Saturday, June 26, 2021

About the Grandmother Forced to "Confess" to Her Wrong-Think at Her Sentencing for Jan 6 Protest


posted by Shipwreckedcrew at RedState 

Running the risk again of ending up walking into a dark tunnel with a small light seemingly headed my direction, I’m not quite on board with the sentiment about that poor “Grandmother from Indiana” woman caught up in the criminal justice system — all she wanted to do was support President Trump — and what she got for her trouble was a three-year sentence of probation and a forced admission that she had spent time reading and contemplating the errors of her thinking pre-January 6.

I wrote about the sentencing of Anna Morgan-Lloyd by federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth in this earlier story.

When I did so, I left out the part of the quoted article that set forth her words in a letter she wrote to the Judge prior to the sentencing hearing.  What she said in this part of her letter now has the center-right media in a bit of an uproar.  Here is the fuller section of the Associated Press story that covered her sentencing hearing:

In a letter to the judge asking for leniency, Lloyd wrote that she was a registered Democrat but that she and her husband began supporting Trump in 2016 because “he was standing up for what we believe in.”

After her arrest, Lloyd’s lawyer gave her a list of books and movies to help her “see what life is like for others in our country,” Lloyd wrote. Lloyd said she has sought to educate herself by watching movies such as “Schindler’s List” and the History Channel’s “Burning Tulsa” and reading Bryan Stevenson’s “Just Mercy.”

“I’ve lived a sheltered life and truly haven’t experienced life the way many have,” Lloyd wrote. “I’ve learned that even though we live in a wonderful country things still need to improve. People of all colors should feel as safe as I do to walk down the street.”

Nothing in that statement suggests the Government or Court had anything to do with her “re-education.”

She’s from Indiana, a very Red state, yet she’s a lifelong Democrat.  I suspect she voted for Barack Obama twice.

President Trump’s campaign rhetoric in the 2016 election cycle appealed to a significant number of registered Democrats who became disenchanted during the Obama years.

But she spent her adulthood as a supporter of the policies of the Democrat Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama even if she made the decision to vote for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton and/or Joe Biden.

I have looked (briefly) online to see if I could find the name of her defense attorney but had no luck.

I suspect with a high level of confidence that the urging of Morgan-Lloyd to read these books and make the comments she made to the court in her letter are a function of her defense attorney’s strategy to make sure she received a sentence of only probation and no jail time.

This is Washington DC.  The attorneys who regularly handle federal criminal defense cases in that Court are not a “Who’s Who” of staunch legal conservatives who are going to urge their clients to “fight the good fight” and continue to advocate for the message of President Trump. This cadre of attorneys are going to be overwhelmingly liberal, and their tactic to gain favorable treatment for their clients — which is their job — is going to be to minimize their criminal responsibility by suggesting they are a bunch of rubes and dopes who were taken advantage of by others and bamboozled into acting out their assigned roles in someone else’s January 6 political freak show on Capitol Hill.

The defense attorneys, with a handful of exceptions (winking at you MM), are going to denounce the actions of the mob on January 6, but then try to isolate their individual clients from major responsibility.

Expressions of contrition, regret, and remorse for one’s criminal deeds, combined with the dawn of new enlightenment and a pledge to never offend again, are all “stock-in-trade” of a criminal defense attorney trying to persuade a sentencing judge to impose the shortest possible sentence.

Under federal sentencing law, a defendant must “accept responsibility” after a guilty plea.  The worst thing a defendant can do is plead guilty, and to express to the Court that the plea was a matter of convenience and that the defendant doesn’t really regret the criminal misconduct just admitted to.

I understand the center-right media narrative about her “re-education” that has popped up after Morgan-Lloyd’s words got some airtime.  But it is a misleading narrative about her that is no less “false” than the media narratives run by the dominant media to pursue President Trump for four years

This kind of “I’m so sorry, I’ve learned my lesson, and I promise to never do anything to land myself back in front of you, Judge, so help me God” is standard procedure for a criminal defendant and her lawyer.  There was nothing shocking about Anna Morgan Lloyd making comments like that as part of the effort to achieve exactly what she achieved — a sentence with no jail time.



New York Prosecutors Announce Possible Charges Against 'Trump' (but not really)


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

The left never quits, and that theme has been bolstered by the machinations going on in New York against Donald Trump and his organization. In what has been a clear fishing expedition from the beginning, the state’s attorney general and the Manhattan DA have joined forces to attempt to criminally charge, well, someone for something.

As RedState reported previously, it was announced that the investigation had moved into the criminal realm, culminating in the convening of a grand jury. Where that would lead was anyone’s guess at the time.

Now, we may have some idea. The Manhattan DA has informed Trump’s lawyers that they might charge the Trump organization over so-called “fringe benefits” given to an executive. In this case, while it is “Trump” being targeted in the sense that it’s his organization, it wouldn’t be him directly being charged in court.

Bless the Times’ heart because they really tried to make this seem like a bombshell in their tweet, but when you dig into the article, it appears to be anything but. In fact, it appears to be more proof that this entire investigation is a complete farce.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has informed Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that it is considering criminal charges against his family business, the Trump Organization, in connection with fringe benefits the company awarded a top executive, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

The prosecutors had been building a case for months against the executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, as part of an effort to pressure him to cooperate with a broader inquiry into Mr. Trump’s business dealings. But it was not previously known that the Trump Organization also might face charges…

…“In my more than 50 years of practice, never before have I seen a district attorney’s office target a company over employee compensation or fringe benefits,” said Ronald P. Fischetti, a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump. “It’s ridiculous and outrageous.”

Several lawyers who specialize in tax rules have told The New York Times that it would be highly unusual to indict a company just for failing to pay taxes on fringe benefits. None of them could cite any recent example, noting that many companies provide their employees with benefits like company cars.

What prosecutor criminally charges a company over “fringe benefits” possibly not being recorded properly? Wouldn’t the normal remedy be to just audit them and send a bill? After all this consternation, this is what these rabid partisans masquerading as law enforcement officials came up with? The entire thing seems desperate in the same way some of Robert Mueller’s indictments seemed desperate as if they were designed to justify the investigation more than reach any real crescendo.

Now, there’s always the possibility that this is just the first, small shoe to drop. I’m skeptical, though. If they had the goods on Trump personally, I believe they’d lead with that. Rather, this seems like the first volley in a series of marginal, questionable charges to make it seem like they are drawing more blood than they are, and that’s if they even follow through here.

Given that Trump wasn’t doing his own taxes, even if something got missed, it seems unlikely to me that they’ll ever be able to directly charge him with anything. I assume they’d need evidence of a direct command from Trump to underlings to commit tax fraud, and just like with the “quid pro quo” hysteria of the first impeachment, I do not think that exists. Trump is not the kind of guy who was going to be in the nitty-gritty of tax prep for his company. And again, that’s assuming there’s even wrongdoing of some kind present, of which we haven’t seen any evidence of yet (and may never). 

That our justice system has been turned into this kind of political farce is not good for the country. AG Letitia James literally ran on getting Trump. The Manhattan DA, Vance, has always presented himself as a rabid partisan. This is not how things are supposed to work, but until the American people get serious about fixing this stuff at the ballot box, it’s what we have to deal with.



LAX: Man jumps from plane after trying to access cockpit

 

A man has jumped from a moving plane at Los Angeles International Airport after attempting to access the jet's cockpit.

The man, who was not identified, opened the plane's door and fled via the emergency slide on Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

He was detained on the taxiway and taken to hospital with unspecified injuries.

There has been a rise in incidents on flights in the US. About 3,000 incidents have been recorded this year.

Friday's incident occurred at 19.10 local time (02:10 GMT Saturday) aboard a United Express flight, operated by SkyWest Airlines, to Salt Lake City.

Flight crew reported seeing the passenger getting up from his seat as the plane taxied towards the runway. They said he had pounded on the cockpit door before exiting the plane through the emergency door, NBC News reports.

The plane, an Embraer 175 regional jet, later returned to its gate.

Authorities have launched an investigation into the incident and the passenger's motives

 

 

 

Earlier this month the FAA said it had investigated the highest number of potential breaches of the law since records began in 1995. Many of those are in relation to incidents where people have refused to wear a mask.

The agency said some 394 cases of passengers allegedly "interfering with the duties of a crew member" had been reported as of 25 May.

Helicopter carrying Colombia’s President Duque struck by bullets in attack

 

June 26, 2021

BOGOTA (Reuters) – A helicopter carrying Colombia’s President Ivan Duque and others was struck by multiple bullets in an attack on Friday, he said in a video message.

The incident took place while the president’s helicopter was flying through Colombia’s Catatumbo region toward the city of Cucuta, capital of the country’s Norte de Santander province, Duque said.

“What’s clear is that this is a cowardly attack where bullet holes can be seen in the presidential aircraft,” Duque said.

As well as Duque, the helicopter was carrying other officials including Defense Minister Diego Molano, Interior Minister Daniel Palacios, and governor of Norte de Santander Silvano Serrano.

No one was injured in the incident, a spokesman for the presidency said.

Security personnel have been given clear instructions to find those behind the attack on the helicopter, the president added.

The troubled Catatumbo region, on Colombia’s border with Venezuela, is home to extensive coca crops, the chief ingredient of cocaine. It is where guerrillas of the leftist National Liberation Army (ELN) operate, former FARC fighters who reject a 2016 peace deal with the government, along with armed criminal groups involved in drug trafficking.

This month a car bomb was detonated at a military base used by the 30th Army Brigade in Cucuta, injuring Colombian troops and U.S. military advisers.

While Molano said the attack could have been carried out by the ELN, the rebel group said it denied having any role in the bombing.

 

 


 

 

 


https://www.oann.com/helicopter-carrying-colombias-president-duque-struck-by-bullets-in-attack/

Gelding the Left’s Trojan Horse

Given the enraged reaction from the Left regarding the pushback 
on “critical race theory,” things are looking a bit brighter 
for truth, justice, and the American way.


Across the Left, rage and panic reign. America has seen the Marxist and racist dogma undergirding “critical race theory” and, indeed, the entire falsely labeled “anti-racist” cult. And a revulsed America rejects it.

Having pinned their hopes and put so much time, energy, and money into weaponizing race to attain their socialist aims, the Left cannot abide this rejection. Long years of failing to advance socialism led the Left to tone down its “class warfare” rhetoric—a hard sell in the most affluent nation on earth that has spent trillions in a “War on Poverty” and a social safety net for its less fortunate citizens. Instead, the Left decided to leverage the inherent decency of Americans (who have made enormous and ongoing strides to create a more equitable country) by replacing class with race.

The Marxist/Maoist roots of this pernicious doctrine are manifest: critical race theory is communist race theory. The Left has created a Trojan horse: the outward appeal to people’s sense of decency regarding race is a covert effort to subjugate Americans beneath the socialist agenda.

While burrowing its way through bureaucracies both governmental and corporate, the Left concealed the moral odiousness and pernicious consequences of is project, which succeeded as long as the vast majority of the American people were not directly impacted by it. But during the pandemic and its aftermath the Left, sure to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” pushed its Trojan horse further into American public life. This overreach allowed daylight to shine upon their duplicitous “gift,” giving Americans the chance to peer between its decrepit, virtue-signaling planks. As a result, across the nation citizens once again are rejecting the Left’s socialist (and now racist) doctrine—which, by the way, salts America’s wounds by using their tax and consumer dollars to promote it.

Hence, the radical indoctrinators in government, the media, Big Tech, and corporations are back-pedaling, denying, gaslighting, and flat-out lying to perpetuate their “systemic racism” conspiracy theory. What else would one expect from the Left, which has even gone to the lengths of having the dictionary alter the meaning of the word racism, just to hide the reality of its own racism? (Note: it is the responsibility of a dictionary to report on the meanings of words based upon how the public uses them. It is not the role of the dictionary to arbitrarily redefine what the meanings of words should be or when it is appropriate to use said words.)

Epitomizing the racist, Stalinist Left’s anger at being unmasked is this segment from MSNBC. In it and after it, Christopher Rufo, a leader in helping to geld the Left’s racist Trojan horse, put the lie to the host’s rant. Thankfully, it is a scene being replayed throughout America, from dinner tables to school boards, and from county seats and state capitols to the halls of Congress. 

And make no mistake: it is an essential struggle. The vehemence of the Left’s defense of the indefensible reveals they have no Plan B. Either the citizenry will submit to the big lie that our nation is systemically racist, only to discover when it is too late the hidden agenda of socialism. Or the citizenry will geld the Left’s racist Trojan horse once and for all, allowing liberty, equality, and comity to return.

Given the enraged reaction from the Left regarding the pushback on “critical race theory,” things are looking a bit brighter for truth, justice, and the American way.


Ron DeSantis Gets Labeled 'Worse Than Trump'


 Jeff Charles reporting for RedState

Thursday, alleged comedienne and noted political scholar Samantha Bee blessed the world with her razor-sharp analysis about former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. In a Twitter rant of Olbermann-like proportions, she frantically tweeted about a recent straw poll in which the governor edged out Trump as Republican voters’ choice for the 2024 presidential nomination.

“But before you celebrate Republicans turning away from Trump, take a look at all the ways Ron DeSantis could be…so much worse!” Bee wrote in a tweet that included a video of her playing a failed comic as she went on a tirade about DeSantis. Predictably, other leftists also chimed in, echoing Bee’s sentiments.

But here’s the question: Are they right? In a word, yes.

Allow me to explain. The Democrats know they are in trouble. Their chances of holding both chambers of Congress in 2022 are almost nil. If President Joe Biden continues to ruin everything he touches, the left will be in for a rude awakening come 2024.

Trump has not yet indicated whether he will run or continue in his newfound role as kingmaker. But if he decides not to take another shot at the Oval Office, DeSantis, so far, is the clear frontrunner, which should make Democrats as frightened as Sheldon Whitehouse driving through Atlanta.

Here’s the thing, Gov. DeSantis is not the squishy establishment Republican type that has been thoroughly rejected by the conservative base. Unlike the Mitt Romneys, John McCains, and Cheneys, he is not willing to let himself be pushed around by the activist media and Democratic politicians.

Similar to Trump, DeSantis has a refreshingly pugnacious attitude when it comes to politics. Indeed, one of the traits that the former president possessed that endeared him to the base while simultaneously driving the left batty was his willingness to get in the dirt and brawl with his political opposition.

However, DeSantis’ strengths seem to lie more in what he doesn’t do than what he does do. Regardless of how one feels about Trump, they have to admit that while he was a proficient political pugilist, he often gave the left ammo with his ill-advised Twitter feuds and odd comments. This is not behavior that DeSantis has exhibited.

To put it simply, DeSantis has all of Trump’s strengths and none of his weaknesses. He won’t be as easy a target for the activist media. Indeed, the governor has not hesitated to verbally savage them when they concoct lies about him.

Remember that kerfuffle with CBS’ “60 Minutes” in which they aired a blatantly dishonest piece about DeSantis? The governor took every opportunity to pulverize them in the media and during press conferences.

Moreover, DeSantis has a distinctly America First approach to governance. His platform closely resembles that of Trump’s, which has already ingratiated him with the base.

So yes, from the left’s point of view, DeSantis is worse than former President Trump. Why? Because they believe he poses a more dire threat. And they are probably right.



After A Judge’s Dismissal And A Damning Report, BLM May Have To Admit What Really Happened In Lafayette Park

Black Lives Matter must reframe their case, acknowledging the falsity of their initial allegations, or risk sanctions for alleging facts without evidentiary support.



A federal judge on Monday dismissed all but two of the claims Black Lives Matter and several individual demonstrators brought against Donald Trump, William Barr, and others in the sprawling lawsuit filed after the clearing of Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020.

Bigger than this legal defeat, however, was the report from the inspector general of the Department of the Interior disproving many of the substantive allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint — all of which the court had accepted as true in its 50-page opinion. 

Attorneys for BLM and the demonstrators now face the unpleasant choice of reframing their case, and thus acknowledging the falsity of their initial allegations, or risking sanctions for alleging facts without evidentiary support.

Court Assumed BLM Complaints Were True

In an opinion issued earlier this week, Judge Dabney Friedrich analyzed the claims Black Lives Matter and several individual plaintiffs brought against a bevy of defendants, including former President Trump, former Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Park Police, the D.C. National Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Arlington County Police Department, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, as well as individual officers working for the various agencies.

Before delving into the various constitutional and statutory claims, Friedrich made clear he “must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint” at this stage of the litigation. This governing standard created an interesting dynamic because the complaints (which were amended three times before the court addressed the defendants’ motions to dismiss) and the corresponding oral argument predated the report from the inspector general. Released earlier this month, that report undermined the prevailing narratives about the clearing of Lafayette Park.

So, in deciding the defendants’ motions to dismiss — a procedure used to quickly toss out a case because the alleged facts fail to support a legal claim — the court cited the falsehoods or half-truths of the complaint. “Peaceful protesters assembled in historic Lafayette Park across from the White House,” the court quoted, when “officials, wielding batons, sprayed the crowd with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, smoke bombs, and rubber bullets.” 

According to the complaint, law enforcement did this “to clear the area to permit the President to walk to a photo opportunity at a nearby church.” The plaintiffs further alleged (and the opinion recounted) “the Department of Justice has officially acknowledged that Defendant Barr ordered Lafayette Square cleared minutes before the assault started.” Some of the plaintiffs alleged — in addition to Arlington County Police Department officers, Secret Service agents, and Park Police — officers from D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had assisted in the clearing of Lafayette Square.

Claims Contradicted by Inspector General’s Report

During oral argument last month, the plaintiffs’ lawyers hammered these same points, with attorney Randy Mastro proclaiming “Attorney General Barr incredibly shows up himself to survey the scene, looks at the assembled crowd, and then gives the order, ‘Clear the park.’”

“Several minutes later,” according to Mastro, “law enforcement advanced on the peaceful protesters, spraying them with tear gas, pelleting them with rubber bullets, dropping smoke bombs and incendiary grenades, and using their shields and batons like weapons.” He further stressed this was all so “the president could cross a cleared path to do a photo op in front of a church.”

The American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing BLM, Scott Michelman, also pushed many of these allegations, and even brought up newspaper articles to support them. “These articles,” Michelman explained to the court, “are only in here to establish that as unbelievable as these events are to most of us and as shocked as we were to learn about them, they are corroborated not only by the eyewitness accounts that we give in the complaint but also by other news articles to show the court that we’re not making these things up.” 

What articles exactly did Michelman cite in the complaint? Among others, they included the Washington Post’s “Inside the Push to Teargas Protesters Ahead of a Trump Photo Op,” and a Reuters YouTube video entitled “Peaceful Protesters Fired at with Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets by U.S. Military Police.


But the inspector general’s report, released just more than a week after the court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss, disproved many of the plaintiffs’ allegations. For instance, the report refuted the spin that the protests were peaceful, noting the two days prior saw 49 Park Service officers injured and federal and private property vandalized.

More significantly, the inspector general concluded the Park Police “cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers” that had occurred the days before. It was not cleared “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

Further, the Metropolitan Police had not participated in the clearing of Lafayette Square. However, it appears to be the only law enforcement entity that used CS gas (known colloquially as tear gas) on protesters outside of the park.

Most of BLM’s Claims Dismissed

In Monday’s opinion, while the district court noted there is “some dispute about whether the D.C. defendants were personally involved in clearing Lafayette Square,” the judge made no mention of the inspector general’s report nor its findings that the park was not cleared for a photo op. But even accepting the plaintiffs’ numerous allegations (many of which the report contradicted), the court nonetheless dismissed all but two of the claims.

Of the two claims that weren’t dismissed, the court first held the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently stated First Amendment claims against the D.C. and Arlington County law enforcement officers. According to the complaints, those officials used force to disperse “a crowd of peaceful protestors who were exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Second, the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim against the federal government, seeking injunctive relief, survived because it “challenged the continued restrictions on access to Lafayette Square.” Significantly, though, it is the Biden administration that must answer for these purported infringements on the plaintiffs’ free speech rights.

In litigating these remaining claims, the plaintiffs must now decide how to handle the inspector general’s report, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11 provides that a lawyer, when “signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating,” a position, is certifying “to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief … the factual contentions have evidentiary support or … will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

Given the inspector general’s investigation and report, a lawyer would be hard-pressed to keep arguing many of the complaint’s original allegations. Should the plaintiffs’ attorneys do so, they could be subject to sanctions. But pivoting from the “Trump tear-gassed protesters for a photo op” angle will prove challenging — the corrupt media couldn’t bring themselves to do so.

Will Black Lives Matter be able to? We should know soon when the group responds to the court’s Monday ruling.


Is Your Teenager Secretly A Libertarian? 9 Warning Signs To Look For



It's every parent's worst nightmare: your kid comes out as a libertarian. Don't worry -- we can help you nip it in the bud. You should be closely involved in your teen's life to make sure he doesn't suddenly start believing in freedom and personal responsibility. Make sure to constantly check for these 9 warning signs:

1. You walk into his room late at night and he frantically tries to hide the video he's watching: Ron Paul's Liberty Report. - Caught red-handed.

2. He asks for his allowance in Bitcoin. - Dogecoin can also be a red flag.

3. He screams, "AM I BEING DETAINED!?" when you ask him to come downstairs for dinner. - Also during detention, when you make him go to the grocery store with you, and pretty much anytime anyone asks him to do anything.

4. You check under his mattress and sure enough, he's been hiding the worst thing imaginable: a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. - Talk to your kids about Sowell before it's too late.

5. While his schoolmates are shooting each other in Call of Duty, he's plinking targets from 150 yards with his AR-15 - He's only interested in the real thing.

6. You catch him texting girls "Taxation is theft." - Always check your kids' electronic devices so you can be alerted to these telltale signs of libertarianism.

7. He plays Grand Theft Auto but spends the whole time ranting about police violence against him for flying a military helicopter around Los Santos. - "I thought this was AMERICA."

8. You get a call from school that he got thrown out of economics class again for arguing with his teacher about the unsustainability of the U.S. Dollar and the failure of Keynesian economics. - Trouble at school might mean he's been radicalized by the Austrian school of economics. Not good!

9. He has no friends. - This is perhaps the surest sign of all.


Maoist thought reform imposed on first January 6 defendant to be sentenced

 


Forced readings of Mao-Tse-Tung's "Little Red Book" by those of the "Cultural Revolution"

 

Article by Thomas Lifson in The American Thinker


Maoist thought reform imposed on first January 6 defendant to be sentenced

Anna Morgan-Lloyd, the 49-year-old grandmother from Indiana who strolled into the US Capitol and spent several minutes peacefully walking around, got the same message that was delivered to Chinese dissidents and “bad elements” during Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: confess to thought crimes, embrace the state-sanctioned ideology, and you will be shown mercy. In the case of Morgan-Lloyd, the message was delivered to her by her own defense lawyer, a public defender paid by taxpayers.  And it worked. She received three years’ probation, a $500 fine, and no incarceration beyond the two days she had spent in jail following her arrest.

Julie Kelley describes at American Greatness the imposition of an ideological test on a defendant whose own lawyer was in on the brainwashing initiative:

My lawyer has given me names of books and movies to help me see what life is like for others in our country. I’ve learned that even though we live in a wonderful country things still need to improve. People of all colors should feel as safe as I do to walk down the street.”

That passage is part book report, part white privilege mea culpa submitted to a federal court this month by Anna Morgan-Lloyd, one of the more than 500 Americans arrested for her involvement in the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6

Her lawyer, Heather Shaner, also represents other 1/621 defendants, and apparently is recommending the thought reform confessions to toher clients:

In an interview with Huffington Post, Shaner explained her belief that “this is the most wonderful country in the world, it’s been great for all kinds of immigrant groups, except for the fact that it was born of genocide of the Native Americans and the enslavement of people.” 

Sure sounds like critical race theory to me.

“I have had many political and ethical discussions with Anna Lloyd,” Shaner wrote in her motion agreeing to the plea and probation for Lloyd. “I tendered a booklist to her. She has read Bury My Heart at Wounded KneeJust Mercy, and Schindler’s List to educate herself about ‘government policy’ toward Native Americans, African Americans and European Jews. We have discussed the books and also about the responsibility of an individual when confronting ‘wrong.’”

Shaner also told the court that Lloyd watched the “Burning Tulsa” documentary on the History Channel as well as “Mudbound,” a story of two families, one black and one white, living on the same property after World War II.

Just affirm that this is an awful, racist country and that you are the beneficiary of white privilege, and you can escape lengthy imprisonment for “parading” in the Capitol. While others at other times have invaded and disrupted hearings, and wreaked far more havoc (The Kavanaugh hearings, for example) with little or no punishment at all, and certainly no requirements for thought reform

This moment is straight out of a struggle session in China during the Cultural Revolution (which closed schools tore down statues – sound familiar?):

During her sentencing hearing on Wednesday, Lloyd broke down while apologizing for her actions. “I apologize to the court, to the American people, to my family,” she told Lamberth. “I was there to support Trump peacefully and am ashamed that it became a savage display of violence.” She said she’s never experienced racial negativity but “realizes many people do.” She was not charged with any racially motivated crime.

“Savage display of violence”? Yeah, there were some people who broke windows and forced their way into the Capitol, and that is very, very bad, deserving prison time. But the only person against whom violence was perpetrated was demonstrator Ashlii Babbitt, and the cop who shot her dead is being protected, his or her name kept from the public. For violence to be “savage,” don’t living people need to be harmed?

Back during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the required reading list was much shorter: Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/maoist_thought_reform_imposed_on_first_january_6_defendant_to_be_sentenced.html






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


America’s Top General Read Marx, but Doesn't Understand How It’s Destroying America


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says he is interested in theory. This past week he defended teaching critical race theory in U.S. military academies because he thinks our troops should understand “white rage.” He said that he himself wants to understand why the American families who send their children to serve under him are angry. And so he believes that it’s a good thing to read books by authors like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi that call white Americans racist. He says it’s good for the military and the country, but in fact it’s just good for Mark Milley and the rest of the senior officer class that is making its retirement plans.

Milley told the committee that he’d read Marx, too, but that doesn’t make him a communist. He’s right, but it signals his ambition clearly. Outside of the faculty lounges of American universities, no one reads Marx because Marx is unreadable. You could fit everyone who has read all three volumes of Marx’s masterwork, “Capital,” into a small prison cell.

Milley said he reads to understand what other people think, but people who boast of having read Marx are trying to shape what other people think about them. He is addressing the kind of people who think reading Marx is part of the foundation of a well-rounded education. In America, these are the men and women of the establishment left who not coincidentally sit on the boards of big corporations and decide who gets to earn a million-dollar paycheck simply by occupying the board seat next to them. Saying you’ve read Marx shows that you’re ok, even if you’ve spent your career with an American flag on your shoulder.

Milley said he reads to understand what motivates people. But no one in the communist world, neither its politburos nor its proletariats, have ever been motivated by Marx, regardless of what they’ve written in their memoirs or on the walls of their prison cells.

Understanding Marxist doctrine was no help explaining the actions of Soviet leaders during the Cold War. The U.S. intellectual class said it was important to figure it out because they wanted to be paid by the federal government to read and write so they said they were on the front lines in the War of Ideas.

Had the Cold War really come down to a War of Ideas, America would have lost. For all the social realist garbage that communism produced—as intellectually vapid and morally vulgar as DiAngelo and Kendi and other work prized by the class Milley seeks to impress—the Soviets also promoted great art, like Russia’s great ballet troupes and filmmakers like Andrei Tarkovsky.

Even in the West most of the top writers and thinkers of the time enlisted on the other side. For instance, Jean Paul-Sartre, one of the most celebrated intellectuals of the twentieth century, endorsed communism, revolutionary violence, and for a time Josef Stalin.

Sartre mocked the Midwestern farm-boys who manned the Fulda Gap to protect him and his friends in the cafes of Paris, but America still won the Cold War because it had nothing to do with the War of Ideas. Rather, it was because the families of those boys stationed in Europe constituted the core of the middle class, which has always been the engine of productive economies. The Soviets lost because as with all communist regimes it had looted the wealth that its middle class created.

In short, those who read Marx are among those least informed about the nature of communism. On the other hand, Americans who have suffered the depredations of the elites that Milley is courting have a better grasp of communism than any university professor. Indeed, what we have learned about communism the last several years requires us to re-interpret the historical account.

Communism has nothing to do with ideology. Ideology (lifting the masses out of poverty, making all people equal, etc.) is just cover for class war. But the class war is not, as Marxists describe it, between the proletarian masses and the bourgeoisie. Rather, the proletariat is simply the instrument that the oligarchic elite—known in the Soviet Union, for instance, as the nomenklatura—uses to keep the middle classes at bay while they steal their wealth.

After watching the serial operations to destroy the leadership of the America First movement—from Russiagate through the second impeachment of Donald Trump—the COVID-19 lockdowns, the George Floyd riots, and now the effort to categorize Trump voters as domestic terrorists, we do not need a theory to understand the nature of what has historically been called “communism” to obscure the fact it is nothing but the power-grab of an oligarchic elite. We are living it.

Nor does Gen. Milley need critical race theory to understand why the middle-class Americans who send their children to serve under him are mad at the elites he flatters by promoting their ideas. He’s just not asking the right questions, which are these:

Why are they mad we exported their jobs to China? Why are they mad we send their children to kill and die in strategically pointless foreign wars that advance only our interests? Why are they angry we denigrate their symbols and their monuments, their heroes, and their history? Why are they mad we destroyed their businesses and kept their children from going to school? Why are they mad we didn’t let them visit their loved ones in nursing homes and hospitals as they lay dying? Why are they mad we tell them they are racist, and their country will be remade in the image of those we encourage to cross our borders illegally, and the criminals we send to the streets to kill them? Why are they mad when we tell them that there is no place for them in the new country until they confess to the evil they have done?


What will become of the useful idiots?

 


Because those who only sought revenge against Trump and his band of "deplorables" had to become anti-American, and that has always wound up badly for those who do. 

 

Article by Liam Brooks in The American Thinker


What will become of the useful idiots?

As the Marxist revolution oozes forward, I occasionally wonder what will happen to the useful idiots when the commies seize absolute power in this once great Republic. I believe that most AT readers are familiar with the term, but for those who need a brief refresher, a useful idiot, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders." In my opinion, this definition can be applied to a majority of the young, brainwashed radicals who have no idea about the true history of Marxism...or the real history of their native land that they're working so hard to destroy.

We're all aware of the current props being used by the radical left to further their cause — LGBT issues, racism, feminism, slavery, etc. — but how will some of those props fare under a Marxist regime?  It's difficult to research racial politics in China and Russia, because no nation — especially communist countries — has nearly as much racial and ethnic diversity as the United States.  But the fate of the LGBT community and feminism is another matter.  While several websites make vague and inconclusive references to gay and transgender rights in China and Russia, it appears that feminism and homosexuality — and certainly transgenderism — are simply not tolerated. 

A look at history supports that conclusion.  In an illuminating article on Frontpagemag, the always incisive Daniel Greenfield (highly recommended...a must read!) s on this subject. 

After a brief permissive period, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality and insisted on traditional marriages and roles for women. ... Those feminists who resisted were soon shown their place with one of the more notorious free love figures being forcibly married off by Lenin.

And how will the myriad of social justice warriors fit in with the new Marxist ruling class?

The social activism is window dressing.  A proper Marxist regime has little use for militant minorities, feminism, gay rights, police defunding, transgender bathrooms, pipeline protests, abortion, or any of the other issues the radicals have been using to waste our time.  If you doubt that, go look at how many of any of the above you can find in China, Cuba, or North Korea.

I sincerely hope we never find out, but it's possible that the useful idiots will face a rude awakening if their Marxist utopia becomes a reality.  But maybe it won't be too bad.  If they're sent to labor camps in Alaska — America's closest thing to Siberia — at least they won't freeze to death.  After all, the ice will be gone in eight or ten years.  Just ask AOC.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/what_will_become_of_the_useful_idiots.html 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


DOJ Announces a Lawsuit Against Georgia For Demanding Voting Integrity

Feds Fearful States Will Deconstruct Election Fraud


The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a lawsuit against the State of Georgia, the Georgia Legislature and the people of Georgia in order to stop any election reform that will deconstruct decades of carefully assembled election fraud. [DOJ Announcement Here]

Georgia is very important to the corrupt agents within federal institutions.  The leftist activists have worked methodically to use Georgia as a key battleground in their efforts to continue manipulating election outcomes.

The DOJ is worried, very worried, that as people wake up to the scale of election fraud perpetrated upon this nation more states will begin enacting laws that will block voter fraud.

The DOJ civil rights division does not want their gains in Georgia to be lost in the same way those , schemes collapsed in Florida over the past four years.  Strong laws that require voter ID to verify the validity of a person to vote are antithetical to the fraud Washington DC needs in order to control the U.S. government.

The issue of voter ID is a critical one that gets conflated by parseltongue words intended to confuse the issue. The issue of voter ID is NOT about proving “who you are“; the issue of voter ID is “proving you are eligible to vote“.

Erosion of state requirements for valid and authentic voter ID has made the challenge more difficult. Ex. a driver’s license is NOT proof that you are eligible to vote. A utility bill or some arbitrary document is NO proof of that either. To be eligible to vote you have to provide a legal: (1) Birth certificate, or (2) A Certificate of Naturalization, or (3) a voter ID which was obtained with one of the above. Voter ID is not proving who you are; voter ID is proving you are lawfully eligible to vote. There is a big difference.

The DOJ does not want to see people having to prove they are lawfully eligible to vote, that is the essence of the lawsuit against Georgia – and that will be the essence of every lawsuit of a similar nature.

(DOJ ANNOUNCEMENT) – The U.S. Justice Department announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the Georgia State Election Board over recent voting procedures adopted by Georgia Senate Bill 202, which was signed into law in March 2021. The United States’ complaint challenges provisions of Senate Bill 202 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

[…] The United States’ complaint challenges several provisions of Senate Bill 202, including a provision banning government entities from distributing unsolicited absentee ballot applications; the imposition of costly and onerous fines on civic organizations, churches and advocacy groups that distribute follow-up absentee ballot applications; the shortening of the deadline to request absentee ballots to 11 days before Election Day; the requirement that voters who do not have identification issued by the Georgia Department of Driver Services photocopy another form of identification in order to request an absentee ballot without allowing for use of the last four digits of a social security number for such applications; significant limitations on counties’ use of absentee ballot drop boxes; the prohibition on efforts by churches and civic groups to provide food or water to persons waiting in long lines to vote; and the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots cast before 5 p.m. on Election Day. The complaint asks the court to prohibit Georgia from enforcing these requirements.

Pay attention to this next part:

[…] Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco also issued a memo to United States Attorneys and FBI Field Offices today on investigating and prosecuting threats to election officials. To assist with this important effort the department will also establish an intra-Departmental task force to address the rising threats. (read more)

As we have mentioned previously, the United States Department of Justice is prepared to use federal law enforcement (FBI) to secure their position.  The purpose of this announcement should be crystal clear to everyone.  We discussed and outlined the background previously.  {Go Deep 1} and {Go Deep Two}

In the background of these maneuvers Big Tech and Corporate Media have been instructed to push the “domestic extremist” narrative; and any truth-tellers are considered subversive, ie. against the interests of the U.S. government.  The January 6th DC protest is being used as evidence for that narrative. Deplatforming, censorship and ultimately control of voices who would warn of the larger issues continues daily.

Let me be very clear… stop and hear the drums… Something is about to happen.  Approximately 100 million American voters are considered dissidents now.

The FBI is preparing for the American people to realize, perhaps reluctantly, and then implement the grassroot solution to deal with a corrupt federal government; a solution I would call “extreme federalism”.

The solution to the scale of DC corruption is local and state action using the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment, against the advancing overreach of corrupt DC officials. Extreme federalism is local and state government refusing to comply, totally ignoring, unconstitutional demands by the federal government. This approach can become visible in varying degrees of intensity.  State laws protecting voting integrity is only one facet.

Beyond simple legislative push-back, imagine if the State of Texas refused to facilitate any task for the border visit by Kamala Harris. No Texas state trooper escorts, no security, no facilitation once the White House entourage exits the airport. Extreme federalism is the intentional use of the state right provisions outlined within the constitution to stop facilitating federal offices of any form or function.

Imagine if FBI field offices were forced to close by state action taking back ownership of the property by eminent domain. Imagine if state national guard elements were instructed not to comply with federal requests for support. Extreme federalism is local sheriffs, constitutional officers, rebuking unconstitutional decrees and refusing to comply with federal agencies.

Extreme federalism is executed along the same concept of “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states” defying federal law.  However, extreme federalism is the reverse scenario where the unconstitutional efforts are identified by states who create sanctuaries for law-abiding citizens who forcefully demand representative government and self-determination.

Extreme federalism is a reaffirmation of the original intent of the United States constitution, and we do not need F-15s and nuclear weapons to achieve it.  What we need is strongwill, brave state-level leadership and unrelenting citizen determination.