Thursday, May 13, 2021

Liz Cheney Goes on Fox News, Loses Her Ever-Loving Mind

 

Article by Bonchie in RedState
 

Liz Cheney Goes on Fox News, Loses Her Ever-Loving Mind

Apparently, Liz Cheney’s ouster from leadership has taught her nothing.

She went on Fox News this evening with Bret Baier. Instead of trying to reconcile with voters or show that she’s focused on moving forward and combating Joe Biden, the Wyoming congresswoman lost her ever-loving mind, ranting about “The Big Lie” and refusing to hold Democrats accountable for anything. She even managed to attack Fox News directly, which is an odd thing to do when you are being interviewed by someone as straight and level as Baier.

Here are the clips courtesy of Curtis Houck over at Newsbusters (a must-follow if you are on Twitter).

 

 

Cheney’s arrogance seethes through these clips, which is ironic given that would be one of her chief criticisms of Trump. Baier is dead-on in pressing her about where her priorities are. Why would any Republican dedicate their life to stopping a former Republican president? Where was this fire when it came to opposing Democrats, who are ostensibly Cheney’s opposition?

It gets worse, though. After Cheney gets visibly upset with Baier pressing her, she deflects by going nuts on Fox News.

 

 

As usual, she pivots to her Trump Derangement Syndrome:

“We all have an obligation, and I would say Fox News especially – especially Fox News –  has a particular obligation to make sure people know the election wasn’t stolen. Fox News needs to make sure that the American people…”

As Baier interrupted her, telling her that Fox has done that (and angered some viewers in the process), Cheney harrumphed that he was asking the questions and should let her finish then blathered on about needing a peaceful transition of power – as if that hasn’t happened.

I suppose you have to give her credit for going all in. She’s going to burn down every single formerly friendly Republican entity on her way out the door.

But there was one final clip that should really get your blood pumping. Baier asked her about spreading a false story about Russian bounties which was propagated extensively to attack Trump during the 2020 election. I’ve written extensively on that so click here and here for background.

This was her answer.

 

 

She has no regrets? The story was false, so how exactly does that confirm any of her priors? This just shows that Cheney has no principles and is guided by nothing but a blind thirst for power. This is a woman who went from the backbench to leadership in just four years. That was almost certainly due to her family’s name and not her qualifications (as her floundering performance would later show). Instead of showing some humility and just admitting she was wrong here, she doubles down, once again perpetuating a lie that has been used to prolong the war in Afghanistan. How war-hungry can one person be?

What Cheney did in this interview is validate every criticism recently leveled against her. Forget about Trump. This is not a woman who needs to be anywhere near Republican leadership. Heck, I’m pretty sure she has no business being in the party at all at this point. She is obviously pushing this martyrdom act to raise her profile, recognizing that Trump has derailed her previous path to power (no doubt, she wanted to be Speaker one day). If she cared one iota about the truth, she’d correct her lies on Russian bounties, focus on Joe Biden, and help Republicans win in 2022. Instead, she’s operating as a pawn for left-wing media and trashing every bastion of conservatism along the way.

Good riddance to this woman, and hopefully, Wyoming gets rid of her for good next year.

 https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/05/13/liz-cheney-goes-on-fox-news-loses-her-ever-loving-mind-n379938

 




Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Best Move So Far in the BIG UGLY was Removing Liz Cheney From GOP Leadership



Former Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney runs immediately to the microphones after being kicked out of the GOP House leadership position.  In a bitter statement the deep state DeceptiCon operative vows to do “everything I can to ensure [President Trump] never gets near the oval office.”

The next task is for Wyoming voters to primary Liz Cheney even more deeply into the land of total irrelevance and crush her in the 2022 election.


There was always going to be a need for a fracturing of the GOP to eliminate this entrenched DeceptiCon class of professional politicians.  That is the essence of what we have called “The Big Ugly” on this website.  The reason this place is named “the last refuge” is an outcome of our association calling for this type of action more than ten years ago.

We are blessed and fortunate that Donald J Trump came to the forefront and awakened the majority of GOP voters to the deception within the party.  It will take a long time to cut out this cancerous wing of the UniParty bird, but it must be done…. precinct by precinct, district by district, state by state, election by election, these professional DeceptiCon politicians must be removed.  The removal effort must be unrelenting and unforgiving.

Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Dan Crenshaw, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and every other member of the DeceptiCon caucus must be removed. We must then ensure that no-one like Nikki Haley comes back into the world of politics.  All must be cast into their true ‘America Last’ tribe with Democrats.

President Trump responds below:

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being. I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party. She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy. She is a warmonger whose family stupidly pushed us into the never-ending Middle East Disaster, draining our wealth and depleting our Great Military, the worst decision in our Country’s history. I look forward to soon watching her as a Paid Contributor on CNN or MSDNC!“


at

Steve Bannon's War Room: Jim and Joe Hoft Discuss the Criminal Destruction of AZ Evidence



Jim Hoft and Steve Bannon Discuss
The Criminal Destroying of
Voting Machine Data on War Room





Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Maricopa Co. Election Officials Delete Data From Voting Machines #Desperate Criminals





Maricopa County Elections Officials DELETED ENTIRE DATABASE
from Voting Machines




By Patty McMurray
Published May 12, 2021


Last week, the Gateway Pundit reported about the emergency meeting that was called by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, after the County was reportedly unable to provide passwords to the auditors performing an audit of the county’s 2020 Election results. They also did not provide access to the routers which were requested in the audit as well.

This afternoon, it was discovered that “the entire database” for the 2020 General election, showing the “Results Tally and Reporting,” has been deleted!

100 Percent F*d Up– President of the Arizona Senate Karen Fann has written a letter to Chairman Sellers, demanding answers.


Arizona Senate President Karen Fann


Here is the letter to Maricopa County Supervisor Chairman Jack Sellers from Arizona Senate President Karen Fann:


Exclusive Letter to Maricop... by Jim Hoft






Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

The Washington Post’s Hit Piece On Josh Hawley Is Really A Hit Piece On All Conservatives





IThe Washington Post’s Hit Piece
On Josh Hawley Is Really
A Hit Piece On All Conservatives




By John Daniel Davidson
May 13, 2021


The Washington Post this week published a long hit piece by investigative political reporter Michael Kranish on Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, framed as a profile tracing his “path to the insurrection,” from elite establishment Republican to dangerous MAGA populist.

It’s hard to imagine a more dishonest and condescending piece of journalism. Kranish and his editors obviously blame Hawley in part for the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol (more on that later), and they clearly think he’s a dangerous and hateful figure in American public life.

But instead of just running an editorial saying so, Kranish spends thousands of words conveying his contempt for Hawley through selective interviews and quotes. He does a deep dive into Hawley’s past, digging up and quoting columns the senator wrote in high school, tracking down and interviewing elementary school classmates, and talking with the mayor of Hawley’s small hometown in western Missouri.

He interviews former professors, political associates, and even the University of California at Los Angeles law professor who coined the term “critical race theory,” who told Kranish that Hawley “walks in the footsteps of many demagogues in America’s historical past, whose trajectory into the center of power has been through racialized scapegoating.”

But for all this, the piece is not really about Hawley. It’s about ordinary Americans who live in small towns, go to church, and believe their country is a decent place worthy of their affection. Kranish despises those people even more than he despises Hawley, and he goes to great lengths to show it.

Hawley Comes From a Town With a ‘Racist Legacy’

Take Hawley’s hometown of Lexington, Missouri. Lexington is a small town on the Missouri river of about 4,700 people. Like a lot of small towns in the South, it was once home to black slaves and white slaveowners.

It was also the site of two of the largest battles in the western theater of the Civil War, the First Battle of Lexington in 1861 and the Second Battle of Lexington in 1864, and a center of operations for Confederate guerilla forces under William Quantrill, including a young Jesse James, who was wounded by federal troops while riding into town to surrender after the war.

Kranish isn’t interested in any of this rich and varied history, though. He just wants his readers to know that Lexington has a “racist legacy” and insular, ignorant residents. People like Hawley, in other words.

“Lexington’s lack of recognition of its role in slavery has meant that the city did not have the kind of introspection about inequality that might have broadened Hawley’s outlook,” writes Kranish, quoting a random former classmate who declares that Hawley “had an insular life in this small town.”

It’s unclear if the person quoted even knew Hawley, let alone knew him well enough to know whether he had an insular life growing up in Lexington. The point is, according to Kranish, that if you come from an obviously racist, backwards place like this there’s a good chance you’re a racist, or at least racially insensitive. You know, like Hawley.

Hawley Opposes Individual Liberty, Sort Of

Kranish would also like his readers to know that evangelical Christians like Hawley hate gay people. Why else include a lengthy aside about how Hawley in 2015 expressed support for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was arrested and jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs?

We hear from Thom Lambert, a University of Missouri law professor who recruited Hawley but later “became alarmed that Hawley began making pronouncements that didn’t square with his background in constitutional law but instead appeared designed to attract political support,” writes Kranish, citing the Davis case. Kranish quotes Lambert, a “gay evangelical Christian,” saying that Hawley’s support for Davis was him “trying to establish his credentials as a religious-freedom warrior. This is where I thought, you’re kind of lying here. You’re misrepresenting how the Constitution works.”

Actually, Hawley’s support for Davis was based on Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from “compelling or restricting a person’s exercise of religion.” At the time, Hawley said that Davis should not have been compelled against her conscience to issue the marriage licenses and should not have been arrested, but also that others in her office should have been allowed to issue the licenses, which is what ended up happening. Far from animosity against gay Americans, Hawley was expressing support for individual rights of conscience.

It’s ironic, then, that Kranish later tries to paint Hawley as an enemy of conscience and individual liberty by misleadingly summarizing an essay Hawley wrote in June 2019 for Christianity Today on Pelagius, a fourth-century theologian who was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church for his teachings on free will.

Hawley wrote, correctly, that Pelagius believed human beings could achieve perfection without the aid of divine grace, through the exercise of their will. He argues that Pelagianism persists today in the concept of unfettered individual liberty, which in America most benefits powerful and wealthy elites who have embraced what Hawley calls “a philosophy for the privileged.”

“Because if freedom means choice among options, then the people with the most choices are the most free,” wrote Hawley. “And that means the rich. And if salvation is about achievement, then those with the most accolades are righteous, and that means the elite and the strong.”

Hawley’s column is really an overview of a larger and more subtle argument, backed by mountains of research, that suggests wealthy and highly educated people tend to thrive in a society that embraces autonomy and unconstrained choice, while less-educated and working class people tend to suffer. But for Kranish, who seems to revel in reducing complex ideas to personal insults, all of this is just more evidence that Hawley finds liberty “abhorrent.”

The Post Also Blames Hawley For the Jan. 6 Riot

But all these meandering and insubstantial attacks on Hawley are really just filler for Kranish’s main complaint against the Missouri senator: he dared to object to the certification of the results of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, and therefore bears some responsibility for the ensuing riot at the U.S. Capitol that day.

Unsurprisingly, Kranish misrepresents what Hawley was objecting to. He writes: “Hawley focused on Pennsylvania, saying the state had violated its constitution by widening access to mail-in ballots. But it was a Republican-controlled legislature that approved universal mail voting in 2019, and the GOP had encouraged its use.”

But of course it doesn’t matter whether Pennsylvania’s legislature was controlled by Republicans or Democrats. If it violated its constitution, that’s a problem, and Hawley understandably wanted to raise the issue.

It also wasn’t the only issue in Pennsylvania that Hawley and others raised. About six weeks before the election, the state’s supreme court had overridden the legislature’s rules for counting mail-in ballots, extending by fiat the deadline for when absentee ballots must be postmarked and received in order to be counted. The Pennsylvania legislature had already set down rules for these things, but the court sided with the state Democratic Party, which had sued to push back the deadline in contravention of state election law.

In a Dec. 30 statement announcing his plans to object, Hawley alluded to these issues, saying, “I cannot vote to certify the electoral college results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.”

Tens of millions of Americans share these exact concerns about the 2020 election, not because they’re conspiracy theorists but because they understand the importance of the rule of law and election integrity. It’s one reason why so many state legislatures are trying to pass election reform laws, to ensure that last-minute lawsuits and activist judges or unelected bureaucrats can’t change state voting laws by decree.

But for Kranish, who apparently feels free to inject his opinion into what the Post bills as political news coverage, “such concerns exist largely because Hawley, Trump and their allies stoked them with false claims.”

No, they don’t. Such concerns would exist even if Hawley and Trump had never breathed a word about them for the simple reason that Americans saw for themselves what happened around the country on Election Day and the days following, and concluded that something wasn’t right. A week after he lodged his objections, Hawley wrote, “For months, I heard from these Missourians — writing, calling my office, stopping me to talk. They want Congress to take action to see that our elections at every level are free, fair, and secure. They have a right to be heard in Congress.”

In other words, Kranish gets the whole thing backwards. Hawley wasn’t stoking fears and ginning up the mob, he was responding to concerns that his constituents had raised repeatedly after the election. Those concerns are grounded in real problems with our election system that need to be solved if Americans are going to have confidence in the vote moving forward.

No wonder, then, that Kranish can’t quite grasp why Hawley is so popular with half the country. Near the end of his 5,000-word hatchet job, Kranish finally gets around to acknowledging how popular Hawley is with Republicans, noting that he raised $3 million in the first quarter of this year and appears to enjoy broad popularity among GOP voters in Missouri, where he was given a standing ovation after speaking in the town of Ozark on April 17.

Kranish notes these things, but he is not the least bit curious why Hawley is so popular. For him, as for the great mass of corporate media, it’s enough to declare that Hawley has “embraced the false claims of election fraud,” and leave it at that. Republican voters are stupid, you see, and Hawley seems to have figured that out.

Or so it is according to Michael Kranish, who never met an intelligent and charismatic Republican he couldn’t smear as a hypocritical, racist conspiracy theorist if you just give him 5,000 words and a ticket to a place like Lexington, Missouri.




Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

The Capitol Riot Rorschach Test





The Capitol Riot Rorschach Test




By Tyler O'Neil • May 12, 202


On Wednesday, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) shocked leftists on Twitter by claiming that “there was no insurrection” on January 6, 2021. He noted that many of those who entered the Capitol that day behaved like tourists. The Twitterati were aghast that someone could say such a thing, but Clyde had a point. Of course, the Capitol riot was a dark day in American history, but the Left has exaggerated it far out of proportion.

Two seemingly incompatible views of the Capitol riot are in fact both correct. The Capitol riot was a last-ditch attempt to stop the lawful process of Congress reading the Electoral College results of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, which remains clouded by election irregularities. The Capitol riot was also a peaceful protest in which many protesters entered the Capitol and acted like tourists after the aggressive rioters in the vanguard had broken through the Capitol Police.

Both of these versions of events are accurate, though partisans exaggerate the meaning of these phenomena.

Let’s begin with Clyde’s remarks.

“Let me be clear: There was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie,” the congressman said. “Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stantions and ropes taking videos and pictures.”

“If you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit,” he added.

Former NBA player Rex Chapman couldn’t believe Clyde’s remarks. “Has anyone told him it’s all on video?” Chapman asked.




Indeed, there is ample footage of the Capitol riot, some of it extremely disturbing. Yet much of the footage is just as Clyde described it: many of those who entered the Capitol on January 6 did indeed stay inside the ropes, admiring the Capitol. It seems they thought that the People’s House was open for their tourism as part of the protest.

At the same time, rioters intent on stopping the certification of the Electoral College vote did indeed lead the crowd to break the Capitol Police lines. These rioters broke into the Capitol violently and injured police officers in a lawless attack.

The Left has seized on the language of “insurrection” to suggest that the Capitol riot represented an assault on America’s constitutional government, or, in their words, on “democracy itself.” While some of the rioters did indeed attempt to prevent the lawful process of announcing Electoral College votes, many of the protesters demanded an investigation into election irregularities, rather than a coup in which Donald Trump would be declared the winner.

The Capitol riot was a tragedy, and Americans should lament the fact that rioters broke into the People’s House. However, the “insurrection” language is overblown and it only inflames partisan divisions. January 6 was also a protest in which many peaceful protesters demanded an investigation into the integrity of the 2020 election — and there are good reasons to doubt that integrity, even if the shenanigans that Democrats pulled were completely legal and even if Biden might have won, anyway. After all, Time magazine reported on the “shadow campaign” and “conspiracy” to “save” the election… for Biden.

A person’s opinion about January 6 acts as a kind of Rorschach test. The saner a person is, the more he or she should be able to acknowledge that there are real concerns about the 2020 election and that the Capitol riot was a tragedy for America, even though it wasn’t the tragedy the Left makes it out to be.

Both shouting “insurrection” and praising the rioters as patriots are wrong approaches that will only worsen America’s partisan divisions.





Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Semper Tyrannus—Always a Tyrant

It is up to us to use our wisdom and patriotism to correct the course of our nation and reassert our station as the defenders of liberty and the bearers of our constitutional republic.


“Land of the free, home of the brave.” 

“The Constitution ensures Americans receive due process.” 

“Equal justice under the law is a hallmark of the American justice system.”

“We have a government restrained by checks and balances.”

“They hate us for our freedoms.”

“If I put my tooth under my pillow, the tooth fairy will come and exchange it for a dollar bill.” 

By now most Americans, minus perpetually ignorant boomers and five-year-olds, know the above statements are fairy tales. Not necessarily on the level of Grimm’s scary nightmare tales, more like big white lies and obsolete constructs repeated in unison by propagandists in order to make us feel good so we don’t ask too many questions. 

In the information security business, there is a saying that security by obscurity is no security at all—meaning hiding from hackers is not a winning security strategy. The parallel to this in politics is anonymity is freedom. In other words, I am free as long as the tyrant doesn’t know I exist. 

The reality, however, is one can never get small enough or anonymous enough to be free from evil when evil rules the land. Freedom through anonymity is not real freedom—it’s merely an illusion. Illusions are the bread and butter of the tyrant—for if the masses knew the truth they would be ungovernable and the tyrant’s life would be, in Hobbesian terms, a nasty, brutish, and short affair. Because of this, the tyrant strives to keep the necessary illusions alive in the minds of the common people. One of the biggest illusions traditional America clings to right now is that it still retains constitutional rights recognized and respected by its government in Washington, D.C.

If You Build It, They Will Come

In the 1989 classic sports fantasy movie “Field of Dreams,” Kevin Costner’s character, an Iowa corn farmer, repeatedly hears a voice whispering “If you build it, they will come,”—“it” being a baseball diamond.  So, despite the craziness of the idea, Costner plows under a portion of his corn crop and builds a baseball field and—long story short—a bunch of old-time baseball heroes show up and play a game . . . his farm is saved from foreclosure, families are reunited, and happy endings all around. 

We all like stories with happy endings, but someone, or rather some people, applied the mantra “if you build it, they will come” to the wrong dream. They decided to build the infrastructure of a tyranny—and voilà, guess who showed up? Tyrants.

For the ruling elite, the Constitution has always been a problem. That document, with its Bill of Rights, consistently has prevented the elite’s politicians and bureaucrats from implementing their utopian dreams. The trouble for them is the Constitution is very popular with the majority of Americans and these Americans are not going to let it go.

So, the elites and their loyal apparatchik class decided that instead of trying to go through the Constitution, they would simply go around it—circumvent it . . . all for our safety and security of course.

Know the Tools of Tyranny

Enter the shitshow that was the George W. Bush Administration. In December 2008, during the waning days of the Bush Administration, Attorney General Michael Mukasey promulgated a new, greatly relaxed, set of rules under the “Domestic Investigations Operations Guide” (DIOG). The DIOG is an internal Justice Department document that governs the FBI’s rules for domestic investigations of U.S. persons. Mukasey’s rule changes implemented an entirely new authority for investigations called assessments. 

Under these DIOG assessment authorities, FBI agents are permitted to investigate anyone without any predicate or association with a criminal, terrorist, or extremist element. The target of an assessment does not require a factual connection to a crime, an allegation of a crime, or any information whatsoever that the target is, or was, intending to commit a crime. FBI agents are permitted to start an assessment on a U.S. person without any supervisory approval, and without having to report the decision to start an assessment to FBI headquarters or the Justice Department. 

Amazingly, the FBI is not even required to maintain records of the assessments, or document when an assessment is opened or closed. There are no time limits on assessments and, once started, they can continue in perpetuity. When conducting an assessment of a U.S. person, an FBI agent can legally use, without a warrant, a wide range of intrusive investigative techniques that include:

  • Collecting digital information on you from online sources, FISA section 702 databases, any other government database (Department of Homeland Security, United States Postal Service, Department of Defense) and any commercial database. Under the third-party doctrine outlined in the 1979 Smith vs. Maryland Supreme Court case, this includes any information or business records a U.S. person shares with a third-party—cell phone provider, healthcare provider, business associates, banking institutions, cloud service providers, etc., etc., etc.
  • Recruiting, tasking, and paying informants to collect information about you.
  • Using FBI agents or contractors to surreptitiously gather information from you, your co-workers, employers, friends, neighbors, and family members without revealing their true identity or true purpose for seeking that information
  • Using FBI agents, contractors, or volunteers to conduct physical surveillance of you, day and night, for as long as they want. In other words, 100 percent surveillance, 24/7/365 without end.

During James Comey’s Russiagate testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, he was asked repeatedly by several congressional representatives to describe the predicates required for various investigations. Comey, being Comey, dissembled and failed to provide adequate answers to any of the questions.

The dirty secret—though secret only to traditional America—is there is no predicate required for the Justice Department or the FBI to launch the most intrusive and potentially abusive investigative actions against citizens. And judging from the responses of the members of the House Intelligence Committee, there is little interest on their part to conduct proper oversight on behalf of Americans.

The Kafka Trap

In Franz Kafka’s The Trial, protagonist Joseph K. is brought up on charges he is not allowed to refute. He is never informed of the crime he has supposedly committed and is never given the opportunity to defend himself. Instead, his denials are used as evidence of his crime and he is hounded by his persecutors as he watches his life slowly being destroyed. In fact, the entire pseudo-legal process in which he is involved is designed to isolate, humiliate, degrade, and eventually destroy him—even though he has committed no crime at all. The goal of his persecutors is to force him to the point of giving up and acquiescing to his own destruction.

The Sixth Amendment is designed specifically to allow the accused to confront his accuser and the evidence against him. Its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is meant to preclude the exact type of circumstances Joseph K. experiences in The Trial. The Sixth Amendment is a critical individual right deliberately intended to prevent the government’s use of whisper campaigns and extrajudicial activities to incriminate a person without affording that person due process.

Right now, traditional Americans are under attack by a ruling elite empowered by the weaponized institutions of justice in America. We are accused of being extremists, terrorists, racists, and white supremacists—all without a shred of actual evidence. Like Kafka’s The Trial, our denials are considered evidence of our crimes. In reality, all of this is merely an attempt to intimidate the elite’s political opposition.  Their goal is to silence traditional America as they take control of our once free and independent nation in order to pursue the objectives of an unaccountable oligarchy. Make no mistake, the elites are shouting the command “submit” and preparing to force us into acquiescing to our own destruction.

The elites do not possess sufficient forces to make 80 million Americans submit to their will. Instead, they are betting on their ability to scare the majority of traditional Americans into giving up without a fight. Their plan is to select the low-hanging fruit, the isolated and vulnerable elements of traditional America and publicly eviscerate them using the tools of tyranny that exist within the framework of American counterterrorism authorities. They will painstakingly attempt to avoid allowing traditional Americans the exercise of due process rights, and they’ll use due process-free extrajudicial authorities such as assessments to accomplish this.

Traditional Americans should consider the consequences of what is coming. If an FBI agent approaches your employer and claims you are a potential violent extremist, how do you think your employer will react? Do you think you will still have a job at the end of the week? What about your neighbors? If an FBI agent makes the rounds in your neighborhood and inquiries about your alleged extremist proclivities, do you think your neighbors will still invite you over for the 4th of July BBQ? What happens when the FBI recruits your neighbors or your children’s teachers as informants? What happens when they park an obvious surveillance element outside your house 24/7 for everyone, including you, to see? How can you defend yourself from what is effectively a whisper campaign, the sole purpose of which is to destroy your life and make an example of you for other Americans to see? 

Americans can mitigate abusive extrajudicial acts of intimidation by organizing at the local level. Build community-based political movements and support networks to educate, recognize, and neutralize such activity. If you are approached by federal agents and asked to assist them, recognize it for what it is and refuse, then alert those concerned. In other words, if you see something—say something. (If you need a blueprint on organizing, see here and here.)

When government agents can circumvent your due process rights without any legal predicate, you are no longer a free citizen; you are a subject in a tyranny. Traditional Americans need to understand that this is the case right now. You may believe you are free because you are still relatively anonymous to the tyrant, and that is likely true, right up until the point it isn’t.

It’s About Liberty

America’s founders were fully aware of the dangers of an all-powerful and unaccountable government. Having suffered under the Crown’s tyranny, they painstakingly set about to write and implement a Constitution that enshrined the ideas of individual liberty respected and guaranteed by a limited and restrained government.  They understood the tendency of human behavior to trend towards tyranny when left to its natural devices. Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 letter to Moses Robinson, wrote:

I sincerely wish with you we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in, and with such an immense patronage, may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied.

We have arrived at the point that Jefferson feared—the point where bad men with immense patronage (our oligarchy) have taken our liberty, our rights, and our future in order to profit from our subjugation. Now it is up to us to use our wisdom and patriotism to correct the course of our nation and reassert our station as the defenders of liberty and the bearers of our constitutional republic.


at

Kamala's woke niece Meena urges people to fight 'Palestinian oppression' by Israel if they care about women's and LGBT rights - neglecting that being gay in Gaza is punishable by ten years in jail and honor killings are rife

 

Kamala Harris' niece has raised eyebrows with an Instagram post urging people who care about LGBT rights and women's issues to defend Palestine - despite the country's rulers being among the most repressive in the world.

Meena Harris, a 36-year-old lawyer and businesswoman, on Wednesday night shared her opinions, re-posting a widely-shared image discussing the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Harris has, in the four months since her mother's sister became vice president, managed several times to ruffle feathers in the White House - both with her new clothing brand, that Biden administration lawyers told her came too close to profiting from her aunt, and with an ill-advised tweet about a mass shooting. 


One cannot advocate for racial equality, LGBT & women's rights, condemn corrupt and abusive regimes and other injustices yet choose to ignore the Palestinian oppression,' she posted.'It does not add up. You cannot pick and choose whose human rights matter more.

 

 

The post had previously been shared by Palestinian-Dutch model Gigi Hadid, among others.  

Harris commented alongside the post: 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah.'

 

 

Harris's activism did not sit well with many.

It ignored the fact that Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian rulers of Gaza, maintain a law criminalizing homosexuality - a crime which is punishable by 10 years in prison.

In the West Bank, which is ruled by Fatah, a rival, secular opposition to Hamas, being gay is not a crime, but it is widely disapproved of.

 

 

Parliamentary and presidential elections - the first since 2006 - were scheduled to take place in May and July, but in April were postponed indefinitely by Mahmoud Abbas, the 85-year-old Palestinian leader.

Amnesty International has accused the Palestinian rules of attempting to 'crack down on dissent', accusing them in their most recent report, out in May last year, of 'stifling freedoms of expression and assembly, attacking journalists and detaining opponents.'

Amnesty wrote: 'Security forces in both areas used unnecessary and/or excessive force during law enforcement activities, including when imposing lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

'Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were committed with impunity. 

'Women faced discrimination and violence, including killings as a result of gender-based violence. 

 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people continued to face discrimination and lacked protection.

 

 

Harris turned off comments on her post, in anticipation of criticism.

One woman remarked: 'What's hilarious cause it's so dumb is @Meena Harris posting about their support for "the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah" and turning off the comments under her photo/post. 

'What are you afraid of, people? The same with Gal Gadot. What R U afraid of people saying, things?' 

Harris appears to be reveling in her new-found fame, appearing on The View and the Today show, and profiled this year in Vanity Fair and by The New York Times. 

In mid February she was asked by White House lawyers to stop using her aunt to boost her new clothing brand.  

After the election, White House lawyers told her she could not produce any products that used the vice president's name or likeness, a White House official reportedly told The Los Angeles Times.

She also embarrassed her aunt by tweeting after the Boulder, Colorado supermarket shooting in March that 'violent white men' are the 'greatest terrorist threat' to the U.S. 

After police revealed that the gunman was of Syrian descent, Meena deleted the tweet explaining that she had assumed the perpetrator was white since he was 'taken into custody alive' and that a majority of mass shootings in the country are 'carried out by white men'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9573673/Harriss-niece-urges-fight-against-Palestinian-oppression-despite-gays-Gaza-imprisoned.html

 


 

at

How The New York Times Manufactures Lies For Democrats To Attack Their Opponents

These kinds of things aren't one-offs, 
they're how corporate media 
and the Democratic Party work in 
tandem to defeat their conservative opponents.



Glenn Youngkin pulled ahead of his competitors, winning a surprise victory in the Virginia Republican primary Monday night. Within moments, Terry McAuliffe, the former governor and the strong favorite to win the 2021 Democratic nomination, attacked. On economic, immigration, taxation, or infrastructure plans? Nope: McAuliffe called Youngkin a “Big Lie believing” election conspiracy theorist.


He’d used the attack before, when in February Youngkin rolled out his proposed Election Integrity Task Force. Of course, “conspiracy theorist” is not an unusual attack to see in politics, and especially since Sen. Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful 1964 run for president, it’s been a favorite for Democrats to use against Republicans.

While during the Clinton White House years broad accusations of “the vast right-wing conspiracy” were sufficient to help dull Republican attacks on the president, more substantive and specific attacks are always more effective. Typically, that job falls to opposition research firms paid by the candidates and their parties to dig up dirt on their opponents, but sometimes you don’t need those as much, for example: when you have The New York Times on your side.

Enter the Times: At Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial debate on April 27, the moderator opened with a question that had been submitted by the Republican Women of Greater Richmond. “Please explain in detail your plan to ensure we have election integrity in Virginia,” the moderator read, “and in particular, if Dominion voting systems and machines are used on Nov. 3, 2021, will you immediately pursue an independent audit of the results when you are sworn in as governor?”

The question referred to nationally recognized — and angrily contested — questions on the integrity of 2020 election in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, specifically referencing accusations of rigged Dominion voting machines, which were never proven true. As any practiced politician or debater knows, however, the specifics of the question matters less than the answer given. 

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most important issue we’re going to talk about right now,” Youngkin, the second candidate to speak, began.

It’s the first issue we talked about in our candidacy. Our Election Integrity Taskforce was launched week one. This is not a Republican issue. it’s not a Democrat issue. Now remember: Hillary Clinton complained like crazy ‘they stole the election from me.’ Folks, this is a democracy issue, and we launched right out of the box five steps to restore our trust in our election process.

Number one, our Department of Elections will be made independent and transparent. Number two, the voter rolls will be updated every 30 days and if you’ve sadly died or moved away, guess what, you’re not allowed to vote.

You will have actually have to show up at every election with a Commonwealth of Virginia photo ID. This is not a controversial — you need one to get a library card in Virginia.

If you need a mail-in ballot, you’ll fill out your application and prove you’re a citizen and there will be two signatures when you send it back in. And finally, those voting machines will indeed be tested before and audited within 30 days and it will be made public so everybody will know that this election was fair.

New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was watching, and live-tweeted the evening’s back-and forths, including Youngkin’s answer, writing:

The problem with this characterization is while the Republican Women of Greater Virginia cited Dominion voting machines in their question, and some of the candidates referenced Dominion in their answers, Youngkin did not, choosing instead to focus on broader election integrity issues and reforms that aren’t unlike what a number of states have worked to implement over the past 20 years. That kind of answer — one that tackles some of the issues while ignoring others — doesn’t flow naturally; it’s thought-out and it’s intentional. 

While the Republican group writing the question had focused on Dominion, worries about voting machine integrity are as old as their introduction, have been asked by both major parties and outside observers, and are important.

But that kind of essential nuance didn’t bother Gabriel, and his mischaracterization was immediately echoed by BlueVirginia.us, a blog run by progressive Virginian Democrats and founded by a professional Democratic consultant. “Excellent job by NY Times reporter Trip Gabriel,” the post began.

Ten days later, Gabriel followed up on his tweets with an article introducing his take on the Virginian Republican candidates for the Times’ loyal readers.

“One candidate brands himself a ‘conservative outlaw,'” Gabriel began the piece, titled “Virginia G.O.P.’s Choices for Governor: ‘Trumpy, Trumpier, Trumpiest.'” 

Youngkin, it continued, “asked about Dominion voting machines — the subject of egregious conspiracy theories on the right — called them ‘the most important issue’ of the campaign.”

And he wasn’t finished. Days later, when Youngkin won the nomination, Gabriel inserted his Dominion claim — accented with a completely editorialized accusation that the candidate’s election integrity plan means he “aligned himself with… lies” — into his story on the victory.

At the recent candidates’ forum, Mr. Youngkin aligned himself with Mr. Trump’s lies about a rigged 2020 election, declaring ‘voter integrity’ a top issue and referring to Dominion voting machines — the subject of conspiracy theories on the far right — as ‘the most important issue’ of the campaign.

… Although Mr. Youngkin is expected to pivot to reach independent voters, Democrats are sure to remind them in the fall of his most Trumpy declarations from the nominating race

It’s the kind of editorializing that might make sense for the bloggers at BlueVirginia.us, or that the candidates and surrogates of the Democratic Party will try to stick to Youngkin, but in an ethical media world the claim — particularly that Youngkin was “referring to Dominion voting machines” — would earn a newspaper a strong fact-check.

As if. Don’t expect one of those, of course: Facebook and its allies strongly discourage center-right fact-checkers from going after left-wing claims no matter how misleading, and left-wing outlets very rarely go after their friends on the things that actually matter.

In a complete perversion of what would happen in an ethical media world, rather than a fact-check on Gabriel, Youngkin might expect the Times article to be used in some of the cheaper checks that will be deployed against him when he works to push back against the barbs McAuliffe flings on the trail.

It’s the kind of thing Republicans have to deal with every step of the way too, from Kristi Noem and the massive deadly factory outbreak that never happened to Ron DeSantis and the vaccine corruption that also never happened.

This reality isn’t going anywhere, but it’s always good to take a peek at the reporters behind the curtain. These kinds of things aren’t one-offs, they’re how corporate media and the Democratic Party work in tandem to defeat their conservative opponents; seeing how it’s done is just the first step to fighting back.


at