To President Dipshit and Press Secretary Little Hitler:

Fact Check: Trump overstates crowd size at inaugural https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAm6gfN?m=en-us&ocid=News

Could not copy and paste text. For those who can read click on the link.

 

Who's in charge of picking out targets for the inauguration rioters to smash up? I'd really like to know. Whoever it is should be fired!

Yesterday they smashed the front window of a Bank of America.

They smashed the windows of a Starbucks.

And they smashed the glass walls of a bus stop.

The banks overwhelmingly supported Hillary in this election.

Come on! Starbucks!!! Is there a more liberal company on the planet?

A Bus stop! Oh yeah. That'll show Donald Trump. Great way to get at Trump and his Cabinet members.

 

You seem to have all the answers, especially when answering your questions is pointless because you refuse to accept the answer.

 

Trump’s Brief Inaugural Speech



Two things I liked about Trump’s inaugural speech. He only used the word “I” three times. And it was short – 16 minutes.

John Kass in the Chicago Tribune wrote, “This wasn’t a smooth-talking politician inviting us to climb aboard his fancy word ship for a voyage beyond the stars. He did not call upon the angels. Instead, he spoke in dark tones to the forgotten man.”

It was that beginning that was astonishing, his declaration of war on the establishment, especially as they all sat there with him, with former Presidents Carter and Bush and Clinton and Obama looking on, outgoing first lady Michelle Obama frowning, Hillary Clinton icy and distant.

Bush bobbed his head and smiled as if in pain. Bill Clinton’s eyes were two frozen blue grapes, locked in a thousand-yard stare. But what he was looking at inside his own head, I wouldn’t ever want to know.

Inaugural Speech
Kass, among others, called the speech Jacksonian. But large parts of it could have been given by Bernie Sanders, “Why go to war when we can use that money building freeways at home?”

As they stood together on the capitol steps, I was struck by Barack Obama’s elegance. Maybe it was the crease in his pants, but it stood in contrast to Trump’s, um, Trumpian appearance.



But Obama was no match for Melania.

Should be an interesting four years.

 

Saw trumps speech at/to CIA
I thought
oh my god , he reminds me of a hampster trying to run backwards in a hampster wheel

 

Went to all that trouble for Lil Ole Me!

 

OK, so question for those "in the know" on the Women's March. In terms of being a good thing or a bad thing, would you put "women's rights" and "Sharia Law" on the same side of the argument or the opposite side of the argument?

For instance:

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.

(There are a lot more rules pertaining to women, but I just grabbed a few examples.)


Now, the reason I ask is because Linda Sarsour is one of the organizers of the march, according to HuffPo.

And here she is on the Rachel Maddow show back in 2015 complaining about the fact that 22 states have anti-Sharia bills that"prevent us from practicing our faith..."



So again, is Sharia Law beneficial to a movement for womens' rights?

 

Oh, and one more thing about this "not about Trump" event:


Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the Women’s March? Turns out, it’s quite significant

By Asra Q. Nomani 1/20/17

In the pre-dawn darkness of today’s presidential inauguration day, I faced a choice, as a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president: lace up my pink Nike sneakers to step forward and take the DC Metro into the nation’s capital for the inauguration of America’s new president, or wait and go tomorrow to the after-party, dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington”?

The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcome, nixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda.

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UnitedWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a “would-be dictator.”

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations, said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.” She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to include a statement from the Open Society Foundations.

 

I see what you did there PetCock!!

The claims of the Chump administration that the inauguration crowd was the biggest ever simply does not stand up to scrutiny or the public transport figures!

It is simply the first of many lies you gullible people will have perpetuated on your good selves!

So it begins!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence

Thinskin

 

All the ''marches'' have been preorchastrated by Soros, every one of them.

Dont be surprised if Trump has a law enecated to stop Soros somehow.

Soros is behind most of the upheaval in this country.

 

President Trump seems to have royally fucked up, he is pressing a non-issue into a real issue. He needs to rescind his claims of "record crowds" and restate his pride in those who did show up, whatever the number. This is a distraction from the real issues facing his presidency. Or is this just another of his effective, but unorthodox methods, of rallying the troops?.

The number of people attending any political event has little to do with true level of the fitness of a person for the job. But, it does speak volumes about the perception of his fitness by many who come out to show their support for or against. This fuels his detractors, which may be exactly why he did it, it bolsters his opposition and as a result of their shrillness, expands his base support.

In this election, the voters from major metropolitan areas supported Hillary, it was the voters from less densely populated areas that came out for Trump. So it no great mystery why so many showed up for the women's rights "parades", they could do so, mainly by walking there. And good on them, they protested peacefully with no rioting and no wanton destruction of property.

No civilized person is really against the rights of others, no sane person is against women's rights. But, practically everyone is against unequal rights, which is just as bad as withholding rights for some.

So until someone clearly defines which rights are being denied, according to the marchers, I for one, am trying to figure out just what they were protesting.

 

They are not protesting anything, nothing that needs to be protested about.

This country has rule of law, and a bill of rights, this country has laws to protect ''EVERYONES RIGHTS''...NOBODY deserves 'special rights'.

 

Well just heard a lot of the protesters from Friday will be charged with Felony Riot charges will spend up to 10 years in jail.

 

He shouldn't waste his time on scum like Soros. (I can already see the ACLU licking their bankbooks) It's probably a better idea to follow Joe Fitzgerald's advice.

Losers have the right to behave like jerks

1/21/17

(not pasting the whole op-ed. Just the meat.)

...

And there’s nothing American about it, other than the freedom this country gives them to behave like jerks.

Then again, maybe that’s the real purpose they serve, showing the world that freedom isn’t freedom if it’s conditional. We don’t have to love lowlifes here; we just have to abide them.

Try hitting the streets in Iran to badmouth those in power.

In playing the role of skunks at the new president’s picnic, these unattractive boat-rockers actually ratified his victory, making it obvious even to those who didn’t support him that, in the end, the right side won.

Their heroine, Hillary Clinton, came up with one of the more memorable lines of the past campaign, trashing Trump’s supporters as “a basket of deplorables.”

It was a great shot, aimed at the wrong target.

The real deplorables were raising hell on the streets of the nation’s capital yesterday.

 

I think we have a fairly accurate attendance number for one of the events.

 

Soros funded anarchy and burning down towns is not something that needs to be ignored.

Fires ignited during a POTUS Inaugural on the streets, is also something that shoud not be taken lightly.

 

I was ridiculed yesterday for not knowing what the Women's March is about this year.

But gaddammit. Have you guys seen the news today on the worldwide protests? It was 2% pro-women, and 98% anti-Trump.

I don't care what it was supposed to be, or deigned to be, or whatever. It was an anti-Trump march.

 

Who cares, no one cared when I protested Obama's inaugural.

And by the way, what was the reason for the ''womens march''?, I doubt the protestors even knew the reason for the protests.