Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Exclusive: Black Lives Matter issues a statement on Trump's election

Mic ^ | November 15, 2016 | Aaron Morrison 

On Tuesday, national leaders of Black Lives Matter Global Network said their mandate was unchanged after "the election of a white supremacist to the highest office in American government."
In a statement released exclusively to Mic, BLM said it would continue to demand an end to police brutality and to fight for the socioeconomic and political empowerment of black people through ongoing organizing efforts.
Mic has reached out to the group for further comment on the statement and will publish a follow-up.
Below is the statement in its entirety:
Our mandate has not changed: organize and end all state-sanctioned violence until all Black Lives Matter.
What is true today — and has been true since the seizure of this land — is that when black people and women build power, white people become resentful. Last week, that resentment manifested itself in the election of a white supremacist to the highest office in American government.
In the three years since Black Lives Matter organized, we've called for more safety. Not less. We've demanded an end to anti-black state violence. We've asked white people to organize their communities, to courageously help their loved ones understand the importance of solidarity and to show up for us, for themselves and democracy.
In the months leading up to this election, we have demanded support from white people in dismantling white supremacy — a farce that persuaded some to believe we were living in a post-racial America while simultaneously rolling back the rights of black people and other people of color. White supremacy fortified the decision to disregard racism and sexism as serious variables in the outcome of this election.
Even if everyone didn't agree politically, at the very least, we deserved to have our collective humanity affirmed. We feel more than disappointed or angry — we feel betrayed.
Donald Trump has promised more death, disenfranchisement and deportations. We believe him. The violence he will inflict in office, and the permission he gives for others to commit violence, is just beginning to emerge.
In the face of this, our commitment remains the same: protect ourselves and our communities.
But we ask ourselves — how do we reconcile our vision for future generations' prosperity with the knowledge that more than half of white voting Americans believe a white supremacist can and should decide what's best for this country?
We organize.
Here's what we know: Civic engagement is one way to engage democracy, and our lives don't revolve around election cycles. We are obliged to earn the trust of future generations — to defend economic, social and political power for all people. We are confident that we have the commitment, the people power and the vision to organize our country into a safe place for black people — one that leads with inclusivity and a commitment to justice, not intimidation and fear.
We also need and deserve an elaborate strategy to eradicate both white supremacy and implicit bias towards it. We must reckon with the anti-blackness of America's history that led to this political moment.
We continue to operate from a place of love for our people and a deep yearning for real freedom. In our work, we center the most marginalized, and look to them for leadership. We fight for our collective liberation because we are clear that until black people are free, no one is free. We are committed to practicing empathy for one another in this struggle — but we do not and will not negotiate with racists, fascists or anyone who demands we compromise our existence.
We affirm our existence. We affirm our right to not only live, but to thrive. To exist in a world where our humanity is seen and honored. We are organizing to realize a world in which our faiths are held in esteem, our identities are respected and our families are prioritized. We deserve a world in which our children are protected, where our water is sacred, and where we are given a fair chance to decide our fates.
Because it is our duty to win, we will continue to fight. And today, like every day before it, we demand reparations, economic justice, a commitment to black futures and an end to the war on black people, in the United States and around the world.
The work will be harder, but the work is the same.

Bill O'Reilly suggests Megyn Kelly is making Fox News look bad

CNN Money ^ | 11/15/2016 | Brian Stelter 

Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly's cold war heated up on Tuesday, the day both TV hosts were out promoting their new books.
O'Reilly suggested that Kelly is making their employer, Fox News, "look bad" by talking about alleged harassment by ex-Fox News boss Roger Ailes.
"I'm not interested in making my network look bad. At all. That doesn't interest me one bit," O'Reilly said on CBS.
Anchor Norah O'Donnell asked: "Is that what she's doing?"
O'Reilly: "I don't know. But I'm not going to even bother with it."
He also cast some shade on whether Kelly's book will sell a large number of copies.
Behind-the-scenes tension between the two hosts has occasionally shown up on TV. But Tuesday's comments were especially eyebrow-raising.
O'Reilly was on "CBS This Morning" to promote a new children's book, "Give Please a Chance."
Kelly was on a competing morning show, ABC's "Good Morning America," to promote her new memoir "Settle for More."
In the memoir, Kelly described Ailes' unwanted sexual advances. She felt she had little choice but to write about it because, in July, Ailes was sued by ex-anchor Gretchen Carlson. The lawsuit triggered an internal investigation. Kelly and numerous other women at Fox spoke with the investigators.
Kelly and her legal counsel did not go into detail about the alleged harassment at the time, but Kelly added information about it to her book, knowing she would be asked about the allegations during the press tour for the book.
When the CBS anchors brought up Kelly's book to O'Reilly, he said, "I'm not that interested in this."
Gayle King asked: "No?"
O'Reilly: "No-- I mean, it's over for--"
O'Donnell: "In sexual harassment? You're not interested in sexual harassment?"
O'Reilly: "I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...

Dumped on Prom Night - The PROOF of Hillary's Election Night Meltdown

People's Cube ^ | 11/12/2016 | Chedoh 

Some of the remnants of Hillary Clinton’s rampage in the private VIP area was discovered by the HOTEL CUSTODIAL STAFF the day following the election. Early in the morning, the custodial staff were greeted by flipped-over tables as the floors were covered with expensive food, drinks, and appetizers. Broken champagne flutes and gilded silverware were also seen scattered around the would-be party room.
The most telling sign of a massive meltdown was the cake. The pastry that had once proudly displayed the presidential seal, was violently flung against the walls in chunks. A broken topper from the cake in the shape of the white house was discovered lodged firmly into the drywall near the dessert table. (I read elsewhere it too TWO weeks to plan/prepare this cake.)
Hillary Clinton’s post election celebration plans included hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fireworks, live performances by various celebrities, such as Cher, who came believing that Hillary was going to win the election, a five-hundred-thousand-dollar special effect glass ceiling that she would break through in a dramatic display once she walked out on stage at her H.Q., among millions of dollars worth of other celebratory preparations, ALL PAID FOR BY THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IN FULL.
A former staffer, who was fired during the rampage, said that the atmosphere around Clinton went from "queen of the hour" to "the girl who was dumped on prom night" in only a few moments.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepeoplescube.com ...

Advising the President-Elect

Townhall.com ^ | November 15, 2016 | Cal Thomas 


It didn't take long. Journalists, editorial writers and columnists who hate Donald Trump and consistently opposed his election are now advising him what not to do.

Newspaper headlines claim Trump is pulling back on his campaign promises. Editorials encourage him not to do everything he pledged, although his pledges are what got him elected. The ACLU bought a full-page ad in The New York Times, vowing to use its army of lawyers and volunteers to thwart Trump's agenda.

Since everyone else is offering advice, here is mine: Begin with the economy. Propose to Congress cuts in individual and corporate taxes and a plan to do away with the tax code, replacing it with a flat or fair tax.

On illegal immigration, start building the wall, but announce that to help pay for it a toll system will be implemented, charging people who cross our southern border in each direction. Drivers have to pay tolls to get in and out of Manhattan. Why not tolls for getting in and out of America? The new president could also ask for contributions from the public to help build the wall, which can bring in additional funds. We'll see if Mexico pays anything.

Trump says he will forgo the $400,000 presidential salary. Here's a better idea. Take the money and donate it to scholarships for poor children so they can escape failing public schools and get a decent education for a better future. This could be done immediately while waiting for Congress to pass a school voucher plan and would encourage others to make similar contributions to charitable scholarship funds.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., is again playing a central role in the transition. Many of its ideas on domestic and foreign policy are posted at heritage.org. Heritage provided many policy suggestions to Ronald Reagan, which he embraced during his two terms.

A source familiar with what is occurring inside the transition tells me "landing teams" from Heritage will be visiting federal departments and agencies beginning Wednesday to ask questions and retrieve information for the new administration. They will be reminded that President Obama is president until Jan. 20 and to be "respectful." We only have one president at a time.

The Trump administration plans to follow Speaker Paul Ryan's advice and "go big, go bold." Hundreds of executive orders are being prepared, along with language members of Congress can use to formulate new legislation and repeal old laws. These include school choice, repealing and replacing most of Obamacare and reversing various social engineering orders, such as transgender bathroom requirements.


The transition team is combining the New York and Washington offices and entering what was described to me as the "execution stage," moving from policy pronouncements, to enactment.

Conservatives should be encouraged that vice president-elect Mike Pence has been put in charge of the transition. He is a rock-solid conservative who will be helpful in making sure people who hold conservative views are placed in key posts. The emphasis should shift from ideology to what works. If, for example, poor children are liberated from government schools and their grades and outlook on life improve, their testimony will be evidence enough that school choice has been a success.

Here's another suggestion. The major media hate Trump and always will. At his press conferences, he should include more conservative journalists who will eschew "gotcha" and "what do you say to people who say" questions and seek to obtain information of use to the public.

This will be the Republicans' last opportunity for a generation to show that their ideas work and to promote the general welfare. The possibilities are great if Trump and Pence and the Republican Congress ignore critics who want them to fail and press on to receive the prize that success will bring, not only to them and the GOP, but to a nation that longs for it.

No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

Vox ^ | November 11, 2016 | Andrew Prokop 

Donald Trump won Tuesday’s presidential election. But many liberals and progressives have begun clinging to one faint hope that he could still be stopped — through the Electoral College.
Tuesday’s vote was technically not to make Trump president, but only to determine who the 538 electors in various states across the country will be. It is those electors who will cast the votes that legally elect the president on December 19.
In modern times, the casting of electoral votes has been a purely ceremonial occasion where the results in the states have been rubber-stamped. But one idea spreading on left-leaning social media circles is that electors from states Trump won should be urged to support Clinton instead. A Change.org petition to this effect has more than 500,000 signatures.
Weirdly enough, this actually seems to be technically possible — the US Constitution does seem to give the electors the final say in picking the president.
But realistically, considering how big a lead Trump has, who the electors are, how their votes are counted, and hundreds of years of American democratic norms, it’s a silly fantasy that is just in no way, shape, or form going to happen.
How the Electoral College works
When Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won states on Tuesday, the practical result was that they won slots for electors in those states. For instance, Trump’s win in Alaska meant the Republican Party’s nominated elector slate there — former Gov. Sean Parnell, Jacqueline Tupou, and Carolyn Leman — officially becomes Alaska’s three electors. This process repeated itself across the country, resulting in the selection of the 538 electors.
On December 19, the electors will cast their votes for president in their respective states. But while in the modern era this ceremonial occasion has been a formality that reiterates the results of statewide votes, it seems to be at least technically possible that electors could instead defy their states and vote for whomever they choose.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.
This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result.
Why the Electoral College is not going to elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump
(GRAPHIC-AT-LINK)

In the past, I have warned of the risk that rogue electors could throw the outcome of a presidential election to a losing candidate. But there are many reasons why it’s not going to happen this year.
1) The Trump state electors are Republican Party stalwarts or activists chosen during state party deliberations — check out this excellent Politico feature “The People Who Pick the President” to see who some of them are. Almost always, the parties do a good enough job of vetting their respective electoral slates to ensure that they will indeed loyally back their party’s presidential nominee.
The Republican Party clearly ended up falling behind Trump, and any Republican elector who abandons him would be defying the will of not only their state’s voters but also the party generally. And while there actually are some Trump skeptics who are electors, they’ve pretty much all said they’d affirm the results in their states.
2) Trump now looks likely to end up with 306 electors to Clinton’s 232. So it’s not as if one or two electors could make the difference. Thirty-seven electors would have to desert Trump to deprive him of his majority. That’s a lot.
3) These electors wouldn’t just have to desert Trump. Simply depriving Trump of 270 votes without giving Clinton herself 270 would throw the election to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, which is certain to award the presidency to Trump. To prevent Trump’s election, they’d all have to affirmatively back Clinton.
Keep in mind that hardly any of even Trump’s strongest critics in the GOP went so far as to actually endorse Hillary Clinton over him. Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and George W. Bush all refused to go so far, saying instead they’d vote for no one or write in somebody else.
4) Any large-scale defections from Trump would surely be disputed by his supporters in those states, who may well just send in a conflicting set of electoral votes. And an 1887 law holds that if states send in multiple conflicting sets of electoral college votes, Congress gets to vote on which ones to recognize. The Republican-controlled Congress would obviously not go along with an attempt by electors to steal the presidency for Hillary Clinton.
5) Hillary Clinton has conceded the election and recognized Donald Trump as the winner. There is no sign that she would go along with or participate in this endeavor.
6) Most importantly, there are democratic norms. The broader reason we’ve only had nine faithless electors in the past 80 years or so, despite the enormous power they seem to have, is that it’s widely believed that picking the president isn’t their job anymore. Their job is to affirm the results in their states.
In summary, what people are talking about is getting 37 Republican Party activists expected to vote for Trump to essentially steal the election for Hillary Clinton in defiance of the will of the people in their states and the widely recognized rules of the presidential contest, even though Clinton herself doesn’t want them to. Not going to happen.
If this actually happened, it would almost surely end in disaster
Many progressives and liberals are clearly unhappy with the outcome of this election and fearful of a Trump presidency, and understandably so.
However, in addition to being unrealistic, this idea that the electors should simply choose to make Hillary Clinton president would be tremendously dangerous for American democracy if it ever gained real steam, despite the fig leaf that it seems to be technically possible and that Hillary Clinton appears to have won the popular vote.
For 180 years or so, our system has interpreted the results of the state elections as the Electoral College results. The campaigns are waged based on this understanding of the rules. The electors themselves have been rubber stamps. The popular vote has been irrelevant. Degrading those norms as part of a likely doomed effort to defeat Donald Trump is a bad idea. (For one, future rogue electors may not always vote the way you want — several historical rogue electors had racist motivations.)
Furthermore, electors overturning Trump particularly would certainly cause a constitutional crisis, because there is no world in which the Republican Party — who, again, control Congress — would accept Clinton taking the presidency in this way. (Likely, as mentioned above, they’d refuse to recognize the returns.) And furthermore, when this sort of thing happens elsewhere in the world, it often creates a military crisis. (Hillary Clinton is not very popular among the military, so I’m not sure liberals want to make that play.)
Indeed, to be perfectly clear, this idea is essentially a call for destroying American democracy, at least so far as it relates to presidential election results, before Trump can even get the chance to do anything, without any clear idea of what would replace it. It is very, very unlikely to work out well.

BREAKING: HILLARY DRUNKENLY ASSAULTED PODESTA ON ELECTION NIGHT

Patriot Update ^ | 11/15/2016 | Andrew West 

A week removed from the election of Donald J. Trump, wild stories about that fateful night are just now beginning to surface.
One of the wilder stories comes from radio host Todd Kincannon, whose sources inside the Washington political elite have relayed to him an insane new story from inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign bunker. According to Kincannon, Hillary was not only inebriated on election night, but physically violent toward several members of her staff.
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained. — The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 14, 2016
She was. I posted about that too. She was in a “psychotic drunken rage” according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix. https://t.co/jZv376ydDM — The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016
The CNN reporter didn’t fail to report it. His editors will not let him. CNN has banned all “Hillary in the bunker” stories. https://t.co/Iq7WlezU4i — The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016 With Hillary’s doctors playing a massive role in the demeanor of the candidate, due to her numerous and serious health concerns, the mixture of alcohol and sedatives could have severely altered the mood of the democratic nominee. When you add in the stress of her “inevitable” win slipping away into oblivion, you have a toxic combination of anger, drugs, alcohol, and stress that certainly could have led to violence on the behalf of Clinton.
This also help to explain Hillary’s refusal to deliver a concession speech on Tuesday night, bucking decades of tradition in presidential election. While the liberal media originally reported that development as merely a “it’s late, let’s keep counting in the morning” scenario, the new, true media on the right understood right away that something more was at play. The consensus on Tuesday night was that Hillary had become far too upset to speak, but now we realize the true nature of the incident.
hillary Hillary Clinton was drunk and violent on election night, accosting several members of her staff before being escorted back to her hotel. Now we must admit to ourselves just how great a bullet we have dodged. If Hillary Clinton couldn’t handle her electoral loss with any shred of dignity or grace, resorting to drunken, abusive violence, how could we possibly expect her to handle the stress of the office of the President? Mind you, Kincannon’s sources place this incident somewhere around midnight; three or more hours before the election was actually called in Trump’s favor.
When you combine this incident with reports of similar violent outbursts in Hillary’s past, we can piece together a pattern of violence and rage that is entirely unbecoming of an elected official in America.
Not to mention that attempting to play the woman card while being an abusive drunk is an embarrassing and futile endeavor.

Trump Immigration Architect – The Wall Will Be Built and There Will Be No Free Passes!

Conservative Treehouse ^ | 11-15-16 

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is the architect of the Trump immigration enforcement structures.  Working diligently behind the scenes Kobach is constructing the actual mechanisms and actionable policies that will make President Trump’s policy proposals actually come into fruition.

Fortuitously, President Obama’s executive actions -as carried out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)- have created convenient lists of many illegal aliens. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), otherwise known as President Obama’s “Dreamers”, and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which targets the parents of the dreamers, has conveniently assembled a registration of names and addresses of unlawful aliens.

During President Obama’s press conference yesterday he was asked by a reporter if he could keep the list from the Trump administration.   President Obama responded by saying he hoped Trump would not overturn his executive actions on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...

Is Planned Parenthood affiliate fueling anti-Trump protests?

Fox News ^ | 11-15-16 | Tori Richards 

The Craigslist ads read: “STOP TRUMP – up to $1500/week. Hiring immediately! Call Today Start tomorrow! $15-$18 hourly rate + bonus + overtime up to 77 hours per week!”

They were placed by a Planned Parenthood affiliate in major cities like Boston, Denver, Columbus, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh right before the election to defeat the candidacy of Donald Trump. However, most of them are still active on Craigslist, fueling questions about whether the group is now among those feeding the post-election anti-Trump protests across the country.
Many of the ads have Planned Parenthood Action, a PAC, emblazoned across the top and all of them list phone numbers belonging to the Community Outreach Group, a for-profit organization formed by Planned Parenthood as “a vendor of large-scale advocacy.” Protesting is among the tasks listed on its website.
MoveOn.org and others already have been linked to the demonstrations. Protesters have been out on the streets since Wednesday and have been mostly peaceful. However, in some instances – like in the city of Portland – police used flash bombs last week to quell an angry mob that lit fires and smashed cars and store windows with bats. One protester was shot by a civilian.
Planned Parenthood and Community Outreach Group have not returned phone calls seeking comment. Planned Parenthood, which received $553.7 million in tax dollars last year, had pledged to spend $30 million to defeat Trump, according to Rolling Stone. The money allegedly came from its super PAC, which “jointly” worked on the ground war, the magazine said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

How the Obama Years Stunted Millennial Growth (The origins of snowflakes)

The Federalist ^ | November 15, 2016 | Ben Domenech 

If the rising generation of young progressives allow themselves to believe Donald Trump is just a bump in the road to inevitable Democratic success. . . they are in for even more rude awakenings in the future.
... the Millennial generation inspires a ridiculous degree of overgeneralization. It is possible for a generation of this size to include more entrepreneurs and more slackers, more libertarians, socialists, dedicated believers and more unchurched nones.
It is also a generation split in two given the very different experiences within the cohort as it relates to social media. ... if you were born in 1990 or beyond, you have no memory of a world without cell phones and social media. These have very different lessons in how you view the world, and in your susceptibility to viewing it entirely through the warped lens social media experiences can create.
This has an impact on our politics as well.... If you were born in 1990, ... the first time you could cast a vote was in 2008, in the first election truly influenced by social media. The lessons you learned from that election were charted by an inspirational young political figure, whose status as a relative novice didn’t prevent you from trusting that he could bring incredible change to the existing political system.
... the Obama years were not a good time for positive growth or introspection on the part of Millennials. This is in part due to the near-constant hype of demographic destiny on the part of the Democratic intelligentsia. ....
.... the only thing holding them back is a handful of racist white male Fox News viewers. Victory, in the framing of many Democrats, was just a matter of time, waiting for old Republicans to die off and ushering a new progressive era.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...

Gallup: Economic Confidence Surges After Trump Beats Hillary for White House

Newsmax ^ | 15 Nov 2016 | F McGuire 

Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index soared 13 points last week to turn positive for the first time since March 2015 in the wake of Donald Trump’s White House victory.
Republicans' economic outlook also improved drastically.
Gallup's Economic Confidence Index moved from a slightly negative evaluation (-10) to a slightly positive one (+3). The index had been consistently negative throughout the year leading up to the election.
The increase in economic confidence mostly stems from Republicans' more positive views after Republican Donald Trump won the election. Gallup has previously noted that Americans view the economy through a political lens. Republicans have had a dismal view of the economy -- especially of its future direction -- during Democratic President Barack Obama's two terms.
“After Trump won last week's election, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents now have a much more optimistic view of the U.S. economy's outlook than they did before the election. Just 16% of Republicans said the economy was getting better in the week before the election, while 81% said it was getting worse. Since the election, 49% say it is getting better and 44% worse,” Gallup reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

Planned Parenthood Gets $500 Million in Tax Money, Spent $38 Million on Hillary Clinton’s Losing

lifenews.com ^ | 11/15/16 | Joe Ortwerth 

Political observers and commentators are devoting unparalleled attention to the astonishing results of last Tuesday’s national election.

Many reporters and political analysts are cataloguing their list of those who emerged as winners and losers as a result of the results of November 8th.

What is unmistakable is that one of the biggest losers was the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its nationwide chain of abortion clinics.

Political affiliates of Planned Parenthood spent approximately $38 million in efforts to elect Hillary Clinton President and pro-abortion candidates to the U.S. Congress.

(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...

Congressional Clinton probes will go forward post-election, GOP lawmakers say

Fox News ^ | 11/15/16 | Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne 

At least four congressional investigations into Hillary Clinton’s personal email use and mishandling of classified information are expected to go forward even after the former secretary of state’s election loss last week, Republican lawmakers tell Fox News.
The probes, which cover allegations that Clinton lied to Congress about her email practices in October 2015 and that government records were destroyed, are ongoing and not dependent on the election's outcome, two senior Republican senators said.
"I still don't have the information I need," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told Fox News. Johnson said the work of his committee, with jurisdiction over government records and the mishandling of classified information, would be careful not to disrupt President-elect Donald Trump’s priorities.
“I think it’s one of the messages of this election that the public is disgusted when they see double standards, when they think people in high places, high government officials can get away with what ordinary citizens can't,” he said. “So, I just think it’s extremely important to follow this thing through and get all the information. Make it public.”
.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

More than half of arrested anti-Trump protesters didn't vote in Oregon

KGW.com ^ | November 14, 2016 | Kyle Iboshi 

Portland, Ore.—More than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records.
At least sixty-nine demonstrators either didn’t turn in a ballot or weren’t registered to vote in the state.
KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials.
Records show 34 of the protesters arrested didn’t return a ballot for the November 8 election. Thirty-five of the demonstrators taken into custody weren’t registered to vote in Oregon.
Twenty-five protesters who were arrested did vote.
KGW is still working to verify voting records for the remaining 17 protesters who were arrested.
This article originally stated that 35 people were registered to vote and did not. One woman who was arrested told KGW she recently moved to Washington and did vote in Washington. She was also registered to vote in Oregon.

Obama’s legacy of losing: Democrats decimated in Congress, DNC in disarray

Washington Times ^ | Nov. 14, 2016 | Stephen Dinan 

Democrats always had the White House — until last week.
As their majorities in Congress slipped away and they ceded the lead in governorships over the past six years, President Obama and his top lieutenants comforted themselves with the changing demographics that they said would make it impossible for a Republican to win the top job.
Donald Trump punctured that belief in stunning fashion last week, sending Democratic voters scrambling to make sense of their losses and igniting a new battle for the party’s soul that promises to last for months.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Kevin McCarthy: We’re already laying groundwork for border wall legislation

Washington Times ^ | Nov. 15, 2016 | David Sherfinski 

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Congress isn’t waiting for President-elect Donald Trump’s swearing-in to move on the issue of immigration, saying the wheels are in motion on prepping legislation needed to build Mr. Trump’s pledged U.S.-Mexico border wall.
Mr. McCarthy said he has helped put a team in place “so when we’re sworn in … we are able to move the legislation needed to start building the wall.”
Mr. McCarthy also said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who said earlier this week that Chicago will always be a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, should focus on the security of his city and the number of murders there.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Why the 2016 Election Proves America Needs the Electoral College

The Daily Signal ^ | November 14, 2016 | Jarrett Stepman 

In the last week since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in a stunning electoral blowout, there have been calls from many on the left to abolish America’s unique presidential election system.
It still hasn’t been settled whether Trump or Clinton won the popular vote, but many Democrats are upset about the possibility that their candidate may have won more total votes, yet lost the election.
Progressives are taking aim at the Electoral College and want to replace it with a national popular vote. This would both remove the indirect mediation of the electors’ votes, and more damagingly, eliminate the power of states in choosing a president.
You can read my pre-election explanation of how the Electoral College works and why the Founding Fathers created it here. The 2016 presidential election is a perfect illustration of why America needs to keep this institution in place, regardless of whether one supported the winner or the loser in 2016.
The War on the Electoral College
A number of prominent people have called for abolishing the Electoral College, including President Barack Obama’s former attorney general Eric Holder, and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. And some of the media’s charges against the Electoral College have been hyperbolic.
One liberal professor called the Electoral College a “peculiar institution” and likened it to defending slavery, others simply labeled it racist, and one Slate writer denounced it as an “instrument of white supremacy—and sexism.”
Beyond the overheated rhetoric, detractors of the Electoral College have made two serious arguments.
First, that it’s simply unfair that a person can win the presidency without taking a majority of the national popular vote. Second, that an electoral emphasis on states as opposed to the people in an undifferentiated mass pushes candidates to only focus their attention on a few, closely contested “swing states.”
The ‘Fairness’ of the Electoral College
As designed in the Constitution, America’s presidential election is very much a product of the states—channeling the principle of “federalism” that the Founders cherished.
Smaller states receive a slightly higher number of votes compared to their population than more populous ones, which detractors of the Electoral College claim damages the idea of one man, one vote.
Many say this system is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be. But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?
The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.
Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers.
The Electoral College ensures that the interests of “flyover country” in middle America cannot be ignored.
This was dramatically demonstrated in 2016. Trump drew the support of a huge number of states across the South and Midwest, while Clinton racked up massive majorities in the most populous states like New York and California.
Without an Electoral College, candidates would have little incentive to appeal to people outside the most urbanized, coastal states. Clinton was defeated because she couldn’t win over a majority of voters in the once Democrat-dominated Rust Belt that broke for Obama in the previous two elections.
The state results in the 2016 election also debunk the second major argument for abolishing the Electoral College: that candidates would only spend time campaigning in a few essential swing states.
Trump succeeded in defeating Clinton because he was able to pluck off a number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—that had voted solidly Democrat for over a decade. This sudden shift is why Trump secured a surprise victory.
As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross noted in a PragerU video, a state dominated by one party shifting to another is not a new phenomenon. California was a Republican stronghold until the late 1980s, and Texas used to be controlled entirely by Democrats.
Major electoral shifts have happened throughout American history, and will continue to do so as regions and political parties change. Demolishing the Electoral College should not be based on the outcome in a particular election.
Learn Why the Fence Was Built
The American system has had a remarkable success rate in transferring power from one presidential administration to the next.
This year, protestors unhappy with the election results have gathered in a few enclaves to denounce the president-elect. Some have even called for Democrat-dominated California to secede from the Union.
Yet, with the exception of 1860 (those secession threats were a little more serious than “#Calexit”), Americans have found a way to maintain an incredible record of political stability for over two centuries—in large part thanks to the Electoral College. It would be incredibly foolish to throw away that system for the sake of one side that didn’t get what it wanted this year.
The old adage that one should learn why a fence was built before tearing it down applies to our unique presidential election process. The rash call to dismantle the Electoral College that has been the model of stability over two centuries could do enormous damage to the United States.
Though the rules of the institution may seem strange, it is a carefully designed system conceived by the framers of the Constitution, and its opponents would do well to reflect on the reasons it was created before calling for its destruction.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

After Political Correctness Comes Trumpidor

American Thinker ^ | November 15, 2016 | Christopher Chantrill 

I take as revealed truth that to get voters to reach 90% on any issue, you have to scare the pants off them. That is why blacks voted 88% and LGBTs voted 78% for Clinton in the CNN exit polls.
On that view it makes complete sense that the Clinton voters have been rioting for the past week. They are scared, because that’s what the Democrat leaders have taught them, to hate and to fear.
What fools they are, what dominated fools to think that Clinton was the Earth and sky. But now that she has lost, nobody is going to start lynching blacks or rounding up gays. That’s not because because we white normals are perfect people, not at all. Just like every human, we are deeply prejudiced, and we like our own best. But we don’t believe in using politics to change the world; we are just not that interested in power.
But here we have the mind-numbed robots of the Democrats demonstrating in the streets and feeling afraid for their lives and their IUDs as though it was still Selma, Alabama in 1965, and women were still being taken as slaves after the sack of Troy. What is going on here?
I will tell you. There is one word for it: intellectual terrorism.
And leftist intellectual terrorism has two parts. The first part is the shut up the opposition; the second part is to fill the supporters with hate and fear.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Leftist Hysteria & Hate Crime Hoaxes-violence and fabrication while media lends helping hand

Frontpagemagazine ^ | November 15, 2016 | Ari Lieberman 



The 2016 elections are finally over and America has chosen its next leader but the stench of hate emanating from the radical Left still lingers. A lethal mix of professional agitators, anarchists, illegal aliens and basement-dwelling social justice warriors, has taken to the streets to voice protest over the results.  In actuality, they are protesting against the democratic process itself.
Some of the anti-Trump manifestations have become violent. In Redwood City, California a high school student was physically assaulted after she voiced support for Trump on social media. Her attacker, a fellow student, accused her of “hating Mexicans” and without provocation proceeded to punch, kick and throw her to the ground. The school said that it would discipline the perpetrator but failed to elaborate further.
In Chicago, a group of five thugs – three men and two women – brutally savaged 49-year old David Wilcox while screaming “You voted Trump” and “Don’t vote Trump.” One of the gang riled the others by taunting, “Yeah, it’s one of them white boy Trump guys.” Several days passed before the mainstream media gave the incident any attention while the website Snopes initially issued a sanitized account of what occurred, downplaying or burying outright, other aggravating factors. The New York Times, the paper that recently apologized to its subscribers for its slanted coverage of the election, dedicated a grand total of five short paragraphs to the story.
The attack on Wilcox commenced following a minor traffic accident. Another vehicle had sideswiped his car. Wilcox’s sole offense was to ask the other motorist is she had insurance. That was enough to trigger the unprovoked violent assault. He was thrown to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked and then robbed of his personal belongings. Ultimately, one of the attackers managed to steal Wilcox’s car while Wilcox desperately clung to the side of the vehicle (and nearly died doing so). Chicago police said they were “investigating.”
In Sweden, a chef was set upon by a group of Muslim men because they said he looked like Trump. Two men grabbed Anders Vendel from behind while a third proceeded to pummel him. He eventually fell to the ground where the beating continued with a flurry of kicks and punches. Vendel sustained a fractured thumb, broken nose as well as other facial injuries.
The vitriol has spilled over to overt death threats. Monisha Rajesh, A freelance writer for the British Guardian publication, called for Trump’s assassination, tweeting “it’s about time for a presidential assassination.” Her Twitter account has since been deleted and the Guardian attempted to distance itself from Rajesh claiming that she is an infrequent contributor and they could not be held responsible for comments made on social media. The paper did not say if they would sever their relationship with her.
Just prior to the election, the Los Angeles Times fired a freelance reporter who tweeted that he hoped Trump would die. Steven Borowiec, whose Twitter account has since been deleted tweeted, “I would rather see Donald Trump’s life end.”

Anti-Trump hysteria is not merely limited to assaults and death threats. A more pernicious form of mania has now taken root and is gaining traction – fake claims involving Trump supporters attacking minorities and members of the LGBT community.
The latest incident involved a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. The unnamed student claimed that she was assaulted and robbed by two white men, one of whom wore a Trump hat. The woman claimed that the attackers ripped off her Hijab, shoved her to the ground and stole her wallet while directing racial slurs at her.
Unlike the video recorded incident in Chicago involving Mr. Wilcox, this story was quickly expedited to the mainstream media and was prominently featured by anti-Trump outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN.
The Louisiana state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (the organization that was the unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation) scrambled to issue swift condemnations of the attack and Trump’s alleged “frequent use of anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail.”
There was just one problem. The incident was completely fabricated from beginning to end with not even a kernel of truth. Lafayette police announced that that during the course of their investigation, the student admitted to fabricating the story. Her motives for lying were not announced and the police did not say whether the woman would be charged with filing a false report.
Anti-Trump agitators have also claimed that there has been a surge in suicides among transgender youth but have been unable to match their baseless accusations with verifiable statistics. Similarly, claims of homophobic attacks by Trump supporters spurred on by alleged Trump campaign rhetoric has proven to be equally groundless.
The Left often accuses the Right of stoking the flames of hatred and xenophobia but it is in fact radical Left which has become the undeniable champion of intolerance and violence. Perhaps even more odious is the fact that the myopic mainstream media, in their blind hatred of Trump, seems to have completely abandoned all standards journalistic integrity. They have also sadly partnered with the most extremist elements of society in stoking the flames of racial discord.

Why Did Trump Win?

American Thinker ^ | November 15, 2016 | Brian C. Joondeph 

Donald Trump's upset victory is being attributed to many factors, from Hillary Clinton being a corrupt and flawed candidate to the rise of the angry white male. Never mind that Trump secured more white women support than did Clinton. Maybe it was due to the FBI investigations and Director Comey's schizophrenic opening and closing the investigations. Maybe it was Anthony Weiner entering the race with State Department emails on his laptop. Or the endless WikiLeaks revelations.
What really gave Trump his victory is one person: Barack Obama. This election was nothing less than a complete and total repudiation of his presidency, his policies, his "fundamental transformation of America" that he promised and delivered.
Let's go back to 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected as the first black president, promising hope and change, along with a fundamental transformation of the country – transformation that was in the eye of the beholder. He would be the first post-racial president, mending the racial divide that had ironically already healed enough for America to elect its first black president. The economy was in turmoil after the financial meltdown a few months earlier. He was new. He was "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," according to his vice president. He even had the "perfect crease in his pants," foreshadowing a great presidency to a New York Times columnist.
The 2008 election not only gave us President Obama, but gave the Democrats a majority of state governorships, 29 to 21. That year, Democrats also controlled the Senate, 58-41, a seven-seat gain. Democrats gained 21 House seats, increasing their control 257 to 178.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

To Democrats' Dismay, Trump Will Inherit Obama's Expanded Presidential Powers

Investors Business DailyEditorial ^ | November 14, 2016Nov. 154, 2016 5:54 PM E

The Presidency: With a new president much loathed by the mainstream media and progressive elites, it shouldn't be very long until we start hearing about the dangers of the "imperial presidency." Where were they, we wonder, during the Obama years?
It's quite an irony that the one whom many on the left said they couldn't stomach as president should become president and inherit a whole panoply of new presidential powers that President Obama used and no one other than conservatives objected to. Because now, a President Trump can use the same powers.
As Damon Root of Reason magazine has noted, candidate Barack Obama in 2007 professed deep concern about the expansion of executive power under President Bush, and vowed to be very different. "The president is not above the law,"...
...The left enthusiastically embraced Obama's use of extraordinary presidential powers because, hey, "elections have consequences," "the ends justify the means," and, as Obama himself once so eloquently put it, "I won."
They may now live to regret that. President-elect Trump will enter office with an extensive list of things to do — and, perhaps, equally important, to undo, including much of Obama's questionable agenda from eight years. Democrats in Congress will no doubt fight a rear-guard action to keep Trump from acting without congressional authority. Expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And no doubt, Trump will remind them: "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

The Basket of Deplorables vs. the Soufflé of Adorables

Townhall.com ^ | November 15, 2016 | Alex Grass 

The soufflé is a difficult dish to master. Even seasoned chefs can tell you that this very fragile, puffy delicacy will collapse if you open the oven at the wrong moment. Mirroring the vulnerability of the soufflé, a nation of undergraduate and graduate students is on the verge of a hysterical collapse following Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.
Just as the frustrated chef’s anxiety comes from the perpetually delicate soufflé, the educator’s anxiety comes from a perpetually delicate generation of students. Post-election safe spaces abound at campuses nationwide, where mollycoddled students are offered coloring books and puppies (not a joke), and administrators implicitly signal to the campus minority that voted for Trump that their political philosophy is damaging to their eggshell peers.
My own law school sent an email offering group stress-relief and individual therapy sessions to grieving students. The higher-tiered University of Michigan law school one-upped us, though, by providing a “[p]ost-election [s]elf-care” session replete with play-dough, Legos, and bubbles.
If my school had only asked, I could have brought all those items in. Although it might’ve taken a while to find the play-dough, which is kept in storage with the rest of my 10-year-old daughter’s old toys that she’s outgrown.
After receiving that email from my law school, my wife explained the soufflé-making process to me, which I thought was quite the apt analogy, given college students’ exaggerated victimhood:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Dinner!

Perks!

WTF,over?

She is happy!

Now Do It!

Egg on their face!

Glass Ceiling

Why not Mexico?

That Look!

Worthless!

It's Over!

Border Patrol

OOPS!

How Come?

Last One!

How'd we do?

Snowflakes