Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Et Tu, Brute? Kevin McCarthy: “The President Bears Responsibility for....”

Kevin McCarthy: “The President Bears Responsibility for Wednesday’s Attack On Congress By Mob Rioters”


As the legislative branch of congress takes action to impeach President Trump, the fifth effort by the establishment UniParty to remove the impediment to their corrupt endeavors; and while that effort is in the fading days of an “America-First” administration that stands in opposition to the branch that has usurped their role as a body to hear “We The People”; opportunist House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy now places the blame for Wednesday’s riots at the Capitol on President Donald Trump… 

Despite his criticism Minority Leader McCarthy also says he believes impeaching the president in such a short time frame after last week’s violent protest at the Capitol would be a mistake….  Et Tu, Brute?

When you understand that any changes to this corrupt and self-serving system will not be accepted by those who command power and affluence; when you accept their willingness to deploy military around themselves in order to protect them from you; and when you realize they will use every system, including the ballot counting machines, to stop the American people from disrupting this corrupt system of self-aggrandizing elitism; you start to realize the diminished options for removing them from office.


Gab CEO sticks it to Twitter - Backs up Trump's entire Twitter - Puts it up on Gab



Rata for W3P Lives




In defiance of the recent big tech blacklisting of President Trump and many of his supporters across popular mainstream social media sites, Gab CEO Andrew Torba backed up the President's entire twitter account and imported all of the posts into Gab. Before Twitter pulled the plug on President Trump's account, Torba was able to export the President's twitter posts and preserve them. Not only that, but he was able to get it imported into Gab during one of their highest traffic days as a mass exodu from big tech was occuring. That's impressive.

As reported by many outlets over the past few days, Gab's traffic has been averaging a little over 750% above their usual traffic. 100% FED UP reports that Gab is adding ten new servers in order to facilitate the increase in traffic.

Not only looking to preserve the President's tweets, they have also started restoring and preserving his recent videos on Gab TV. This comes as Google has restricted the President's YouTube access.

Google and Apple have both banned Gab from their app stores since Gab allows all legal speech except for pornography. Instead of towing the Social Justice line of hypocritical rules regarding speech, Gab has taken an approach that mirrors Constitutional free speech. 100% FED UP reported the following:


The two tech giants recently banned Parler from their app stores. Amazon Web Services also suspended their servicing of Parler, citing allegedly “insufficient content moderation practices.”

Gab has worked to become resilient from suppression from tech companies that no longer wish to host its domain. For instance, Gab hosts its own physical services to avoid censorship from cloud servicing companies such as Amazon Web Services.

The free speech company is also reportedly working on a Gab phone to circumvent app store censorship and spur competition in the mobile phone operating system markets.


On a side note: One of our regulars, funbobby, preemptively secured us a spot on Gab. He let me go through it yesterday and get it all dressed up. Come check it out. We even have our own hashtags.
W³P Lives on Gab


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after he leaves office?





Can the Senate Try
Private Citizen Trump after
He Leaves Office?


Pictured: The Capitol Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 11, 2021


Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning. The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Section 4)

Another provision of the Constitution says that an impeached president (or other office holder) may be disqualified "to hold and enjoy any office...." So some are arguing that the Constitutional provisions regarding impeachment should be interpreted to apply to any person who may be eligible to run in the future. Such an absurd interpretation of the Constriction would literally allow millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35 to be impeached and disqualified from future office holding.

This absurd reading of the Constitution shows how far people are willing to go to prevent President Trump from becoming a candidate in 2024. Such an interpretation of the Constitution would render the impeachment provisions utterly meaningless.

The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.

So, there can be no real dispute that President Trump could not be impeached and tried once his term ends.

But what if the House of Representatives impeached him while he was still president, but the Senate tried him after his term had concluded. Obviously the Constitution does not explicitly consider or deal with that unanticipated issue. Nor did the Framers consider it. The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.

Let us be clear about what those who would impeach and remove President Trump are really trying to do. They know that under the Senate timetable, there is no realistic possibility that a Senate trial could be conducted and completed before January 20 at noon. What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.

President Trump's opponent are so angry at the President for his volatile speech — which was misguided and wrong but completely protected by the First Amendment — that they are prepared to tear up the Constitution in an effort to remove him by any and all means. They are prepared to ignore the First Amendment, distort the 25th Amendment, stretch the criteria for impeachment, and permit House impeachment without a Senate trial.

These efforts, if successful, would do more damage to the rule of law than the horrendous mob did when they criminally stormed the Capitol and inflicted harm to life, property and democracy. What these rioters did deserves serious punishment and it will likely be forthcoming. But the constitutional rights of all Americans should not be compromised based on that terrible singular incident.




Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Here Are Some Free-Speech Alternatives...

 Here Are Some Free-Speech Alternatives to Big Tech

(AP Photo)

Since my recent post about Mozilla’s CEO declaring that de-platforming President Trump isn’t enough, I’ve been asked by a number of readers about alternatives to Mozilla and Firefox for browsing the internet.

It seems that there is definitely interest amongst PJ Media readers in embracing alternatives to Big Tech, so I’ve decided to compile a list of services that I currently use.

Transitioning away from Big Tech is not an easy proposition. It may be impossible at the moment to do so completely, but any effort you can make to reduce their influence on your life is a step in the right direction. The way things are going now, it’s only a matter of time before you get kicked off of Twitter or Facebook. So it’s time to start embracing the alternatives.

And there are several. I am not even going to pretend to know them all, but I have tried out a few of them—you can find links to my accounts at the end of this post.

Please note that several of the platforms that haven’t been shut down are experiencing rapid growth at the moment, and may be slow to use for a while. 

Parler (currently down)

Parler has been around for a few years and was scapegoated by Big Tech for the assault on the Capitol. It is currently down. A matter of days after the Capitol assault, Google Play and Apple’s app store removed the app, and then Amazon Web Services shut down the website. Prior to that, Parler had been one of the most popular apps in the Apple app store as conservatives flooded to it in response to Twitter and Facebook’s censorship.

Parler is an interesting option because it generally was accepted as an alternative to Twitter, but I found it was not as intuitive or as user-friendly. I’m sure that it will eventually improve once it is back online.

Gab

Probably one of the first real free-speech social media alternatives to really gain an audience, Gab launched in August 2016 and has been targeted by Big Tech ever since. Dubbed a “far-right” social media network, it has managed to survive and thrive without relying on Big Tech. It started off as a Twitter alternative but now feels more like a hybrid of Twitter and Facebook. They also have GabTV, which is dubbed as an alternative to YouTube.

I signed up for Gab in its early days but, honestly, didn’t use it much. However, I’ve recently logged back in to discover that the site has come a long way since its inception. It’s got a beautiful, clean design that is easy to use. Is it an echo chamber? Sure. All free-speech alternatives to Facebook and Twitter are, and Facebook and Twitter are destined to be echo chambers, too. Since Twitter banned Trump, I’ve decided it’s time to embrace Gab again.

CloutHub

I hadn’t heard about this one until last week when conservative actors Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson started promoting it on Twitter. I’ve since created an account, along with countless others whose collective bandwidth is making it hard for the service to keep up with demand.

MeWe

MeWe is another social media network that thrives on the concept of free speech. It is arguably the most Facebook-like free-speech alternative to Big Tech that I’ve tried, though it kind of looks like the love child of Facebook and MySpace (remember that?). You can join and create groups and chat. Sharing is the same as it is on Facebook.

Rumble

Rumble is a video-sharing site that dubs itself the free-speech alternative to YouTube and it has seen tremendous growth in recent months. “We don’t censor political debate or dialogue,” Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski said last year. “We welcome all viewpoints.”

Mark Levin, Dinesh D’Souza, and many other conservative figures have joined Rumble. I created an account months ago and transferred all of my YouTube videos over. I don’t post a lot of videos, but when I do, I will no longer use YouTube.

Brave Browser

I ditched the Chrome browser a couple of years ago in favor of Brave, mostly due to privacy concerns. If you’re concerned about being tracked by Big Tech, Brave has a lot of features to protect you.

Dissenter Browser

If you use multiple browsers, as I do, and then choose to switch to Brave from Chrome or Mozilla/Firefox, download Dissenter. It is built on Brave by the folks at Gab, and I downloaded it the same day that Mozilla’s CEO went on her tirade against Trump and free speech.

DuckDuckGo

I’m not going to lie, as far as search engines go, Google is number one for a reason. And sometimes, I still have to use it on rare occasions. DuckDuckGo, however, is my primary search engine and has been for a few years now. Once again, my motivation was privacy and not being tracked by Big Tech. It does the job well. Even if you don’t think you can change browsers, you can change your default search engine and this is one I recommend. They also have a mobile browser for smartphones. If you can’t ditch Big Tech completely, the least you can do is make it harder for them to track you.

ProtonMail

I’ve been doing my best to transition my email away from Gmail, a product of Google. I was attracted to ProtonMail a couple of years ago based on their reputation for privacy and security. You can create an account for free, or pay for some premium features. To facilitate the move to ProtonMail, I set up all my Gmail to forward to my new account, and over time switched the linked email address for various online accounts to my new one. Most of what I get now at my Gmail account is junk mail.


Democrats' Long Dark History of Using Mob Rule to Silence Dissenting Press



This last week, we watched as Twitter and Facebook silenced the President of the United States of America by removing him from their platforms. Not to be outdone, Apple, Google, and Amazon all decided to prevent an alternative social media company, Parler, from doing business. Across the nation, people are yelling that these actions are unprecedented, but are they? Is this the first time Democrats have attempted to silence dissenting political opinion through force?

Over two centuries ago, on June 18, 1812, Jefferson Democrats declared war on Great Britain. At that time, Jefferson Democrats controlled 107 of 143 congressional seats, 26 of 34 senate seats and Thomas Jefferson’s hand pick successor, James Madison, was president. Meanwhile in the city of Baltimore a Federalist publisher named Alexander Contee Hanson lived. Hanson owned one of the most powerful Federalist newspapers in the entire nation, the Federal Republican.

Hanson was the grandson of John Hanson, a delegate to the Continental Congress, who signed the Articles of Confederation. John Hanson was technically the first president of the United States as president of the Confederation Congress between 1781-1782. George Washington was the first president of the United States after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation.

During the war of 1812, Federalists opposed the war as they believe it was manufactured by the Jefferson Democrats to further that party’s political interests. As soon as war started, Alexander Hanson used the Federal Republican to denounce Madison and the war. Within days, a mob of Jefferson Democrats destroyed the newspaper’s office including the printing press. Hanson fled for his life. The violence and threats to his life, though, did not stop him from printing the newspaper or mailing it to his subscribers in Baltimore. Shortly after the office’s destruction, Hanson returned to Baltimore, reestablished an office, and continued to distribute the Federal Republican.

No sooner had the citizens of Baltimore heard of Hanson’s return than they planned a second mob attack. This time, though, Hanson was not going down without a fight— he brought over seventy men into his office to assist him. Among the men defending Hanson were revolutionary leaders Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, and General James M. Lingan.

On July 28, 1812, as the mob reassembled in front of the Federalist Republican’s new offices, local authorities turned a blind eye to the impending violence until the early hours of the morning. Eventually, when Hanson and his men ran low on supplies, the authorities agreed to take them to the local prison for their safety. Hanson protested that he had done nothing wrong and all he was trying to do was defend his property. However, because the men were running out of ammunition, Lee convinced Hanson that he had no choice but to be arrested and taken to jail for his own safety.

No sooner did the authorities arrested Hanson and his allies, then the mob stormed the building and destroyed everything inside, again. Not content to destroy Hanson’s property, the mob marched on the local jail where the authorities encouraged the crowd to go home. After the crowd started to disburse, the authorities sent the militia home, which left the prison unguarded.

Within minutes of the militia leaving, the mob reconstituted, surrounded the prison, and broke into it. They killed General Lingan and injured Major-General Lee—cutting off his nose and pouring hot wax over his eyes—so bad that newspapers across the country published his obituary. A week later, the public learned that someone secretly took him to a local hospital.

Lee and Madison were classmates at Princeton. They had a long-standing friendship. Since Lee was one of the nation’s foremost military experts, Madison may have asked Lee to come out of retirement to assist in the defense of his country. Lee had provided Madison advice on how to prepare the country’s defenses. Because the mob, in its frenzy, sought to silence Hanson and publish his supporters, it may have altered the course of the War of 1812. If, for example, Madison had the experience of Lee by his side, the British would never have captured and burned Washington, D.C.

Lee was willing to fight for the First Amendment rights of a local newspaper publisher, even though silencing Hanson’s publication may have advanced his own personal interests. Lee, as a Revolutionary War hero, understood the sacrifices that were made to ensure freedom for dissenting opinions. Lee placed such a value on free speech and expression that he was willing to die fighting a mob. And while Lee survived the attack, living for another six years, he was never the same man.

What we are seeing today is not unprecedented. In fact, what we are seeing is the Democratic party returning to its roots where it is using mob rule to silence the speech of its political opponents.

The great people of the United States will not be silenced and the principles of liberty and freedom will prevail. This great nation has overcome such churlish behavior in the past. The love of liberty is too engrained such that the silencing of political speech will not be tolerated.


Secy. Pompeo: Iran harboring al-Qaeda militants

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 7:00 PM PT – Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believes al-Qaeda stands to “gain strength and capabilities” in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In an update Tuesday, Pompeo announced sanctions on Iran based al-Qaeda leaders, putting a bounty on the heads of the terrorist group’s leaders.

 

 

He argued that Iran has given “a new operational headquarters” to terrorist networks who currently plot fresh atrocities from Tehran.

Secretary Pompeo warned Iran is the “largest state sponsor of terrorism,” and it poses a grave national security threat.

“We now have the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the home base for al-Qaeda,” Pompeo stated. “They are partners in terrorism, partners in hate. This axis poses a grave threat to the security of nations and to the American homeland itself.”

Pompeo offered $7 million for information helping find al-Qaeda’s leader, Muhammad Abbatay.

 

https://www.oann.com/pompeo-iran-harboring-al-qaeda-militants/ 

 

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

Biden Doesn’t Understand Why 74 Million Americans Have No Interest In His Unity Facade

Biden's inauguration theme of "America United" denies the left's leading role in inflicting the deep and deadly wounds that threaten to torture America beyond the point of recognition.



In just a few short days, Joe Biden will address the nation at his inauguration, themed “America United.” This unity message, the Presidential Inaugural Committee declared, “reflects the beginning of a new national journey that restores the soul of America, brings the country together, and creates a path to a brighter future.”

The announcement of this bipartisan theme seemed apropos following a week of turbulence and destruction perpetrated by Trump supporters at our nation’s Capitol, the seat of American self-government— upheaval that serious figures on both the left and the right have categorically and correctly condemned. After Biden’s speech on Jan. 20, he and his wife, along with soon-to-be-Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, accompanied by Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and the former first ladies. 

If you ask Biden and the inaugural committee, this display of bipartisanship aims to reorient the nation, binding us across ideological lines and uniting us all. At the conclusion of the ceremony, echoes of “Kumbayah” will undoubtedly rise from America’s heartland as the right-thinkers and the deplorables join hands in glorious oneness.

This, of course, is all a facade. On its surface, Biden’s call for unity is a slimy display of partisan gaslighting. Deep down, however, it represents a profound misunderstanding of who America is and, worse, a perverse denial of the left’s leading role in inflicting the deep and deadly wounds that threaten to torture America the Beautiful beyond the point of recognition.

Half of America Is Irredeemable, but Let’s Have Unity

The fact is, no speech, no theme, no assembly of presidents past can “restore the soul of America, bring the country back together, and create a path to a brighter future” so long as the commander in chief and his No. 2 consider half the electorate to be irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic, and bigoted insurrectionists and seditionists — or at the very least, complicit in all these sins.

Further, 74 million Americans just voted to re-elected an anti-establishment outsider and a cultural matador, whose very existence in the political realm offers a direct rebuke to the political realities wrapped up in all that Obama, Clinton, and even Bush represent. The symbolic presidential reunion Biden has organized is no olive branch to the new Republican Party, which is tired of funding detestable institutions, weary of political correctness and corrupt elitist claims of decorum, and sick of endless wars. 

There’s a little something about unity Biden doesn’t understand. In games of winners and losers, sincere unifiers value harmony when they lose, not just when they get their way. Americans lose interest in unity when the people calling for it were so recently hostile to their values and livelihoods.

After all, the Democratic Party that now holds the power of the presidency and both branches of Congress is the same one that spent four whole years trying to undo the loss they suffered in 2016, including a despicable special counsel investigation, based on Democratic National Committee-funded oppo research, that came at a $32 million price tag to American taxpayers.

Democrats led a no-holds-barred crusade against the commander in chief, pledging to “impeach the motherf-cker.” When that didn’t work, they settled for canceling conservatives online and in classrooms for questioning leftist gender orthodoxy, maligning pro-life advocates as science-deniers, and smearing champions of due process as rape apologists.

They dragged Christians through the mud and into the courts, upending the life of a cake artist and trying to force nuns to pay for abortifacients. When conservatives doubled down on their Second Amendment rights, Biden told gun owners he would take their “AR-14s,” even telling one concerned working-class man he was “full of sh-t” and partnering with hell-yes-we’ll-take-your-guns Beto O’Rourke. 

For the past 10 months, Democrats and their corporate media friends have smeared faithful churchgoers, mask critics, and lockdown detractors as grandma-killers. They’ve shouted online that boys are girls and in the streets that silence is violence.

When law-abiding Americans took offense at the rioting and looting that plagued America’s cities for months, the left downplayed the violence, with the incoming vice president even working to help bail out dangerous criminals, including a suspect who shot at police, a woman charged with second-degree murder for stabbing her friend to death, and a twice-convicted sex offender. Now Biden will lay a wreath in Arlington National Cemetery with the woman who called voters who wanted to Make America Great Again “deplorables” — and we’re calling it “America United”?

Save Your Unity Speech

Democrats’ interest in unity is a new one — and harmony can’t be manufactured with a presidential publicity stunt and empty words read off a teleprompter. Speechwriters can type their little fingers to the bone, crafting flowery language and hopeful imagery, but how on earth are those who really want to make America great again, not as a political slogan but as a principled return to America’s founding ideals, ever supposed to reconcile with a party whose figureheads have maintained that America was never really that great? How can we hope for unity when conservatives are being purged from social media and when right-wing retailers, by mere association with Trump, are being de-platformed?

If Trump has taught us anything — and he’s taught us many things — it’s that we’re better off actively engaging in the raging culture war as we wrestle with our country’s ills than to fake a veneer of civility and unison and watch as our deeply cherished beliefs go to hell in the name of decorum. If we really want to “restore the soul of America,” we must grapple with all the ways we’ve strayed from our convictions — without taking the easy and deceitful path of pinning them all on Trump. 

Trump was a symptom of our sins and in some ways even a repudiation of them. He wasn’t the origin, and we’ll never have unity again until our political betters are honest about that fact. Unity would be great, but our divisions can’t be cured with ignorance or obstinance about what the real problems are — and unity most certainly isn’t possible if our solutions involve deep-seated malice toward our opponents, glossed over with a simple speech.

If Biden really wanted America to be unified, he’d stop mischaracterizing the 74 million Americans who believe differently than he does — but his feelings about irredeemable America didn’t change overnight just because he eked out an election.


The ‘Good American’

The Left is announcing that conservatives "do not belong" in our society. The parallels to 1933 are precise. And most good Americans are keeping silent, just as did most Germans.


In my last column, I described how I have come to better understand the moral problem of the “‘good German,’ the term used to describe the average, presumably decent German, who did nothing to hurt Jews but also did nothing to help them and did nothing to undermine the Nazi regime.”

Watching America accept the rationally and morally indefensible physical and economic lockdown of the country, I concluded: “Apathy in the face of tyranny turns out not to be a German or Russian characteristic. I just never thought it could happen in America.”

In one week, it has gotten worse. Now we are faced with a lockdown on speech the likes of which have never been seen in America. And the parallels with Germany are even more stark. The left-wing party (the Democrats) and the left-wing media (the “mainstream media”) are using the mob invasion of the Capitol exactly the way the Nazis used the Reichstag fire. 

On February 27, 1933, exactly one month after the Nazis came to power, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze. The Nazis blamed the fire on their archenemy, the communists, and used the fire to essentially extinguish the Communist Party and its ability to publish, speak or otherwise spread its message. Using the Reichstag fire as an excuse, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, a law that gave the Nazi chancellor, Adolf Hitler, the power to pass laws by decree—without the Reichstag.

Now to America 2021.

On January 6, 2021, a right-wing mob of a few hundred people broke away from a peaceful right-wing protest involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of American conservatives and forced its way into the U.S. Capitol. One Capitol policeman was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, and one of the right-wing Capitol invaders was shot by a Capitol police officer. (A handful of others who died in the vicinity of the Capitol did so of nonviolent causes.)

Aside from smashed windows, the mob seems to have done little damage to the Capitol. Their intent is still not clear. It seems to have been largely catharsis. They hurt no legislators, and if they intended to overthrow the government, they were delusional. 

Beginning the next day, the American Left used the Capitol mob just as the Nazis used the Reichstag: as an excuse to subjugate its conservative enemies and further squelch civil liberties in America—specifically, freedom of speech.

Twitter not only permanently banned the account of president of the United States but permanently banned him from Twitter. Any Twitter account found tweeting Donald Trump was permanently banned.

The Left was able to do all this not only by using the Capitol mob incident but also by engaging in a series of lies.

The first was blaming the attack on President Donald Trump. Over and over, in every leftist medium and stated repeatedly by Democrats, Trump is blamed for “inciting” the riot in his speech just before it took place. Almost never is a Trump quote cited. Because there is none. On the contrary, he did say, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (italics added).

Another lie was the immediate labeling of the mob attack on the Capitol as “insurrection.” All left-wing media and Democrats now refer to the event as an “insurrection,” a term defined by almost every dictionary as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As morally repulsive as the actions of the mob were, they did not constitute a revolt against civil authority or an established government. Disrupting the work of legislators for a few hours—as wrong as that was—does not constitute a “revolt.”

But what proves the Left’s “insurrection” label is a lie is that Democrats and their media never once labeled the left-wing riots of 2020—which involved the destruction by fire and/or occupation and vandalizing of police stations, and the establishment of “autonomous zones,” which, by definition, revolted against “established governments”—as an “insurrection.” The enormous number of businesses burned down, looted or otherwise destroyed was barely covered by the mainstream media, and their violent perpetrators were almost never prosecuted, let alone condemned, as engaging in an insurrection. Dozens of people were killed in these riots, yet there was more outcry and condemnation against the hourslong occupation of the U.S. Capitol than against six months of left-wing violent riots.

Then, like the Nazi regime after the Reichstag fire, the Left immediately moved to further curtail civil liberties, specifically conservatives’ ability to promote their ideas. Twitter and Amazon made it impossible for the alternative to Twitter, Parler, to exist, all in the name of preventing another right-wing “insurrection.”

In the name of the Capitol “insurrection,” the Democrats announced they would impeach the president of the United States, though he had only 14 days left in office.

In the name of the Capitol “insurrection,” Forbes editor Randall Lane announced that Forbes media was “holding those who lied for Trump accountable” in what he called “a truth reckoning”: “Hire any of Trump’s (press secretaries),” Lane warned, “and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.”

In the name of the Capitol mob attack, 159 law professors at Chapman University have called for the firing of John Eastman, a tenured fellow law professor and holder of an endowed chair at Chapman—because “his actions Wednesday (that) helped incite a riot.” Eastman had spoken at the Trump rally.

The professors ended their Los Angeles Times letter: “He does not belong on our campus.”

Words well chosen.

What the Left is doing is announcing—and enforcing—that conservatives “do not belong” in our society. The parallels to 1933 are precise. And most good Americans are keeping silent, just as did most Germans. Though they do not risk being beaten up, are Americans in 2021 as afraid of the American left as Germans in 1933 were of the German fascists? We’re about to find out.


No, Donald Trump Did Not Incite An Insurrection

Democrats and their media allies are 
milking a tragic riot for all it's worth.



The Democrats and their media allies are trying to convince the American people that President Donald Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection last week. In both legal terms and in terms of the plain meaning of the English language, their claim is absurd on its face. There are two fundamental reasons for this: Trump did not incite the riots at the Capitol, and the riots were not an insurrection.

The Standard for Incitement

Legally speaking, incitement has an incredibly high bar that none of Trump’s actions since the election come close to meeting. These standards were set by the Supreme Court in its landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio case. Among other things, the decision held that in order to constitute incitement to violence, speech must include intent and specific, not abstract, instructions to act. It also required that the speech in question would likely produce “imminent lawless action,” which went a step further than the previous legal tests for incitement. According to the ruling:

[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 

So as a legal matter, this seems pretty clear. But what about more generally? In Salon, Amanda Marcotte attempts to make a case that Trump incited an insurrection. She starts with a big claim: “There is no doubt Donald Trump incited the insurrection on January 6. It happened largely in public and is recorded for posterity. Let’s review the record.” But only a paragraph later she writes, “[T]he people who stormed the U.S. Capitol armed with guns, pipe bombs and flex cuffs to take members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence hostage understood Trump’s wink-and-nudge style loud and clear.”

One cannot incite with a wink and a nudge — not unless those gestures have already been specified to mean a call to violence. In this case, nothing Trump said at his speech before the violence broke out was a specific call for violence, much less insurrection. Part of how we know this is that the vast, vast majority of those who attended his speech (where he called literally for a peaceful protest at the Capitol) did not engage in any violence whatsoever.

What Trump asked his backers to do was to make their voices heard in support of the members of Congress who were working to ensure that the election was a fair one. What happened next was a chaotic mess caused by a small number of violent agitators, a complete and total breakdown of security at the Capitol, and a poor response once things began to get out of hand. Some of that poor response was owing to the fact that the events were surprising. If it was so bloody obvious that Trump was telling people to storm the Capitol, why were we all so shocked and caught off guard when some people did?

This Was No Insurrection

So much for incitement. As to insurrection, at no point was the overthrow of the government of the United States even a remotely possible outcome, not even close. Those cosplaying idiots taking selfies in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and parading around with podiums had no intentions of forming a new government. This was an expression of anger, not a realistic, organized coup attempt. Anyone among the rioters who believed their actions would result in the overthrow of the government, if there were any, were delusional to the point of insanity. 

So if it wasn’t incitement and it wasn’t insurrection, why do the Democrats, the corporate media, and the big tech tyrants want you to believe it was? That is quite simple, actually. The purpose is to create an atmosphere of crisis and emergency that gives cover to extreme and illiberal actions to punish and silence those with whom they disagree politically.

And that has worked. Trump is banned from Twitter, as are thousands of his supporters, and big tech has colluded to destroy its competitor, Parler. Democrats are moving forward with an absurd and pointless impeachment, Simon & Schuster has canceled Sen. Josh Hawley’s book that criticizes big tech, and people who merely attended the rally and never stormed the Capitol are being fired and abused.

None of the above actions are just. None of them can be justified. This is not some existential threat to the Republic, and it never was. This is now all about power, about those on the left milking a tragedy for all it’s worth in an attempt to destroy their political rivals. But Americans are a clear-eyed people with a healthy dose of skepticism about those in power. They see what’s going on here. They will not allow the bad actions of a tiny few to fundamentally change forever the country and its freedoms they love.


The Left closes in

 


The artist who drew this piece above wishes to remain anonymous. That says a lot about the present communist takeover

Article by Eric Utter in The American Thinker
 

The Left closes in

It happened in a hurry. The Left is, apparently, attempting to impose the complete destruction of First Amendment rights of roughly half of America’s citizens. In cases large and small, massive multinational corporations with no particular allegiance to the United States are colluding with members of the media and Democratic politicians to permanently silence dissent and cement their own power.

To wit: LeeAnn Miller founded PatrioticMe, an online retailer that sells patriotic clothing items, in September of last year. The business advertised on Facebook and was quite successful from the outset. She donates a portion of every sale to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, a charity founded to honor the sacrifice of New York City firefighter Stephen Siller, who gave his life to save others as a first responder on Sept. 11, 2001. But, on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the presidential election, she received an email from the Facebook Ads Team informing her that her advertisements did not comply with Facebook's advertising policies or other standards. The subject line of the email stated: "Ad Account Disabled for Policy Violation.” She was stunned.

She assumed the advertisements were disabled in error, so she immediately contacted Facebook and requested a review of her account. She received a second email saying virtually the same thing. After two more requests for a review or explanation, the Facebook Ads Team sent Miller a final notice on Nov. 24 telling her that her restricted account would not be re-enabled. Miller says that she was never able to speak with a live human being. Facebook’s decision has resulted in PatrioticMe losing 94% of its traffic. She believes her ad account was disabled simply because of her products’ patriotic message.

To wit: Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank and New York-based Signature Bank have both reportedly cut ties with President Trump and will no longer do business with him, in the aftermath of the recent Capitol siege, according to The New York Times. Not only did Signature Bank apparently close all accounts connected with President Trump, it called for his resignation. That’s the proper role of a financial institution, no?

To wit: Juliette Kayyem, a lecturer at Harvard University, and former member of the Obama administration's Homeland Security Advisory Council, recently appeared on a CNN panel with Jim Sciutto and Poppy Harlow, during which she said, "Trump is the spiritual, but I will also say operational leader of this domestic terrorism effort. He tells them where to go. He tells them what to do. He tells them why they're angry.” She also called for the “complete isolation” of Trump. A supposedly respected talking head calls the president of the United States “the spiritual and operational leader of a domestic terrorism effort?”

Memo to Kayyem: Trump doesn’t tell his supporters “why they’re angry.” If you want to know why they are angry, look in the mirror.

To wit: House Democrats introduced impeachment articles against Trump just a few days from when he will be leaving the White House anyway. You know, for purposes of “unity and healing.”

To wit: Republican former Congressman Ron Paul was locked out of his Facebook account by the social media giant on Monday, after he dared to share a column blasting Big Tech for silencing Americans and accusing social media platforms of engaging in a coordinated effort to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree. Paul tweeted, "With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified."

He added, "The only thing we posted to Facebook today was my weekly 'Texas Straight Talk' column, which I have published every week since 1976."

Yes, but it’s not 1976 anymore, Ron.

It is 1984.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/the_left_closes_in.html 





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Question Everything and Everyone

 Question Everything and Everyone

 for American Greatness January 

The only way we can actually get back to normal is if we all start questioning. Question these peoples’ goals, their backgrounds, their motives.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times, but it still bears repeating: question everything. 

Do not take anything at face value, ever. Ask questions: is what I’m hearing the truth? Is it factual? What are the motives of anyone involved in recounting a supposed news story? Does that person have an agenda that might or might not have anything to do with the truth? Does any of this actually make sense? Ask questions until you come to the truth of the matter.  

The entire coronavirus pandemic is one such case. Recently, Dr. Anthony “Flippity Flop” Fauci lectured us all on how another lockdown might be necessary because of the COVID-19 case rates. Joe Biden has talked about a national mask mandate. Governor Ralph “Blackface” Northam lectured Virginians that churches didn’t need to assemble to worship because of the ’Rona and that we don’t have to go to church to pray (though maybe it’s our right to peacefully assemble and worship God as we so chose, you little anti-religious freedom fascist).

But ask yourself: Why? Why are they saying such things and pushing such policies? 

We’ve seen our economy go through the grinder. More than 100,000 small businesses (so far) have ceased to exist, large corporations have become even more powerful, civil liberties are trampled, but why? For what? For a virus that according to the CDC’s numbers shows a survivability rate of 99.875 to 99.5 percent for those ages zero to 70. For a virus that we know 94 percent of the deaths happened because of serious comorbidities.

Add to that the likes of Governors Andrew Cuomo (New York), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), Gavin Newsom (California) and Tom Wolf (Pennsylvania) who put forward policies that placed COVID-19 positive seniors back in with the most vulnerable among us, non-positive nursing home residents. Thousands of seniors were recklessly infected and died because of these terrible policies. Imagine for a moment if those policies hadn’t been implemented: more than 40 percent of COVID-19 deaths took place in assisted living or nursing home facilities. 

But instead of questioning that, the media obediently have covered up and denied these governors’ disastrous policies and their unconscionable consequences. While House Republicans have demanded a federal investigation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her lemmings are silent in their complicity. And where is the media? Praising these criminally negligent governors and rewriting history.  

So if our response to COVID really is all about the numbers and the science, those pushing lockdowns and everything else are, in truth, anti-science hypocrites. They refuse to acknowledge the damage to lives and livelihoods their lockdowns have caused, even as they refuse to follow their own arbitrary edicts: it was 15 days to flatten the curve. Now apparently it’s become 15 months to flatten the country all while they are comfortable in the knowledge that they’ll be making a paycheck.

But in the midst of all of this hypocrisy, forget the numbers and science for a moment: their actions show they don’t even believe coronavirus is that serious. If you really thought it was the Black Death, you wouldn’t be eating at the French Laundry with nearly a dozen of your closest lobbyist friends.

Yet that doesn’t prevent them from arbitrarily crushing other people’s freedoms. Just the other week in Quebec, Canada the police arrested two people and fined six for having seven people in the house. If you don’t think what happened in Canada could happen here, you’re dangerously naive. Lest you poor peasants forget, our political elites adhere to a different set of rules than the ones the rest of us are mandated to follow. 

Now go beyond the numbers and the science to the simple fact that “the rules” make no sense. Why are we supposed to stand six feet apart checking into an airport, yet sit six inches apart from each other on the airplane? Why are you allowed to crowd into a Costco, but you can’t go eat at a family owned restaurant? 

This is irrational. The numbers and science tell one story, but that doesn’t stop the Left from using the crisis as an opportunity for control. And control is what this is all about. 

This is madness. We’re destroying future generations’ lives and livelihoods, our economy, and countless small businesses—for what? The Thing That Lurks in the Shadows boogeyman? We’re giving up our freedoms like they mean nothing in return for safety from what? A virus with an average age of death—78-years-old—that is the exact equivalent of the average age of death in America?

What a sad commentary on the American character. At what point do Americans rise up and say enough? What troubles me is that the American people have capitulated so much over the past few decades and have blindly accepted what the “experts” tell us to such an extent that I’m not sure how many will say enough is enough.

The only way we can actually get back to normal is if we all start questioning. Question these peoples’ goals, their backgrounds, their motives. Don’t be content to live your life in ignorance and follow your political shepherds like good sheep. You shouldn’t. They don’t have your best interests at heart. They never have and it’s foolish to think that they ever will.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/11/question-everything-and-everyone/