Kirsten Gillibrand Says Clinton Should Have Stepped Down After Lewinsky Scandal

By Roberto Ontiveros

November 17, 2017

Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who, along with Rep. Jackie Speier, just introduced the “Me Too Congress Act,” has said that former President Bill Clinton should have stepped down from the presidency after news of his inappropriate relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky came to light.

When asked by a New York Times interviewer directly about whether Clinton should have resigned after the scandal, Gillibrand  paused and then gave her anwer. “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response,” she said.

Gillibrand hinted that mores have matured since the Clinton era. “Things have changed today,” she explained, “and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction.”

As revelations of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry as well as the political arena continue to emerge, Gillibrand feels it is the right time to take action whenever abuse occurs.

Regarding the accusations that have come against President Trump, Gillibrand said, “I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him.”

The numerous accusations of sexually predatory behavior aimed at Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore, as well as the recent admission by Democratic Senator Al Franken that he abused a journalist while she was asleep on a USO tour, has made it obvious to political observers that sexual harassment is a non partisan issue.

Regarding her fellow Democrat Al Franken, Gillibrand gave her opinion on the matter freely. “It’s very disturbing,” she said.

“I was very disappointed,” she added. “But it’s important that survivors are coming out and speaking truth to power and telling their stories.”

Despite what she now says about Bill Clinton, Gillibrand has emphasized that former first lady Hillary Clinton has been a major role model.

Last year, in an essay for Medium, Gillibrand wrote, “In my adult life, politically, no one has inspired me to get off the sidelines and truly make a difference more than Hillary Clinton has.”

LOL! Sure, now that Bill Clinton is past his expiration date and no longer needed, and Job 1 is keeping Roy Moore out of the Senate and removing Trump from office by any means, she throws Bubba under the bus. Liberals are despicable, deeply dishonest, transparent frauds.  – The Liberator

Another One Bites the Dust

As long as we’re talking about sexual harassment 24/7, this also needs to be discussed…

James Kunstler

If only abortion were retroactive, we could suitably deal with monsters like Senator Al Franken (D – MN), who apparently ventured to apply a breast adjustment to a female colleague asleep on the military airplane winging them home from USO duty in Afghanistan. This was back in the day when Senator Franken was a professional entertainer, a clown to be precise, but his career shift to politics has rendered all his prior clowning anathema.

Will he slink out of the senate in disgrace with (ahem) his tail between his legs? Or will he bunker in and wait until the mega-storm of sexual accusation roars on to strand some bigger, flashier fish on the shoals of ignominy? Perhaps we’ll soon learn that Warren Buffet repeatedly shagged his notoriously over-taxed secretary in the Berkshire Hathaway janitor’s closet. Or that Mike Pence once bought a diet Dr. Pepper for a woman who was not his wife!

Seems to me this storm could roar and roil on until ninety-plus percent of the men in America are exposed as sex monsters and expelled from every workplace in the land. And then America can feel good about itself again. At least until the bond market blows up, or Kim Jung Fatboy sends a rocket over Rancho Cuckamonga.

But in the meantime, this scourging of male wickedness raises some interesting questions about human dynamics vis-a-vis workplace dynamics. I (for one, apparently) find it amusing that people are shocked to learn that sexual favors are swapped for career advancement in show business, where sheer narcissism buys more than Bitcoin. The remedy, I suppose, will be to put an end to show business — except its doing a pretty good job of accomplishing that itself, especially the art-form formerly known as the movies. But what about the gazillion other less-glamorous business activities out there: the actuarial suites, the dental offices, the WalMart middle management departments?

I would begin with the recognition that human sexuality is a pretty potent and mischievous component of basic biology. In, say, the much maligned “cis” world of gender relations, people in the workplace surely feel a fairly constant cognitive tug of awareness that they are in the presence of the opposite sex. If nothing else, there is the pheromone thing: the involuntary wafting about of hormonal chemicals that signal sexual possibility, though not necessarily opportunity. It may be considered primitive and inconvenient, but it’s there anyway.

That being so, one obvious question is: what happened to manners, the once-conventional device for managing impulse control. Narcissism does explain a lot, since that mental state prompts the treatment of other people as mere objects of utility rather than persons on a transect of mutual respect. But in the new sexual harassment workplace regime, a mere polite inquiry of romantic interest might provoke punishment, so that even an unmarried true gentleman asking a female co-worker out for a drink after work might be construed as a firing offense.

Offendedness has gone viral in America these days. The rewards are a pretty sure thing for the offendee, ranging from simple brownie points to the offendedness powerball lottery of a $32 million payoff for getting seriously roughed up by a wealthy mug such as Bill O’Reilly. My guess is that the suppression of even gentlemanly approaches to women only pushes things to that darker and harsher edge of the gradient of male behavior, where the latent chimpanzee lurks.

It’s inconceivable to me that we are going to eliminate sexual mischief on-the-job as long as men and women are mixed together in work that can be done by anybody. The situation would be less toxic if genuine misbehavior was reported to bosses or to the police directly, instead of waiting twenty years to call up MSNBC, and if asking for a date, or proffering a compliment, were not treated as vile and inexcusable.

Of course, once all the predators are cleaned out of the corporate C-suites, we’ll still be stuck with a spectacularly trashy contemporary culture, saturated with inducements for all kinds of theoretically decent people to behave badly. Mainly what’s being accomplished in the current hysteria is reinforcement of the idea that the weaker sex is just that, but with a raging denial that they require some kind of protection.

Just as there is often a very fine line between the truth and a lie, there is a very fine line between sexual harassment and entrapment.  The question nobody wants to ask is, how many women claiming sexual harassment are nothing more than opportunists looking for a big payday?  The men of the world deserve an answer because this sexual harassment hysteria is becoming almost comical in its size and scope.   – The Liberator

WHY THE DEMOCRATS REALLY TURNED ON BILL CLINTON

It’s not about his victims, it’s about money and power.

Daniel Greenfield

In the winter of ’56, Khrushchev told the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that Stalin may not have been a very nice guy. In the fall of ’17, the media began to concede that maybe Bill Clinton did abuse a whole bunch of women. And maybe those women weren’t really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a bloated piggish progressive hero seem like he might not be a very nice guy.

Why are Democrats turning on the Clintons? Same reason Khrushchev turned on Stalin. They’re purging the Clintons for the same reasons that they defended them. They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reasons that they covered them up. It’s about power and money.

The Democrats smeared Bill Clinton’s accusers then. Now they’ll exploit them to throw the Clintons out.

The #MeToo campaign provided an opening. But if you really want to understand why the left is disavowing Bill Clinton, ignore the hashtags and look at the bigger picture.

Earlier this month, the rollout of Donna Brazile’s book raked Hillary Clinton and her campaign over the coals. The former interim DNC boss made the case that the Clinton campaign had rigged the primaries.

Brazile’s outrage at the rigging is laughable. Not only was she caught passing a debate question to Hillary, but the only reason she was allowed to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that she was a Clintonista who had served as a Clinton adviser and was promoted to head Gore’s campaign.

After Hillary’s collapse, Brazile was left out in the cold. Like Schultz, she was one of Hillary’s fall girls. And unlike Schultz, she didn’t have a cozy congressional district to call her own. Her CNN contract was torn up after the debate question leak. (Though if you think CNN was actually surprised that a Clinton ally leaked it to the Clintons, you’re also shocked that there’s gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe Americain. CNN had disavow Donna who then had to disavow Hillary. Now the Dems are disavowing the Clintons.)

Brazile’s book tour was Act 1 in purging the Clintons from the Dem establishment. Talking about Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and abuses is Act 2. And the odds are very good that there’s an Act 3.

Why get rid of the Clintons? Let’s look at what the First Grifters have been doing to the Dems.

In May, Hillary rolled out Onward Together. The new SuperPAC was supposed to fundraise for lefty groups. But the groups don’t actually appear to be getting the cash.

Understandable. The flat broke Clintons always have lots of bills to pay and private jets to book. And good chardonnay doesn’t come cheap. A 1787 vintage Chateau d’Yquem runs to $100K a bottle.

Fresh from that success, a paid advisor to Hillary co-launched something being called Party Majority. This wonderful new organization would “act as a parallel structure to Democratic Party committees at the national and state levels”, vacuuming up a whole lot of cash while putting its boot on the DNC.

The Clintons were once again trying to displace the DNC. And that would let them skim a lot of cash from the DNC to fund their political operation and lifestyle. And, even once again, rig the process.

Who’s up for Hillary in 2020?

Party Majority rolled out in early November. Since then the Clintons are suddenly being hit from all sides by their own.

Funny how that works.

If President Hillary Clinton were in the White House, the First Gentleman could work his way through an entire nunnery and every media outlet in the country would praise him as our greatest feminist.

If the Clintons had done the decent thing (for the first time in their miserable grifter lives) and stepped away from politics, Bill could have been a bitter, bigoted and befuddled Democrat elder statesman.

Just like Jimmy Carter.

But the Clintons just wouldn’t stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they’re purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years.

It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.

Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings are terrible. Every time she goes on television, more people are likely to vote Republican. Her entire existence is a reminder of why the Democrats lost so badly in ’16.

Not only won’t Hillary Clinton retire to bake cookies and send anonymous threatening letters to her neighbors because their kids occasionally throw a ball over her mansion’s iron gates, but she insists on sabotaging the 2020 candidates who are her party’s best hope to succeed where she miserably failed.

Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, took numerous shots at Bernie Sanders. And her entire book tour appeared designed to sabotage his book tour. Then she began attacking Joe Biden.

Both Bernie and Joe, unlike her, are viable 2020 candidates. (Which says nothing good about the Dems.)

The media doesn’t suddenly “believe Juanita”. Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn’t silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its guy.

Now Bill Clinton isn’t the media’s guy anymore. He’s a problem.

And what the media does “believe” is that the Clintons will continue to be a liability that might cost them victories in 2018 and 2020. The DNC badly needs money. The Clintons are once again posing a threat to the DNC’s financial viability. And the Dems have become less willing to lose House and Senate seats to sate the insatiable greed of the grifters from Hope.

Then there’s 2020. The Dems don’t want to risk their nominee facing passive aggressive attacks by Hillary Clinton. Nor do they even want to see Hillary Clinton on the air for the entire election.

The Clintons could have had a nice retirement. Seats on boards and foundations. Occasional smaller scale speaking gigs. Bill would have been a featured speaker at the next DNC convention.

And maybe even Hillary in a lesser role.

But they wouldn’t go quietly. And now the left is making it a mandatory retirement.

Act 1 blames Hillary for rigging the primaries. Act 2 calls out Bill’s abuse of women. Acts 3, 4 and 5 will delve into some other Clinton scandals that Democrats have been denying for over a generation. If the Clintons don’t get the message, the final act will plant a big red boot in their behinds.

And this won’t even be the first time that the Dems tried to get rid of the Clintons.

After Bill’s time was up, the Dems and the media tried to head off a Hillary political career at the pass. Let’s flip through the pages of the New York Times in 2001 that describes Hillary’s “calamitous Senate debut” and cautions that “talk about her presidential prospects has ground to a halt.”

“The man is so thoroughly corrupt it’s frightening,” a Times column reads. “The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday.”

In AmSoc, history is constantly being rewritten. A few years later, no criticism of the Clintons could be allowed. And everyone forgot that Carter’s chief-of-staff had called them, “The First Grifters.”

Or at least they pretended to forget.

It’s not the first time that the Dems have tried to get rid of the Clintons. But it might be the last.

Like Stalin’s Communist successors, Democrats should not be allowed to pretend that they knew nothing or that their purge of the Clintons is motivated by a sudden attack of integrity.

They’re purging the Clintons for the same reason that they covered up for them.

They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reason that they covered them up.

They did it out of political self-interest then. And they’re doing it out of political self-interest now. There’s nothing clean or honest about what they’re doing. There’s no moral reckoning here. Only a political reckoning. It’s not about the women Bill abused. It’s about DNC cash and the 2020 election.

That’s the dirty, ugly truth. And it’s as dirty and ugly as the Clintons and the Democrats.

The Clintons have been transparently corrupt their entire lives. Now, the Democrat Party is being transparently hypocritical in removing them from power. Ain’t it great? – The Liberator

An Online Discussion…

Anonymous1 – Americans seem utterly incapable of finding a middle ground on ANYTHING. At one time, the appropriate response to a homosexual at a bar was to chase him down the street with a baseball bat. Today, we have decided that homosexuality is normal in ALL RESPECTS, including raising a child with two daddies or two mommies and pushing the matter in your face with every single movie and TV show.


At one time, women were very intensely desired but treated first and foremost with respect. Today, they’re told to take care of the detritus of a one night stand at Planned Parenthood, and assaulted when the mood arises. So when the pendulum swings back on that, who will be the final victors?

 

Anonymous2 – I find our culture has been degraded. On purpose. Will the pendulum swing back?

 

The Liberator - No, the pendulum will never swing back. It is a downward spiral being driven by the Left as their sole purpose in life. We on the Right HAVE a life and will therefore not invest the time or emotional capital necessary to reverse the trend. In other words, the Left will ultimately prevail.

 

20 YEARS LATE: Vox Columnist Admits Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned Over Sex Scandals

Ben Shapiro

The Daily Wire

The Democrats aimed at Roy Moore, but Bill Clinton was standing in their way.

So Bill Clinton is now a smoldering husk of humanity.

After Hillary Clinton’s presidential loss, it became both convenient and useful to discard her alleged sexual predator spouse — a man the media feted repeatedly last year as a halcyon of decency. Now, Bill could safely be relegated to the semen-stained ashbin of history.

And so Bill Clinton has become the Barry Bonds of politics: a once-celebrated superhero, now disgraced. This week, a New York Times columnist said she believed Juanita Broaddrick, who first accused Clinton of rape some 25 years ago; The Atlantic also ran a better think piece talking about Clinton’s status as a suspected predator.

Now, it’s the execrable Matt Yglesias at Vox.com, in a 2000-word essay about just why Clinton should have resigned from office in 1998.

Yglesias admits that at the time, he wanted Clinton to stay: he was “glad to see Clinton prevail and regarded the whole sordid matter as primarily the fault of congressional Republicans’ excessive scandal-mongering.” But, Yglesias now admits, “I think we got it wrong. … What we should have talked about was men abusing their social and economic power over younger and less powerful women.”

Yglesias continues:

It was far from the most egregious case of workplace sexual misconduct in American history. But it was unusually high-profile, the facts were not in dispute, the perpetrator had a lot of nominal feminist ideological commitments, and political leaders who shared those commitments had the power to force him from office. Had he resigned in shame, we all might have made a collective cultural and political decision that a person caught leveraging power over women in inappropriate ways ought to be fired. Instead, we lost nearly two decades.

Yes, yes we did. Funny how Democrats are realizing that right about now. Say, how are they feeling about Bob Menendez resigning? Any word on that?

Ygelsias says that Republicans shouldn’t have bothered going after Clinton for perjury. Instead, they should have used the feminist line that Lewinsky had been cudgeled into her affair — they should have said that Clinton’s seduction of Lewinsky was “morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives.” Which, of course, wouldn’t have worked, since the Left at the time suggested that Monica was a slut who wanted Bill, not a victimized innocent pressured by the most powerful man on Earth. Had the Right suggested that Bill used his superior position to get Lewinsky to service him, the Left immediately would have called them sexist for depriving Lewinsky of “agency.” That’s the beautiful convenience of Leftist sexual morality: it’s utterly malleable to the political needs of the moment.

Now Yglesias is all about the feminist take on power relationships, however. He says:

Had Clinton resigned in disgrace under pressure from his own party, that would have sent a strong, and useful, chilling signal to powerful men throughout the country.

Instead, the ultimate disposition of the case — impunity for the man who did something wrong, embarrassment and disgrace for the woman who didn’t — only served to confirm women’s worst fears about coming forward.

Then Yglesias shows his hand: it’s easy to dump Clinton overboard 17 years after he left office. But that doesn’t mean that Democrats should dump Menendez overboard, it turns out. He writes that Menendez should hang on to his seat until Democrat Phil Murphy takes office. He then adds that had Clinton stepped down, Gore would have become president. No problem! So sexual harassment is bad, unless it means losing something politically.

Yglesias openly admits that now is a great time to destroy Bill precisely because it means nothing:

But now that Hillary is out of electoral politics and has emerged as a bigger draw and more potent political force than her husband, there’s no excuse for Democrats not to look back on these events with more objectivity. Fifty-something leaders of organizations shouldn’t be carrying on affairs with interns who work for them regardless of whether the affair is in some sense consensual.

And then these people wonder that so many Republicans are willing to back Roy Moore.

Yglesias admits that Democrats “blew it.” What he fails to acknowledge is that if given the same stakes today, they’d blow it again. And so, in all likelihood, would he.

All of these latter day moralists are nothing more than liberal ideologues who are using their “shame” over supporting Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior nearly two decades ago as an excuse to support getting rid of Roy Moore. Liberals are not moral people. Instead, they are shamelessly and transparently hypocritical low-lifes who will do and say anything to gain or retain political power. They are never to be believed because truth is always and forever a relative term to every single one of them. – The Liberator

Spare Us Your Outrage Over Roy Moore If You Put An Alleged Rapist In The White House

“Liberals must finally admit that they put an accused rapist in the White House and that they were wrong for doing so.”

Matt Walsh

The Daily Wire

The “what about” game gets tired after a while.

This country is overstocked with hypocrites so there’s always a “what about” available. Whatever a person is pretending to believe or care about today, you can almost certainly find an example in the not-so-distant past when they didn’t believe or care about that thing at all. We’re all moral relativists now. Most of us, anyway. At a certain point, if you want to move any conversation forward, you just have to accept the fact that the two sides in whatever debate have been chosen solely for expedience. Nobody cares about the truth. Nobody has integrity. They’re all full of it. And there’s almost no reason to point it out anymore.

Almost, I say. Almost. Because even amidst the orgy of hypocrites, there are some hypocrisies so blatant and morally reprehensible that I don’t think we can simply slide past them. Especially this one particular hypocrisy, which I would argue gave birth to the current hyper-partisan environment where voters are willing to tolerate literally any misbehavior from a politician, so long as the politician has the right letter next to his name. It truly seems like this hypocrisy was the beginning of some kind of sickness in our culture. It may be worthwhile, in that case, to revisit it. So, while even I’m tired of the “what about Clinton” game, I must say: seriously though, what about Clinton?

The Roy Moore allegations have of course prompted a lot of laughably self-righteous blathering from the Left. Suddenly these people have decided that every sex assault or rape accuser must be believed, every accusation against a prominent man must be given the undivided attention of the entire country, and any man accused of these crimes must be drummed out of public life. Democrat politicians have been especially eager to climb the soapbox and lecture Republican voters about the “danger” of electing such a man. The media has fished through Moore’s closet to find skeletons of past sexual improprieties, again showing their ability to do investigative journalism only when the investigation may have politically advantageous results.

So, what are we supposed to do here? Are we supposed to just ignore and forget the fact that these very same people twice elected an alleged rapist to the White House, and then, just last year, tried to elect his wife, who reportedly intimidated and silenced the accusers? Are we supposed to allow the Left to pretend that the last 3 decades they spent bowing to the Clinton Machine never happened? Are we really supposed to take anything they say about Roy Moore seriously? How can we? Even if I wanted to, I don’t know how.

Bill Clinton, who held a position far more powerful than Senator from Alabama, was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick. Right around the time that Roy Moore was allegedly seducing teenage girls, Bill Clinton was allegedly pinning Broaddrick down on his hotel bed, biting her lip to keep her from screaming for help, and brutally raping her. And Clinton’s alleged predatory behavior didn’t stop once he reached the White House. While there, allegedly, he sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, kissing her without consent and forcing her hand onto his erect penis. He also exposed himself to Paula Jones shortly before becoming president, allegedly. Yet he was made president, and then made president again, and then liberals tried to put him back in the White House last year by electing his wife, who allegedly led the campaign to silence and discredit her husband’s victims.

How many of these liberals, who are apoplectic about a guy with a potentially unsavory past becoming a Senator in Alabama, expressed any reservations at all about making a potential rapist President of the United States? How many Democrat politicians, currently fainting over the Moore allegations, ever whispered the faintest protest against Clinton, the alleged serial sex predator? I wonder even how many establishment Republicans, who are quick to disavow Moore, ever said a single word about Clinton’s rape accusations?

I think the answer is close to zero on every count.

We cannot live in the past forever. Neither can we pretend it never happened. Liberals must finally admit that they put an accused rapist in the White House and that they were wrong for doing so. They must apologize. Apologize not only to the country, which has been forever sullied by the moral depravity of the sex criminal they elected to its highest office, but especially to Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and, while we’re at it, Monica Lewinsky, who was a young and powerless intern when the President of the United States began grooming her for sexual conquest.

And even after they have made these mea culpas, they must realize that they are in no position at all to pass judgment on Roy Moore’s supporters. Leave that to the folks who didn’t put an alleged rapist in the Oval Office. You have forever forfeited your right to be morally outraged by these kinds of things. Go away and be silent. Or keep talking if you wish, but realize that we can’t take you seriously. You didn’t care at all about rape accusations for 30 years. You can’t start now, when it’s convenient. Even in a land of hypocrites, that’s a bridge too far.

This is what the Left does…they hold us to OUR moral standards when it benefits them but ignore those same standards with their own behavior. – The Liberator

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

Paul Sperry

New York Post

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy, it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.

“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”

“Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope.”

Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.

Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.

Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democratic Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.

Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing, “It’s time to organize and fight . . . We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

“You’re going to see me early next year,” he told his OFA troops after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”

So, how does it work? Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows.  Say goodbye to the democratic process. 

– The Liberator

The 100-Year Anniversary of the Communist Revolution

“It’s only proper to mark the 100-year anniversary of the Russian Revolution and the century of communist torture, privation, abuse and murder that despicable event set off.

One hundred years, one hundred million lives lost to an ideology invented by a certifiable lunatic sent to us by the Devil himself. Karl Marx was wrong in nearly every particular of his so-called philosophy, and the failure of virtually all of his dialectic claptrap has for some reason never quite robbed his acolytes of their ardor to force that philosophy into bad governance.

The inability to stamp out such pernicious, murderous, failed ideas is a blot on the escutcheon of a free society. The Marxists are indefensibly incompetent in producing anything good from their ideas, but they’re indefensibly brilliant in finding new ways to exploit human weakness and depravity in imprinting those ideas on human minds. Economic Marxism is barely even tried anymore outside of nibbles at the margins, but the fall of the Soviet Union has simply transformed the Left into cultural termites eating away at civil society. Their victory is almost complete. It is undeserved.”

– Scott McKay, The American Spectator