Saturday, July 17, 2021

Discuss Admission of White House Directing Opposition Censorship Through Big Tech


Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald discuss the open nature of the White House admitting to a direct collusion between the administration and Big Tech to censor voices opposed to the Biden regime; and the Republicans doing absolutely nothing about it (because the UniParty agrees with it).

*Remember* the Intelligence Branch is specifically made possible by a public-private partnership.  The White House operating in conjunction with Big Tech is a downstream consequence of the Intelligence Community coordinating with the same entities.



Cuba lifts food restrictions amid anti-communist protests

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 12:22 PM PT – Saturday, July 17, 2021

Cuba has lifted food and medicine restrictions amid some of the largest protests in decades. Earlier this week, Cuba announced it would be temporarily lifting restrictions on basic goods that travelers could bring into the country as protests rage on against the communist government.

“The Cuban government has attempted to silence their [Cubans] voices and communications through internet shutdowns, violence and arbitrary detentions of dozens of protesters, journalists, activists and other repressive tactics,” said U.S. State Department Spokesman Ned Price.

 

 

Last weekend, thousands of Cubans flooded the streets in protest of mass shortages of food, medicine and other essential items. Cubans have also reported spending hours in lines just to buy groceries.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the country’s tourism industry especially hard, propelling it into an even worse economic state.

 

https://www.oann.com/cuba-lifts-food-restrictions-amid-anti-communist-protests/ 

 

 

 


 

France prepares to introduce Covid-19 'health pass'

 

A compulsory health pass for access to cultural and leisure venues will come into force in France on July 21, certifying that the bearer has either been fully vaccinated or had a recent, negative PCR test. FRANCE 24 takes a look at the European countries that have applied similar policies.

Reserving access to venues and events for those who have been vaccinated or recently tested has sparked controversy in many countries, and France is no exception. 

"The health pass will never be a right of access that discriminates among the French. It cannot be made compulsory for access to everyday places," French President Emmanuel Macron pledged in April during an interview with the regional press. 

But barely two months later, under pressure from the soaring infections due to the Covid-19 Delta variant, the president did an about-face.

Starting July 21, the "health pass" (pass sanitaire) will be compulsory for access to leisure and cultural venues with more than 50 people, including cinemas and museums. From the beginning of August, it will be necessary to show your health pass to have coffee or eat lunch at a restaurant – even on an outdoor terrace – or to shop at a mall.

Customers will have to provide either a QR code proving they are fully vaccinated, a negative PCR or antigen test that is less than 48 hours old, or proof that they have recovered from Covid-19 in the last six months. According to the government's draft bill, restaurants could be fined up to €45,000 and proprietors face up to a year in prison if they fail to comply.

 

 Since Macron's dramatic announcement on July 12, accusations of a "health dictatorship" have been spreading on social networks. According to the authorities, more than 20,000 people protested across France on Wednesday, Bastille Day, in the name of "freedom" against the president's announcements.

 

 

 

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210716-as-france-extends-use-of-covid-health-pass-what-are-its-eu-neighbours-doing

 

 

Protests in France 

 


 

Welcome to the Brave New America

A realistic look at what the Left is trying to accomplish 
—and likely will— 
unless we all band together to stop them and save our country.


The Left is achieving their fundamental transformation of America into a socialist hellhole,  consolidating control over our major institutions and enacting truly radical policies and programs. It’s easy to get distracted by these policies—critical race theory is bad, cancel culture is bad. But we can’t lose focus on their ultimate goal. The desired end state for the Left is The State.

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is the DIY manual for building their Brave New World. The Left will only be happy when they have attained totalitarian power. They see the Constitution with all those pesky restrictions and our entire federal republic as an impediment to their plan to social engineer better humans and build a society to keep those engineered humans in line. The dystopian utopia they envision can’t work, but they can break the republic in the process of trying.

Three interesting developments this week put things in clear focus. The communist paradise of Cuba is experiencing a revolt of people chanting “Freedom,” with some waving American flags. The FBI saw fit to release a tweet recruiting Americans to become informants against their own families, eerily reminiscent of the secret police in all communist countries. 

And Jack Posobiec reports the Biden Administration is going to release an enemies list based on influencers followed by those arrested at the Capitol riot.

They are going full totalitarian and have moved into what Wesley Yang calls Successor Ideology, which views modern liberalism as far too soft. Modern liberalism was not willing to break things, like the republic or pro forma respect for our Constitution and our civil society, to achieve the change the Left’s secular religion demands. The new woke Left, however, is willing to burn it all to the ground and attempt to build a communist paradise from the ashes.

It is up to us to stop them. This imminent danger moved me to leave foreign policy and national security where I have spent most of my adult career in order to focus on the culture war here in America. The most pressing threat we face, by far, is domestic. We either stop the Left in their quest, or they will destroy us long before any foreign enemy can.

It led me to write Winning the Second Civil War: Without Firing a Shot. In the short time since it was released, there has been a groundswell of proud Americans standing up and fighting back. But we need more, many more. This piece lays out a realistic look at what the Left is trying to accomplish, and likely will, unless we all band together to stop them and save our country.

Welcome to WokeTopia 2031

Scenario: School Daze

Bob dreaded the trip to his daughter’s school. He knew why he’d been summoned, and he knew the likely outcome. Irina had almost certainly been engaging in hate speech again. It was only a question of which kind. The rules were so fluid you could start an innocuous sentence and, by the time you finished, have run afoul of a new diktat.

He sat in a row of chairs outside the Diversity & Inclusion Commissar’s office and immediately noticed the dejected looks on the other parents’ faces. They all feared the nuclear option for their kids and none of them even wanted to make eye contact for fear of consorting with an enemy of the state.

When his name was called, Bob shuffled into the sterile office. It was remarkably void of any pictures, art, or representations of anything other than one-line directives: “The right to be free from offense for all students is our primary goal”; “Think who may be hurt before you speak”; and, “The underserved deserve their time at the top.”

Ms. Smith glared at him over the top of her glasses and motioned to a student-sized chair for him to sit on. She was a middle-aged, middle-looking, middle-sized bureaucrat with a middle-melanin level, which Bob assumed made her BIPOC but he couldn’t be certain. He knew better than to use gender or race-specific terms.

“Your daughter, Mr. Whiting. Once again, we are here to discuss your daughter,” Ms. Smith intoned.

Bob nodded his head and tried to look apologetic. His 14-year-old daughter had been in trouble numerous times recently for failure to accept her whiteness and her reduced status as a member of the oppressor class.

“Irina is causing significant distress for the other students,” Ms. Smith informed him. “She has been hectoring them with talk about her right to free speech and even worse that she can say what she wants even if it hurts their feelings. Fortunately at least one member of your family understands the damage this speech violence causes. Your son Sean gave us a full report on her un-Woke activities.”

Bob tried to look shocked as if he couldn’t understand where Irina could have gotten these wild ideas, but sadly it didn’t surprise him that Sean was the informant. He had become an insufferable member of the Woke Youth. “Perhaps Irina’s just trying to generate positive conversation, so the other students can correct her,” Bob tried as a deflection.

Smith shot back, “Mr. Whiting, what part of hate speech is violence do you not understand? When the Supreme Court ruled 13-6 in Obama v. America, this became the law of the land.” She thought to herself, Thank Gaia we made DC and Puerto Rico states to break the Senate log jam and added extra seats to the Supreme Court.

She continued informing Mr. Whiting, “Irina regularly uses gender-specific pronouns and patriarchal terms. Just the other day, she said ‘All men are created equal.’ Can you imagine the distress that causes the rest of the children?”

“But Ms. Smith, that is an actual quote from the Declaration of Independence,” Bob pointed out. “Isn’t that an exception?”

“A document written by slave owners declaring ‘All men are created equal’ is quite possibly the most heinous example of hate speech I am aware of” Smith exclaimed. “If this is the type of thing you’re teaching your children at home, I can see why we’ve reached this impasse with your daughter.”

There it was. Bob realized she was dropping the hammer on Irina.

“I’m afraid your daughter is no longer safe for the rest of our students to be around, Mr. Whiting,” Smith announced. “As of next week, she will be assigned to the WokeRehab school until she can demonstrate an ability to fully understand her role as last among equals.”

* * *

Far-fetched? Sadly, no. Much of this is already happening to one degree or another. Look at all these schools that conduct something called a “Privilege Walk.” This involves all students lining up and then taking steps forward or backward based on supposed privileges they have or are denied. These always include whiteness as a privilege. This divisive, racist event tells white kids that they did not earn their achievements and black kids that they were unfairly denied theirs

This is all based on supposed systemic racism, which is the invention of the critical race theory (CRT) so much under discussion recently. Things like the Privilege Walk and antiracism training use the concept of systemic racism to call for changes to our systems that they now demand produce equity, i.e. equality of outcome. But that ignores the fatal flaw of CRT: it takes any disparate outcome for blacks and attributes it to systemic racism and eliminates any other possibilities for the difference.

Ibram X. Kendi is the author of How to Be an Antiracist and in a piece for Politico he called for an Antiracist Amendment to the Constitution based on these two “facts”:

Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.

Total agreement on the second half; different racial groups are equals. Complete disagreement that inequity is evidence of anything but inequity. It is not just shoddy logic, but offensively bad analysis.

That is not how statistical analysis works. All possible factors must be examined to determine which are most highly correlated with the disparate outcome identified. The claim that systemic racism causes almost all of the bad outcomes for blacks doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as I outlined in my book The Myth of White Fragility. Many other cultural factors are much more highly correlated.

A common theme in media discussion of this topic is to say, as this piece does:

‘If you don’t believe systemic racism is real, explain these statistics’

And then they present these mostly undisputed examples of disparate outcomes followed by an ‘a ha’ claim that a supposed inability to dispute them is proof of their validity as causation of systemic racism.

Again, not how any of this works. Regardless of the seemingly nice fit between Black achievement issues and racism as the cause, the burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion. Requiring others to disprove the claim without first having proved the point is ludicrous. Correlation is not causation and there is no exemption for social justice causes.

The book examined many inequities that were attributed to systemic racism and found much better correlations with other pathologies. We looked at a violent crime rate for blacks that is three times their percentage of the population. Committing violence against another human of the same race is an act of personal choice, unless you make the racist claim that black people lack agency. That makes it nearly impossible to attribute these crimes to an unseeable, systemic racism. 

The number one predictive factor for a child of any race to become a criminal is a fatherless home. Sadly, black children are much more likely to be in single parent homes.

Overall, there are significant differences in the racial and ethnic profiles of solo and cohabiting parents. Among solo parents, 42% are white and 28% are black, compared with 55% of cohabiting parents who are white and 13% who are black.

The acceptance of these school programs based on the unproven CRT assertion that America and all our institutions are racist leads to false programming of all kids. Black kids believe white oppression keeps them from their full potential and white kids that their gains come unfairly at the expense of others. Neither has been proven to be true, but the indoctrination goes on full force.

Scenario: Your Friendly Neighborhood Thought Police

Becky was enjoying a quiet night at home binge-watching 90s sitcoms when the knock on the door came. She wasn’t expecting anyone, so she was surprised to get visitors so late. She opened the door to see two non-descript functionaries of the type who populate almost any government office. 

The taller and apparently male one spoke first as the petite female-appearing one was typing on a tablet. “Good evening. We are with the Department of Homeland Security. May I request your pronouns?”

“Shit,” she thought. “I bet this is about those drunk tweets last week. I should have deleted them quicker.” “Uh, I am a woman if that is what you’re asking,” She replied.

“Excellent,” the HLS rep replied. “We will use feminine pronouns and references. I’m Agent Smith and this is also Agent Smith. We both identify as male. We are here as part of a domestic extremism investigation. May we come in?”

“Double shit! WTH did I tweet that would bring the actual Thought Police to my door? I don’t recall being that drunk,” Becky wondered. “May I see some identification?” she asked.

Both agents pulled out badge holders with a detective-style gold badge and the title:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—DOMESTIC EXTREMISM TASK FORCE (DETF).

Becky noticed that under the title it said: Contract Agents from Task Force Partner Twitter. “Are you federal agents?” she asked.

“No Ma’am,” the shorter male Agent Smith answered. “We are part of the Silicon Valley office of DETF and although we are civilian employees of Twitter, we have been given full police authority in all matters related to the Task Force’s mission. Shall we sit down and talk?”

“Can my husband join us?” Becky inquired.

“Negative Ma’am.” Smith replied. “We will need to speak to you privately. Agent Smith will sit with your husband to gather some additional information.” Just then yet another larger and beefier Smith appeared and walked into the den where she heard a heated discussion start and end with her husband.

The two original Smiths walked her into her living room and took seats on the couch. Smith One continued to do most of the talking while Smith Two entered data. “Ma’am is @BeckyJacksEm your Twitter handle and Becky Jackson your Facebook username?”

“Yes, that is correct,” Becky managed to say despite her guts starting to quiver. “Why do you ask?”

Smith One responded, “We’ll get to that, but first we have to establish some facts. Did you tweet on Jan. 6, 2031 ‘Ten years since the Capitol rally. Too many people still in jail.’ And also post the same message on Facebook with a picture of prisoners in orange jumpsuits labeled Twitmo?”

Becky knew she was on shaky ground, but they obviously had access to her accounts so no point lying. “Yes, I did. But just because I feel bad for the people still in jail.”

Both Agents Smith looked at each other and gave an almost imperceptible nod of concurrence. Smith Two stopped typing and asked, “Ma’am are you aware the Domestic Extremism Extermination Program (DEEP) allows us to keep extremists deemed a threat under indefinite detention which is why the Capitol Insurrectionists remain detained?”

“I g-guess so,” Becky stammered, not at all comfortable with the direction of the conversation.

Smith Two continued, “Are you also aware that it allows us to detain those offering material support to domestic terrorists?”

“What?” Becky exclaimed. “It was a tweet for God’s sake. How is that material support?”

Smith One answered, “Ma’am the Capitol insurrection was largely planned using social media and the traitor Trump used it to incite a large segment of the population to violence. Propagating terrorist propaganda is a named offense. We are empowered to do what is necessary to ensure that never happens again. You need to come with us.”

* * *

Far-fetched? Again, it’s mostly based on events that have already occurred or are planned by the current administration. 

There are a number of people who participated in the three-hour riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, who have spent more than six months in solitary confinement. Some didn’t even commit a single violent act but have been deemed threats to the public. Others are being made to renounce their bad acts in a twisted analogue to Chinese Communist struggle sessions where offenders publicly humiliate themselves while renouncing their evil deeds.

The partnership between the government and the tech tyrants is already well-established and has been used to limit speech the leftist social media firms dislike. They seized on an even more powerful way to achieve their goal of limiting the public’s access to information they want suppressed. They labeled the January 6 event an insurrection or domestic terrorism despite zero evidence of any conspiracy to attack the Capitol.

This allowed them to place their suppression operations under the umbrella of counterterrorism. It offers so many more tools and makes it harder for anyone to oppose it. Who likes terrorism? But the ability to determine who is a terrorist and then what information supports terrorism is a powerful weapon. We have already seen it abused in the overcharging and massive dragnet for Capitol rioters to include many hundreds who simply walked in and took selfies once the police opened the doors.

As I have argued elsewhere, now this thought police ideology is enshrined in the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.

The Biden domestic terror strategy looks to institutionalize this unequal treatment and shut down the ability of citizens on the political right to exercise many constitutionally guaranteed natural rights. They start with free speech and propose to partner with the tech tyrants to further marginalize or eliminate ideas they dislike or disagree with: ‘These efforts speak to a broader priority: enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.’ 

Translation: Your ideas are dangerous to our ability to aggregate state power, and we are going to shut you down.

The trick the administration is trying to implement is outsourcing censorship of speech to Silicon Valley to avoid the most basic protection we have, the First Amendment. The government can’t abridge our speech but Google, Twitter, and Facebook can. And they are. Now they just got a hunting license from the government that says any right-leaning content is fair game along with those who propagate it. 

Scenario: We’re Here for Your Guns

Samuel was frantic. It had been three days and he was unable to find which facility his wife was being held in for her thought crimes. He was informed that she was detained for questioning; therefore, she had no right to counsel. Since she was suspected of Digital Material Support for Terrorism she was subject to detention for as long as the government deemed necessary under the provisions of the Domestic Extremism Extermination (DEEP) Act.

Sam was researching the provisions of DEEP when his computer locked up. Then he tried his phone, but had no connectivity on it either and he couldn’t open any apps or make a call. As he was puzzling through this, he heard the alarm system switch itself off and then the lights went out.

He heard a massive bang at the front door and an immediate explosion with multiple blinding flashes of light. This knocked him to his knees. The next thing he knew, he was flat on his back with two fully combat-kitted cops kneeling on his chest and legs.

“Freeze all motion and comply with all commands you receive. Do you understand?” was the instruction from the one on his chest.

Sam coughed and croaked out the best “Yes” he could.

The door-kicker on his chest continued, “You are being detained by the Domestic Extremist Task Force. We are going to restrain you. You are advised to follow all commands.” At this point the lights came back on and Sam could see his own angry reflection in the storm trooper’s mirrored full-face mask.

Once they had zip-cuffed his hands and feet, they placed him on his couch. The fed removed his helmet and said, “I am Agent Smith and this is my partner Agent Smith. May we request your pronouns?”

“I’m a man,” Sam answered feeling a twisted déjà vu as he recalled the other Agents Smith asking his wife the same questions. ”What the Hell is going on here?”

“We will allow you to ask questions when we have finished securing the area,” Smith replied. “During your wife’s investigation we learned through social media that you are in possession of multiple firearms. You are required to identify their locations and any countermeasures used to secure them.”

Sam was stunned. He only had two guns and he had bought them long before the Firearms Sensibility Act was passed. The new legislation passed in 2029 and signed by President Ocasio-Cortez required all weapons to be registered or surrendered if they violated the restrictions against all multi-shot capable weapons. A special, nearly impossible to get, permit for any weapon that had more than a single shot capability of any kind was also part of the new law. 

He had registered the guns, a .38 cal revolver and a 5.56 Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, when he bought them 10 years ago. That year, he and Becky’s brother took shooting lessons at a local range to learn about guns and be responsible gun owners. He posted pictures of them holding their Firearms Training Certificates on Facebook with the caption “If you own ‘em, be responsible. Take a Firearms Training course and keep them safely secured.” He never thought the feds would come kicking in doors to confiscate them. Apparently, he was taking too long to answer so Smith One walked over and leaned in his face barking, “The guns Sir, WHERE ARE THE GUNS?”

Sam knew he was screwed at this point, and he didn’t feel like just rolling over as they removed the last vestige of his Constitutional freedoms. Chief Justice Buttigieg had written the Supreme Court decision upholding the Firearm Sensibility Act which stated that the Second Amendment applied only to those weapons in common use at the time the Constitution was written. This meant modern versions of muskets and other single-shot guns.

“Don’t you have to notify me and give me 30 days to present my weapons for inspection before you can confiscate them?” Sam asked.

The anger boiled in Smith One’s eyes and he reached back on his utility belt. Before Sam knew what was happening, Smith had tased him. When his convulsions began to subside, Smith held the taser aimed menacingly at Sam’s groin. “Our examination of social media postings shows you bought a 5.56 semiautomatic rifle with a detachable box magazine 10 years ago. That is now classified as a weapon of mass destruction and ATF Director O’Rourke has authorized the use of force to secure it for public safety. WHERE ARE THE GUNS?!”

* * *

Far-fetched? Maybe a little, but only because the Left has not managed to pack the Supreme Court. Yet. The biggest bullet we and the Second Amendment may have dodged was the potential reign of a President Hillary Clinton. If she, not Trump, had appointed the three justices we recently replaced, we would have a fundamentally different republic today.

Adding three more “Living Constitution” creative writers to the court would have put both the First and Second Amendments in serious jeopardy. How far they would have gone toward speech codes is debatable, but way too far for sure. There is no question they would have gutted the right to keep and bear arms. 

First would have been the Left’s long-desired ban on “Assault Weapons,” that amorphous and non-existent class including all semi-automatic weapons that look scary. Then the obvious expansion is to the rest of semi-automatic guns. They have been trying to do this for decades and the only thing stopping them is the precedent set out in the brilliant opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller.

It established a rock-solid individual right to own and bear any weapon in common use and suitable for use in the militia. Today that means AR-15s are solidly included in that protection. It also codified that a “well regulated militia” is not a government-operated or controlled entity and simply consists of all the able-bodied citizenry who could be called upon in emergency.

When written, the goal was to fix in perpetuity a citizen’s right to own relevant weapons they could fight with if ever called up to defend our country, or to use to depose a government that became intolerably tyrannical. That will go right into the dustbin if the Left gains control of the Supreme Court.

Avoiding the Brave New World of 2034

These vignettes help illustrate the immediacy of the threat before us. Most of the seemingly dystopian actions in them have either already happened or are being attempted currently. The statist Left has been stunningly successful over the past 50 years in their fundamental transformation of our country. The question remains: will we on the Right stand and fight successfully to save America?

The Left has moved into active, destructive, even sometimes violent revolution. They see any obstacles to their massive re-engineering project as not just wrong but evil. We can either submit or launch a counterattack.

I’ll be loading rhetorical and ideological magazines and preparing to figuratively storm their barricades. Hope to see you beside me.

Disclaimer: I meant every word of this and whichever petty bureaucrat has the chore of sifting through my digital history will not find a single instance of disloyalty or un-Constitutional behavior. 

 


To Avoid 1st Amendment Concerns, Biden Administration Announces They Will Let Facebook Run The Gulags



WASHINGTON, D.C.—After critics raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of the Biden administration's planned gulags for anti-vaxxers and insurrectionists, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki announced they will now avoid any legal pitfalls by having Facebook run the camps instead. 

"We are proud to announce that our gulags will be run by the beloved mega corporation Facebook!" said Psaki to reporters. "There are many problematic people in this country who desperately need re-education, and we can think of no one better to run the camps than the most powerful social media platform in history! Yay!"

Unfortunately, none of the reporters were still paying attention at that point, since they were happily munching on chocolate chip cookies.

Legal experts say that since Facebook is a private corporation, it can do whatever it wants, even if that means forcibly detaining American citizens in labor camps until they die of abuse and malnutrition.

"This is such a great idea," said brilliant Conservative folk hero David French. "The government is not violating the 1st Amendment by outsourcing the gulags to Facebook since Facebook is a private entity—and their terms of service clearly state at the bottom of page 3,272 that they are allowed to detain you in a labor camp any time they want to. If you agreed to the terms of service, there's really nothing you can do. I guess you should have used another monopolistic social media platform. This is a huge win for conservative free-speech principles."

In a statement, Facebook said they remain committed to gently re-educating purveyors of vaccine and 2020 election misinformation until they have all the correct opinions on everything.

Conservative politicians said they will not take this lying down, and have promised to haul Mark Zuckerberg before a committee and yell at him a little bit. 


Regarding Change of Venue for Jan 6 Trials



George Washington University School of Law’s Program on Extremism has created an online resource for tracking the hundreds of criminal cases filed by the Biden Justice Department against United States citizens for their alleged actions on January 6th. The Administration has charged people from all 50 states, and as is reflected in the“Capitol Hill Siege” project archive, every case has been filed in the District of Columbia.

This was far from inevitable. Despite the fact that the events on January 6th all culminated at the United States Capitol, according to federal court rules, not a single trial is required to take place in the District of Columbia. The rules do not require that the Department of Justice demand that trials regarding the events of January 6th take place in the District of Columbia.

Yet, in opposing a motion for change of venue filed by defendant Jenny Cudd, the Biden Justice Department is insisting that the trial take place in the District of Columbia. The rationale? Well, according to the DOJ, the Watergate trials took place in the District of Columbia, so why not the January 6th protest cases? 

What the Biden Administration won’t outright say, but what all their legal sophistry cannot hide, is that their demand to conduct trials in the District of Columbia ultimately comes down to a question of who they want as jurors. The DOJ wants a jury drawn from a pool of potential jurors that voted 92% to 5% in favor of now-President Joe Biden (in the 2020 presidential election, Biden received 317,323 votes in the District of Columbia; former President Trump received 18,586).

If DOJ denies that this interest is paramount in its tactics for winning trials against January 6th defendants, then let it prove that to be the case—it should agree that any defendant who wants to be tried by a jury of his or her peers can have his or her trial in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia located in Martinsburg, a mere 77 miles from the District of Columbia federal courthouse.

Why would Martinsburg, West Virginia (which voted resoundingly for Donald Trump in 2020) not serve the interests of the Biden Administration to see that “justice” is done? Remember that for the DOJ, “justice” is not delivered only in the form of convictions—“justice” is provided by a fair trial and the verdict of an impartial jury based on the evidence offered by the government without regard to the outcome. The government is not entitled to convictions from juries, no matter how righteous it believes its cause to be.


THE 6TH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN “IMPARTIAL JURY” TO THE DEFENDANT—
NOT THE GOVERNMENT

Written By:

Shipwreckedcrew spent 22 years with the Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor, and has been in private practice since 2013. His practice includes both civil litigation and criminal defense work. He writes on legal matters, politics, and the Courts.






Is Democracy Worth It?


 

Article by Francis P. Sempa in The American Thinker

 

Is Democracy Worth It?

The global pandemic, the ongoing cultural revolution, and the divisive politics of the 2020 election have revealed the extent to which the American republic has trended toward oligarchy.

Throughout the pandemic, federal and state officials have determined which businesses would close, which would stay open, who must wear masks, and where they must wear them.  Our ruling class decided what gatherings were permissible and what gatherings were impermissible.  Our governmental and medical elites decided what drugs our doctors could prescribe for us and what drugs they could not.  And they have made clear that the unvaccinated population will have fewer rights and freedoms than the vaccinated.

On the cultural revolution front, the American ruling elite has normalized transgenderism in schools, athletics, and prisons, including allowing male inmates who identify as females to be housed at women's prisons.  Our leaders have punished some rioters and left others unpunished, depending on the political motives of the rioters.  School administrators have forced Critical Race Theory upon our public school students, regardless of the protests of parents.

Meanwhile, our Big Tech elites continue to censor political and cultural viewpoints they deem "false" or "harmful."  Rudy Giuliani, the principal lawyer who represented former president Donald Trump in his election challenges, has been suspended by the New York and D.C. bars.  Trump partisans who opine that there were irregularities in the 2020 election have been repeatedly censored on social media platforms.  Members of our journalistic elite have openly called for Trump partisans to be jailed or to leave the country.

Our ruling elite continues to take down historical statues and rename schools and parks.  The latest statues to be taken down include the explorers Lewis and Clark, Confederate general Robert E. Lee, and progressive president Theodore Roosevelt (who apparently is not progressive enough).  Our elites are rewriting history, dating the founding of the American republic to 1619 (when the first slaves were brought to our shores) instead of 1776, when we declared independence.  Racial "wokeism" has even infected the nation's military academies and our military leadership.

" Progressive" district attorneys have publicly listed crimes that they won't punish, "progressive" mayors and city council members have moved to "defund" police forces, and "progressive" state legislatures have passed bail "reforms" that effectively prevent pretrial detention of dangerous and repeat offenders.

How did this happen?

The great Italian sociologist and political thinker Gaetano Mosca in his book The Ruling Class (1896) wrote that "in all societies ... two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled."  The ruling class, Mosca explained, "always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings."  Mosca observed that in all forms of government, there is the "dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority."  Every ruling class, wrote Mosca, "tends to justify its actual exercise of power by resting it on some universal moral principle."  Our current ruling class rests the exercise of its power on combatting systemic racism, rooting out domestic "insurrectionists," and protecting all of us from COVID-19.

Mosca believed that democracy was a "myth" that the ruling class in America and elsewhere uses to "help foster in the people ... the illusion that democracy is a fact."  He wrote that all ruling classes tend to move toward socialism or some other form of collectivism.  In democracies, he wrote, "[a]ll the lying, all the baseness, all the violence, all the fraud we see in political life ... are used in intrigues to win votes, in order to get ahead in public office or simply to make money fast by unscrupulous means."  An increasingly collectivist ruling class, Mosca noted, dispenses "favor, bread, the joy and sorrow of life."  Ruling classes may even become "[o]ne single crushing, all-embracing, all engrossing tyranny."

Mosca's theory of the ruling class was supplemented by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his book Political Parties (1911).  Michels shared Mosca's dim view of democracy, describing it as "nothing but a continuous fraud on the part of the dominant class."  Democracy, Michels wrote, affords the people the "ridiculous privilege of choosing from time to time a new set of masters."  The people's representatives "have no sooner been raised to power than they set to work to consolidate and reinforce their influence," and eventually they emancipate themselves from popular control.  The mass of people don't rule, Michels explained; instead, the elites who achieve power by the ballot box secure control of the institutions of collective power and do whatever is necessary to stay in power.  Michels famously called this the "Iron Law of Oligarchy."

Vilfredo Pareto, another Italian sociologist, added further to the concept of ruling classes and oligarchies in his book The Mind and Society (1916).  Pareto shared Mosca's and Michels's view that democracy is a "fiction."  All countries and societies are ruled, he said, by aristocracies or "elites."  In all societies, Pareto wrote, "one finds a governing class of relatively few individuals that keeps itself in power partly by force and partly by the consent of the subject class."  Pareto observed, however, that the ruling elite is "always in a state of slow and continuous transformation."  He called this latter phenomenon the "circulation of elites."

Pareto, therefore, held out hope that ruling classes can change.  In the American republic, change comes at the ballot box.  All the more reason to ensure the integrity and fairness of our elections.  The survival of our republic depends on it.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/is_democracy_worth_it.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage