Wednesday, December 28, 2016


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
[In a] New York Times editorial, in which Jimmy Carter publicly called for President Obama to divide the land of Israel at the United Nations before Inauguration Day.
During his presidency, Carter went to great lengths to obtain peace between Egypt and Israel, and since that time, the former President has remained an ardent advocate in support of a Palestinian state. With the recent election of Donald Trump as Obama’s successor, Carter knows that his vision and hopes for the future of “a two-state solution” to finally bring lasting peace to the Middle East is lessening by the moment.

In an impassioned and urgent attempt to use the time left in Obama’s term to salvage what he can of this situation, Carter called for Obama to take specific steps toward this aim at a peaceful resolution. One step specifically, among many mentioned, is Carter’s opinion that Obama should give formal recognition to a Palestinian state. In the editorial he explains that, “I am convinced the United States can still have the future of the Israel-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short.”
(Andy Beth Miller, "Jimmy Carter Calls for Dividing Land of Israel," ChristianHeadlines Online, December 02, 2016)
[TBC: Jimmy Carter (as a professing born again Christian) may seem out of place among the "evangelical theologians" who support Christian Palestinianism, but as we have pointed out, that's not the case. As Dave Hunt noted concerning Carter, "His book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, embodies all that the others (Stephen Sizer, Hank Hangegraaff, Tony Campolo, Brian McClaren) stand for in their opposition to Israel and the Word of God--and then some."]

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 (Evangelical Focus)  Coinciding with the 
fifth centenary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, the State Library
 of the German city of Berlin will exhibit three of the seven original 
prints of Martin Luther’s 95 theses that are still preserved.
Published in 1517, they laid the theological foundations for one of the most important political, spiritual and intellectual movements in European history and the world today.
This initiative will be included in a wide exhibition, that the Berlin library will open on February 3, under the name of “Bible, Thesis, Propaganda.”
Coinciding with the fifth centenary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, the State Library of the German city of Berlin will exhibit three of the seven original prints of Martin Luther's 95 theses that are still preserved. Published in 1517, they laid the theological foundations for one of the most important political, spiritual and intellectual movements in European history and the world today. This initiative will be included in a wide exhibition, that the Berlin library will open on February 3, under the name of "Bible,Thesis, Propaganda.”
See more:
Three of the seven original prints of Martin Luther's 95 theses will be shown in the "Bible, Thesis, Propaganda” exhibition in Berlin next February.
See more:
Three of the seven original prints of Martin Luther's 95 theses will be shown in the "Bible, Thesis, Propaganda” exhibition in Berlin next February.
See more:
Three of the seven original prints of Martin Luther's 95 theses will be shown in the "Bible, Thesis, Propaganda” exhibition in Berlin next February.
See more:
Three of the seven original prints of Martin Luther's 95 theses will be shown in the "Bible, Thesis, Propaganda” exhibition in Berlin next February. SOURCES Protestante Digital AUTHOR Evangelical Focus BERLIN 27 DECEMBER 2016 13:20 h GMT+1 One of the original texts, with the image of Martin Luther.
See more:


Grandma Got Run Over by Obama: 

SSA Finalizes New Gun Rule



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA -( On Monday, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as “mental defectives.”
The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be co-opted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.
Barack Obama’s political party and the presidential candidate he personally endorsed and campaigned for suffered perhaps the most dramatic rebuke in the history of American politics with the election of Donald J. Trump.
Far from being humbled or chastened, however, Obama is spending the waning days of his presidency releasing duly convicted felons from prison, making low-level appointments, and pushing pet policy projects, all to do something, anything, to leave his stamp after a lackluster tenure.
The Social Security rule is the final version of a proposal that we reported on earlier this year. Public outcry against the proposed rule was fierce, and the comment period drew over 91,000 responses, the vast majority of them opposing the plan.
The NRA itself submitted detailed comments, taking the proposed rule to task for its many legal problems, its lack of empirical support, and the way it would politicize the SSA’s functions and stigmatize its beneficiaries.

The SSA, however, essentially ignored the NRA’s comments and the tens of thousands of others pointing out problems with the plan and issued a final rule that in most key respects tracks the original proposal.

For example, the SSA did not attempt to answer most of the legal questions raised about its authority, instead deferring to an over broad and problematic ATF regulation defining who counts under the federal Gun Control Act as a “mental defective” and to Department of Justice guidance on reporting.
The SSA did not explain why, some two decades after the federal background check system came online, it was reversing its earlier determination about its reporting responsibilities and only now asserting a mandate to do so.
Incredibly, the SSA also brushed aside empirical evidence the NRA submitted suggesting that the proposed rule would have no public safety benefit. “We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence,” the SSA wrote. “Rather, we are complying with our obligations under the NIAA, which require us to provide information from our records when an individual falls within one of the categories identified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g).”
This would seem to be the very definition of the sort of arbitrary and capricious rule making prohibited by the Administrative Procedures Act.
The SSA also insisted that it was not stigmatizing those who receive disability insurance or SSI for mental health conditions, arguing that the names of the beneficiaries reported to NICS would not be made public.
What the administration ignores is that it would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.
The administration further acknowledges that the rule would not provide those subject to its terms the ability to defend their suitability to possess firearms before the actual loss of rights took place.
In other words, it offers no due process on the question of losing Second Amendment rights.
Instead, the rule forces affected beneficiaries to file a petition for “restoration” of rights and to somehow prove their possession of firearms would not harm public safety or the public interest, even though the government never established, or tried to establish, the contrary.

Regarding the expense of the psychological and medical evaluations required for this purpose, the administration claims it should be “reasonable,” although it does not and cannot claim it will actually be affordable to those who are affected by the rule.

The major parameters of the final rule are the same as those we detailed in an earlier alert on the proposal. It will affect those who receive SSI or disability insurance because of a listed mental health impairment and who have been assigned a representative payee to manage the benefits because of the person’s mental condition.
The bottom line, however, is that tens of thousands of completely harmless, law-abiding people will lose their rights every year under the rule, a premise the SSA did not even try to refute.
The NRA has already prepared proposals for corrective action, and we certainly hope they will be given favorable consideration by the incoming administration.
In the meantime, this is one more reminder of the petty, partisan politics of Barack Obama, and one more reason to be thankful that in a few short weeks, he will no longer wield the power of the presidency against the nation’s law-abiding gun owners.

About the NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


Published on Dec 27, 2016
George Soros and Barack Obama are doing their best to sell America out to the Middle East before Donald Trump is sworn in as President of the United States.

STOP Obama's Immigration Apocalypse

 Published on Dec 27, 2016

Anis Amri, the jihadist that drove a truck into scores of people in Berlin, leaving 12 dead and injuring dozens finally faced justice in Milan,Italy as a rookie police officer took Amri down in a hail of bullets after Amri pulled a gun after being asked for identification. Amri had been one of many refugees leaving Tunisia during the Arab Spring in 2011 for European shores. Tunisia now seen as a jihadist hotbed, sending more fighters to Syria than any other Country. Amri had been allowed to remain in Europe regardless of the fact that he had spent four years in prison after being held responsible for burning down a migrant reception center on the Italian Island of Lampedusa.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A United States naval midshipman, David Farragut, commanded a captured British vessel during the War of 1812 — at age 12. Now major universities provide “healing spaces” with Legos, coloring books, Play-Doh, and puppies for students who “can’t handle” Donald Trump’s election victory.
In 1798, Giocante Casabianca, who was 10 to 13, would not abandon his post without his commander’s word, and perished on his ship’s fiery deck during the Battle of the Nile. Today, undergraduates demand protection from “microaggressions,” which can include statements such as “America is the land of opportunity” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.”
Calvin Graham became the United States’ youngest decorated war hero, receiving the Bronze Star and Purple Heart at 13, serving heroically aboard the USS South Dakota during WWII. (He’d lied about his age to military recruiters.) Now college students demand “trigger warnings” when a professor might ­present something traumatizing, such as The Great Gatsby, whose “trespass” is that it portrays suicide, domestic abuse, and graphic violence.
Why, we might say today’s little snowflakes need to “man up,” but watch out! That term is verboten on some campuses because, supposedly, it’s “offensive” and distressing. But what’s really distressing is that many “adults” today aren’t half the boys our ancestors were.

In reality, it was common years ago for young children to assume adult responsibilities. Apprenticeships at age eight weren’t unusual; Spartan boys would be conscripted into military camps at age seven; and in the Middle Ages, six- or seven-year-old boys of noble lineage might begin training to be knights. Teen marriages also weren’t uncommon; today, perhaps even more teens have children — but sans marriages. And now millions of grown Americans while away hours playing video games, with the average age of “gamers,” as they’re known, being 31 to 35.
It doesn’t take great maturity to realize that, somehow, modern society is stunting people’s moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional development. This is frightfully alarming for a simple reason: Overgrown children cannot maintain their liberty any more than the young lads in Lord of the Flies could avoid their quick descent from democracy to dictatorship.
Of course, an analysis of what’s breeding modern immaturity first requires defining what true maturity is. Obviously, this doesn’t merely concern cognitive development; for all we know, with puberty beginning considerably earlier now than 200 years ago, kids may experience this sooner today as well (seems doubtful, though). As serial killers and tyrants prove, intellectual capability without corresponding moral understanding just makes for a more formidable evildoer. No, at issue is the development of something else: virtue — that set of good moral habits.
Ah, virtue. While many moderns can’t define the term, the Founding Fathers often stressed its importance. Ben Franklin noted, for example, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” And Samuel Adams wrote that men “will be free no longer than while they remain virtuous.” There’s no question someone would be considered mature if he’d mastered his moral self and exhibited faith, hope, honesty, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, prudence, chastity, diligence, patience, kindness, forgiveness, humility, and love (the preceding is mostly a combination of the theological, cardinal, and heavenly virtues). There’s also no doubt that everything we now complain about regarding ├╝ber-sensitive young people infused with a spirit of entitlement — those now dubbed “social justice warriors” — is a function of lacking virtue.
Consider the all-too-common playing of the victim card, the blaming of outside forces (other people, the “patriarchy,” “racism,” etc.) for one’s own failings, real or imagined; it would be beyond a person who was honest, charitable, just, prudent, kind, forgiving, and loving.  For another example, in “The Coddling of the American Mind,” a 2015 piece appropriately accompanied by a picture of a four-year-old in a college lecture-hall chair, the Atlantic lamented a current movement on campuses that “is largely about emotional well-being” and “presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche.” Yet any actual fragility reflects a lack of the virtue of fortitude, whereas feigning fragility is dishonest. And excessive focus on one’s own emotions is narcissistic, indicating pride, vanity, self-absorption; it isn’t a fault plaguing a humble, loving individual. Of course, the obvious is being stated here: All man-caused problems are the result of sin, of vice. The solution always is virtue.
What’s Going On?
As a house or car left to sit will evidence, things move toward disorder and dilapidation without the application of energy; a civilization is no exception. Failing to forge the next generation properly ensures degeneration; this is why Thomas Paine noted, “Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary,” and President Ronald Reagan warned, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Our enemies understand this, too. As ex-KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov (a.k.a. Tomas Schuman) once explained, it only takes one generation to complete the first step in the Soviet process of “ideological subversion”; this step is called “demoralization,” mind you, and involves undermining the morals of a target nation. Of course, except in the cases of revolution, such as in 1917 Russia, freedom’s loss is an incremental process. Yet there is no doubt that, theoretically, we could transition from constitutionalism to communism in one generation — were parenting bad enough. This is yet another reason why raising children is a holy calling.
It’s no surprise moderns fail to instill virtue in their children; not only is the word poorly understood, it’s rarely used. Instead we hear statements such as, “Children have to be raised with values,” which is as meaningful as the diet advice, “Food has to contain calories.” As social commentator George Will wrote in his 2000 column “Forget Values, Let’s Talk Virtues”:
Today it would be progress if everyone would stop talking about values. Instead, let us talk, as the Founders did, about virtues.
Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb rightly says that the ubiquity of talk about “values” causes us to forget how new such talk is. It began in Britain’s 1983 election campaign, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher jauntily embraced the accusation, which is what it was, that she favored “Victorian values.”
Time was, “value” was used mostly as a verb, meaning to esteem. It also was a singular noun, as in “the value of the currency.” In today’s politics, it is primarily a plural noun, denoting beliefs or attitudes. And Friedrich Nietzsche’s nihilistic intention — the de-moralization of society — is advanced when the word “values” supplants “virtues” in political and ethical discourse. When we move beyond talk about good and evil, when the language of virtue and vice is “transcended,” we are left with the thin gruel of values-talk.
How very democratic values-talk is: Unlike virtues, everyone has lots of values, as many as they choose. Hitler had scads of values. George Washington had virtues. Who among those who knew him would have spoken of Washington’s “values”?
Values-talk comes naturally to a nonjudgmental age — an age judgmental primarily about the cardinal sin of being judgmental. It is considered broad-minded to say, “One person’s values are as good as another’s.” It is nonsense to say “One person’s virtues are as good as another’s.”
The point is, virtues reflect Truth and are good by definition; “values” may just reflect individual preference and can be good, bad, or neutral. No parent, anywhere, fails to raise his children with “values.” Virtues? Ah, they’re a different matter.
Why are virtues are out of vogue? First, they spoil the fun of, and render implicit judgment on, those in vice’s grip. It’s man’s nature to seek justification for his sins, and you can’t eliminate the concept of vice (thus achieving complete absolution: You can’t sin if sin doesn’t exist) without eliminating its correlative reality, virtue. Second, however, virtue, again, refers to moral habits, and morality’s existence presupposes a source beyond man: God’s Truth. Thus, a prerequisite for belief in virtue is belief that Truth and, therefore, morality exist. Yet today the vast majority of people are moral relativists — as 2002 Barna Group research showed — embracing the notion that what we call “morals” are inventions of man and are thus just preferences. Of course, this is just another way of saying morality and hence moral habits, virtue, don’t exist. And then you’re left with those generic things, “values,” whose existence requires only that someone somewhere for some reason values something.
Thus do we today place great emphasis on children being excellent, but not nearly as much on their being good. Parents will spend thousands of dollars on tennis or music lessons or on academic tutors, understanding well that their child likely won’t develop the skills or attain the knowledge in question by happenstance. For they well know there are rules (fundamentals) governing these matters and that what constitutes proficiency in tennis, music, or math isn’t mere “opinion.” Yet awash in the relativistic belief that moral rules essentially don’t exist (and, of course, some believe this more consciously and completely than others), parents today generally don’t know the “fundamentals” of virtue. And you can’t teach what you don’t know — or model what you don’t embody. No matter, though, the children certainly will adopt “values,” whether they derive them from television, the Internet, school, friends, a combination thereof, or the Devil himself.
Yet as with tennis and math, children won’t become virtuous by accident. People once understood this and also recognized that instilling virtue in a child was a prerequisite for everything else; it’s the fertile soil in which good things can develop and flourish. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, for instance, wrote at length about cultivating an “erotic attachment” (meaning, emotional) to virtue in young children. Reflecting my earlier point about the relationship between faith and morals, Declaration of Independence signatory Benjamin Rush stated, “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.” And virtue-oriented teaching was a staple of American education — until it went by the wayside in the first decade of Great American Vice, the 1960s.
Worse still, today’s teaching often casts vice as virtues. A generation or so ago, the “self-esteem” movement began, fueled by the notion that girls performed worse than boys on standardized tests because our white, male, linear-logic, patriarchal society damaged their self-esteem. So self-esteem “tests” were devised and, sure enough, girls scored lower. Theory proven?
Not exactly. Not only did educators overlook that girls were already getting better grades than boys, they also ignored that scoring highest on the self-esteem exams was the group performing the worst academically: black males. Moreover, that one self-esteem exercise was to have children stand before their class explaining why they were great should have told the tale: “Self-esteem” had become a euphemism for the sin of pride.
And so it goes. Lust is called “sexual liberation” and incredulity (lack of faith) sophistication. Envy masquerades as compassionate redistributive policies; and vindictiveness, wrath, and injustice as “social justice.” Dishonesty is spun as “spin” or a “narrative” while imprudence can be a “lifestyle choice.” Cowardice in action may be called compromise, and indifference is branded tolerance.
Then there’s the point that growing up just isn’t in fashion nowadays, with many lamenting our “youth culture.” Yet part of the reason there is a youth culture is youth congregation. For most of history in most places, children were mainly socialized within the family unit, with secondary exposure to the tribe, village, or clan. This ensured ample mature role models and a balance of interaction, with the young exposed to other children, such as siblings and cousins, but also parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, at whose sides they’d often work. Yet modern society has a child spend a good part of each day, five days a week, in institutions composed almost entirely of children. Not only may these youngsters reinforce each other’s childish behavior, but there is that tendency for the bad apple to spoil the whole bunch. Moreover, today’s undisciplined school environment reduces most government schools to babysitting centers at best, quasi-prisons where the inmates run the asylum at worst. This can create a situation vaguely approximating that in Lord of the Flies, the aforementioned 1954 William Golding book about a group of schoolboys who, upon being stranded alone on an island, descend into barbarism.
Consider another aspect of this radical childhood-period departure from the historical norm. Work was always an integral part of most children’s lives. It might have been a boy hunting or tending the fields with his father or a daughter helping her mother keep house. This is significant because as the proverbs tell us, “Work ennobles man” and “Busy hands are happy hands.” Work builds character — it encourages virtue.
This model began to change by the 19th century, explains the online Marriage and Family Encyclopedia, and, gradually, “children as a whole were excluded from the adult world of work and the period of dependent childhood lengthened.” This raises an interesting point: We know what dependency breeds among welfare-class adults. Is it much different with children when that dependency becomes excessive?
To be clear, a certain amount of dependency is proper. And we certainly don’t want children slaving away 12 hours a day in hellish factories, as could be the case during the Industrial Revolution. Yet “an idle mind is the Devil’s playground,” and today we occupy the other extreme. With ample free time, including summer vacations, we’ve become a decadent recreation culture in which youth sometimes spend hours playing video games or viewing porn (according to psychotherapist and “screen addiction” expert Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, “8- to 10-year-olds spend 8 hours a day with various digital media while teenagers spend 11 hours in front of screens”). College now reflects this, too, with young people having the expectation the play will continue; in fact, going away to university and having the “party experience” is considered a rite of passage. Even intimate human relations have been made frivolous. “Recreational sex” and “sex toys,” anyone?
Moreover, consider the modern parents who, let’s say, during summer vacation, struggle to keep their children entertained, only to find the kids ever dissatisfied and craving something more. Such children are typically called spoiled, yet there’s another factor: Adults living frivolous, aimless lives can descend into a sense of meaninglessness, which is no doubt one reason Hollywood types too often take the drug-addled walk of shame. And while children are in a different phase of life, they nonetheless have the same human needs. Will they not be happier having a sense of meaning? We’ve all heard the catchy proverb, “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,” but, not surprisingly, the second part of it is seldom today uttered. To wit: “All play and no work makes Jack a mere toy.”
So our problems clearly are systemic. Yet it must be reiterated that things tend to start at home, and today we’re in the grip of parenting so permissive it permits vice (misbehavior). Family psychologist and writer John Rosemond has called this a dysfunctional parenting paradigm, explaining the permissiveness thus: “Where we once viewed misbehavior as a moral problem, we now see it as a psychological problem.” Before proceeding, note that this again simply reflects our atheistic, relativistic spirit of the age. After all and harking back to my earlier explanation, we won’t perceive moral problems if we believe morality is an illusion. As for psychology, Rosemond slams psychologists as “professional enablers” peddling a “mechanistic” lie in which misbehavior is blamed on biology (genes, chemical imbalances, etc.) or environment, with free will removed from the equation. Yet this makes sense from an atheistic perspective. Without a soul, man is a mere organic robot, some pounds of chemicals and water. And then you evaluate him as a robot: Misbehavior is malfunction, caused either by faulty hardware (biology) or software (programming), with all the causative forces lying beyond the automaton’s control.
The traditional (correct) view is different, Rosemond explains in his 2000 book Raising a Nonviolent Child. It was always recognized that we’re born fallen and uncivilized, acting on impulse, and prone to selfishness, aggressiveness, and all manner and form of vice — and the sooner these impulses are tamed, the better.
Of course, since virtues are caught more than they’re taught, modeling proper behavior is imperative. Yet childhood obedience was also recognized as a prerequisite, for how can someone learn from you unless he first will listen to you? Listening comes before learning. So the traditional parent established obedience, and deterred misbehavior with sufficient punishment.
Today, though, such tactics are deemed harsh and damaging to self-esteem. There is little accountability, and this results in what Rosemond calls the “no fear” (and no respect) generation, raised by parents who are quite fearful of many things: their children’s misbehavior, not pleasing their children, and not being loved by them. Of course, this itself is selfish. True love means giving a person what he needs, even if it may displease him and make him displeased with you. What these parents are exhibiting is not love, but emotional dependence.
The consequences of not taming the beast, of not instilling virtue, are all around us. So-called ADHD is just an example of professional-enabler psychologists redefining what was formerly recognized as a sin (misbehavior) as a condition of the brain; as Rosemond points out, “ADHD” behavior is simply typical toddler behavior extended into later childhood by modern parenting. And, not surprisingly, childishness is extended beyond childhood. Do we not see this in the young people rioting because the election didn’t go their way and who demand “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and other types of coddling?
Moreover, the schools, which Rosemond calls “punishment free zones,” just exacerbate this problem, with colleges offering a panderly, partying, propaganda-filled atmosphere that can serve to extend childhood beyond graduation.
True civilization is when most people have become morally advanced enough to attain authentic adulthood. And what are the consequences of this not occurring? As I explained in “Written in the Eternal Constitution” (The New American, April 14, 2008), beginning with the micro, a small child is
incapable of “self-government.” So his parents must micromanage his life, watch his every move — hence baby monitors and the use of cribs or gates or harnesses to limit his movements — and do for him what he cannot do for himself, which is a lot. They must be his “nanny state.”
As he grows, however, … matures morally and increasingly starts to impose proper rules and standards on himself, the need for a parent to impose them diminishes proportionately. Then, finally, if his parents have succeeded, he can enjoy the full freedoms of adulthood.
… But what happens when his parents don’t do a good job? Or when, despite their efforts, outside influences corrupt the child? He then will have weak internal governance. He may descend into vice, taking drugs or drinking in excess; or greed and envy may capture his soul, causing him to covet. And, should his impulse control be poor enough, the overgrown savage beyond the crib may run afoul of the law, perhaps by driving drunk, buying illegal drugs, or stealing. Then, incapable of adequate self-government, he may find himself back in a crib. The authorities will lock him up, and he will once again be controlled from without.
Such an outcome is a disaster for the given family, yet the wider problem arises when barbarism becomes prevalent enough so that it characterizes the people. For a people whose collective mind-set would, like a toddler, make it nanny-worthy, will end up being governed by the nanny state.
The solution? It has already been stated. As John Adams put it, “The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue.” We’re fond of talking about liberty, but like a child who wants freedom but not responsibility, this puts the cart before the horse. Speak of virtue, of morality, of seeking Truth — and walk that talk — and liberty takes care of itself. It’s also now in fashion to speak of making America great again, but this, too, confuses the order of things. The apocryphal saying warns, “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Take care of the goodness, and the greatness takes care of itself. Fail to do these things, and, ironically, we’ll be forging our fetters with cries of freedom.









As a company with a long history of standing up for equality, civil rights and social justice, we take a leadership role in advancing public policy initiatives in support of nondiscrimination and diversity in the workplace. We led efforts to support same-sex marriage in California and continue to advocate for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act at the federal level."

 Human Rights Campaign Best Places to Work for Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Employees (2014)

 San Francisco LGBT Community Center — Impact Award (2009)

 Out & Equal Courage Award (2009)

SEE ALSO: (Opposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act) 

Levi's CEO Asks: Please, No Guns in Our Stores 



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
At the very peak of this year’s Christmas shopping season (during which most Americans do a quarter of their yearly shopping) Chip Bergh, the CEO of Levi Strauss & Co., asked his customers to turn his stores into gun-free zones:
As CEO … I feel a tremendous responsibility to share our position on the issue [of gun rights and gun safety], now, at a time when clarity is paramount…. So, while we understand the heartfelt and strongly-held opinions on both sides of the gun debate, it is with the safety and security of our employees and customers in mind that we respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores…. It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings.
Since many of his stores are located in shopping malls, what Bergh is asking is that people who have firearms leave them at home, or in their vehicles — turning those malls, as well as his stores, into gun-free zones.
Gun-free zones are just what unhinged criminals are looking for: places with lots of people present who are unable to defend themselves. John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) published a report two years ago showing that 94 percent of mass public shootings between January 2009 and 2014 took place in gun-free zones.
That report was followed by a similar study, this time from Stanford University, that confirmed the CPRC study: Going back to the beginning of 2002, of the 54 mass shootings (involving a shooter targeting people at random), the shooter chose gun-free zones 37 times. Of the 17 times a shooter choose a location where guns were legally allowed, a third of the attacks were ended when the shooter was confronted by an individual legally carrying a firearm.
Perhaps Bergh can be forgiven for his ideological, knee-jerk reaction to the single incident he referred to in his letter where someone in one of his stores injured himself when his firearm accidentally discharged. That same reaction occurred earlier this month when the shooter in the Ohio State University attack was assumed to be using a firearm. This included Senator Tim Kaine (Hillary Clinton’s running mate) and Shannon Watts with Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. It was later learned, of course, that the attacker used a vehicle and a knife during the attack.
If Bergh wants “clarity” and is sincere about his employees’ and customers’ safety, perhaps his letter should have read:
Dear Customers:
As studies have continued to show, our customers and employees are safer working where responsible citizens are exercising their Second Amendment-protected rights. Rather than turn our 2,800 stores into high-risk “gun-free” zones, putting at risk our 15,000 valued employees and our millions of loyal customers, we publicly ask those customers responsibly carrying concealed to feel free to shop and try on a new pair of jeans.
Merry Christmas!
Chip Bergh,
President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
There are two transparent aims behind the establishment Big Media’s hysterical alarm over “fake news”: 1) to delegitimize Trump’s election and undermine his presidency; and 2) to demonize conservative and anti-globalist media websites as a precursor to outright censorship.
The liberal-left establishment media cartel can’t let go of their stupendous defeat on November 8. They have been trying to explain (to us, themselves, and the universe) how all their oracular omniscience could have gone so horribly wrong, how they (as Hillary Rodham Clinton surrogates) could have been so thoroughly repudiated. In the immediate aftermath of their horrendous humiliation, many of them adopted Van Jones’ claim on CNN that Donald Trump’s victory could only be explained as “Whitelash,” an expression of systemic racism by American voters. That, of course, fit the narrative that many of the media talking heads and scribblers had been flogging for months. America, they insist, is brimming with dumb, old, angry white males who are racists, sexists, misogynists, anti-semites, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. — and that’s who defeated Hillary and elected Donald!
But, to their dismay, the Clinton media choir soon discovered that, despite their non-stop demonization of the celebrity mogul, despite him being vastly outspent (and, yes, despite some of his stupid, insensitive hoof-in-mouth remarks), Trump did surprisingly well among the voter demographics they were so positive Hillary had a sure lock-hold on: women, blacks, Hispanics, college-educated whites, and young adults. So, an alternative explanation had to be concocted. Trump’s triumph could only be explained as the result of foreign propaganda: It was Putin’s KGB/FSB propaganda organs operating through fake websites, blogs, and Internet trolls that boosted Trump to the White House with fake stories such as “Pope Francis Endorses Trump,” and “Proof Hillary is a Humanoid Reptilian Shapeshifter.” Hence, the “fake news” meme was born, the media-approved conspiracy theory from the folks who reflexively condemn as a loony “conspiracy theory” any and every effort by any of the rest of us (no matter how well documented and logically argued) to expose genuine collusion and conspiracy in high places.

In statements after the election, President Obama warned against the threat to democracy posed by “outright lies,” “active misinformation,” “propaganda,” and a “dust cloud of nonsense” on the Internet. Hillary Clinton declared an “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda,” is putting “our democracy and innocent lives" at risk.
For the past several weeks, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, et al, have run with the “fake news” meme, puffing breathless reports about the supposed impact that clever teenagers in Macedonia (such as “Dmitri” in the town of Veles) and a 52-year-old, pro-Putin, “far right” activist in Britain (James Dowson) had on stealing the election from Clinton and delivering it to Trump by posting online fabricated stories that went viral on Facebook. This is a parallel track that the pro-Clinton media have been attempting to build next to the unsubstantiated claim that Putin’s intel guys (KGB/FSB/SVR) hacked the e-mails and computers of Team Clinton and the Democratic National Committee in order to put Trump in the White House. Both of these tracks are desperate attempts aimed at delegitimizing and de-electing Donald Trump, running in tandem with efforts (by the same anti-Trump media) to subvert and delegitimize the Electoral College and promote the theme that the election was stolen from Clinton, since she (allegedly) won the popular vote.
However, it quickly became apparent that the “fake news” excuse being offered for the Clinton loss/Trump win was itself fake news perpetrated by the master crafters of fake news: the Big Media, whose surefire candidate had spectacularly lost. Yes, there actually are phony “news” websites in Macedonia and elsewhere run by young entrepreneurs who rake in cash by cranking out click-bait stories with outrageous titles and sham content. And, yes, some of them are tilted in favor of Putin and/or Trump. But did they have any kind of measurable (let alone decisive) impact on the election? The “fake news” alarmists have provided no evidence to justify these fears. But that has not deterred the New York Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the fake news chorus line from their pathetic attempt to turn the “fake news” story into a real news campaign.
The alarmists are also alarmed that so few Americans are responding to their “fake news” alarm. This rejection is reinforcing the verdict of multiple recent polls showing that public trust in the establishment media has tumbled to historic lows, to about what one would expect of a survey of Smurfs regarding evil Gargamel. The media elites are panicking because too many viewers and readers have figured out that the globalist “prestige press” have been packaging and foisting fake news for decades — and they have been repudiating and abandoning the controlled media in droves.
In a piece entitled “Conservatives Get 'Fake News' All Wrong," that appeared on December 21, U.S. News & World Report assistant managing editor Pat Garofalo directed a condescending lecture at critics who are calling out the media echo chamber on their “fake news” campaign. “Either because of ignorance or willful manipulation of the phrase,” contends Garofalo, “conservatives want to apply the label ‘fake news’” willy-nilly where it doesn’t belong. The subtitle to his article gives you the flavor of his argument: “'Fake News' Means Fake News: Don't let conservatives get away with slapping 'fake news' on opinions or analyses they just don't like.”
But we also cannot let polemicists like Garofalo get away with the canard that the establishment media’s critics are (ignorantly or disingenuously) falsely slapping the “fake news” label on mere “opinions or analyses they just don't like.” Peter Hasson, reporter and associate editor at the conservative website The Daily Caller (, has ably pointed out how fake is the supposed threat from the “fake news” sites that are causing such fake angst among the media elites.
“Despite a media blitz portraying fake news sites as having a real impact in national politics — and even capable of affecting the outcome of a presidential election — fake news sites struggle to reach any sort of real audience,” Hasson notes. “Fake news site, subject of coverage from the New York Times and the Washington Post, is ranked 91,688 in web traffic in the U.S., according to web analytics firm Alexa,” he continues. “To put that number in perspective: the site supposedly impacting the national political scene is more than 84,000 slots behind the website for a Virginia community college.”
Hasson observes that the New York Times devoted front-page coverage to a site called the “Patriot News Agency.” The Times’ story stated that “operators of Patriot News had an explicitly partisan motivation: getting Mr. Trump elected.” But Hasson notes that Patriot News Agency “is even less popular than the ‘Denver Guardian,’ ranking in at 184,898 in the country, according to Alexa. The site’s Facebook page has 113 total likes at this time.” Hardly an existential threat, and unworthy of collective handwringing, it would seem.
Hassan reports further:
Fake news site “,” whose name meant to fool readers into confusing it with liberal network MSNBC, received mentions from the Washington Post and liberal website, among others. But “” reaches a tiny audience, according to Alexa’s data, which has the site ranked 549,714 in the United States.
The minuscule reach of fake news sites hasn’t kept the Times from running headlines like “As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug At The Truth” or “Media’s Next Challenge: Overcoming The Threat Of Fake News."
Smearing the Right as Russian Propagandists
Other media organizations are pushing the same alarmist line, with Vanity Fair, for example, running a story entitled “Did Russian Agents Influence The Election With Fake News?” Well, did they? The Vanity Fair article does little to enlighten us on that score, primarily serving to direct readers to the Washington Post’s November 24 story entitled “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.” That WaPo article was the launch pad for an outfit that goes by the moniker “Is It Propaganda Or Not?” or "Propornot" (
Besides netting such well-known, official Russian propaganda sites as, (Russia Today),, and (Russia Beyond The Headlines), the Propornot dragnet also tars prominent conservative, libertarian, anti-globalist, anti-interventionist, anti-war websites as Putin propagandists. Their “red flag” list includes:,,,,,,,,,,,, and, to name a few.
The Propornot website says it uses “a combination of manual and automated analysis, including analysis of content, timing, technical indicators, and other reporting, in order to initially identify (‘red-flag’)” over 200 websites as “Russian propaganda outlets.” That’s being rather vague about their criteria, methodology, and evidence, is it not? Moreover, the website has been unwilling to share its data for independent verification of the fairness and accuracy of its assessments. However, what is even worse is that Propornot’s so-called experts making these assessments are anonymous! We are not told who owns it, who funds it, who staffs it, or who conducts their research. Propornot says it is “an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs.” We’re just supposed to take their word for it, along with their claim that their intent is to “strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence and improve public discourse generally.” The Washington Post was fine with that, and saw no problem with promoting this shadowy group of no-name “experts” who refuse to provide evidence to back up their inflammatory and defamatory charges!
We can get some hint of the tilt of Propornot from the left-leaning websites it links to in a side column on its home page labeled “Related Projects” (although we are not told what the relationship is). The sites include: Snopes, Politifact, Fake News Watch, and Fort Liberty Hoax Sites. Some of these sites have lists similar to Propornot, and it is obvious that there is a lot of cross-pollination going on here. Fake News Watch, for instance, lists Snopes, Fort Liberty, and The New Republic as sources for its list of propaganda sites. The New Republic, of course, is the longest-running socialist, pro-communist magazine in America. More than 100 years old, it is infamous as a pro-Soviet Russia propaganda organ going back to the time of Lenin and Stalin, with one of its editors, Michael Straight, having been exposed as an actual longtime KGB agent. These are the "experts" we should trust to expose Russian propaganda?
Among those listed by Fort Liberty as “Web Sites Which Publish Fake News And Other Hoaxes” are many of the same sites targeted by Propornot and Fake News Watch. Also included on the Fort Liberty list is this magazine, The New American. But, naturally, Fort Liberty does not specify any fake news or hoaxes we have published. It is enough, they seem to believe (and hope) simply to smear with the accusation. Like Propornot, they hide behind an opaque shield of anonymity, providing no information about themselves. They do offer a few “author” names, but these are generic, (Arnold Vintner, Eric Smith, Jamal Washington, James, JCD, Jim MacDonald, Joe Rock, Melissa, Miguel Gonzalez, Will.Spencer) with no biographical information and no way to even verify that these are not simply Chip Berlet, Michael Moore, or some 350-pound pajama-clad socialist posting hit pieces from bed in his mother’s basement.
The one verifiable organization cited by the Washington Post as a source for its Russian propaganda alarm is the reliably globalist Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), an off-shoot of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The FPRI was founded in 1955 by Ambassador Robert Strauzs-Hupe (a CFR member), and its roster of scholars, speakers, advisers and trustees includes such CFR luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Robert Zoellick, Dov Zakheim, Robert C. McFarlane, Paul Bracken, Bernard Lewis, John Nagl, Kori Schake, Arthur I. Cyr, John F. Lehman, Arthur Waldron, and Howard Wiarda.
In other words, the FPRI is another section of the CFR new world order choir that has been attacking Trump relentlessly since the beginning of his campaign. So it is not surprising that they are continuing the attacks in the FPRI report cited by the Post, entitled “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” This is especially rich coming from the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which have printed and inserted copies of the Russia Beyond The Headlines supplements in their newspapers. Yes, that’s the same Russia Beyond The Headlines ( that Propornot now red flags as Russian propaganda (which it is, and which we reported as such years ago, when the Times and Post began their publishing ventures with Comrade Putin).
For most of the past century, the Times, the Post, and the CFR think tank cabal have been the thought leaders among the internationalist cognoscenti promoting pro-Bolshevik, pro-Lenin, Pro-Stalin, pro-Khrushchev, pro-Brezhnev, pro-Gorbachev, pro-Putin propaganda. During that same period, they also have led the charge against authentic anti-communists, vilifying all who opposed their communist-capitalist convergence schemes (see herehere, and here) as “McCarthyites.”
In truth, the much-demonized Senator Joseph McCarthy was a heroic figure (see here, and here) who genuinely fought to protect this nation against the Soviet threat that the Times, Post, and CFR aided and abetted — over and over and over again. And, as we have repeatedly noted, these same internationalists that are attacking Trump for alleged sympathies, ties, and business dealings with the Kremlin have refused to explore and expose Hillary and Bill Clinton’s documented sympathies, ties, and business dealings with Putin’s regime.
To sum up, having failed to stop Trump on Election Day and Electoral College Day, the globalists and their Big Media echo chamber are trying to delegitimize and cripple him by claiming he was elected president of the United States due to foreign intervention, i.e., the influence of Putin’s propagandists. Simultaneously, they are trying to smear as Russian propaganda outlets all anti-globalist organizations and websites that have become important alternative news sources for tens of millions of awakening Americans. To do this, they are using opaque organizations operated by anonymous “experts” who refuse to provide evidence to back up their accusations, and a certified globalist think tank that hardly qualifies as an impartial source (and also fails to provide evidence to substantiate the “fake news,” “Russian propaganda” charges).
However, this latest frantic ploy by the one-world elites and their media shills may fail as dramatically as their futile efforts to Dump Trump and Kill the Brexit vote in Britain.
Even some of the usual liberal-left media voices are balking at taking up the Trump-is-a-Putin-Fanboy tune. Among the “progressive” media taking the Washington Post to task for promoting the Propornot “Blacklist” are TheDailyBeast, New YorkerRolling StoneColumbia Journalism ReviewCommon Dreams, The Intercept, and even the far-left magazine The Nation.
The good news is that the establishment media’s fake “fake news” alarm will further hasten its demise, allowing genuine alternative news organizations to gain greater freedom and access to information not filtered by the globalist elites.

Related articles:
Company Some Label “Fakebook” Vows to Censor “Fake” News
Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?  
N.Y. Times' Fake News That Electoral College Was Created to Protect Slavery
FAKE NEWS: Big Media's False Claims on Russian Hacking Fail to Stop Trump — Again
"Fake News!": Laughable Hysteria From Establishment Media
Clinton vs. Trump? No, It’s the Media vs. America
Critics Slam Congress for Creating an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”
1st Debate: Clinton-Holt Tag Team vs. Trump
Media Bias: Demonizing the Right
Bilderberg Elites: Stop Trump, Boost Hillary; Stop Brexit, Boost Migration


 George Washington Univ. Eliminates American History Curriculum
 Students told American history is "oppressive"
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
George Washington University has eliminated its United States history requirement for history majors in order to attract more students in our “globalizing” world.
The university has adopted a policy now in place at roughly one-third of the nation’s top colleges and universities, making an American history course optional rather than mandatory for declared history majors.
“At GWU, history majors must take eight to ten upper level courses: one on a time period before 1750, and three on different regions of the world, including Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East,” reported Kate Hardimann with The College Fix. “Previously, students were required to take two courses focused on Europe and North America and complete a thesis or capstone project.”

“Though the thesis requirement still exists, students can choose to complete ‘digital capstone projects.’”
While the new requirements mandate one introductory course, of which American or European history would qualify, “the introductory course requirement may be fulfilled by scoring a 4 or a 5 on the Advanced Placement exams for either U.S. History AP, European History AP or World History AP,” she added.
The change in policy was motivated by a need to “recruit students” and “to better reflect a globalizing world,” according to comments in the George Washington University student newspaper, The Hatchet.
George Washington University (GWU), located in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, DC, was founded in 1821 as the Columbian College in the District of Columbia; it was renamed in 1904 to honor America’s first president.
The effort to purge American history from college campuses has received backlash from many former students and trustees.
“A democratic republic cannot thrive without well-informed citizens and leaders,” said Dr. Michael Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
Elite colleges and universities in particular let the nation down when the examples they set devalue the study of United States history.”
“According to a lot of professors, the founding fathers are a bunch of old rich white guys who owned slaves,” said syndicated radio host Larry Elder. “As a result, they’re no longer relevant.”
“Kids are learning that America is nothing more than a series of incidents that oppress people, whether it’s Native Americans or women or blacks or Hispanics or Asian people,” he said. “That’s what they’re learning.”

Professors Of Hate: Your Kids As Victims

 Published on Dec 28, 2016

Parents sending kids off to college should be aware of who's waiting to teach them and exactly what ideas they plan to educate them about.



 Obama trying to exacerbate divisions within country
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Outgoing President Obama’s final series of policy initiatives
 is part of a “desperate frenzy” to leave a legacy that will end up 
being reversed by Trump, says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“His legacy is like one of those dolls that, as the air comes of out it, shrinks and shrinks and shrinks,” Gingrich told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “The things he’s done this week will be turned around.”
“He’s in this desperate frenzy.”

In the past week alone, the Obama administration has blocked future oil and gas leases offshore in parts of the Artic and Atlantic oceans, canceled a once-mandatory registry focused on immigrant men from Muslim countries, and is moving to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay.
These actions are also an effort to heighten divisions in an already polarized country, says Gingrich.
“What he’s actually doing is he’s setting up a series of things to distract Trump, which will make his liberal allies feel good about Democrats and hate Republicans when Trump rolls them all back,” Gingrich stated.
Because the majority of Obama’s policies were implemented by executive action, rather than with bipartisan legislation, his legacy will be easier for President Trump’s administration to dismantle.
“He would have been a more limited president, but his legacy would have lasted much longer,” Gingrich said.
He added that Trump can likely reverse 60-70% of Obama’s 260 total executive orders by simply vetoing them out because they don’t require Congressional approval.
Realizing that his legacy is in jeopardy, Obama recently lamented on NPR last week that President Trump’s initiatives would be more difficult to undo when if he passes legislation through Congress rather than executive order.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Rev. Austin Miles

December 28, 2016
(BREAKING UPDATE: Donald Trump Won the Electoral College Votes today. Only one Soros pressured Republican elector defected. The people have spoken.)
This past election night meltdown account was forwarded to us by our Anonymous Minister Friend...he's not shy, mind you, but church talk would say...he's humble. The writer and sender of the text below is listed as a lawyer in Upstate, New York. He could not be reached by phone and there were no other contact sources for him so a fact-check was made.
The Fake News Media--new name for 'main-stream' media courtesy of Miles Tones--reported nothing of the meltdown of the century, which in itself should have clued us into the fact that this is a true story of great interest.
The entire episode as described was like the Wicked Witch of the movie, The Wizard of Oz melting down to nothing after being splashed with water, screaming, "AHHHH....what a world...what a world!"
We found that a version of the election night episode had been published by American Spectator and Breitbart, both credible news sources, and that was it. Here is what we received.
Dumped on Prom Night
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.
The most notable damage was located deep in the VIP room of the Clinton camp. A custom 150 inch ultra HD TV, a gift from the Saudi Arabian government, was found with a broken screen. The damage was caused by a $950,000 bottle of champagne that was believed to have been thrown at the screen by the former presidential candidate some time during 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.
Clinton ’s splurge on party supplies was merely an echo of all the left-leaning polls and hype that "confirmed" Hillary Clinton's indubitable win. Misled by just about every prediction, Hillary Clinton personally planned one big party for her assumed victory. Once it became clear that it would not be Clinton 's night, however, the mood of the party soured rapidly.
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.
Hillary Clinton reportedly became “physically violent” towards her own campaign staff after she realized she had lost the presidential election, according to radio host Todd Kincannon. “CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained,” tweeted Kincannon.
It was Podesta who was sent out to talk to Hillary’s dejected supporters shortly before Hillary called Donald Trump to concede, with Clinton nowhere to be seen until the following day.
When asked about rumors that Hillary was drunk on election night, Kincannon responded, “She was. I posted about that too. She was in a “psychotic drunken rage” according to my reporter friend. A doctor added sedatives to the mix.”
Kincannon then claimed that CNN blocked the reporter from publishing what would have been a bombshell story. “The CNN reporter didn’t fail to report it. His editors will not let him. CNN has banned all “Hillary in the bunker” stories,” he tweeted.
Secret Service officials and other staff who worked closely alongside Hillary have previously reported her problems with angry tantrums on numerous occasions. Last year it was also reported that Clinton ’s own campaign staffers feared she could have a serious meltdown and that Hillary had “been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work.” 
 In addition to claims that she became irate, author Ed Klein said a source told him Hillary cried inconsolably to a friend after the results came in, blaming FBI director Comey and President Barack Obama for not doing enough to stop the FBI investigation into her email scandal.

Having spent time in D.C. and in The West Wing where I talked with Hillary staffers I was told that Hillary, like a wicked queen, forbid staff members from making any eye contact with her in the hallways. Indeed when they did see her coming they could not look at her, and had to duck behind a pillar or anything else so as not to be seen by her. These and other things revealed to me makes this story seem perfectly plausible.
And to think that this is the woman we might have referred to as: Madame President. Phew! Thank you Lord.

Hillary Clinton, Drunken Rage, Election Night!