Monday, August 21, 2023

The Right Can’t Beat the Left at Its Own Game

The remnants of the old country 
are now facing obsolescence


The phrase “our democracy” has become a pervasive cliche in American politics. But who is the subject in this presumptuous expression? Although never defined explicitly, the answer is implicit in what it does not include. To a greater and greater extent, American politics revolves around black people, women, and immigrant populations from the Third World, which together form the core of the Democratic party. The remnants of the old country are now facing obsolescence, with only a weak and ambivalent vessel, the Republican party, to defend them.

The right, whether out of denial, cowardice, or a lack of imagination, has failed to grapple with the deep roots of its demise. Republicans ostracized “nativists” and helped facilitate the demographic replacement of their own voters with the delusion that cheap Third World day laborers are “natural conservatives,” overlooking the most naturally conservative constituency of all: white men. The right failed to conserve gender roles, as women left the home and became angry foot soldiers of a socialist revolution.

Now we observe the results. Consider abortion. The right keeps losing on this issue, with the latest setback coming in Ohio, a red, pro-Trump state. The American people, it is now clear after 50 years of Roe, regard abortion as basically another form of contraception. There is nothing Republicans can really say to disabuse the masses of this belief. It would require a fundamental revolution in thinking, a rejection of everything the population now takes for granted.

The left isn’t wrong when they paint conservatives as natural enemies of “our democracy.” There is nothing conservative about the radically egalitarian system that governs the country, which turns politics into a race to the bottom, a game at which the left naturally excels. The left, in all times and places, has thrived on destruction and decay. The muddled, obese, foreign mass that is today called “the American people” has only a faint connection to the sturdy, adventurous Anglo-Saxons who founded the nation. Their values – freedom of speech, property rights, religious toleration, free enterprise – it is not surprising to find, are being trampled by the government we now have, which imposes tyranny from above with the support and legitimacy of “we the people,” or what has become of the people, below.

As the country degenerates, the left grows more and more extreme without ever paying a price at the polls. On the other hand, the right is under constant pressure to moderate an already liberal agenda in a futile effort to delay extinction. What passes for conservatism has retreated to the slippery redoubts of “parental rights,” platitudes about women’s sports and “nation of immigrants” pablum.

Even still, there are some who argue the right is not persuasive or inclusive enough. The release of new data showing young women sprinting to the left led some “conservative” women to blame the right and a supposed failure to police misogyny. This is further evidence of the deep, nigh inescapable influence of feminist thinking. The truth is that the right, which is by nature hierarchical, was never geared to win the arms’ race of universal suffrage. Now, what is left of the country of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is on life support, as conservatives scramble to pander to the descendants of Montezuma, radicalized and unhappy women, and wimpy yes-men. The ridiculous fraud of birthright citizenship allows the children of illegal immigrants, mere economic opportunists thumbing their nose at the nation and its laws, to have a say in its future.

The ugly beast of socialism, led by the stalking horse of “democracy,” is killing America from the inside. Politics and culture revolve around the grievances of the weak and the envious. To speak of great projects, or even the low bar of sobriety in government, is an absurdity amidst the deafening cry for revenge against white men and the civilization they built. Our courts have been taken hostage by lynch mobs. Decadent judges showboat for approval from the crowd. Power is wielded with a heavy hand against the enemies of the revolution, while violent criminals roam free. No one in authority accepts accountability. The soul of “democracy” is captured well by the obscene spectacle of Donald Trump’s show trial, led by patently unqualified, racially aggrieved prosecutors.

Those who find the present state of things tolerable, or even good, will never be shaken out of their delusions. One cannot feel too sorry for them when they come face to face with the creatures vomited out of the belly of their beloved “democracy.” If there is any hope of leaving this cesspool of mediocrity and disorder, it lies not with soft and flabby conservatism, which has utterly failed to yoke its vision to an unwilling, degenerate nation, but a politics that is willing to raise the bar.



X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- August 21

 




Uniparty’s Plan to Save ‘Our Democracy™’ Unfolds

Trump is an existential threat 
to their continued existence


The fish are plentiful today. There’s Hunter Biden and his various lies: about the sources of his prodigious income, his payment (that is, non-payment) of taxes, drugs, guns, child support, laptops and prostitutes. There’s Joe Biden and his lies, the sources of his prodigious income, and—the latest—his use of pseudonymous email accounts when writing to Hunter and Hunter’s business partners to discuss the weather—or was it the whether and how to siphon 20 million of the crispest into virtually untraceable bank accounts?

There’s the seemingly endless series of indictments directed at Donald Trump. The latest new there, if I am up to date, is that he told people to watch election returns on One America News Network. Clearly part of a RICO conspiracy. Someone whose math is sharper than mine calculated that President Trump is potentially on the hook for 450 years in the slammer for . . . well, his torts are mostly in the eye of the beholder.

This coming week, Fox News, whose leaders have made no secret of their contempt for Trump, are holding the first Republican debate. Problem: as of this writing, it looks as though Trump will not be participating. How rude! And to Fox News, which hates him, and to the RNC, which doesn’t like him very much. How could he do this?

The really delicious thing is that even if Trump doesn’t show up for the debate, he will upstage everyone. The word at the moment is that he’ll do an interview with Tucker Carlson on Twitter at the same time as the debate. My bookies report that viewership of that interview, should it take place, would be far higher than the viewership for watching Chris Christie throw his, er, weight around. Quick: who is Doug Bergum and does anyone care? Yes, the event will be an opportunity for Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy to shine. It will also be a sort of last bite at the apple for Ron DeSantis and his sputtering campaign.

But let’s face it, whether Trump shows up or not, he is the star of the show. If he doesn’t show, his performance will be like that of Tallulah Bankhead who, late in her career, was dissed by some pushy ingenue. “I could upstage you dahling,” Tallulah said, “without even being on stage.” She did, too, by the simple expedient of precariously balancing a champagne glass half-on-half-off a table when she made her exit. The ingenue came on for her big scene, but all eyes were glued to the glass: would it or would it not fall off the table? (No one knew that she had put sticket tape on the bottom of the glass).

I don’t know what is going to happen in this election anymore than you do, Dear Reader. But I have been amused by the absolute certitude of the chattering class, which assures us with hands wringing that 1) Trump is a very bad man 2) That he cannot win the general election but that 3) The clever but insidious Dems will assure that he wins the nomination, thus assuring a Republican defeat come November 2024.

Maybe. But maybe the Dems keep indicting Trump because they are terrified that he could win, and then what? Wouldn’t it be better to put him in jail, issue a gag order, say that anything he says is an effort to overturn the 2020, or the 2024, election and thereby undermine Our Democracy™? I think that is the more likely explanation, but I admit that these are deep waters.

There are plenty of scenarios by which someone other than Trump becomes the Republican nominee, beginning with various acts of God. One big problem for the Republican aspirants, though, is that if Trump is prevented by chicanery from being the nominee, a critical portion of his millions of voters will stay home, thus depriving any other candidate of victory. If Trump fails to become the nominee because he is suddenly incapacitated or dies, that is a different story. But so far, he seems surprisingly robust.

What many of these Trump-can’t-win prognostications overlook, I believe, is that he will not be running in a vacuum. What matters is not just the “37%” of voters (or whatever the real number is) who say they like or agree with him. There also is the candidate from the other party: Joe Biden, probably, but possibly Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, or even (some say) Michelle Obama.

But let’s say it is Joe Biden. I think that the pollster (and former Clinton advisor) Doug Schoen is right. Despite his many legal woes, Trump could win, less because he is broadly popular himself than because Biden is so unpopular.

“One has to go back to 1980,” Schoen wrote this weekend, “to look at the last time a Democratic incumbent president was in a situation where he was bordering on unelectable, and that was Jimmy Carter who had a 37% approval rating when Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory, taking with him the Senate, and helping Republicans to gain a net 35 seats in the House of Representatives.”

Biden is currently hovering over that Carter territory, especially on the critical “it’s-the-economy-stupid” issue. Biden’s approval rating there is a mere 38%, a number that when suitably translated spells J-I-M-M-Y C-A-R-T-E-R. The point is, though, that Trump will not be running by himself. He will be running against someone. And that someone is likely to have liabilities at least as huge as Trump.

The real question was posed by Michael Anton in “They Can’t Let Him Back In,” a black-pilled essay he published in Compact last summer. “The people who really run the United States of America,” Anton wrote, “have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again.”

Who are those people? Mostly Democrats, yes, but really, it’s a bipartisan, deep-state consensus, a uniparty assumption that Trump, being an existential threat to their continued existence must be kept from political power by any means necessary. Think the 2020 BLM riots were awful? They were, but they will seem like Lake Placid if Trump is reelected.

I put that down as a secondary reason to hope that Trump does win, but I understand that others disagree.

It is curious, as Anton also points out, that for all the fury directed at Trump the individual, the real target of deep state animus is not Trump himself but his supporters, his “base.” Trump was right when he said “they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just standing in the way.” Anton got to the nub of the issue when he observed that “Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump. The regime can’t allow Trump to be president not because of who he is (although that grates), but because of who his followers are.”

I think that is worth bearing in mind.



CBS Poll Shows President Trump Extending Lead Ahead of First-Loser Debate


CBS has produced another poll [DATA HERE] just ahead of the first-loser GOPe debate in Wisconsin. President Trump, with 62% support, holds a whopping 46-point lead in the 2024 GOP primary election, as Ron DeSantis continues to collapse in national and early state polls.

For the billionaire Wall Street donors, multinationals and corporate funders of the DeSantis campaign, the scale of epic fail is off the charts.  Never before have so few given so much for so little.  It pains Margaret Brennan to pretend so much. WATCH:



[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the 2024 campaign and our new CBS News poll shows former President Trump with his biggest lead yet this cycle with support of 62 percent of Republican primary voters surveyed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has dropped since our last survey. He’s now at 16 percent. And the rest of the field remains in single digits as most of them prepare for the primary debate coming up later this week.

Our elections and surveys director Anthony Salvanto is here with us.

Anthony, it’s great to see you in person.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Good to see you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, does it matter to these primary voters if Donald Trump is on that stage or not?

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Well, he’s not in a competitive race right now. Right now they would nominate him and it would be not close. It would be an easy win for him.

Look, you know, there’s a couple of dynamics here going on for those who do debate that I think even underpin him more, and that is, when we ask voters, what do you want to hear in this debate, you get this lopsided number that wants the other candidates, make the case for yourselves, but don’t criticize Donald Trump. It was poultry, 9 percent, that wants to hear critiques. And that puts the other candidates in a box.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It dynamic with Donald Trump is always different, isn’t it?

So, have the indictments that he has had to date impacted him in any way?

ANTHONY SALVANTO: He’s held steady. His lead, as you said at the top, is even bigger as the rest of the field has fallen back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like no.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: It — the answer is no, but it’s – it’s also underpinning him in some way in this regard.

He is, when we ask, why are you supporting Donald Trump? Well, among other reasons, his voters say, it’s to support him during his legal fights, to show that – that support.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s helping him.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: So, in that regard, it does help him, or at least it – it girds that support from his – his substantial base.

Well, the other part of this, though, if we unpack it is, why. And you see a couple things. One is that they reject the premise of these indictments because, a, they say they’re politically motivated, and that swamps any other concerns, number one. We’ve seen that throughout all the indictments. Number two, they say that, well, if Donald Trump tried to stay in office, they feel it was through legal and constitutional means. That’s different from other Americans who think it was illegal. But for Republicans, the reason they feel that way, is that so many of them still buy what Trump was talking about in terms of a fraudulent election, those unfounded, unproven claims. But Republicans believe that. So, that’s how that narrative then forms that – that buttress against what’s coming at him in the indictments.

Finally, though, I’ve got to add this for a larger context, and that is, Republicans, to a larger degree, see the U.S. political system, they tell us, as corrupt. Now, a lot of people think it’s dysfunctional, but Republicans in particular think it’s – think it’s corrupt.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Well, what that does is, it sets up Trump for them as the honest broker for them against that system. In fact, he’s winning among people who want an honest candidate. They see him as the truth teller.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a fascinating dynamic. So, for everyone else who has to show up at that debate stage, how do they differentiate themselves?

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Well, I think there’s one possible opening between the – the — what people say they’re hearing and what they want to hear. And it’s this. Republican voters tell us they’re hearing a lot about Donald Trump. Now, he’s the frontrunner, but they don’t all want to hear that in part because of all the indictment news.

But what they want to hear about is the economy. Specifically, about plans to help lower inflation, to help the economy. And in that way, they’re just like all American voters it at this point, right? They care about, how does the price of eggs come down? How do they get to – to buy a house if they’re trying to?

MARGARET BRENNAN: They want more policy. That’s interesting.

Anthony, this is fascinating.

And you can find the full poll results on our website at cbsnews.com.

We’ll be back in a moment.


House Republicans Take on Foreign Dark Money Groups That Meddle in U.S. Elections

A congressional examination is welcome scrutiny into the decades-long practice of leftist nonprofits obfuscating their funding sources.



In an underreported move on Aug. 14, the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee announced a joint examination into whether nonprofits have acted as a funnel for foreign funding intended to influence domestic elections, in violation of U.S. law. The two respective chairs, Reps. Jason Smith, R-Mo., and David Schweikert, R-Ariz., released an open letter soliciting input from the public.

The Internal Revenue Service publishes Code 501, which regulates what different types of tax-exempt corporations can claim as permissible activities. The most familiar political nonprofit corporations allowed under this code are 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 527 groups, among several others. The IRS employs a large number of agents dedicated to tracking compliant activities and financial transactions of these groups.

On the Ways and Means Committee website, members announced they are examining whether tax-exempt groups are violating the prohibition on certain activities, including funneling funding from foreign sources. An open letter to these groups requests “information and input on existing rules and regulations governing them and foreign sources of funding for tax-exempt organizations and what, if any, policy changes Congress should consider.”

Among other examples, the open letter cites news reports of the financial activities of a Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss, who has used a network of dark money groups to donate to radically leftist causes and campaigns in the U.S. According to a report in The New York Times in 2021, Wyss’s foundations gave direct donations in the tens of millions to pro-Democrat and anti-Trump nonprofits:

Beneficiaries of his direct giving included prominent groups such as the Center for American Progress and Priorities USA, as well as organizations that ran voter registration and mobilization campaigns to increase Democratic turnout, built media outlets accused of slanting the news to favor Democrats and sought to block Mr. Trump’s nominees, prove he colluded with Russia and push for his impeachment.

The conservative think-tank Americans for the Public Trust filed a complaint at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over Wyss’s financial activities, noting that under U.S. law, Wyss cannot directly or indirectly donate to federal political campaigns.

In my 2019 book, Behind the Curtain, I attempted to chronicle the vast array of dark money nonprofit organizations used to spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the most radical of leftist causes — most of it exempt from taxes. I reached the conclusion that the amount of foreign influence in our body politic defies the imagination of most American voters and desperately needs to be investigated. My book cites examples of foreign influence over environmental policy in blue states such as Oregon and Washington, promotion by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of radical protest movements, and foreign funding of environmental donor networks.

In Chapter 3, “Greenwashing,” I cite a 2014 minority report by Senate Republicans investigating these suspicious foreign funding activities:

An elite group of left wing millionaires and billionaires, which this report refers to as the “Billionaire’s Club,” who directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even more unsettling, a dominant organization in this movement is Sea Change Foundation, a private California foundation, which relies on funding from a foreign company with undisclosed donors. In turn, Sea Change funnels tens of millions of dollars to other large but discreet foundations and prominent environmental activists who strive to control both policy and politics.

The report goes on to state, “The failure to openly acknowledge this force and the silence of the media with whom they coordinate further emphasize the fact that until today, the Billionaire’s Club operated in relative obscurity hidden under the guise of ‘philanthropy.’”

In later chapters, I write about Sea Change Foundation’s off-shore foundation, Klein Ltd., with opaque funding which they then turn around and spread in a grantmaking process for radical environmental groups. The founders of Sea Change still list themselves on its website as owners and operators of this foreign entity in Bermuda, now known as Sea Change Foundation International.

Based in Bermuda, Klein Ltd., and Sea Change Foundation International are not subject to IRS reporting regulations. Contrary to the practice of many domestic charitable organizations, Sea Change Foundation’s U.S. operation does not publish its IRS 990 forms — tax returns for nonprofits — on its website.

Thus, this joint open letter from Ways and Means and Oversight comes as welcome scrutiny into the decades-long practices of radical leftist nonprofits that deliberately obfuscate their funding sources. The extent to which such organizations use foreign funding to interfere in our elections demands urgent attention.

The letter says, in part, “[T]he Committee has learned that a [SuperPAC] recommended donations to 501(c)(3) organizations as ‘the single most effective tactic for ensuring Democratic victories’ and that large donations from a wealthy donor to state election offices in 2020 may have been done in a manner that helps one political party over another.” It goes on to state the committee has found “significant amounts of foreign money is flowing through 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations” to influence elections.

The solicitation lists detailed concerns on the “flow of funds into America’s political system and elections under the guise of charitable, religious, or educational purposes or the promotion of social welfare.” The 13-page letter includes extensive details, three appendices, and 95 end notes. For reference, Behind the Curtain had one appendix and 278 end notes.

Smith and Schweickert close their letter with an ominous warning, noting the “expansion of politics into almost all aspects of life,” potentially requiring Congress to close “loopholes” exploited by nonprofit organizations to influence elections, often with funds from foreign sources.

Talk about a shot across the bow.

If any justice still prevails in today’s society, these congressional committees are about to make life very uncomfortable for these groups that circumvent the IRS tax code to funnel foreign money into advancing leftist campaigns.



Conservatives Accused of 'Verbal Jiu-Jitsu' for Living in Reality


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

I regret to inform you that Republicans have done it again. They've gone and pounced, this time regarding the use of language in politics. 

According to CNN, conservative Republicans have mastered the art of "verbal jiu-jitsu." 

Republicans are masters of verbal jiu-jitsu. It’s a form of linguistic combat in which the practitioner takes a political phrase or concept popularized by their opponent and gradually turns into an unusable slur. Like the Japanese martial art known as jiu-jitsu, its devotees avoid taking opposing arguments head on and instead redirect their opponents’ momentum to beat them.  

 If this sounds abstract, consider the evolution of “ woke.” The word is defined as being “actively aware of social injustice.” But it has been transformed into a contemporary scourge, one that a politician compared to a “virus more dangerous than any pandemic, hands down.”  

As someone who writes about politics every single day, I can firmly say that the above allegation is completely false. "Woke" has not been transformed into anything. Rather, Republicans use it to mean exactly what liberals denoted it to mean in the first place, which is being "actively aware of social injustice." The mockery comes in when you consider that Democrats attempt to turn everything into a battle over supposed social injustice. That's on them, not those of us who point out the wokeness of that pursuit. 

For example, a conservative would call transgender ideology "woke." Why? Because the battle over transgenderism was started by Democrats as yet another facet of supposed social injustice. Where's the "verbal jiu-jitsu" in that? 

Mention almost any touchstone phrase adopted by the left in recent years — “critical race theory,” “diversity,” “global warming,” even the word “liberal” itself — and it has been redefined or tarnished by conservatives.

Have they? Because again, I'm pretty sure conservatives use all those terms and phrases within the same meaning that liberals assign to them. Besides, isn't it liberals who decided to call themselves progressives? Are they verbally jiu-jitsuing themselves now? Besides, is it my fault that I'm aware of the definition of Critical Race Theory and react negatively to it? I'm not changing the meaning of it in doing so, I'm just pointing out its faux intellectual racist nonsense. 

I do love the mention of "global warming" being redefined by conservatives, though. It's actually the exact opposite. We continue to use the original definition of global warming, which is that, and stick with me here, the earth is warming. It is Democrats who have decided to redefine global warming to encompass essentially any weather phenomenon, from snow storms to hurricanes to droughts. Why do you think the phrase "climate change" is now used in place of global warming? 

“I’ve been studying their communications for 15 years and it sort of blows me away because I think Democrats are good at doing plenty of things, but they really dropped the ball on the communications piece a lot,” Cormack says.  

Cormack says conservatives have built a think-tank ecosystem of linguists and focus groups to test words and phrases for political battleDemocrats do some of the same, but with not the same level of commitment, she says.  

That is the excuse Democrats always use when their policy outcomes prove to be broadly unpopular. You see, it's just a messaging problem! If only they verbally jiu-jitsued the way those dastardly conservatives do, no one would ever vote for a Republican again!

Of course, no article hand-wringing over conservatism would be complete without an accusation of racism. 

Verbal jiu-jitsu is not new in American politics. Conservatives have long employed it on racial issues. During the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s, conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties often used a series of verbal feints that changed the direction of their opponent’s moral arguments.  

They didn’t say they opposed integration; they said they were for “state’s rights.”  

They didn’t say they didn’t want their children sitting next to Black or brown kids when opposing desegregation of public schools; they said they were against “forced busing.”   

Did you get all that? You see, all those FDR Democrats who dominated the South in the 1950s and 1960s were really "conservatives." Talk about verbal jiu-jitsu. 

Let me explain what this CNN article is really about. It's pure projection. Conservatives live in reality, taking terms and phrases at face value, even those defended by the left. Meanwhile, Democrats insist that men can become women and that Hispanics are actually "Latinx." It's not conservatives that are doing "verbal jiu-jitsu," it's Democrats. Are they bad at it? Sure, but that's what happened when you try to change the objective meaning of terms every few years for political gain.



PREVIEW: Tucker Carlson Travel to Budapest Hungary and Interviews President of Serbia



I swear this guy has people looking over my research shoulder.  Tucker Carlson travels to Hungary, home of PM Viktor Orban, for an interview with the President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić.  Carlson then shares a preview of the upcoming conversation {Direct Rumble Link}.

We have discussed Hungary quite a bit, because Viktor Orban has been a very public thorn in the side of Joe Biden, the CIA and USAID (same/same), along with the US State Dept. It makes sense that Orban, via Budapest, would be a safe host for a discussion between Tucker Carlson and Aleksandar Vucic. WATCH:



The Real Insurrection Began with an Escalator Ride

 

The Real Insurrection Began with an Escalator Ride


Article by Brian C. Joondeph

Corporate media and the Democrats are fixated on the so-called “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, so much so that they are attempting to imprison a past and potentially future president over supposedly causing it.

Aside from the fact that it wasn’t an insurrection, and that President Trump didn’t cause it, President Biden and his corrupt DOJ are using it as an excuse to remove Biden’s likely political opponent, banana republic-style, ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines insurrection as, “An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence.”

 

Image: Thierry Ehrmann, via Flickr // CC BY 2.0

Who exactly organized the January 6 protests? Trump held a rally that day and told his supporters, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Protesters in fact were exercising their First Amendment right, “of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The only major act of violence was a Capitol Police officer fatally shooting a petite and unarmed female military veteran, for which the officer received zero punishment. Capitol police opened the doors for protesters to enter, and even escorted some through the building. How much of the minor violence was committed by undercover Feds?

Despite the theater and melodrama of the January 6 Congressional committee and now Special Counsel Jack Smith taking over Trump’s persecution from the committee, the truth of the day’s events has been kept hidden by Congress, including by the U.S. House now under Republican control.

Fortunately, Tucker Carlson, now free from Fox News’s “Orange Man Bad” yoke, shed some light on January 6 through an interview with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. The gist of this interview spells out the real insurrection.

Federal agencies, the FBI, DHS, and the military knew there would be chaos at the Capitol that day and downplayed intelligence given to the Capitol Police Chief. They let the protest happen and prevented the Capitol Police from stopping it. Who else might have been involved? Capitol leadership including Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi?

Numerous federal agents were in the crowd instigating the protests. Despite credible threats, National Guard assistance requested by the police chief, was denied by Speaker Pelosi. She then likened January 6 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 but denied any efforts to prevent or stop the protests, almost as if the day’s events were preplanned.

This was an orchestrated plan by government agencies, constitutionally under the control of President Trump, to undermine his presidency and future political ambitions by a “systematic denial of intelligence and support” from multiple agencies.

Lastly, the mysterious Ray Epps is on tape instigating protesters to break the law yet has been off limits to all investigations thus far but will likely be called as a witness by Trump’s defense attorneys.

The January 6 “insurrection” conveniently pressured the vice president and Congress to quickly certify the election due to “safety concerns,” preventing the Constitutionally valid remedy of allowing the states to investigate election concerns before certifying their electors.

In other words: “An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence.” An insurrection.

This is the only “insurrection” that the corporate media and ruling class wants to discuss. But the real insurrection began much earlier. I contend that it began on June 16, 2015. Politico called it, “The escalator ride that changed America.” Indeed, it did as this ride soon turned the Constitution into toilet paper.

Initially Trump was thought of as a buffoon promoting his ego and media persona. Corporate media gleefully gave him endless coverage, not to promote Trump’s novel political ideas but to boost their ratings. The ruling elite soon stopped laughing when it appeared that Trump would win the Republican nomination and had a high probability of beating their favored candidate, a corrupt and unlikeable previously failed presidential candidate.

The Obama justice and intelligence agencies then concocted “evidence” that candidate Trump was colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election. They knowingly lied to FISA courts so they could spy on Trump and his campaign team and associates, hoping to derail his election. These same agencies deliberately suppressed the illegalities of Trump’s political opponent.

Despite their efforts, Trump was elected president, and these same agencies doubled down, lying and continuing to spy on Trump’s transition and administration to secure a partisan special counsel investigation of Trump, casting a shadow on his presidency and limiting his ability to govern.

For example, under the cloud of being “Putin’s puppet,” Trump couldn’t engage productively with Russia. Look where are now as a result.

Once again, it was “An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country.” An insurrection.

The same ruling class group, although out of elected, but not administrative power, rigged the 2020 election. First through COVID, which today is looking more and more like a planned exercise to damage Trump’s reelection prospects.

Conspiracy theory? Not anymore. Sen. Ron Johnson “alleges that COVID was pre-planned by an elite group of people. Event 201” in October 2019. From the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,

Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 

What was an exercise, or dress rehearsal, in 2019 became reality the following election year.

COVID lead to unconstitutional election law changes and mail in ballots, previously considered fraud-prone by many Democrats including Jimmy Carter. Ballot counts stopped on election night in a few swing states and cities, only to resume the following day with Trump no longer leading. Election challenges were routinely denied by courts citing “standing”. Congress did nothing. America’s national police state, the FBI, DOJ, and DHS colluded with social media and big tech giants to suppress any talk of election interference.

We recently learned of a Michigan cover-up in Muskegon over, “8,000-12,000 likely-fraudulent voter applications submitted by Biden campaign-financed GBI Strategies in October 2020.” Despite this being given to the FBI to investigate, the FBI did nothing. Instead, they targeted Catholics as domestic terrorists.

Ten thousand ballots here and 10,000 ballots there and it’s not difficult for a corrupt and cognitively challenged candidate who campaigned from his basement to somehow receive 81 million votes, far more than his charismatic and popular predecessor Barack Obama.

Fake preprinted ballots were sent to shopping malls, restaurants, and convenience stores where no one lives. These undeliverable ballots were filled out, submitted, and counted, without signature verification or any other validity safeguards, as Jay Valentine outlined in American Thinker last week.

Unsurprisingly Trump pushed back, and now a weaponized DOJ and Democrat state AGs are indicting Trump left and right, attempting to thwart his 2024 candidacy and ideally put him in prison for the rest of his life.

The latest Georgia indictment includes such horrendous crimes as Mark Meadows sending a text message asking for a phone number or Trump telling supporters to watch OAN.

Meanwhile the corrupt Biden Family receives a pass for taking tens of millions of dollars in foreign bribes and laundering the money through dozens of shell corporations. The media says 'meh.' The justice and intelligence agencies obfuscate to protect Biden and refuse to properly investigate. 51 intelligence officials lied by saying the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Yet Trump is indicted in a RICO conspiracy for tweeting supporters to watch TV.

Sound familiar? “An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country.” An insurrection.

The left now controls the government. But the government is more than that. Remember Abraham Lincoln’s description, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That is who the insurrection is now directed toward, Trump and his millions of supporters. Trump is leading his GOP opponents by at least 40 points.

The real insurrection was not the orchestrated January 6 false flag, but an ongoing effort by the unelected administrative state and the bipartisan Democrat and Republican ruling class to defeat Donald Trump and the people who support him. It began with an escalator ride and is now a banana republic witch hunt.

How will it end? Trump repeatedly said, “We caught 'em all.” At some point he will have to put up or shut up. If he did indeed catch them, this will be a mega-tsunami tearing the heart out of the deep state, with hope for making America great again. If he is bluffing, Trump will be watching from behind prison bars as America descends into an Orwellian dystopia of economic and societal collapse.

We are approaching the final act of Trump versus the deep state. As the enigmatic Q said repeatedly, “Nothing can stop what is coming. Nothing.” But what exactly is coming? As Trump likes to say, “Let’s see what happens”.

The Real Insurrection Began with an Escalator Ride - American Thinker








Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage