Parler founder and CEO John Matze

 

Article by Zachary Stieber in Epoch Times

 

Parler CEO John Matze, Family Forced Into Hiding Due to Death Threats, Security Breaches

Parler’s CEO has gone into hiding with his family after receiving death threats, according to a new court filing.

CEO John Matze “has had to leave his home and go into hiding with his family after receiving death threats and invasive personal security breaches,” the filing in Parler v. Amazon states.

Parler sued Amazon Web Services (AWS) after the company refused to continue working with the social media company. Parler went offline on Monday as a result and continues to be offline.

Amazon asked the court on Tuesday to redact names, job titles, and descriptions from court documents.

“Redaction of the employee identifying information is necessary to protect their safety and security and to prevent potential harassment,” Amazon said. “These employees’ safety concerns are well-founded in light of significant and repeated threats of physical violence against AWS, its facilities, and its employees in the wake of AWS’s decision to suspend its cloud hosting agreement with Parler.”

The motion included screenshots of posts that appeared to be from Parler in which users threatened to carry out violence against Amazon workers, executives, and facilities.

District Judge Barbara Rothstein, a Carter nominee, granted the motion. She said AWS and its employees “have demonstrated a well-founded concern for the safety and security of their employees based on threatening and violent content.”

In Parler’s new filing, lawyers said the company’s employees have been harassed and threatened. “Many Parler employees are suffering harassment and hostility, fear for their safety and that of their families, and in some cases have fled their home state to escape persecution,” Parler said, before noting that Matze himself has gone into hiding.

“Recognizing the highly charged nature of this public and polarizing dispute, Parler wishes to protect the privacy of those employees, whether of Parler or Amazon, whose names or personal information appear in documents on which Parler relies,” the filing stated.

Matze told Fox News this week that he’s been targeted by a hacker group called UGNazi.

“They published my street address, they threatened to come through my front door,” he said.

The group didn’t respond to an inquiry.

Matze said he and his family went into hiding and weren’t sure when they’d return home.

“It’s probably leveled me out,” Matze said. “If I was at home right now I think my stress levels would have been like three times higher… at least there is that saving grace.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/parler-ceo-john-matze-family-forced-into-hiding-due-to-death-threats-security-breaches-filing_3659107.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-16-2 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear...

 COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows

By Natalie Colarossi For Newsweek On 1/14/21 at 11:41 AM EST

A study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation on January 5, and analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.

The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which instituted less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

The researchers used a mathematical model to compare countries that did and did not enact more restrictive lockdown orders, and determined that there was "no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country."

"We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures," the research said.

However, the researchers also acknowledged that the study had limitations, and noted that "cross-country comparisons are difficult," since nations may have different rules, cultures, and relationships between their government and citizenry.

The study was conducted by researchers affiliated with Stanford University, and was co-authored by Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and economics who has been a vocal opponent of coronavirus lockdowns since March.

Bhattacharya was also among a group of scientists who wrote The Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial statement that encouraged governments to lift lockdown restrictions to achieve herd immunity among young and healthy people, while focusing protections on the elderly.

For additional context, other studies have oppositely determined that lockdown orders have effectively saved millions of lives.

A new study shows that mandatory lockdown orders may not provide more significant benefits to curbing the spread of COVID-19 vs voluntary measures such as social distancing and travel restrictions. Here, one pedestrian walks on the pavement in central London in the morning on March 24, 2020 after Britain ordered a lockdown. JUSTIN TALLIS/Getty

A study published in the journal Nature by researchers at Imperial College London in June found that some 3.1 million deaths had been averted due to lockdowns across Europe early on in the pandemic.

"This data suggests that without any interventions, such as lockdown and school closures, there could have been many more deaths from COVID-19. The rate of transmission has declined from high levels to ones under control in all European countries we study," Dr. Samir Bhatt, an author of the study from Imperial College London said in June, according to the university.

"Careful consideration should now be given to the continued measures that are needed to keep SARS-CoV-2 transmission under control," he added.

A second study published alongside that report in Nature, and led by scientists in the United States, found that 530 million coronavirus infections had been avoided due to early lockdowns in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France and the United States, according to the news outlet.

Mandatory lockdown orders have also been a highly politicized issue across the U.S.

Some Republican leaders, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, have vehemently opposed state or nationwide closures to curb the spread of COVID-19. In Democratic states, including New York and California, lockdown orders have been a consistent part of the coronavirus response since March.

According to a poll released by Vox and Data for Progress on December 24, more than half of Americans said they would support a nationwide lockdown for one month.

But President-elect Joe Biden said in an interview in November that he had no intention of implementing a national shutdown when he takes office on January 20.

"I'm not going to shut down the economy. I'm going to shut down the virus," Biden said. "There is no circumstance which I can see that would require a total national shutdown. I think that would be counterproductive."

As of Thursday, the United States had recorded over 23 million COVID cases and 385,178 deaths since the start of the pandemic, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Newsweek reached out to an author of the Stanford study for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.

China’s pressure and propaganda - the reality of reporting Xinjiang

 

In addition to the heavy restrictions it places on foreign journalists trying to report the truth about its far western region of Xinjiang, China has a new tactic: labelling independent coverage as "fake news".

At night, while travelling for hours along Xinjiang's desert highways, the unmarked cars that had been following us from the moment we arrived would tailgate us at speed, driving dangerously close with their headlights on full beam.

Their occupants - who never identified themselves - forced us to leave one city by chasing us out of restaurants and shops, ordering the owners not to serve us.

The report we produced, despite these difficulties, contained new evidence - much of it based on China's own policy documents - that thousands of Uighurs and other minorities are being forced to pick cotton in a region responsible for a fifth of the world's crop.

 

 

 

But now China's Communist Party-run media have produced their own report about our reporting, accusing the BBC of exaggerating these efforts by the authorities to obstruct our team and calling it "fake news".

The video, made by the China Daily - an English-language newspaper - has been posted on both Chinese social media sites, as well as international platforms banned in China.

 

 

Hannah Bailey, who specialises in China's use of state-sponsored digital disinformation at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggests that such a fiercely critical attack in English, but with Chinese subtitles, makes it unusual.

"It has clearly been produced with both international and domestic users in mind," she told me, "which is somewhat of a departure from previous strategies.

"Previous content produced for mainland audiences has been more critical of Western countries, and more vocally nationalistic, whereas content produced for international audiences has struck a more conciliatory tone."

The China Daily report focuses on an altercation outside the front gate of a textile factory in the city of Kuqa, where the BBC team was surrounded by a group of managers and local officials

 

 

 

The allegations it contains, based on body camera recordings provided by the police who arrived at the scene, are easily dismissed. A polite exchange between our team and a police officer is used to suggest that the BBC exaggerated the role of the authorities in preventing us from reporting.

But the China Daily chooses not to mention that some of our footage was forcibly deleted and we were made to accompany the same police officer to another location so she could review the remaining pictures. And it provides no explanation of the wider context, nor gives the BBC any right of reply.

Over a period of less than 72 hours in Xinjiang we were followed constantly and, on five separate occasions, approached by people who attempted to stop us from filming in public, sometimes violently.

 

 

 

In at least two instances, we were accused of breaching the privacy of these individuals on the basis that their attempts to stop us had led them to walk in front of our camera.

The uniformed police officers attending these "incidents" twice deleted our footage and, on another occasion, we were briefly held by local officials who claimed we'd infringed a farmer's rights by filming a field.

China's propaganda efforts may be a sign of just how damaging it believes the coverage of Xinjiang has been to its international reputation.

But attempting to attack the - usually censored - Western media at home carries some risk, in that it can reveal glimpses of stories that would otherwise remain out of the public domain.

A satellite photo, dated May 2019, shows a large group of people being moved between the Kuqa textile factory and a re-education camp located next door, complete with a watchtower and internal security walls.

 

 

 

The China Daily, which refers to the camp by the official terminology as a "Vocational Training Centre" suggests our attempt to film was pointless because, they say, it closed in October 2019.

If true, this simply proves that the camp was operational when the image was taken - and confirms it to be compelling grounds for further investigation.

Now Chinese and Western audiences alike can ponder who the people in the photograph were, why they were being moved between the camp and the factory and whether any work they did there was likely to be fully voluntary.

 

 

In an interview with one of the uniformed police officers who provided the body camera recordings, the China Daily video inadvertently provides corroboration of just how well-planned and multi-layered the control of journalists in Xinjiang really is.

The officer confirms that, shortly after our arrival in Kuqa, she summoned us to a meeting in our hotel lobby to issue a warning about "our rights and restrictions".

In fact, hotel staff told us we were forbidden to leave the hotel until after this meeting had taken place.

It was also attended by two propaganda officials who were assigned to accompany us for the rest of our time in Kuqa - adding one more car to the long line that followed us wherever we went.

Far from being fake news, our evidence, along with the post-publication propaganda designed to undermine it, is proof of a co-ordinated effort to control the narrative, extending from the shadowy minders in unmarked cars, all the way up to the national government.

 

 

 

Upon our return to Beijing we were summoned to a meeting with officials who insisted that we should have sought permission from the owners of the factory before filming it.

We pointed out that China's own media regulations do not prohibit the filming of a building from a public road.

China is increasingly using the accreditation process for foreign journalists as a tool of control, issuing shortened visas and threats of non-renewal for those whose coverage it disapproves of.

 

 

 

The China Daily also accuses the BBC of using a hidden camera - we didn't.

And it misrepresents the recording from the police body cameras by suggesting a comment made by BBC producer Kathy Long outside the factory, that we wouldn't use images of one man, were instead made in regard to someone else.

Presuming they're in possession of the full recording it is hard to understand how this mistake could be made.

Hannah Bailey from the Oxford Internet Institute says, like China's domestic propaganda, its international push-back may be becoming "increasingly critical and defensive".

"China has previously demonstrated its use of a variety of tools to manipulate international and domestic discourse, from Twitter bots to state-controlled international media outlets to the vocal so-called "Wolf Warrior" diplomats," she told me.

"Attempts to discredit foreign media are also a part of this toolkit."

We offered the China Daily the opportunity to comment on the errors in its reporting.

In a reply, which failed to address our specific questions, it said that having visited Xinjiang and conducted interviews it has concluded that "there is no forced labour in Xinjiang".

Its propaganda video ends with a worker in the Kuqa textile factory being asked why she's there - a question that comes, she will know full well, from reporters under the direct control of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55666153 

 

 

 

Did The Democrats Steal...

 POSTED ON JANUARY 15, 2021 BY JOHN HINDERAKER to Power Line

DID THE DEMOCRATS STEAL THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Democrats are making extraordinary efforts to suppress all discussion of whether Joe Biden actually won the 2020 presidential election. In fact, they go even farther: they want to suppress all discussion of the extent to which voter fraud occurred. That naturally makes me want to write about voter fraud, and who really won the election.

First, this question: why are the Democrats so hysterical in their insistence that fraud not be mentioned? One reason is obvious. Joe Biden will take office under a cloud, since close to half of all Americans doubt that he really won the election. The Democrats want to stamp out such doubts to preserve Biden’s authority as president.

But there is a second reason that may be more important. The Democrats want the lax voting procedures that prevailed in 2020 to continue in the future. They know that efforts will be made in many states to improve ballot integrity, and they want those efforts to fail. By rendering all discussion of voter fraud out of bounds, they hope to forestall reforms that would make it harder for them to cheat, or enable cheating, in the future.

So, did the Democrats steal the presidential election, or not? I don’t know the answer to that question. No one does. A number of statistical analyses have been done, which on their face suggest large irregularities. I wrote about one such analysis, by John Lott, here. 

Beyond that, major questions remain unanswered. In several key swing states, there were midnight dumps of 100,000 or more votes, virtually all of which were for Joe Biden, something that can’t normally happen. Those dumps may have made the difference in the election. I have seen no attempt by any Democrat to explain or justify them. Maybe I’ve missed it, and maybe they somehow reflected actual ballots cast, but the burden of proof is on those who seek to justify such anomalies.

Even greater doubts about the election arise from the deliberately loose procedures that governed voting. Something like 69 million mail-in votes were cast, and until two months ago, everyone agreed that mail-in voting is highly susceptible to fraud. But the laxity in 2020 went far beyond the risks inherent in mail-in votes. I put it this way: I don’t know whether the Democrats stole the 2020 election, but I do know that they tried hard to steal it.

In a number of states, including my home state of Minnesota, the Democrats pursued a coordinated strategy of collusive litigation to eliminate electoral safeguards. In Minnesota–and the same thing occurred in a number of other states–the Democratic Party recruited plaintiffs to sue the Democratic Secretary of State, asking that the statutory requirement of witness signatures on mail-in ballots be eliminated. The requirement of a witness signature is, as a practical matter, the only speed bump on the way to fraud in mail-in voting, so the Democrats wanted to get rid of it.

Of course Secretaries of State have no power to change election laws, hence the need for collusive litigation, which is one of the most sinister forms of corruption in today’s world. In Minnesota and other states, the Democratic Secretaries of State immediately “settled” the lawsuits brought “against” them by their fellow Democrats. The “settlements” simply agreed to what the Democrats wanted–no safeguards to prevent fraud in mail-in voting.

The Democrats knew how corrupt, and therefore likely to fail, this tactic was, so in my state they made sure they had two bites at the apple. They recruited two sets of plaintiffs, one in federal court and another in state court, thereby dodging res judicata if they lost the first case. The key to collusive litigation is that the “settlement” conspired at by the supposedly adverse parties is ratified by a court. In Minnesota, the federal court refused to approve the Democrats’ fraudulent “settlement,” finding no showing to justify it. But a loyal state court judge went along with the Democrats’ charade. As a result, mail-in ballots in Minnesota, as in a number of other states following similarly corrupt litigation, bore no witness signatures, in plain violation of state law. The door to fraud was wide open, as the Democrats intended.

One of the problems in assessing the 2020 election is that the same lax procedures that enable fraud in the first place also make it more or less impossible to prove after the fact. Sixty-nine million mail-in votes were cast; how many were fakes, and which ones? There is really no way to tell. Once those votes have been counted (sometimes in the absence of Republican poll-watchers, illegally excluded by Democrats from the rooms where counting was going on), there is no way to identify which ones were illegal and pull them out of the vote totals.

So at this point, neither I nor anyone else knows whether the Democrats stole the 2020 election, and we may never know. But, given the lengths to which the Democrats went in order to facilitate voter fraud, there is no reason to cut them slack in judging whether their efforts influenced the result.

No doubt, a number of people are currently investigating the election, either nationally or in particular states. (Not “journalists,” who don’t investigate anything; certainly not anything that could harm the Democratic Party.) Over the next two years, such researchers will publish books on the election. Some will argue that voter fraud swung the election to Joe Biden, while others will argue that he legitimately won, even if his vote totals were swelled by fraud. Books in the former category will have a hard time finding publishers, but someone will publish them, and lots of Americans will read them and discuss their findings. The Democrats’ efforts to suppress discussion of election integrity will fail.

What is most important is what happens next. Rightly or wrongly, Joe Biden will be our next president. We can’t change that. But, by pressing the issue of election integrity in the states, we potentially can ensure that in 2022 and succeeding elections, Americans have confidence that the candidate who got the most legal votes is the winner. To accomplish that, we will have to overcome entrenched opposition not only from the above-ground Democratic Party, but from its press auxiliary, which tries to ban any suggestion that voter fraud is a problem. We all know better, and we can’t give in to the Democrats’ crude efforts at intimidation. Election integrity must be a priority for the next two years, and in the future.

Article by Mike Ford in RedState

 

Online Publications & Their Comment Sections, The Taverns of the Modern Era

Back in 1775 there used to be a place for daily political discourse…the local tavern. Our American Revolution got a big start there. Farmers, storekeepers, tradesmen of all types would meet and discuss the issues of the day. Sometimes there would be speeches. Afterwards, in an atmosphere of alcohol fueled camaraderie, public debate on the substance of the speech.

The conversation at any local tavern could easily serve as a sort of temperature check on the prevailing attitude towards The British Crown in that area. Such a temperature check showed up in a scene from the Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot. Gibson’s character, Brevet Colonel Benjamin Martin along with Jean Villeneuve his French liaison officer are out recruiting. They are looking for men to man the militia regiment Martin is charged with staffing, equipping, training and leading into battle against the forces of The Crown.

Martin and Villeneuve come across a tavern. They walk in to a packed house with music, drinking and conversation. Villeneuve asks, ”Are you sure this is the place we should be recruiting for a militia?” (pregnant pause) Martin shouts, ”God save King George!” (another pregnant pause) Next thing you see is Martin and Villeneuve being chased out by angry men, as they hurl heavy object and sharp instruments at them. See video link for full effect. It’s great.

Tavern Scene From The Patriot

The point I’m trying to make, is that in 1775, taverns were one of the most important social gathering areas where politics was debated…and on occasion, arms and other stores hidden from the forces of The Crown.

Today, a goodly portion of the conservative political debate function among Americans, takes place in the comments section of online publications such as Red State and American Thinker to name but two. Libertarians have their sites and of course, the leftists have theirs…which are comprised of the legacy media.

Regardless of political stripe, the comments section that invariably follows below a given article, provides a great forum for robust debate and the ability to share political thought. This feature essentially serves as the local tavern where Americans can gather to discourse on political subjects that interest them…unless it becomes restricted just because someone doesn’t like what’s being said there.

I’m not talking about death threats or profane language. Those really have no place in public discourse on a platform that anyone can view (I’m thinking children). What I’m talking about, is Big Tech that believes it should be the arbiter of TRUTH. Yep…I’m talking about you Mr. Zuckerberg, your lumberjack wannabe buddy, Mr. Dorsey and all the other Hitler Youth with whom you seem to be associating yourselves, as you decide just what Americans should and should not be allowed to see.

As I’ve noted previously, the Masters of the Universe are using financial coercion at the RICO level, to eliminate or outright prevent the publication of articles containing information that doesn’t fit their view.

Opinion: Masters of the Universe Tell Stalin to, “Hold My Beer.”

They have now taken things a step further and are now flogging political websites because of the content in their comment sections. As I noted in the above article, American Thinker was forced to disable its comments section because of pressure from the self anointed arbiters of truth and to limit legal liability. Interestingly enough, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al, have legal immunity. They get the best of both worlds. They can curate content on their platforms, yet not be held to the same legal liability standards as say, a newspaper.

Read: Why AT comments are disabled

This is going to end up as the proverbial, First, we will lose the great back and forth between the writers and the readership, along with discussions among the readership. That’s not all. As one of my commenters pointed out (H/T Randy87) (emphasis, mine):

The Federalist cut their comment section months ago for the same reason. Blogs that are published without the ability of readers to comment are a harangue, not a dialogue. Gone are the days when people would read their local daily newspaper, then just go about their day. People have the right to their own opinions. Agree, disagree, or spout some wild conspiracy theory, it doesn’t matter. Those publication that allow comments will thrive; those that just harangue their readers will die.

Will. Die. Which is of course, just what the left wants. Gone are the days when the Leftists gushed over President Obama’s command of all this “new” technology. They positively swooned over his ability to be young and hip with all the latest toys. Then Donald J. Trump flew into town on his own personal airplane (incidentally NOT paid for by the taxpayers) and told President Obama, ” Hold my (non-alcoholic)beer.” He then proceeded to make such prolific and effective use of Twitter, that he damned near doubled nose ring Jack’s net worth…and incidentally got himself elected President into the bargain.

Now the left is terrified. After Trump, they do not dare to allow such unfettered communication with the American public. At one time, the major news papers and the big three TV channels, CBS, NBC & ABC were the gatekeepers of what Americans got to see. Remember Walter Cronkite, And that’s the way it is. Technology changed all that. For a brief period of time, information freely flowed, allowing Trump to bypass those media titans. Now, Big Tech billionaires have decided that they want to be legacy media’s replacement for the information control. The question is, are we going to let them get away with it?

https://redstate.com/darth641/2021/01/16/opinion-online-publications-their-comment-sections-the-taverns-of-the-modern-era-n310779

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Patrice Lewis in World Net Daily

 

The left's vindictiveness: From erasing truth to criminalizing it

 Patrice Lewis warns patriots, notes stark irony of Joe Biden's 'Unity' inauguration theme

Typically, when I noodle around the idea for a column I choose a subject of interest and start gathering links to relevant articles as I come across them. I seldom go looking for links; most often I just come across them as I peruse the news.

So when I decided to write about revenge – specifically, how the left is waging an all-out war on conservatives – I duly began gathering links. Imagine my surprise when I sat down to write this column and realized I had nine pages of links about leftist revenge … most of them gathered just in this latest blood-bath of a week.

Like most Americans, I'm still reeling from the reality of the coup d'état taking place under our very nose. Things are changing so fast – hour by hour, minute by minute – that doubtless this column will be out of date by the time I finish writing it.

So far leftist revenge has ranged from the massive (banning the president from all social media, taking down Parler) to the petty (Democrats drafting a bill to prevent anything being named after President Trump), but it all reveals a universal truth: Leftists hate and loathe the Constitution and Bill of Rights with a seething, burning passion. But hey, we knew this already, didn't we?

The left operates on a dangerous blend of arrogance and insecurity. They are arrogant because they have America by the short hairs, and they know it. They are insecure because their claims – that Trump incited violence during the Capitol riots, that the election wasn't stolen – are so baseless that they won't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Their only solution to the possibility of the truth getting out is to erase, silence, eradicate, threaten, intimidate, close, sue, harass, fire, forbid, or dox anyone who speaks about it.

It's ironic that those who used to say they were all for "diversity" and "inclusion" now have the truth revealed once the velvet mask was ripped off. Instead, they want to silence and persecute anyone who differs than them. Far from being inclusive, they tyrannize anyone outside their echo chamber.

The reason for silencing the opposition is simple. Our Rights (that's with a capital "R") are derived from God, not government. Once the First Amendment topples – once freedom of speech, worship, and peaceable assembly is denied and persecuted – every other Right will soon follow (including the Second Amendment), and there will be no way to defend them.

Meanwhile the left has spent the last year ignoring examples of true hate speech, violence, arson, murder, non-peaceable assembly and behavior so egregious ("fiery but peaceful"?) that they've become a mockery of what they supposedly stand for. It's not domestic terrorism when Black Lives Matter or Antifa does it. Even left-wing Hollywood twits who object to silencing free speech are attacked by their own.

Trump won the election in a landslide so massive that the only way to cover it up was with colossal election fraud. The left is so terrified of the truth that they must move heaven and earth, including trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to suppress it. They are now very busy rewriting not just history, but current events so they can convince present and future generations about their righteousness. The left is not just moving to erase the truth; they are moving to criminalize it.

Four years ago, columnist Kurt Schlichter wrote a sobering piece in Townhall entitled "The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly." He warned about the unspeakable evil these people live under, and their desperate desire to crush opposition: "They are fanatics, and by not surrendering, by not kneeling, and by not obeying, you have committed an unpardonable sin. You have defied the Left, and you must be broken. They will take your job, slander your name, even beat or kill you – whatever it takes to break you and terrify others by making you an example. Your defiance cannot stand; they cannot allow this whole Trump/GOP majority thing to get out of control. They must crush this rebellion of the normal, and absolutely nothing is off the table. … Their sick ideology and false theology requires that we be enslaved or exterminated – we can't be tolerated, and we certainly can't be allowed to hold the reins of power."

We are seeing the truth of Schlichter's prescient words. The left doesn't just hate us; they want us dead. As Parler CEO John Matze told Tucker Carlson, they don't just want to kill his company (Parler), they want to kill him.

See? The right may disagree with you, but the left wants you dead.

The ironic thing is Biden and his team is still bleating "unity" (as if we believe them). In a "You just can't make this stuff up" example, after stealing the 2020 election in the greatest heist ever, Joe Biden announced the theme for his inauguration. Are you ready for this? It's "America United."

But "united" means something completely different to the left and the right. The left says "unity," but they mean surrender. They say "freedom," but mean oppression. They say "American," but mean leftist. They say "social justice," but want to silence half the nation. They say the words, but we must read the real meaning behind them.

"The only focus of everyone on the left is how they can eliminate conservatives from existing in America," notes Jared Dyson on the Liberty Loft. "Not just from holding political office, or from certain areas of society. The focus is on how to completely eliminate them from existence in any aspect of life."

Entertainer Travis Tritt agrees. "There is no incentive for conservatives to 'unify' with a party who has labeled us as racists, homophobes, mysogonists and ignorant deplorables," he said. "They aren't serious about unity. They want compliance and surrender. They will never get either from me."

The ugly, vindictive face of the left is now revealed. The coup d'état has stripped off any pretense of "unity" or tolerance. The left wants you silenced at best, and dead at worst.The Trump meme below has never been more true:

 

 

 

 Remember how we were told Trump was the "threat to democracy"? This is a warning, folks. These people are not playing games. The left hates you. Act accordingly.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/lefts-vindictiveness-erasing-truth-criminalizing/ 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Pamela Geller in The American Thinker

 

The Totalitarian Left Moves to Silence All Dissent

In an article that was picked up by the Mercury News, Ethan Baron of the Bay Area News Group wrote Tuesday that “A week after false claims of a stolen U.S. presidential election drove a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Twitter is allowing a far-right supporter of President Donald Trump to claim the election was stolen.” Baron’s intention was clear: he wants Twitter to ban me, as it banned Trump, for telling truths they want buried. His article shows how monstrous and totalitarian the left really is: leftists think they can publicly call for the censuring and banning of someone whose views they hate, and just like that, you disappear.

The left and its propaganda arm, the establishment media, are now working hard to make it illegal, and get you banned from social media, to state the obvious fact that the election was stolen. The Democrats are seeking to criminalize and penalize anyone who says theelection was stolen. Their “insurrection” hoax, and impeachment of the president without due process or giving him the chance to defend himself, is designed to shut down any and all talk of their infamous election fraud. This is not the behavior of people who know they won fair and square and are watching their opponents have a tantrum about it. This is the action of the guilty.

That said, the election was stolen. The mountains of evidence of election fraud were never examined in any court, and then we were told that there was no evidence at all, or if there was any, it had already been dismissed in court challenges. The court cases were all dismissed on technicalities and procedural issues, not because there was no evidence of voter fraud. That evidence has still not been examined.

But it is a hallmark of the rapidly advancing totalitarianism of our age that thumbsuckers like Ethan Baron think they can kill you with righteous indignation. He wrote: “Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller, in a tweet Monday about banks freezing political donations after a pro-Trump mob stormed the seat of the U.S. government, said the banks’ decision was, ‘Further proof the election was stolen.’” I am not “anti-Muslim” any more than foes of the Nazis were “anti-German,” but that’s another story. Baron offered no counterargument to my contention about the banks. He just presented it as if it were self-evidently false and egregious.

Baron knew, of course, that he didn’t have to show that what I said was inaccurate. All he had to do was point out that I had deviated from the leftist line, and the jackbooted neo-fascists who run Twitter and the other social media platforms would spring into action.

It was reminiscent of the media outrage that was directed at me in May 2015, when I hosted the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas that was the site of the first ISIS attack on American soil. I was raked over the coals not just on CNN, but also on Fox, which hadn’t yet switched sides then, and by conservative spokesmen who should have known better. I was defending the freedom of speech against violent intimidation. We never saw the hate and attacks that were directed at me in the wake of that event in Garland directed at the Fort Hood jihadi, the Times Square jihad bomber, the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony jihad bomber, the Boston Marathon jihad bombers, the New York subway jihad bomber, or any other jihadis.

We have never seen the media hatred and anything like the attacks that were directed at me directed towards the jihadists who beheaded journalist after journalist (their own!), or towards those who beheaded hundreds of Christians, executed them because they were non-Muslims, or towards the perpetrators of the ongoing genocide of non-Muslims and secular Muslims in Muslim countries.

If we had a responsible media, they would stand for the freedom of speech as we did in Garland. If we had a responsible media, it would be applauding the fact that some people are still standing up and telling the truth about the election despite the immense pressure from powerful forces to stop doing so.

How do these people not understand this most basic, elemental concept of freedom?

I didn’t start this war for the freedom of speech, but I won’t lie down and submit, either. Twitter and the rest may heed Baron and ban me. But even then, this isn’t over. What remains to be seen is whether the free world will finally wake up and stand for the freedom of speech, or instead kowtow to this evil and continue to denounce me and others like me. What’s really frightening and astonishing about this assault on our freedom of speech is the number of people cheering on the silencing of dissent from the establishment line. I never expected that from my fellow Americans. But if the darkness of totalitarianism does come to the United States, it will be thanks to them and to the likes of Ethan Baron.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/the_totalitarian_left_moves_to_silence_all_dissent.html

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Jeffrey Folks in The American Thinker

 

Our Mounting Orwellian Nightmare

So we are to imagine that those who objected to Biden's having stolen the election are responsible for the violence at the Capitol?  And that, going forward, any public official who questions Biden's win should be removed from office, and that any corporate leader who objects should be fired?  All this when the truth is that Trump in all likelihood won the election.

It is the perfect example of Orwellian speech.  In his classic essay "Politics and the English Language," Orwell spoke of the condition where "words and meaning have almost parted company."  If that "almost" is a measure of Orwellian speech, then today's Democrat leaders are beyond Orwellian.  Their words and meaning have parted company entirely.

As Orwell also stressed, the decline of language is both cause and effect of the decline of politics.  When politicians and media begin speaking nonsense, it is the symptom of an underlying corruption of political thinking.  The idea that the president should be removed from office for having defended the electoral process is truly bizarre, but it has been repeated throughout the liberal media and by most liberal politicians and even by some conservatives.

One might say progressives like Nancy Pelosi have become "unhinged," but that would let them off the hook.  It would suggest that they don't quite realize what they are doing.  But what they are doing is the result of crafty political calculation.  They want to tie President Trump with the Capitol violence to the point that he can never run again.  The same political deviousness lies behind suggestions that he should not be in control of the nation's nuclear arsenal because of his supposed mental instability.

None of these charges has anything to do with the truth.  Those most responsible for the Capitol disturbance were those who rigged the presidential election, and certainly these individuals and those who coordinated their efforts or knew in advance or concealed information afterward should be punished.  One might say those who committed acts of violence on the Hill should be punished to the same extent that Antifa and BLM rioters were punished last summer.  

But the charges against President Trump are Orwellian in that they invert the truth.  The president argued, as he had every right to do, that the election was rigged, and he urged peaceful protest to defend our republic.

Even the president's calming words on the afternoon of the Capitol break-in have been met with Orwellian reaction.  When President Trump said, "Go home. Go in peace," the media charged him with inciting further violence because he expressed his "love" for his supporters.  That expression of love did more than anything to get them to go home.

In a further Orwellian twist, Biden and his cronies appear to have adopted many of President Trump's ideas for running the country, but they can't admit where those ideas came from.  Biden's not entirely sure we can afford to forgive all student debt, and he now believes that the existing border policies are necessary for the time being.  Gov. Cuomo now says we must "open things up," just as President Trump and many conservative governors said we should.  But he can't admit that the idea came from conservatives — it's his idea.  None of these ideas was right when Trump was president — they're right only after Biden takes office.

The media will go along with this lie, in typical Orwellian fashion.

The most important line in Orwell's famous essay is this: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible."  The progressive inversion of the truth is just that: an attempt to defend the indefensible.

If progressives were honest and straightforward, they would be forced to state that they are radical environmentalists and socialists who want government to control the economy and equalize wages; who want socialized medicine for all; who think religious expression should be outlawed; who believe in a universal guaranteed income; who want to outlaw the use of fossil fuels; who want to expand affirmative action putting blacks and Hispanics farther ahead of whites; who believe that any reference to biological sex should be outlawed; who believe that America should be not a global superpower, but merely one nation among others; who believe that abortion at any stage is a universal right; who believe that American aid should go to the Palestinians and not to Israel; and so on.

President Trump clearly stated his own beliefs on a thousand occasions — President Biden should do so as well, but he won't.  He uses the Orwellian tactic of disguising his beliefs in gibberish, and this is not because he's going daft, as he well may be.  He'll speak of "expanding Obamacare" rather than socialized medicine.  He'll talk of "defense partnerships" rather than abandoning control of our military.  And on the environment, it's not even possible to tell what he wants, but he wants $400 billion to do it.  Once again, "the defence of the indefensible."

The coordinated effort to impeach and convict the president is nothing less than a propaganda campaign, and the associated suppression of free speech on social media and elsewhere is the beginning of a dangerous national decline.  It's not possible to say where it will end, but we must be entirely clear about what is happening.  A progressive government will attempt to further limit free speech, assembly, religious expression, gun rights, access to employment, and other basic liberties.  Progressives have already threatened conservatives with prosecution and imprisonment for the "crime" of denying anthropogenic global warming and for questioning the result of the 2020 election.  What's next?  The persecution of every American conservative in the same way that Gen. Flynn was persecuted?

It's a fine line between federal prison here in America and Dachau in Germany, and one can transform into the other in a matter of weeks.  It did so in Germany in 1933, just five weeks after Hitler became chancellor.  Don't think it can't happen here.  It begins with "the defence of the indefensible" — and that is already well underway.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/our_mounting_orwellian_nightmare.html

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Article by W.D. Bert Newman in The American Thinker

 

The buycott: An economic alternative to the one-party state

We are fighting the wrong war!  Conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, and any who generally support free markets and free thought have lost the political battle — for the moment.  The electronic and print media, many large corporations, big technology companies, and most every source of opinion that we have come to rely on have demonstrated convincingly that they are now supporting the suppression of free speech.  They are limiting or canceling any individuals, opinions, and ideas they deem unfit.  This is a dangerous and unprecedented development in the history of our Republic, and it must be resisted if our political institutions are to survive.

The form of this resistance, however, cannot rely solely on a political solution.  Nor can our frustrations be satisfied by street violence or thuggery.  There is a logical, rational, and free-market alternative to counter the increasing dominance of those who would suppress thoughts and ideas, and that is through the economy.  We need to put our money where our ideas are.  We need to support those businesses and institutions that generally agree with the notions of freedom, and we must stop enabling those who actively promote exclusion, silencing, and groupthink.  For much too long, those of us who believe in basic freedoms have economically contributed to the growth, ideas, and power of those who oppose these freedoms.  These organizations all have at least one thing in common: they rely on the markets to provide them with customers, users, eyeballs, and profits.  Capitalism gives us, at least for now, a legal and moral format to deny them all that they rely upon.

Boycotts of these businesses are simplistic and begin with a negative premise.  A buycott, on the other hand, would emphasize the positive aspects of helping those who have demonstrated shared values and who are more interested in profits than politics.  This Buycott would have at least three basic elements:

1. Buy small.  In general, the bigger businesses have more to gain from, and are more supportive of, centralized government.  Small businesses tend to be more innovative and less in favor of regulation.  Look for alternatives to services and products that you normally consume.  Try to avoid the large vendors online.  If you are critical of a product or service, or the company that is promoting it, just don't buy it or use it.  The free market will, in the coming months, provide you with a myriad of alternatives to the monolithic and monopolistic corporations (even social networks).
2. Buy local.  Where possible, shop your local merchants, restaurants, bars, and stores.  They will need this help in the recovery from the virus shutdowns, and they are more likely to agree with your concerns about the economic and political dominance of the NASDAQ 100.  Bypass the big boxes and the franchises.  Support the storefronts.  These small businesses are vital to the survival of our freedom and independence.
3. Buy American.  We are in an economic struggle not only with China, but with those who would outsource our jobs and careers in the name of globalism.  Look at the label and choose to support those companies who actually produce here.

Buying in this manner will not always be easy.  At times, it will be more expensive, less convenient, and even difficult or not possible.  The alternative is to continue to encourage domination by a few large corporations who do not have your interests at heart.  Support and promote the buycott!

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

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage