Sunday, July 19, 2020

‘Starting To Unravel’: Trump Chief Of Staff Expects Indictments From Durham Probe

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows discusses the Durham probe, July 19, 2020. (YouTube screen capture/Fox News)

Article by Chuck Ross in "The Daily Caller":

 White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Sunday he expects indictments to be handed down from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

“You’re going to see a couple of other documents come out in the coming days that will suggest that not only was the [Trump] campaign spied on, but the FBI did not act appropriately as they were investigating,” Meadows also said in an interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Meadows, a former member of the House Oversight Committee, was one of a small group of Republicans who pushed for the release of documents related to the infamous Steele dossier and the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released a declassified FBI memo of interviews conducted in January 2017 with the primary source that Christopher Steele used to compile his anti-Trump dossier. 

The source undercut several aspects of the dossier, which the FBI cited extensively in two applications it filed to conduct surveillance against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The Justice Department’s office of the inspector general faulted the FBI for failing to disclose the problems with the dossier in its applications for the spy warrants.

Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, has been investigating the FBI and other U.S. agencies’ activities during the 2016 campaign and after President Donald Trump took office. A former FBI attorney who worked on the Russia probe is under criminal investigation for allegedly altering an email about Page to downplay his relationship with the CIA, according to The New York Times.

“I think the American people expect indictments. I know I expect indictments based on the evidence I’ve seen,” Meadows told host Maria Bartiromo.


 Meadows did not provide any other details on the forthcoming documents. Earlier this year, then-acting intelligence director Richard Grenell began the process of declassifying a slew of documents related to the dossier and FBI probe.

He declassified footnotes from the inspector general’s report that said that the FBI received evidence in early 2017 that Russian intelligence officers may have fed disinformation to Steele, a former MI6 officer who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
“It’s all starting … to unravel, and I tell you, it’s time for people to go to jail and be indicted,” Meadows said Sunday.

Attorney General William Barr, who picked Durham to lead the investigation, has said that he expects the prosecutor to wrap up the probe before the election in November. He has also said that Durham may release a report of the investigation.

Barr has declined to say who Durham is investigating, though he said in an interview on May 18 that former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden are not targets of the probe.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/19/donald-trump-mark-meadows-indictments-durham-probe/
at

A Counterrevolutionary Force





A Counterrevolutionary Force




Daniel McCarthy • July 18, 2020


Before it became a political term, “conservative” was the antonym of “destructive.” When the word acquired political significance in the English language beginning in the early 19th century—Britain’s Conservative Party was founded in 1834—this older definition continued to be part of its meaning in the new context. The political forces that conservatives opposed, such as liberalism and radicalism, were inclined toward destruction. Those liberals and radicals who most admired the French Revolution were candid about this: they wished to destroy the existing legal, religious, social, and economic order so as to build a better, more rational one in its place.

Conservatism is a counterrevolutionary force: the antithesis of Jacobinism and Bolshevism, not simply as historical movements but as revolutionary tendencies to which the Left—and sometimes the Right—is susceptible. But conservatism is not simply the negation of incendiary ideology; it is also affirmation of a principle—the anti-utopian view that, despite its flaws, our civilization is worthy of our loyalty, even unto death.

You may have heard that American conservatism is not really conservative at all, it’s just “classical liberalism.” America was born in revolution, and as Louis Hartz influentially argued in the 1950s, Lockean liberalism is virtually our sole tradition. True conservatism arises from feudalism, which means that in this country it exists only as an exotic import, displaced in space and time from the lands of Habsburgs or Romanovs.

This is what liberals would like American conservatives to believe, but the opposite is more nearly the truth: conservatism is not classical liberalism; rather, what is best in classical liberalism depends on conservatism. To understand this, one must return to the historical milieu in which “conservative” and “liberal” became political terms. In the 1830s these words indicated on both sides of the Atlantic opposing attitudes toward the French Revolution and its legacy. Writing in the North American Review in 1835, Thomas Jefferson’s biographer B.L. Rayner retrospectively applies the labels to the two great factions of American politics in the first decade of the republic: “If Mr. Jefferson and his friends sympathised, as every one knows that they did, with the liberal party in Europe, their opponents, the Federalists of that day, sympathised in like manner with the aristocratic, or as it is now called, legitimate or conservative party in Europe—the party which, in order to avoid any epithet in the least degree offensive or even questionable, we have called the party of Law.”

In Britain, the Conservative Party developed out of a longstanding coalition of anti-revolutionary Whigs and Tories who at one stage had been known as the “Friends of Pitt”—that is, political allies who carried on the anti-French policies of the “independent Whig” Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, who had died in 1806. In the U.S., the anti-French faction of the 1790s was the Federalist Party, and although George Washington’s administration, like Pitt’s ministry, was notionally above party, in practice Washington was very much aligned with the anti-French, pro-British, counterrevolutionary politics of his Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton and his vice president and successor John Adams. America’s first government was conservative.

The Federalists did not long survive the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800, but the extinction of a conserative party did not mean the extinction of conservative, counterrevolutionary politics, which lived on within Jefferson’s own party. Jefferson himself had cooled in his revolutionary ardor, and conservatism prevailed even under America’s first liberal president.

The fact that America’s war of independence had been a revolution, and that John Locke’s philosophy was at the heart of its Declaration, is not the refutation of American conservatism that might be imagined. No less a foe of Jacobinism than Edmund Burke cherished another revolution, after all, one that was conservative rather than destructive—the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 that had established the constitutional order Burke strove to defend. Locke, for his part, had presented his Second Treatise as a justification of the Glorious Revolution. That revolution, like America’s nearly a century later, was understood by the revolutionaries themselves as a change in continuity with the nation’s historic principles. When the Americans invoked Lockean ideas, they did so in the full knowledge that George III’s own legitimacy in England rested in the eyes of many of his subjects—especially those of parliamentary Whigs who were already skeptical of the war with America—on the Lockean interpretation of the Revolution of 1688. The British could not deny the Americans their rights without at the same time denying part of the foundation of Britain’s own constitution: the Declaration of Independence in effect made a conservative, originalist argument.

There was much historical mythologizing involved in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. But the impulse to reconcile such alterations in government with the historical character of the nation was a conservative motive, in sharp contrast to the rationalistic and radically transformative impulse behind the likes of the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks. As for Britain’s legitimist opponents of the Glorious Revolution—the Jacobite Tories who believed Parliament was wrong to depose James II—their conservatism was real but hopeless. Conservatism must actually conserve. The ancien regime proved to be unsalvageable everywhere: in Stuart Britain, Bourbon France, Habsburg Austria, Romanov Russia, even imperial China. Italy’s Catholic faith was not enough to preserve the Papal States, either.




Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

This Column Is Racist for Listing the Numerous Idiotic Claims of Racism

Article by Brad Slager in "RedState":
 
In my Friday ‘’Document Dump’’ feature, I included a story of how improvisational troupes are being declared ‘’racist’’. It was just the latest entry in a never-ending string of insipid accusations that are being leveled in these amazingly stupid times. As the crowd grows that feels a need to be proactive against racism  — and more importantly, to be noticed for doing so — the lengths people go to accuse racism are stretching thin.

The press, of course, plays along, because, let’s be honest, racism in the headline is a real grabber! As a result, the list of items being charged as intolerant, exclusionary, or outright promoting white supremacy is becoming laughably inane. These are not just random, faceless people barking on social media either, but accusations leveled in the deeply serious entries of journalism outlets. We begin with some additions from the problematic improv Klansmen piece.
Here is our less-than-comprehensive list of moronic racist items in our culture.

CLASSICAL MUSIC –  Orchestral overtures have been around for centuries, but should they, asks the Washington Post? The genre needs a reckoning, they say.
OPERA – Only makes sense, if philharmonics are exclusionary then so would be opera houses.
SOAP – We are all familiar with how hateful brand mascots have been, but more than Aunt Jemima, and the Land O’Lakes spokes-logos, products themselves are racist.
PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICHES – It is insensitive to other cultures if we do not recognize they may not use 2 slices for Skippy.
MILK – It’s what makes a white supremacist’s body good.
CEREAL – And it is not because of that racist milk, either.
     -What your white privilege fails to understand is that non-racial, fictional characters that do not exist in real life can be deeply really racial in real life.
ANIMATED TOYS – Check your toybox privilege.
THE SIMPSONS – Fake non-racial characters have a real problem with their voices.
TOLKIEN MONSTERS – I am curious how many Orcs complained about their depictions in the movies…??
DOCTOR SEUSS – I am tempted to ask if his language in the books is a threat to Ebonics, but that will only lead to more trouble.
THE GOLDEN GIRLS – Look how many decades they got away with hatefulness. Not anymore.
   – It is not enough to correct things in our entertainment complex. You hateful American-types do not even realize how our daily activities are completely filled with…well, hate.
CROSSWALK SIGNS – If you think having a white man commanding people when they can walk is acceptable let me inform you; it is NOT acceptable.
ROBOTS – Apparently they have been programmed to be intolerant.
FRONT LAWNS – These are part of the racist American Dream – and don’t even get started on the white picket fences.
HIGHWAYS – Maybe this is why so many protests are staged on the interstates.
     – And even your independent activities which are practiced without any connection to race can be racist. Frankly, you people disgust me.
JOGGING – I mean, where do you think the term ‘’race’’ came from, anyway?
TIPPING WAITERS – Class, race, wealth, servitude — there is so much going on. So stop it.
RIDING BICYCLES – Look at the billions who ride these in Asia, and you never see POC peddlers.
GOING ON A DIET – Problem; what if you just lose weight because of all of the foods we are now forbidden to eat because they are racist???
BEING A VEGETARIAN – What color is soy, after all?! Plus there is probably a wheatgrass connection to the racist front lawns.
— Use this list to get your intolerant life in order. We are certain there will be more corrective actions needed in the future, so more lists like this are sure to arrive.

https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2020/07/19/this-column-is-racist-for-listing-the-numerous-idiotic-claims-of-racism/ 
at

Marxist Black Lives Matter Activists Are White Progressives In Blackface



You have probably already heard Portland Police Officer Jakhary Jackson discussing his experiences dealing with Black Lives Matter protesters. In a recent briefing, the officer talked about the racial makeup of the protests and how white participants are relating to the minorities in their ranks. 

 “A lot of times, someone of color – black, Hispanic, Asian – will come up to the fence, and directly want to talk to me: ‘Hey, what do you think about George Floyd? What do you think about what happened with the police?’” Jackson explained. He continued, stating that “someone white” would interrupt the conversation by shouting “eff the police,” or, “don’t talk to him.” 

 Jackson also dropped a truth bomb: There were more minorities among his fellow police officers than there were in the groups of violent protesters. He said that these “privileged” white protesters have hurled a myriad of invectives and accusations at himself and his colleagues. 

 “And you don’t even know what I’ve dealt with, what these white officers that you’re screaming at … you don’t know them, you don’t know anything about them,” he said. “There are racist people out in the world. Absolutely, there are bad cops out in the world. We don’t associate with those people, they make us all look bad.”

 The officer, who has a history degree, lamented the lack of knowledge that these protesters have demonstrated in their words and actions. He said:

 “I got to see folks that really do want change like the rest of us, that have been impacted by racism. And then I got to see those people get faded out by people who have no idea what racism is all about, that don’t even know that the tactics they’re using are the same tactics that were used against my people.”

 Officer Jackson is correct in his assessment of many BLM activists, but the issue isn’t the fact that they don’t know the history. The issue is that they don’t care. Why? Because most of these white progressive BLM activists don’t actually care about the black community. 

 The national Black Lives Matter organization, not to be confused with local-level groups, is dominated by white progressives whose objective is to use racial tensions to push a Marxist agenda. The white leftists who participate in and incite violent protests are seeking to render law enforcement — at least the type they don’t approve of — obsolete. 

 Moreover, they seek to destroy the notion of the nuclear family and deal with issues pertaining to the LGBT community. If you read the organization’s “What We Believe” page on its website, you will see no mention of police or law enforcement. You won’t see any plan for enriching the black community and dealing with poverty, crime, and education. Put simply, the group exists as nothing more than a tool for white progressives. 

 It can be no surprise then, that white progressive BLM activists believe they have the right to scold their black colleagues for trying to find some common ground with police officers. As many black Americans on both sides have noted, these white liberals believe they understand these issues better than black people. 

 To white progressives, black people are little more than pets that must be told when to sit, heel, and fetch. In this way, they can wreak havoc, sow division, and foment violence while putting a black face on their machinations. 

 What Officer Jackson described is simply a microcosm of what is happening across the nation. While black community leaders call for police reforms, the white progressive crowd ignores their pleas and insists on defunding, or even abolishing, the police. It seems clear that these people, who claim to champion black causes, do not care about black voices. 

 But is any of this a surprise? 


at

Utah parents fight back against state’s mask mandate

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:03 AM PT — Saturday, July 18, 2020
A mask policy meeting in Utah was cut short due to public health concerns. According to recent reports, around 100 residents crammed into a small meeting space in Provo on Wednesday to protest mask mandates for children.
However, Utah County commissioner Tanner Ainge canceled the meeting before it started due to a lack of social distancing and face coverings.
“This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing,” he stated. “We are suppose to be physically distancing, wearing masks and so.”
This came after fellow county commissioner Bill Lee organized the meeting, while calling for a compassionate exemption from the governor’s policy for children with certain health conditions such as asthma and anxiety.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert recently extended an executive order directing masks be worn by kids in grades K-12 in all schools across the state. A vote to pass the exemption was suppose to take place, but due to the cancellation the decision was never made.


Although the meeting was immediately adjourned, concerned parents stayed behind for nearly two-hours sharing their frustrations. Cheers of freedom and constitutional rights were repeated by the crowd as discussions of social distancing and public health orders were met with boo’s.
A teacher in attendance said masks will give children a false sense of security while at school and parents claimed the science regarding the pandemic is not adding up.
The meeting has yet to be rescheduled.






https://www.oann.com/utah-parents-fight-back-against-states-mask-mandate/
at

Trump pushes back against critics on coronavirus, addresses whether he will accept election results in exclusive interview

 Trump pushes back against critics on coronavirus, addresses ...
Article by Ron Blitzer in "FoxNews":

President Trump, in an exclusive interview with Fox News, challenged his critics on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, threatened a veto for the defense bill, and speculated on whether he will accept the results if his Democratic challenger wins the presidency in November.

Trump, in a contentious sitdown that aired Sunday, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace that recent statistics regarding COVID-19 cases and deaths are misleading. Early in the discussion, the president disputed Wallace’s claim that the U.S. currently has the seventh-highest mortality rate in the world.

 “I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world,” Trump said, offering White House statistics that differed from the ones Wallace cited.

Wallace then explained that his numbers came from Johns Hopkins University, which ranked the U.S. seventh in mortality, ahead of the UK and worse than Brazil and Russia. He noted that the White House’s chart, which uses data from the European Centre for Disease Protection and Control, has the U.S. ahead of Spain and Italy, but worse than Brazil and South Korea, with Russia and other countries not included in the chart.

From there, Trump pushed back against statements from leading U.S. doctors, specifically CDC Director Robert Redfield and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci. Redfield said last week that he expects the coming fall and winter to be among “the most difficult times that we’ve experienced in American public health.”

When asked if he agrees with Redfield, Trump said he was unsure, but pointed to mistakes that doctors have made.

“I don't know and I don't think he knows,” Trump said. I don't think anybody knows with this. This is a very tricky deal. Everybody thought this summer it would go away and it would come back in the fall. Well, when the summer came, they used to say the heat -- the heat was good for it and it really knocks it out, remember? And then it might come back in the fall. So they got that one wrong.”
placeholder
Trump then addressed perceived tension between him and Fauci, who was targeted by Trump aide Daniel Scavino, who tweeted a cartoon depicting Fauci as a leaker and an alarmist. When asked about this, Trump appeared to partially agree with it.

“Well, I don't know that he’s a leaker,” Trump said before adding, “He's a little bit of an alarmist. That's OK. A little bit of an alarmist.”

The president insisted that he and Fauci have “a great relationship,” but claimed that “he was wrong” early in the pandemic by saying it would pass and that Trump’s ban on travel from China was a mistake.

“He then admitted that I was right,” Trump said.

When confronted with the notion that he, too, has made errors, Trump did not push back.

“I guess everybody makes mistakes,” the president said, then added, “I'll be right eventually. I will be right eventually,” referring to his past prediction that the virus would eventually go away.

“It's going to disappear and I'll be right,” he said.

In the meantime, Trump says that he takes responsibility for what happens to the nation during the pandemic, as critics claim that the U.S. does not have a national plan.

 “Look, I take responsibility always for everything because it's ultimately my job, too. I have to get everybody in line,” Trump said, while stating that governors have to lead as well.

“Some governors have done well, some governors have done poorly,” he said.

Trump downplayed the recent rise in national case numbers, claiming that it is the result of increased testing, with the implication that it is not a true rise in the severity of the pandemic, a claim that leading health experts have disputed. Trump pointed to new cases that include people with minor symptoms who recover quickly. Early on during the pandemic, it was mainly those with serious symptoms were getting tested.

“No country has ever done what we've done in terms of testing. We are the envy of the world,” he said.

The Trump administration announced that they are supporting a lawsuit to overturn ObamaCare. When asked why he would oppose something that people are relying on during a pandemic, Trump said he will be replacing it soon, and is “signing a health care plan within two weeks.”

Shifting to how Washington will help Americans facing an ongoing economic crisis that has developed due to the pandemic, Trump warned that he may not sign a new stimulus bill if it does not include certain provisions.

With the current stimulus bill running out later this month, Republicans want new legislation to include liability limits as states reopen, people go back to work and businesses deal with customers. Trump himself has pushed strongly for a payroll tax cut, which would help employers.

Asked if he would only sign a bill if it included these items, Trump did not give a firm answer.

“Well, we’re going to see. But we do need protections because businesses are going to get sued just because somebody walked in. You don’t know where this virus comes from. They’ll sit down at a restaurant. They’ll sue the restaurant, the guy’s out of business.”

Trump then said he “would consider not signing” a bill that did not include the payroll tax cut.

Another bill that Trump has threatened to veto is the National Defense Authorization Act, because it includes a provision for renaming military bases currently named for Confederate generals, even -- as Wallace pointed out -- if the military supports it.

"I don’t care what the military says. I do – I’m supposed to make the decision," Trump said. "Fort Bragg is a big deal. We won two World Wars, nobody even knows General Bragg. We won two World Wars. Go to that community where Fort Bragg is, in a great state, I love that state, go to the community, say how do you like the idea of renaming Fort Bragg, and then what are we going to name it? We’re going to name it after the Reverend Al Sharpton?"

Trump said he did not want to erase the names of bases used in those past wars, and claimed "most other people are" against it as well.

The bill would also give soldiers a pay raise, but Trump insisted that "they’ll get their pay raise."

 Later in the interview, Trump touted a recent stock market surge and his hopes for an economic recovery that will help him come November.

“I think the economy is expanding and growing beautifully,” he said. “Now, the Democrats want to keep it closed as long as possible because they think that's good for elections. But I think the economy is doing very well. Now we're coming back and we're coming back at a level that nobody would have thought possible.”

Trump pointed to the NASDAQ hitting an all-time high recently, and the Dow Jones nearing a record high.

“We're gonna have a stock market perhaps on November 3rd that’s the highest in history,” Trump predicted.”

The conversation eventually took a turn toward a recent wave of violent crime in several major U.S. cities. Trump said that the cities in question are led by Democrats and “are stupidly run.”

“It was always bad but now it’s gotten totally out of control and it’s really because they want to defund the police,” Trump said.

The president then claimed that his presumptive November opponent, former vice president Joe Biden, wants to defund police, citing a charter that he signed with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Biden and Sanders formed a Unity Task Force that has brought the more progressive wing of the Democratic party together with the more moderate side.

Wallace noted that the charter does not call for defunding police, but that Biden has called for reallocating money previously meant for police to go toward other programs such as mental counseling. The concept of redistributing certain police funds to other programs has been closely tied to those calling for defunding.

Asked about racial tension in the wake of George Floyd’s death, Trump recognized how Black Americans are feeling. When asked if he understands why Black people are angry about being disproportionately shot and killed by police compared to White people, Trump said he does.

“Of course I do. Of course I do,” Trump said. At the same time, the president noted that “many Whites are killed also,” and that “this is going on for a long time, long before I got here.”

Turning to the upcoming election, Trump had strong words for Joe Biden, taking political and personal shots at the presumptive Democratic nominee.

 “Biden wants to come in and ruin our country, triple your taxes,” Trump said, claiming that if he becomes president, Biden will be pushed to the left. “He will destroy this country, but it won’t be him. It will be the radical left. The same type ideology that took over Venezuela, one of the richest countries in the world. They now have no water, they have no food, and they have no medicine.”

In the past, Trump has taken shots at Biden’s mental capabilities, and he continued to go down that path.

“Biden can't put two sentences together,” Trump said. “They wheel him out. He goes up -- he repeats -- they ask him questions. He reads a teleprompter and then he goes back into his basement. You tell me the American people want to have that in an age where we're in trouble with other nations that are looking to do numbers on us.”

Wallace asked Trump if he thinks Biden is senile, but Trump refused to go there, but still continued his attack.

“I don't want to say that. I'd say he's not competent to be president. To be president, you have to be sharp and tough and so many other things. He doesn't even come out of his basement. They think, ‘Oh this is a great campaign.’ So he goes in, I'll then make a speech, it'll be a great speech, and some young guy, starts writing, ‘Vice President Biden said this, this, this, this.’ He didn't say it. Joe doesn't know he's alive, OK? He doesn't know he's alive.”

Later on, Trump said that this is why he will be victorious.

“[Y]ou know why I won’t lose, because the country, in the end, they’re not going to have a man who – who’s shot. He’s shot, he’s mentally shot,” Trump said.

 Asked about the possibility of losing, however, Trump noted that he does not handle losing well, and may not handle it well if it happens in November.

“I’m not a good loser. I don’t like to lose,” he said. “I don’t lose too often. I don’t like to lose.”

When asked if he is gracious, Trump said, "You don’t know until you see. It depends.” He then claimed that mail-in voting, which Democrats have pushed as a response to the coronavirus pandemic, “is going to rig the election.”

Asked if this means that he will not accept the election results, Trump said, “No. I have to see.”

Asked again if he would accept the results, Trump said, “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-pushes-back-against-critics-on-coronavirus-addresses-whether-he-will-accept-election-results-in-exclusive-interview
at

A Silent Majority Isn’t Good Enough In The Culture War



The “Silent Majority” comes up a lot these days, often in the context of a warning to Democrats about an electrified coalition of under-the-radar voters motivated to support President Trump by the left’s culture war. It’s true Democrats aren’t helped politically by their proximity to radical leftism, although I’m not sure I buy the argument it’ll cost them the Oval Office in 2020.

Whether the Silent Majority is enough to swing an election, it’s certainly no longer enough to swing the culture. If such a group exists, it needs to speak up.

I say that with deep empathy for everyone fearful of losing a job, friend, or relative if they push back, and for everyone with little interest in getting involved at all. That, of course, is the biggest challenge. There is a reason people are silent, and it’s a good one.

If, however, you happen to work at Boeing and a former Navy pilot is being forced to resign for a 1987 op-ed against women fighting in combat, consider that pushing back might not be as risky as you think. If you work in the public relations department, consider that weathering the social media storm might not be as costly as you think.

If you work at the Smithsonian—or any other organization—and a deeply racist guide to whiteness is being circulated, consider that it might be worth voicing your discomfort with a document that ascribes concepts like “self-reliance” to one racial group. Consider that a smart and well-intentioned rebuttal might find more support than you realize. Consider that it might be galvanizing.

If you work at or attend Penn State and the university is pressured to delete a tweet that welcomes conservative students, consider that a few calm defenses of the post might be enough to save it. Consider that saving it might send a message that reflexive appeasement is not necessary when angry leftists swarm on social media with unreasonable demands.

These are just a few recent examples, and it’s certainly possible that internal dissenters spoke out against each bad decision to no avail. The left’s progressive-or-bigot binary is an immensely powerful force, intimidating people into submission by implicating anyone who disagrees with the dogma in bigotry. Now that enough of its enforcers have migrated from academia into newsrooms and boardrooms, the left’s cultural power is snowballing rapidly.

Do what you can to stop it. Our silence is how these small battles in the culture war are lost. Don’t let the left terrify us into normalizing anemic police departments, hormone prescriptions for struggling children, Mount Rushmore and the national anthem as emblems of white supremacy, sanitized comedy, false history, impossible speech restrictions, and so much more. Finding the courage and wisdom to speak up, even on issues that seem trivial, will send the message that reasonable people disagree with unreasonable demands—demands that feel impossible for decision-makers and their band of ever-frantic PR professionals to resist.

Know that other loving, decent people likely share your concerns, be they in your PTA, company, church, family, or friend group. They’re scared too. The cost-benefit-analysis of voicing dissent just doesn’t seem worth it. But that’s how the left conquered our culture, by scaring people into silence. Unfortunately, however, the culture war is not won at the ballot box.

The Silent Majority is most often discussed in the context of elections, but we’re voting in the culture war every single day.

at

Joe Biden Is A Vehicle For The Revolution


Without traditional campaign trail scrutiny, Democrats are crafting a far-left agenda for Biden to implement under the mask of a "moderate."


Former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is a vehicle for the left’s cultural revolution, even if he doesn’t know it. Someone might remind him that he’s even running.

On Wednesday, prominent communist, anti-Semite and former Black Panther Angela Davis said Biden could be “effectively pressured,” into promoting the agenda of the radical left in pursuit of a complete societal transformation overthrowing existing norms into a new world order.

“I don’t see this election as being about choosing a candidate who will be able to lead us in the right direction,” Davis said on “Russia Today.” “It will be about choosing a candidate who can be most effectively pressured into allowing more space for the evolving anti-racist movement.”

That anti-racism movement meanwhile, has morphed into a profoundly religious one, featuring woke white people bowing down in a form of moral submission to atone for ancestral sins.

The new anti-racism movement, adopted explicitly from the Marxist playbook, features the radical rewrite of history, the purging of cultural relics, the takeover of legacy institutions in media and academia and the criminalizationof dissent with the unforgiving exile of any of those opposed to the collectivist movement in the name of “social justice,” no matter its own contradictions. These are the same tactics being employed by the Chinese Communist Party in the takeover of Hong Kong.

Columbia University Professor John McWhorter foresaw the coming moment in 2018 when he aptly described “anti-racism” as a religion:

Third-wave anti-racism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic.

It’s no surprise then, that the contemporary anti-racism movement has now set its sights on the grand prize in the nation’s cultural wars attempting to weaponize the Oval Office in their assault on the existing world order. Biden has already showcased a willingness to conform to the woke revolution and even champion the cause to the detriment of the very people it purports to support.

Over the last two weeks, Biden unveiled a new economic agenda revealing the most radical progressive platform of any modern Democratic candidate in recent history, which, in the end makes sense given the party’s lurch to the left over the course of a crowded primary where moderates were sidelined to the benefit of openly socialist frontrunners throughout the contest.

Under the “Unity Task Forces,” a 110-page document hashed out between Biden’s team and former presidential rival Sen. Bernie Sanders’ of Vermont, the Democratic Party appears to be nominating Sanders after all in the form of Biden masquerading as a moderate. The Democratic nominee now endorses nearly tripling Hillary Clinton’s 2016 proposal for tax hikes missing no opportunity to “rewrite the economy” of a nation in crisis from COVID-19.

Under Biden’s new plan, the former vice president is offering free college, granting free citizenship to illegal immigrants, threatening border security officers for enforcing the law, and pledging $2 trillion on a climate plan to achieve “environmental justice.”
Just days after Biden vowed to “transform” the country, Sanders lauded the party’s nominee as the best chance to get as close to a repeat of an FDR presidency in decades.

“The compromise they came up with, if implemented, will make Biden the most progressive president since FDR,” Sanders said during an appearance on MSNBC.

While perhaps in the absence of much inflammatory rhetoric in support of the movement, the candidate’s platform portrays a Trojan horse for moderate voters who might buy into the Democratic Party’s ploy selling their candidate as a centrist. Without the spotlight that comes with conventional campaigning, Democrats are able to craft a far-left agenda under the radar as the candidates mount 21st-century digital front-porch campaigns courting voters from their respective homes.

Meanwhile, assuming all minorities have already turned on Trump, nothing on Biden’s platform will actually help the people he’s trying to win over in November. Taxing foreign profits and hiking corporate tax rates promise to be devastating jobs killers. Of course, the money raised from such efforts, if not wasted on government bureaucracy, will likely be funneled to causes that ensure “social justice” such as slavery reparations, even if the Biden hasn’t yet fully endorsed them yet.

After all, Biden can be “effectively pressured.”


at

Dozens of BLM+Antifa Full On Attack Police in Chicago, Blue Reinforcements Arrive



There was a BLM ‘protest’ in Chicago, then came what appeared to be a coordinated effort to pull down a statue of Christopher Columbus in Grant Park. That devolved into an all out attack on the police officers there to defend the statue.

Rioters pelted the police, most of whom had no helmets on, with all kinds of bricks, rocks, sticks, bottles, even fireworks, you name it, it looked like an incoming barrage.



One BLM guy says “peaceful protest” but everyone else is just attacking the police trying to get over the wall to attack the statue.





They moved the cops back with the barrage and made it over the wall.






Black flag stands for anarchy.



But before they could pull it down, the reinforcements arrived, these idiots asked for a response with their actions and they got it, with pepper spray and batons.





Here’s the thing. This may have been a protest at one point. But now these “protests” are just covers for the riots. This was a full-on planned assault on the police, not protest that got out of hand. Planned attack. And planned attempt to rip down the statue. 

It’s about time media start reporting the reality of it, that these are criminal attacks. They could have killed cops with what they did, who knows how many were injured because of this. 

But they limped away, whining about pepper spray and how mean the police were. Play stupid games and attack cops, win stupid prizes. Maybe don’t attack the police next time. And those limping away were lucky. Several were arrested. These rioters are losers that need to be locked up and given some real time.

at

Wolverine American Bevelyn Beatty


Rebel Alliance Activates – 

Wolverine American Bevelyn Beatty 

“It’s Time to Fight Back”


Bevelyn Beatty from At The Well Ministries confronts the Marxist Black Lives Matter mural in front of Trump Tower.  “Refund the police” – “Get the Paint”… 


…I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

Full video:


at

Berlin, Rome, Paris threaten sanctions on states interfering in Libya

France, Italy and Germany are "ready to consider" sanctions on foreign powers violating an arms embargo in Libya, a joint statement by their leaders said Saturday.

The statement did not directly name any foreign actors funneling arms to Libya but multiple powers have been sending fighters and weapons, fuelling a bloody proxy war that reflects wider geopolitical rifts and divisions in the Middle East and within NATO.

While forces loyal to strongman Khalifa Haftar are backed by Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the UN-recognised unity government is fighting back with Turkey's support.

"We ... urge all foreign actors to end their increasing interference and to fully respect the arms embargo established by the United Nations Security Council," the statement said.

"We are ready to consider the possible use of sanctions should breaches to the embargo at sea, on land or in the air continue."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, France's President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said they therefore "look forward to the proposals the EU High Representative/Vice President will make to this end."

Voicing "grave concerns" over the escalating military tensions in Libya, they urged "all Libyan parties and their foreign supporters for an immediate cessation of fighting and for a stop of the ongoing military build-up throughout the country."

In Brussels for a crunch EU summit on hammering out a huge recovery rund for the bloc, the three European leaders had met on the sidelines of the meeting to discuss the deteriorating situation in Libya.

Since 2015, a power struggle has pitted the UN-recognised, Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) against forces loyal to Haftar, who is based in eastern Benghazi.

Ankara's military support for the GNA has tipped the balance and allowed its forces in June to repel Haftar's 14-month advance on Tripoli and launch a counteroffensive.

This week, Egypt racheted up tensions, with its president warning his country "will not stand idle in the face of any moves that pose a direct threat to the national security not only of Egypt but also that of Libya".

Libya has been mired in chaos since the 2011 uprising that toppled and later killed longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200718-berlin-rome-paris-threaten-sanctions-on-states-interfering-in-libya




While forces in Libya loyal to strongman Khalifa Haftar are backed by Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the UN-recognised unity government is fighting back with Turkey's support Mahmud TURKIA AFP/File
 
 

 
at

Democrats chose a side


The so-called “Party of the Middle Class” chose a side. And they are on the side of violent insurrectionists and domestic terrorists. Vote accordingly.


Patriot Retort

After 49 days of unremitting Antifa riots in Portland, the Department of Homeland Security deployed officers to crack down on the violence, and immediately the Democrats chose a side.

Instead of supporting a return to civil order and the rule of law, Democrats sided with civil unrest and lawlessness. And to justify their support of violent insurrectionists over America’s civil society, the Democrats flat-out lied.

The talking points are unhinged: “Unidentified agents” (or “Secret Police”) “kidnapping” “protesters” and “throwing them” into the back of “unmarked vans.”

They were DHS officers and the shoulder patches on their uniforms reflected that.  So, no, they weren’t “unidentified” nor were they “secret police.”

“Kidnapping protesters” in this instance is what we on Planet Earth call “arresting criminals.”  That’s what police are for, you know.

And for decades, police have used of “unmarked” vehicles. 
This is absolutely nothing new.

So let me translate the Democrats’ lying talking points for you. Federal officers from a clearly designated branch of Federal law enforcement began arresting violent Antifa rioters after city and state leaders refused to enforce the law for 49 days.

That’s it.  That’s the story.

But the Democrats chose a side.  And they sided with the violent Antifa rioters.

Democrat Senators like Ed Markey, Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren wasted no time rushing onto Twitter to decry DHS arresting violent rioters who have thrown Portland into utter chaos for 49 days.

Senator Markey, tweeting out a Washington Post story about it had this to say:

We can’t even hold ordinary police officers accountable. Now Trump is sending a secret police force of unidentified, militarized agents to Portland to terrorize protestors.

Good heavens, the lies. “Terrorize protesters” … by arresting the violent criminals who are committing assault and arson.

These agents should be immediately withdrawn and we need to ban the use of unidentified officers.

“Ban the use of unidentified officers” who were not “unidentified” to begin with. Yeah, that’ll help restore order.

They were wearing shoulder patches as well as POLICE patches on their chests and backs.  What does Markey want exactly — for the officers to wear their names, addresses and social security numbers on their helmets?

According to DHS, “The CBP agents identified themselves and were wearing CBP insignia during the encounter. The names of the agents were not displayed due to recent doxing incidents against law enforcement personnel who serve and protect our country.” [Emphasis Dianny’s]

Said Connecticut’s stupidest Senator Chris Murphy:

This behavior from unidentified federal officers is chilling. Without identification, there can be no accountability when something goes wrong, and there is no way for citizens to tell the difference between real and fake law enforcement.

Again, they were wearing shoulder patches that identified what branch of law enforcement they were.  For crap’s sake, this isn’t hard, people.

 Naturally, Pocahasbeen Warren chimed in as well:

I thought we’d already covered this after the attacks in Lafayette Square: the US government should not be using unidentified federal officers as a secret police force to terrorize US citizens & violate their constitutional rights. This is outrageous.

Good grief.

You do not have a Constitutional right to commit assault or arson.  The only thing outrageous here is Pocahasbeen’s idiotic, ignorant comments.

But the pièce de résistance came from the Speaker of the House (and third in line for the Presidency), Nancy Pelosi:

Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti.

“Unidentified stormtroopers.” Sweet merciful Zeus.

“In response to ‘graffiti.’”  Right, Nancy.  It was all about “graffiti.”

Honestly this woman is loathsome.

These are not the actions of a democratic republic.

You understand?  Arresting violent rioters who have held a city hostage for 49 days is not the actions of a democratic republic.  Whereas letting violent rioters hold your city hostage for 49 days is totally what we do in a democratic republic.
‪
@DHSgov’s actions in Portland undermine its mission.

You mean it’s mission to uphold the law and protect citizens from domestic terrorists?  That mission?

Trump & his stormtroopers must be stopped.

Yes, Nancy, you gin-soaked hag.  They’re “stormtroopers.”

I wonder if Nancy was this upset when “stormtroopers” “kidnapped” Roger Stone in a pre-dawn raid over a process crime while CNN filmed it.  I’m thinking she wasn’t.

Last week, Pelosi hinted at her position on violent rioters when she poo-pooed the mob tearing down statues. But now, she’s dropped all pretense and is actively, openly showing which side she is on.


But, but, but GRAFFITI!!!

Democrats chose a side in this violent insurrection. 
And they are on the side of the insurrectionists.


The so-called Party of the Middle Class is now the Party of Violent Anarchy.

The Democrats chose a side.

They’ve chosen the people who want to utterly destroy our “democratic republic” and make us ungovernable.

And for some inexplicable reason, the Democrats think choosing the side of violent domestic terrorists is a winning strategy going into November.

As far as I understand it, the Democrat Party’s 2020 “firewall” is supposed to be suburban women.

Think about that.

Do they really believe that suburban women will be stampeding to the polls in November to vote for the party embracing wanton violence, anarchy and rioting?

It’s bad enough that Democrats are dipping their toe in the Defund the Police nonsense.  But actively condemning law enforcement restoring order to a failed city held hostage by anarchists?

On what planet is that a winning strategy?


at