrels of pork.

Then there’s Obama’s bypassing of Congress all together once it was taken over by Republicans. He made it clear he felt no compunction about trashing the Constitution’s separation of powers and limited executive whose primary purpose is “to see that laws are faithfully executed.” Like progressive godfather Woodrow Wilson, he wanted the power to make “good” laws, not just to veto bad ones. “If Congress won’t act, I will” and “I have a pen and a phone,” he threatened. As for “healing divisions” and “bipartisanship,” he dismissed all that by saying, “Elections have consequences,” brushing aside bipartisanship with an arrogant “I won,” and advising his partisans to “punish our enemies.” His philosophy of governing has been the “Chicago way”: “If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.” Nor was he punished for behavior Republicans keep warning is political suicide. He beat light-red super-nice-guy Mitt Romney by five million votes.

Obama never misses a chance to disparage the United States while praising himself. Obama is visiting Greece, Italy, and Peru, for God knows what reason, except to take a last vacation on the taxpayers’ dime.

Yesterday in Greece he said the election is not a referendum on his tenure and criticized the election as having a “dark side” of populist movements.

The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2016:

Obama, who made it clear during the course of the hour-long news conference that he did not view the recent U.S. election results as a referendum on his own tenure or world vision, suggested that targeting specific racial, religious ethnic groups could backfire[.] … Obama … made it clear that he sees a dark side to the kind of populist movements Trump’s campaign embodied[.]

Obama said: “We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an us and a them[.]”

If this wasn’t bad enough, Obama said:

In the United States we know what happens when we start dividing ourselves along the lines of race or religion or ethnicity. It is dangerous. It is dangerous, not just for the minority groups that are subjected to that kind of discrimination, or in some cases in the past, violence, but because we then don’t realize our potential as a country when we are preventing blacks or Latinos or Asians or gays or women from fully participating in the project of building American life[.]

A public interest law firm is calling on the Obama Justice Department to prosecute the brutal mob attack against a voter in Chicago, Illinois, on November 8, as a voting rights violation.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group dedicated to election integrity, sent letters to two sections in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division calling for an investigation into the attack as a violation of Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As reported here at PJ Media, disturbing video footage emerged online last week that shows 49-year-old David Wilcox being beaten and kicked by black thugs as a mob cheered them on. Onlookers cried “he voted for Trump!” “beat his ass!” and “don’t vote Trump!” while Wilcox was getting pummeled and as one of the individuals rooted around the driver’s side of his car.

According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation:

One letter was sent to Chris Herren, the chief of the Voting Section of the Department of Justice. It called for an investigation into the attack as a violation of Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that prohibits intimidation of those who voted for voting. A second letter was sent to Paige Fitzgerald, acting chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. That letter calls for federal civil rights prosecutions of the perpetrators. Federal law (18 USC 241) prohibits violence against individuals for exercising federal rights. Another statute (18 USC 245) prohibits intimidation or violence against voters for voting.

One letter states, “As you may know, numerous incidents have occurred over the last seven years in circumstances with striking similarities to the incident in Chicago. Yet your Section took no action whatsoever. It is reasonable to conclude, and it is the view of many Americans, that your office has different standards for enforcing the law depending on the nature of the victim and the nature of the perpetrators.”

“The right to participate in an election without fear of being beaten by a mob is one of the most fundamental civil rights,” said J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “Americans should not have to fear political violence because they voted for Donald Trump, and this Justice Department needs to start enforcing the law no matter who the victim is.” Adams continued, “elections are free only if they are free from violence.”

Wilcox told the Chicago Tribune that the incident began when a black sedan grazed his vehicle. When he got out to ask for insurance, onlookers taunted him for voting for Trump, which he defended:

The African American at the bus stop said, “yeah, that’s one of those white boy Trump supporters.” And I said, what does that have to do with this accident? I just want to exchange insurance …The next thing I know, the guy said, “don’t worry about it because we’re going to beat his ass.” And then punches were thrown. And the next thing I know, I have five people on me, I fell to the ground, I was kicked in the head … They were in my car stealing all my stuff … I tried going to the car, I got hit some more.

Perhaps they’re already packing their golden parachutes to bail out and ensure themselves a soft landing in the rocky terrain of the real world: Loretta Lynch, the purchasable Attorney General, and FBI Director James Comey, the less-than-puissant fellow who couldn’t make up his mind if Hillary was made for prison stripes or not. They certainly are not going to be in a Trump administration.

During one of the presidential debates, Donald Trump told Clinton “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation…” He then added, “because you’d be in jail.” Hillary countered that she was glad someone like him wasn’t in charge of the laws in the United States.

The “situation” is that, among her other crimes, she was found eminently indictable for having endangered the nation’s security by operating a hackable, freelance server over which she passed and received documents relating to her office as Secretary of State, many marked “confidential” and “secret,” in complete contravention of the rules of the office. FBI Director Comey, however, buggered out of the responsibility for asking the Department of Justice for a warrant. And then:

In late October, Rudy Giuliani, a Donald Trump surrogate and advisor, told Martha MacCallum of Fox News that “a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days” was coming from the Trump campaign.[] Giuliani later explained he did not have insider FBI information. Later confirmed by a second law enforcement source, an unnamed government source told Fox News that the email metadata on the computer in question contained “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” however, at the time Comey sent his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the e-mails in question.

On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the presidential election, Comey announced in a letter to Congress that the FBI learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email server and the FBI will take steps to allow investigators to review these emails “to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” Director Comey stated in the letter that he was writing the letter to “supplement his previous testimony” before Congress

This may come as a shock to the political left, but not everyone who opposed Donald Trump is as angry or despondent as the demonstrators who grabbed headlines nationwide over the past week or the pundits who intellectualized the Democratic hissy fit.

On Monday I took a stroll around New York City’s Harlem neighborhood and asked a couple of dozen black residents to respond to the election and subsequent protests. I didn’t come across any Trump voters—or at least any who admitted it—but many told me they had expected Hillary Clinton’s defeat. No one thought it was the end of the world.

“Hillary wasn’t strong enough. She didn’t fight enough,” said a gentleman leaving a drugstore, who introduced himself as Pace. “People saw her as weak and thought she’d be weak in the White House.” He also faulted Mrs. Clinton’s message. “She was talking about what she did in other countries as secretary of state. I can understand the situation around the world, but we live here.” Mr. Trump, in contrast, “was talking about the people who live here—the poor, the veterans.”

When I asked Pace, who retired from a job in dress manufacturing several years ago, if he thought Mr. Trump would ever win him over, he responded: “He said he’d protect Medicare. I can go along with that. He said he’d get rid of the Bloods and the Crips and the gangs—get them out of here. I like that. If he does those two things, he’s my man.”

At a nearby hair salon, the proprietor, a 30-something West African woman who asked me not to use her name, said Mrs. Clinton lost because the country “didn’t want a female president, wasn’t ready for it.” Still, she’s optimistic about a Trump administration. “I think things will be different in a good way. He might surprise us. I don’t think he’s a bad person. It’s just the way he talks. He was real and people like that. I don’t think he’ll do the really crazy things like deporting everybody.”

Derrick, an off-duty police officer, told me that he considers Mr. Trump a con artist who tricked people into voting for him and won’t come through, especially on his promise to bring back manufacturing jobs. “But I’ll give him this,” he said. “She was not talking about securing this country, and that’s what he was talking about. People are watching people get blown up by these terrorists, and they’re scared, and she was talking about an open border. She didn’t emphasize scrutinizing the people who are coming in, and he did.”

Outside a storefront church on Frederick Douglass Boulevard, Bishop Gibson sat staring at his smartphone. He was eager to get some things off his chest when I approached. “First, it doesn’t bother me a bit if Trump is in there or not,” he said. “I don’t lose a minute’s sleep. My president is Jesus.” The bishop told me that some of his congregants were concerned about what the new president would do, but not enough to be demonstrating in the streets. “I don’t understand. You’re protesting, you’re rioting, but did you vote? Some did, but a lot didn’t.”

Bishop Gibson said Mr. Trump’s “law and order” message resonated with Harlemites but that ultimately “the president can’t do much about crime.” It has to start with the communities—churches, families and fathers in particular, he said.

Since last Wednesday, when Donald Trump was officially declared the winner of the U.S. presidential election, college professors across the country have been excusing their students from classes and exams to engage in a form of collective mourning not seen since the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Psychological services were immediately made available to those young adults, who were old enough to vote for Hillary Clinton but too fragile to accept the victory of a candidate not to their liking.

No wonder these infants in adult bodies — the best and the brightest of the land of the free, whose mommies and daddies are forking out obscene sums for their higher education — had the nerve to take to social media and equate 11/9 with 9/11.

Not all students opted to stay home or stage protests with signs reading “Trump is not my president.” Some actually turned up on campus, to be coddled and embraced by like-minded teachers and administrators concerned for their mutual well-being. Tufts University in Massachusetts, for example, made an arts and crafts center available to students they thought might fare better with finger-painting than with a lecture on the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

The University of Kansas provided therapy dogs for the bereaved campus community. You know, the kind of canines that serve the war-wounded and shell-shocked who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and watched their fellow soldiers being blown to bits, while their peers back home were safe and sound in the halls of Harvard, dissecting the literary works of Bob Dylan.

To make the process of infantilization complete, the University of Michigan offered its devastated students Play-Doh, crayons and coloring books. Perhaps the instructors handing out the clay assuaged the fears of the poor darlings, who reportedly have been running out to stock up on birth control before Trump’s inauguration in January. But, given their behavior, they should probably be hoarding diapers for themselves instead.