Hiroshima for the DNC: @DonnaBrazile Devastates Democrat Corruption

 

Democrats don’t just deceive, cheat and swindle the voters and taxpayers, they also deceive, cheat and swindle each other:

My predecessor [as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee], Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party — she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. . . .
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. . . .
Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt — $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign — and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance. . . .

There’s a lot more where that came from. This is devastating beyond words. Everybody’s talking about how Brazile has confirmed the suspicion of Bernie Sanders that the Democrat primary process was basically rigged for Hillary, but the larger revelations are even worse:

  1. Democrats have been squandering their donors’ money in much the same way they routinely squander taxpayers’ money;
  2. The triumph of Obama’s two-term presidency, which should have yielded a fund-raising windfall for the DNC, instead left the party more than $20 million in debt;
    and
  3. The DNC’s indebtedness was exploited by the Clinton campaign to defraud Democrat primary voters.

It was this perception of a rigged nomination process that made Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” charge resonate with working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. And so the corruption of the Democrat Party — profligate spending, irresponsible management and insider favoritism at DNC headquarters — was a major cause of their devastating defeat last year. These revelations confirm the suspicions that a lot of grassroots Democrats have had all along, and will make the party’s recovery a very difficult prospect. If an appealing left-wing third-party candidate emerges before 2020, that might be R.I.P. for Democrats.



 

The Harvey Weinstein Democrat Bonfire

 

Just five months ago, Harvey Weinstein was hanging out with Hillary Clinton at Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary gala:

At the celebration, Planned Parenthood awarded former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the Champion of the Century Award. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein gave Clinton a standing ovation at the event where she insisted on the “morality” of “reproductive health care” (aka abortion) and stressed “trusting and valuing women.” . . .
According to Artnet editor Sarah Cascone, Weinstein also purchased artwork by British painter Cecily Brown at a charity auction at the gala for $100,000. . . .
According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 328,348 abortions and received $554.6 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements” for the year 2015-2016.

Democrats loved Harvey Weinstein, until they hated him:

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said she was “shocked and appalled” in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, speaking publicly for the first time about the longtime Democratic donor five days after it first emerged that multiple women had accused him of harassment over the course of decades.
“I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement. “Their courage and support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
A high-profile donor in the Democratic Party, Weinstein has contributed more $20,000 to Clinton’s campaigns since she ran for U.S. Senate in New York in 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

Weinstein has given an estimated $2 million to Democrats over the past 25 years, but his money won’t help him anymore:

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.
The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.
Three women — among them [actress Asia] Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans — told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

But wait — there’s more!

When Gwyneth Paltrow was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to star: The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation “Emma.” Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully.
It ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages, she said. . . .
Rosanna Arquette, a star of “Pulp Fiction,” has a similar account of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior, as does Judith Godrèche, a leading French actress. So does Angelina Jolie, who said that during the release of “Playing by Heart” in the late 1990s, he made unwanted advances on her in a hotel room, which she rejected.

Are there any women in Hollywood that Harvey Weinstein didn’t harass? But never mind, liberals are shocked, shocked:

Academy Award winner George Clooney, who was given his first major big-screen role by Harvey Weinstein, has become the latest — and most high-profile — member of Hollywood to speak out on the alleged sexual-misconduct allegations against his sometime employer.
“It’s indefensible. That’s the only word you can start with,” he says. “Harvey’s admitted to it, and it’s indefensible. I’ve known Harvey for 20 years. He gave me my first big break as an actor in films on From Dusk Till Dawn, he gave me my first big break as a director with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. We’ve had dinners, we’ve been on location together, we’ve had arguments. But I can tell you that I’ve never seen any of this behavior — ever.” . . .
Weinstein, the former co-chief of Miramax, has since been fired from The Weinstein Company—which he co-founded with his brother Bob—and many of the male actors and filmmakers in particular who have benefited from the studio executive’s Oscar Midas touch, from Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (Good Will Hunting) to Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), have remained alarmingly silent.

“Alarmingly silent.”



 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Coming This (Down)Fall: #RiceCapades

by Smitty


I’ve been pretty much wrong with every thing I’ve ever predicted, politically.

Undaunted, let me offer the following rough outline:

  1. Trump has Congress appoint a special prosecutor.
  2. They do a thorough investigation of #OccupiedResoluteDesk’s abuses, direct and indirect.
  3. They publish a redacted copy.
  4. Trump pardons Obama.

Think about it:

  • Obama wants to go to court. He can drag out every last bit of punctuation in court, while his thralls tear up the country.
  • Trump has far more to lose than to gain by actual litigation. What are you raaaaacists actually going to do to Teh One?
  • By just putting it out there and pardoning Obama, Trump executes irrefutable judgement on Obama. And Donald can claim healing, bi-partisanship, hugs, and cupcakes.

(image source)

The Worst President in History

Barack Obama has made Bradley Manning the symbol of his disgraceful legacy.

“Look at the way Obama treats America’s friends and compare it to the way he treats America’s enemies, and it’s obvious that Obama’s interests and America’s only rarely coincide.”
— Stephen Green, Jan. 18, 2017

Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan’s book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama should be required reading in America’s schools. The media are never going to admit the scope of failure — and beyond failure, deliberate destruction — that has characterized the eight-year reign of error that comes to an end tomorrow. Obama inflicted more damage on the nation this week by pardoning a Puerto Rican terrorist, Oscar Lopez Rivera, and commuting the sentence of the traitor Bradley “Chelsea” Manning. The extent of Manning’s damage to America’s interests is beyond calculation. Manning “knowingly and intentionally placed lives in danger by indiscriminately placing our nation’s secrets in the public domain,” as David French writes at National Review:

It’s not that long ago that actions like Manning’s would merit execution, and he should be grateful that he merely received a 35-year sentence. Instead, however, both the [New York] Times and the Obama administration treat him more like a messed-up kid than a soldier who betrayed his nation.

Every soldier in the Army has sworn an oath to follow orders. Military discipline cannot be maintained otherwise. The authority that the sergeant exercises over the privates in his squad, and the colonel’s authority over the soldiers in his regiment, is derived from that duty of obedience which extends all the way up to the Commander-in-Chief who, like every soldier, is sworn to an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Every soldier in the ranks is volunteer, a servant of the nation willing to die for his country, and our troops deserve a Commander-in-Chief who appreciates their service because he loves their country the way the soldier loves his country.

Bradley Manning disobeyed orders. He deliberately violated his oath. Every day, soldiers are punished for such violations. A failure to obey orders can be punished in many ways. Squads of soldiers are “smoked” — put through punitive physical training, made to run and do push-ups until they’re soaked in sweat and panting from exhaustion — because they have failed as a unit to meet their sergeant’s expectations. The good soldiers must sweat along with the bad soldiers, because combat troops must function as a unit, responding to orders, or else they will suffer defeat as a result of the failure to instill unit cohesion through proper discipline.

 

Bradley Manning did more than merely fail. He betrayed his country. The very fact that someone like Bradley Manning was deployed to Iraq, as a member of a military intelligence unit, speaks volumes about the Obama administration’s disregard for America’s national security.

In his Bible Belt hometown that he once mockingly wrote in an e-mail had “more pews than people,” Private Manning refused to recite the parts of the Pledge of Allegiance that referred to God or do homework assignments that involved the Scriptures. And if a teacher challenged his views, former classmates said, he was quick to push back.
“He would get upset, slam books on the desk if people wouldn’t listen to him or understand his point of view,” said Chera Moore, who attended elementary and junior high school with him. “He would get really mad, and the teacher would say, ‘O.K., Bradley, get out.’ ” . . .
He enlisted in the Army in 2007, to try to give his life some direction and to help to pay for college, friends said. . . .
He was granted a security clearance and trained as an intelligence analyst at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., before being assigned to the Second Brigade 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y.
Before being deployed to Iraq, Private Manning met Tyler Watkins, who described himself on his blog as a classical musician, singer and drag queen. A friend said the two had little in common, but Private Manning fell head over heels. Mr. Watkins, who did not respond to interview requests for this article, was a student at Brandeis University. On trips to visit him here in Cambridge, Private Manning got to know many in Mr. Watkins’ wide network of friends, including some who were part of this university town’s tight-knit hacker community.

Read the rest of that 2010 profile of Bradley Manning and ask yourself, “Who was responsible for putting this guy in an Army intelligence unit?”

The apprehension of Bradley Manning should have prompted a massive investigation at the Pentagon to ascertain what kind of lapses in training — and laxity in personnel policy — had resulted in the failure to drum that worthless cowardly son of a bitch out of the Army long before he could have had a chance to betray his country. One of the obvious sources of the problem was that, as a result of the long war in Iraq, the military lowered its standards and by 2007 was accepting recruits who should have been rejected for service. Another source of the problem could be traced back to the Clinton administration’s misguided 1993 decision to abrogate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, resulting in the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Democrats hate the American military, and whenever a Democrat is in the White House, our troops are subjected to absurd social-engineering experiments that undermine unit discipline and morale, so that when Republican presidents take office, they must try to undo the damage done by their predecessors. Because 9/11 happened so shortly after George W. Bush became president, however, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought without having fixed the problems created by the eight years of Bill Clinton’s anti-military policy.

Now, President Trump will take over as Commander-in-Chief of a military that has been under the perfidious command of anti-American Democrat presidents for 16 of the past 24 years. Our new president’s promise to “Make America Great Again” will first require him to fix the problems at the Pentagon which allowed Bradley Manning to wear an Army uniform long enough to betray his country by violating his oath:

President Obama defended his decision to commute the remainder of Chelsea Manning’s sentence during his final press conference as President on Wednesday, arguing that she’d done enough time already.
“Given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence that she received was very disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received, and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute, and not pardon, her sentence,” he said of the woman who as a private leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. “I feel very comfortable that justice has been served and a message has still been sent.”

No, sir, a firing squad would have been the proper “message” for Manning, and by commuting the sentence of this traitor, Barack Obama has permanently secured his legacy as The Worst President in History.



 

Video Shows Democrat Hate Crime in Chicago: ‘F–k Trump! F–k White People!’

 

Four young supporters of Barack Obama wanted to show the world what the Democrat Party stands for, so they kidnapped a mentally disabled young white man, bound and gagged him, and tortured him in a West Side Chicago apartment, livestreaming video of their hate crime on Facebook.

Police say they have arrested four 18-year-old suspects — two black males and two black females — in connection with the incident that Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson called “sickening.”

Police document shows suspect in this week’s Chicago torture incident.

One of the suspects, Brittany Herring, a/k/a Brittany Covington, had been arrested for larceny in October. This week’s atrocity occurred in the city where Obama once worked as a “community organizer,” where Hillary Clinton got 84% of the vote on Election Day, and where Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been mayor since 2011. Chicago is also a city where nearly 800 people were murdered in 2016, with more homicides than New York and Los Angeles combined.

 

The video torture of the young white man by black Chicago teens shouting “f–k Trump” and “f–k white people,” came in the wake of nearly two months of incitement by Democrats and their liberal media allies, after the Nov. 8 election in which Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Encouraged by sympathetic coverage from CNN and other liberal TV networks, Democrat protesters using the slogan “Not My President” have staged rallies denouncing white people as “racist” for voting Republican.

 

Chicago Democrats protested against Trump in November.

Since the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri, the Democrat-funded activist group Black Lives Matter has encouraged violence against police and against white people, inciting riots in Baltimore in April 2015 and in Charlotte, N.C., last September. In July, 11 Dallas police officers were shot by a terrorist named Micah Xavier Johnson who was inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. The Dallas attack “was part of an ongoing wave of violent racial terrorism targeting American law enforcement” that included shootings of police in Tennessee, Missouri and Georgia.

In her recent book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Heather Mac Donald described how false narratives promoted by the Black Lives Matter movement were “amplified by the media, college presidents, and the left-wing political class.” Despite clear evidence that the group’s protests were jeopardizing public safety and inciting crimes against police, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. In their book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama, authors Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan describe how the president’s public rhetoric has shown “a tendency to use race as a wedge to divide Americans,” politically exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin and the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Democrats express their hatred of the president-elect.

Despite the racial violence Democrats have incited, and despite evidence that resentment of the Obama administration’s anti-white policies factored into Clinton’s November defeat, the liberal media continue promoting the Democrats’ anti-Trump/anti-white message. John Hinderaker at Powerline observed how the Associated Press attempted to conceal the racial politics of the Chicago atrocity, while Glenn Reynolds commented on the failure of most major media outlets to connect the dots of this racial hate crime: “If the races were reversed, there would be near-unanimous media efforts to blame Trump, and they wouldn’t be waiting until all the facts were in to do it.”



 

 

RELATED:

 

Democrat Armageddon

Top headlines at the Drudge Report, as of 6:30 a.m. ET today:

 

 

 

What does all this mean? At least two conclusions seem obvious:

  1. Democrat primary voters are crazy;
    and
  2. People don’t like Hillary Clinton very much.

Say what you will about Barack Obama, but you cannot deny the man has a certain charisma about him. Ever since JFK was assassinated, Democrats had been looking for a candidate like Obama, a charismatic figure as a vehicle to advance a liberal policy agenda. Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by asterisks — he never got a majority of the popular vote — but Obama won by decisive majorities in 2008 and 2012.

For better or worse, therefore, the Democrats are now Obama’s party, and the fracture in this year’s primary campaign is the result. Bernie Sanders is Obama without charisma. Hillary Clinton is who she has always been, and she has never had any charisma. What the Democrats are betting, really, is that they won’t need charisma in November. Their ideal scenario would be for the Democrats to nominate Hillary, Jeb Bush to get the Republican nomination and Donald Trump to run a third-party populist campaign, so that the Clintons can slither back into the White House on a 43-percent plurality the way Bill did it in 1992.

The underlying problem for Democrats is that their desperation to capture and hold the White House has cost them scores of seats in Congress and state legislatures, and the number of Democrats among governors have been decimated. Democrats now represent the Left on a nationwide basis, which means they represent New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle and other major urban centers. Democrats represent government employees, including employees of the liberal-controlled public school system, and Democrats also represent recipients of government benefits, including college students dependent on financial aid.

Democrats are generally the party of all who live at taxpayers’ expense. Democrats are hostile to the interests of those who work for a living in the private sector. Democrats hate America, because Democrats hate capitalism, hate the traditional family, and also hate God. Democrats are the party of abortion clinics and unwed motherhood. Democrats are the party of Hollywood, the New York Times, and the feminist blogosphere. Democrats are the party of dopeheads and atheists, vegetarians and pacifists, homosexuals and hedonists. Democrats are the party of blue-haired hipsters and tattoo-covered slackers. Democrats are the party of the emotionally wounded and the mentally ill, the party of “victims.”

Having collected all these disparate anti-American interest groups into a nationwide anti-American coalition — a phenomenon that was apparent as early as the 1972 McGovern campaign, and replicated in the 1988 Dukakis campaign — the Democrats were able to win the White House in 2008 and 2012 without making any real concession to the part of the American electorate that is Christian, patriotic, and happily married.

Elections have consequences, and living in the Obama Age means that we no longer live in America. We now live in Anti-America.

 

Obama promised that America would be fundamentally transformed and he has accomplished what he promised, which is why Bernie Sanders was able to rally the Kook Coalition to beat Clinton in the New Hampshire primary by a 22-point margin. As crazy as Hillary Clinton is, she isn’t quite crazy enough to represent what the Democrat Party has become in the Obama Age. Insanity is now public policy, and the paranoid rage of maniacs is a political force to be reckoned with in the wake of our fundamental transformation. The crisis of the Hillary Clinton campaign is therefore an omen of America’s impending doom because, even if the Democrats lose the next election, what can we expect the next time the Democrats win an election? How many more Democrat presidencies can the nation endure before it finally descends into total depravity and madness? The collapse of American society into violent chaos, anarchy and civil war is by no means a far-fetched scenario.

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.




 

#OccupyResoluteDesk, #OccupySCOTUS?

by Smitty

Shall not eight years of the personal pronoun pumping pipsqueak have been enough? The price of Her Majesty’s election, despite being the least suitable person since Barack Obama, may become apparent:

While at a rally in Decorah, Iowa, on Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what she thought about nominating President Obama to the highest court.
“Wow, what a great idea, nobody has ever suggested that to me,” Clinton said.

Ho Lee Focaccia with turkey, avocado and mayonnaise, Batman. If the thought of listening to that anti-Constitutional jackwagon on the SCOTUS bench, getting paid to lift his leg against all we hold dear until he decides he’s bored and retires, isn’t enough to galvanize conservatives into action (and I mean more than mere blog posts) then I daresay we deserve the abuse.
It’s clear that our country is mismanaged by a homo bureaucratus infestation, where the motto is “fail upward”, but enough is enough.

via Instapundit

When Crazy Is Against the Law …

. . . only outlaws will be crazy:

Delivering on its promise to deliver “common sense” gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
The action was one of a series of steps that President Barack Obama had called for in January 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings to curb gun violence, but the rule was not published until today.
While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from sharing information without the consent of their patients.
Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussions.
“The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and certain other information needed for NICS purposes,” the rule states.

So when you use your ObamaCare insurance to get free mental health treatment, the doctor will report you to the FBI.

This should work out nicely. Thanks, Big Government!

UPDATE: Apparatchiks in the Politburo have been busy, comrades:

The White House released a fact-sheet Jan. 4 which previews the executive gun control Obama will unveil Tuesday and one aspect of the new controls is the inclusion of “information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.” . . .
According to the White House executive order preview:

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.

Now, if only they could ban these kooks from Tumblr . . .