Thursday, September 21, 2023

Trump is an Abortion Realist

Abortion is exposing a split between traditional conservatives and the populist voters who form Trump's base


In a repeat of the 2016 Republican primary, the abortion issue is exposing a split between traditional conservatives and the populist voters who form the Donald Trump base. During Trump’s presidency, these rifts were patched up by Trump and his impressive record of achievements, which included traditional conservative priorities such as tax cuts, deregulation, and appointing the Supreme Court justices who ultimately paved the way for Roe vs .Wade’s demise. But now that Roe is gone, the right is divided and perplexed about what to do next.

Trump has given clear signals that Republicans must bridle their ambitions and moderate on this issue, which has become, unfortunately, a political albatross. In an interview with NBC’s Meet The Press, Trump criticized the party’s messaging as confused and uncompromising and urged Republicans to find a palatable consensus, hinting at a 15-week cutoff. Trump did not rule out signing a federal ban, but he clearly would prefer to leave the matter to the states and focus on shifting the conversation to the left’s extreme policy of abortion without limit.

For this, Trump is being accused of capitulating to evil. The sputtering DeSantis campaign, in many ways a distant echo of the failed 2016 Ted Cruz effort, is laying into Trump especially hard, but DeSantis has struggled to defend his own policy. At last month’s primary debate, DeSantis was asked how he would promote his six-week ban nationally and he dodged the question. This isn’t a new problem for the conservative movement: in fact, back in 2016, Trump was criticized by pro-life groups, and Cruz, for saying women who get abortions should be prosecuted. If you really think abortion is murder, that’s just plain logic.

For the right, abortion is what immigration and crime are for the left: issues where the party is clearly on the wrong side of public opinion. The difference is that Republicans can’t count on the press to cover for them. The narrative that voters receive is “Republicans want to take away your freedom.” It’s an effective message, one Republicans help to amplify with their dissembling squeamishness, which suggests there is a hidden agenda. It’s a message that is helping Democrats escape pain for abusive, mismanaged government: undoubtedly, conservatives paid a price for their long-coveted court victory in the midterms last year, and the left’s abortion messaging has continued to resonate in electoral battlegrounds like Wisconsin and Ohio.

Dobbs changed the laws but not the hearts and minds of the people. If presented with a stark choice between no abortion and unlimited abortion, there is little doubt which way the public would fall. Americans now basically consider abortion to be the ultimate defense against accountability, the horror of horrors in our degraded culture. This perverse attachment is, for Democrats, a saving grace. No political party has ever found success trying to convince the masses to give up their “goodies.” To the extent that fewer abortions are now taking place in certain states, conservatives can claim that as a victory. But they should not get proud. In a political system based on universal suffrage, morality eventually falls to the lowest common denominator.

The America of John Fetterman is not going to vote for a moral crusader in 2024. Trump won in 2016 by leveraging cultural and racial grievances with political correctness and the rise of an anti-American worldview on the left. His brand, which remains uniquely his, remains potent with a broad swathe of poor and middle class voters who feel disenfranchised by globalism, government overreach, borderline murderous race hate against white people, and the general experience of being led by the nose by hypocritical, progressive elites.

Unlike his ideological detractors, Trump is pragmatic and reasonable. Some will reject his message as yielding to the times, but their real issue is with democracy and its consequences, not Trump.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- Sept 21

 




The Hidden Agenda Behind Lockdowns

Every aspect of our lives is monitored, and 
everything we do or consume is rationed


You can call it a “road diet,” or “15 days to stop the spread,” or a “fifteen minute city,” or a “smart city,” a “central bank digital currency,” or just an EV that comes with a virtual leash attached in the form of limited range and limited recharging options. Or you can be more explicit and just call any one of these examples an assault on your mobility, i.e., a lockdown. Whatever you want to call them, they’ve arrived, and it’s just begun. Americans, along with their European brethren, are being turned into livestock, living in high-tech pens, where literally every aspect of our lives is monitored and everything we do or consume is rationed.

The justification for these lockdowns is to protect us from pandemics, to protect the environment, and – in a society with diminished opportunities and a reduced standard of living – to ensure “equity” for members of protected status groups. The common thread? Protection. And where there is a need for protection, there is a threat. A killer virus. A “climate crisis.” A toxic environment of white privilege.

In reality, however, the policies being promulgated to counter these supposedly existential threats are grossly out of proportion to the actual threats. There is a hidden agenda.

While the worst interpretations of this hidden agenda may be overstatements, we would be well advised to hear them out. An early and comprehensive assessment of how the COVID pandemic was exploited to move Americans closer to the status of livestock came from Catherine Austin Fitts in her video “Planet Lockdown.” Some of her ideas and allegations may stretch credulity, but nonetheless are essential concepts for anyone trying to make sense of where we could be headed as a civilization.

Fitts observes that the wealth of the world is becoming more and more concentrated into nations with advanced technology, and within those nations, disproportionately to a small elite. She claims the COVID pandemic provided an excuse to institute controls necessary to convert the planet from democratic processes to technocracy.

According to Fitts, in 1995, as neoliberal ideology took hold in both political parties in the U.S., the decision was made to transfer most of the wealth out of the country. This is the hollowing out that Trump’s populism attempted to reverse. But now, with the process nearly complete, Pitt alleges the pandemic is the cover whereby the unsustainable financial situation in the United States – because it was hollowed out – can be “reset.” She then claims the virus is being used as the means to compel mass vaccine injections that will make it possible to digitally identify and track every person. These biometric markers will then be used to connect people to a new cyber currency, allowing complete control. She believes there are five sectors working in tandem to create this new world order:

(1) Technology industry building clouds. (2) Military doing space development. (3) Big pharma developing injections to modify human DNA. (4) Media providing propaganda. (5) Central bankers engineering a new crypto system of global currency.

What Fitts is describing is a dark version of futurism. Her perspective is negative, but coherent. Technology has created barriers to entry that make it easier for a shrinking group of elite special interests to consolidate entire sectors of the economy and become very powerful. But why the new world order? Why the “reset”? Why turn humans into livestock, without rights, without property? Fitts offers a logical answer:

“If technology can make it possible for people to live 150 years, and it isn’t possible to keep this a secret, then why not downsize the population, integrate robots, so you can have a very wealthy and luxurious life without the management headaches?” In one particularly chilling quote, Fitts says “I was having a conversation with a venture capitalist, billionaire type, and he looked at me with these amazingly dead eyes and said ‘I can take every company and completely automate it with software and robotics and fire all the humans. We don’t need them any more.’”

Another explanatory warning, much more recent, came from Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, speaking at the 75th Anniversary of The Nuremberg Code. Next to America’s Bill of Rights, the Nuremberg Code is one of humanity’s greatest weapons against medical slavery. For an 86-year-old who can personally recall being herded into concentration camps, Sharav is remarkably lucid.

Sharav describes the gradual onset of slavery in Nazi Germany, how the instruments of oppression rolled out over several years. In particular, she explains how medicine was perverted from its healing mission and was weaponized. She puts forward the ten point statement handed down by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1948 as essential guidelines that restrict medical experimentation. As COVID variants, and COVID vaccines, appear poised to make a timely comeback, it will be useful to be familiar with the human rights set forth in the Nuremberg Code. But why is this happening? Sharav is explicit, and like Fitts, references transhumanism:

“Transhumanism is a bio-tech enhanced caste system. Transhumanists despise human values and deny the existence of a human soul. This is the new eugenics. It is embraced by the most powerful global billionaire technocrats who gather at Davos: big tech, big pharma, the financial oligarchs, academics, government leaders & the military industrial complex. These megalomaniacs have paved the road to another Holocaust. This time, the threat of genocide is global in scale.”

States of Emergency, Permanent Lockdown

To categorically dismiss these terrifying scenarios is to ignore the history of the world and the human capacity for evil. It is to deny the power of deception, and the propensity of millions, gripped by mass psychosis, to participate in abominations while thinking all the while that they are saving the world.

For each of the big three alleged existential threats to the American people – disease, climate catastrophe, and systemic bigotry – there is a curated, sponsored groundswell of popular demand for the government to declare an emergency. And in a state of emergency, human rights are suspended. But some of the more insidious threats to American freedom are moving forward without needing a state of emergency. The official response to the “climate crisis” offers countless examples.

If ongoing pandemics condemn Americans to recurrent lockdowns (a word once only used in the context of maximum security prisons, but to which we are now completely desensitized), it is to save the climate that might inform how our cells are designed. They’re not pretty. Across America, single family homes with yards are being outlawed. New construction is prohibited and existing suburbs are being rezoned. This is to reduce “greenhouse gas,” despite weak arguments that low density housing causes more “greenhouse gas,” even if you think “greenhouse gas” is a real problem.

More generally, a whole new genre of creative accounting has been invented, called “carbon accounting,” whereby corporations, along with state and local governments, are now required to calculate how they will reduce their “carbon footprint.” Failure to do so results in the loss of subsidies and grants, as well as access to investment capital. Carbon accounting encompasses every imaginable aspect of life. Have a look at this “Climate Action Plan,” prepared for California city with 400,000 residents. There is nothing it will not regulate; all personal appliances, building codes, real estate zoning, transportation policy, every business, every industry, right down to cow farts and light bulbs.

The variables that “carbon accounting” purports to measure and manage are infinite. Rarely in human history has a new enterprise been so riven with subjectivity, so conducive to manipulation, so unnecessary, or so parasitical. But these credentialed minions, most of them utterly convinced of their messianic indispensability, are the foot soldiers of the great reset. When they’re done, you will live in small apartments, consuming strictly rationed resources, and locked down like an inmate, like a penned veal calf, whenever there’s a viral surge or the sun is too hot.

The third leg of the triad, equity, is a risky strategy. But so far, it’s working spectacularly well. Every time another outrageous and divisive initiative is announced, whether it’s paying reparations, condoning the 2020 riots, or taking children away from their parents so they can be castrated, the population is distracted. But it is possible that members of these disparate, artificially enflamed identity groups may someday recognize a planetwide lockdown being orchestrated in the background, and stop fighting each other.

It is possible that tens of millions of Americans will begin to question the credibility of pandemic and climate catastrophists, and realize the already red-pilled skeptics are not “conspiracy theorists,” or “haters,” but people just like them, fighting to keep everyone free. That day may arrive, and if it does, there is hope. We may be allowed to remain humans after all, possessing our dignity and our agency, and not turn into livestock.



Garland Accidentally Admitted Biden DOJ Thwarted Weiss’s Hunter Investigation

Garland’s confession contradicts his previous under-oath insistence that Weiss possessed all of the authority he needed to charge Hunter.



U.S. Attorney, now Special Counsel, David Weiss did not have full charging authority during the bulk of his federal investigation into Hunter Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland slyly admitted in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Garland’s confession contradicts his previous under-oath insistence that Weiss possessed all of the authority he needed to properly charge President Joe Biden’s youngest son with various tax and gun crimes, some of which extended to other jurisdictions.

“You said [Weiss] had complete authority but he’d already been turned down. He wanted to bring an action in the District of Columbia and the U.S. attorney there said ‘no, you can’t.’ And then you go tell the United States Senate under oath that he has complete authority,” Chairman Jim Jordan explained during the hearing.

“No one had the authority to turn him down,” Garland claimed. One second later, Garland divulged that those U.S. attorneys in fact “could refuse to partner with him.”

Even after acknowledging Weiss’s attempts to charge Hunter were hampered by a U.S. attorney acting on behalf of the DOJ, Garland doubled down on his claims that the attorney “has full authority to conduct his investigation however he wishes.” He repeatedly invoked Weiss’s position as a Donald Trump appointee as proof that he was acting independently of the AG.

Despite the potential penalty of perjury, Garland claimed during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 1, 2023, that “the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority … to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary.”

In a June 7 letter to Jordan, Weiss appeared to confirm that “I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.” In a subsequent June 30 letter, however, Weiss reversed his claim and declared that his charging authority “is geographically limited to my home district.”

Weiss’s June 30 clarification is consistent with testimony from IRS whistleblowers, including email documentation they recorded in 2022, and testimony from FBI agents.

During the hearing, Garland attempted to discredit the agents’ attestations that the DOJ’s “cumbersome bureaucratic process” made it difficult for Weiss to charge Hunter by claiming “their description of the process as cumbersome is an opinion, not a fact.” He also claimed that Weiss’s letters “reflect that he had never asked me to be special counsel and that he understood the process for asking for a signature on a Section 515 form,” the form which Garland needed to sign for Weiss to prosecute outside of Delaware.

Weiss’s lack of jurisdiction was further confirmed in August when Garland named Weiss special counsel, an authority that allows the prosecutor to charge Hunter outside of Delaware. If Weiss truly did possess full autonomy in the Hunter case, as Garland dubiously declared on numerous occasions, he wouldn’t have needed the special counsel appointment to prosecute the president’s son.

Garland still claimed he had made it clear that Weiss could bring a case in any jurisdiction with the attorney general’s blessing via a Section 515 form.

For most of the hearing, Garland tried to appear as a hands-off department head who let Weiss independently conduct his investigation. Republicans quickly saw through that facade when Garland immediately refused to disclose whether he had communications with Weiss about Hunter’s case.

He also claimed could not “recollect” whether he discussed the investigation with anyone at the FBI.

“There is no question that he can answer whether such conversations occurred,” legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “When Bill Barr testified as Attorney General he confirmed subjects even in communications with the President while declining details on conversations.”



Gaetz Blisters Garland on J6, Hunter's Art, Why Biden DOJ Dropped Its China Initiative


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, and I think it's fair to say it did not go well. 

As we reported, Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) nailed Garland over contradictory testimony regarding the authority given to U.S. Attorney David Weiss to investigate and pursue the probe into Hunter Biden before he was made Special Counsel in the matter. 

Rep. Thomas Massie grilled Garland over whether he had perjured himself about government assets/informants present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Garland unbelievably tried to claim that he didn't know if there had been any. 

But that wasn't all. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also went to town on Garland over a variety of topics, including the Jan. 6 informants, Hunter Biden's art, and why the Trump Department of Justice initiative to check China's malign influence was dropped

Gaetz started off a bit sarcastically, asking if anyone at the DOJ had told Joe Biden to "knock it off" when it came to his son. 

Then he got down to some serious questions, including whether Garland had concerns about who was paying for Hunter Biden's art, given how Hunter had been used in the past to gain access to Joe Biden. Many have expressed concerns since the names of the buyers are being concealed from the public through a deal worked out by the White House, whether there's more influence peddling going on here. 

"Can you guarantee the people buying Hunter Biden’s 'art' aren’t doing so to gain political favors from the Bidens?" Gaetz asked Garland. 

Gaetz noted that there already had been one art buyer, a Democratic donor, who had received a prestigious appointment from Joe Biden.

Garland's response?  He's not going to comment on the matter. "Not going to comment, not going to investigate," Gaetz snarked.

"That's right," Garland replies. 

No wonder the FBI and the DOJ, in general, are such a mess with Garland at the helm. He's remarkably lacking in curiosity about such a questionable arrangement, particularly given the history of selling the Biden brand. Gaetz inquired of Garland whether he was confident that such issues weren't continuing, but Garland wouldn't even answer that, saying the matters were in the purview of the Special Counsel, David Weiss. 

Then Gaetz got into the real concern about the potential compromise from the alleged influence peddling. He spoke about the Trump initiative that had been set up at the Department of Justice to go after the malign influence of the CCP. But the Biden DOJ dissolved this initiative meant to check China's bad actions in this country. Gaetz asked if the DOJ had any documents outlining/justifying this decision. 

Garland's response didn't make a lot of sense. He said they needed to concentrate on the broad range of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. That's true, but why would that mean you would drop an initiative that helped against China? It didn't make a lot of sense. 

Then Gaetz pointed out that millions, including money from Chinese nationals, had gone into a bunch of shell companies and then into Biden family bank accounts. For anyone with any curiosity about compromise, that would raise all kinds of questions. "It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens. And then you guys came in and got rid of the China initiative," Gaetz said pointedly. 

But Garland claimed not to know anything about the shell companies. 

Then Gaetz wrapped up by asking if the FBI had lost count of the number of informants it had at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and ordered an audit, as we previously reported. They supposed had to to an audit to figure out how many there were there. But Garland didn't want to answer that question; he wanted to continue to fight with Gaetz about his response to the China question. So his response was to that, ducking the Jan. 6 question altogether.

When Garland can't even give a simple answer to that question, he's worthless in his position. That's not even providing the simplest answer to those who have oversight over him, and it surely doesn't answer the question of greatest concern: whether or not Joe Biden has been compromised. 



America’s ‘Rainbow’ Military Is On Track To Lose Another Major War

Much like the missing F-35, our nation’s military 
is lost with no sense of direction or purpose.



“US military asks the public for help finding its missing F-35 fighter jet after its pilot had to eject while training over South Carolina.”

While the above Insider headline may sound like a comedic piece straight from the pages of The Babylon Bee, it’s not. The U.S. military actually publicly claimed it had lost a multi-million-dollar fighter jet.

The loss occurred Sunday following an alleged “mishap” that required the aircraft’s pilot to eject. The F-35 purportedly kept on flying. It wasn’t until Monday evening — a day after Joint Base Charleston requested the public’s assistance in finding the missing jet — that military officials announced they had discovered a debris field “about two hours northeast” of the base.

The debacle has since prompted the Marine Corps’ acting commandant, Eric Smith, to issue a “two-day stand-down” order for all military aviation units “both inside and outside of the United States.”

A Sign of Decline

This episode raises so many questions. For one, how does the U.S. military — the supposed best and most advanced fighting force on the planet — lose a highly-valued asset, especially over U.S. soil?

Why are military bases such as Joint Base Charleston acting as landing pads for commercial planes transporting members of the People’s Republic of China — the very government trying to topple the United States as the world’s hegemon?

While it’s improbable any of these questions will actually be answered to the public’s satisfaction, the likely answers probably wouldn’t reverse Americans’ waning confidence in the ability of U.S. military leadership to defend the American homeland. Nor should they.

This week’s fighter jet fiasco is just one example of many showcasing a U.S. military in severe institutional decline. Instead of focusing on how to win wars — which should be the sole purpose of any military — top Pentagon brass have since at least the Clinton administration treated the service as one giant, left-wing social experiment.

Through its adoption and outright promotion of neo-Marxist ideologies including DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the military has sacrificed efficiency, ruthlessness, and strength for LGBT celebrationsracial politics, and climate alarmism. A look into the backgrounds of President Biden’s many military nominees shows the primary focus of the Pentagon’s leading figures isn’t defeating communist China or protecting Americans from other international threats, it’s crafting a “diverse” and “inclusive” social club where leftist lunacy is treated as gospel and conservative “wrongthink” as extreme.

Look no further than the Pentagon’s abortion policy, which violates U.S. law in using taxpayer money to pay for female military members’ travel expenses to kill their unborn child. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Democrats have baselessly claimed for months that Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s slow-walking of Biden’s military nominees in protest of the policy harms “military readiness.”

If that’s true, then why hasn’t the Pentagon dropped its policy? If “readiness” is such a major concern, why did the military fire thousands of service members who chose not to get an experimental shot? And why isn’t Democrat Chuck Schumer using his power as Senate majority leader to approve Biden’s supposedly important nominees?

The reason, as tacitly admitted by the heads of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, is that taxpayer-funded abortions are a sacrament of the leftist religion so must be preserved at all costs. Coupled with decades of failed military adventurism and nation-building like that conducted in Afghanistan, it’s no wonder the U.S. military is facing the worst recruiting crisis since shifting to an all-volunteer force in 1973.

A High Price To Pay

The Marxist hijacking of America’s military isn’t an accident; it’s an intentional act contributing to the left’s greater plan to re-invent society. For the left, the military is just another piece on the American chessboard to coopt. It’s why the military so vigorously promotes Marxism and penalizes conservative beliefs: to dissuade the God and America-loving patriots who have largely staffed it for generations from joining or remaining in service.

As witnessed many times before, however, the leftist takeover of institutions has its costs. Only America’s “rainbow” military could cost our country its security and well-being.

For decades, the U.S. military has prevented widespread global conflict, deterring aggression from hostile actors and maintaining peace through strength. If the world’s leading aggressors no longer view America as the dominant military power, where does that leave us? If the U.S. gets dragged into a war with a rival power, can we be confident our “rainbow” fighting force can get the job done? The withdrawal from Afghanistan and growing quagmire in Ukraine atop the failed war in Iraq and our military’s distraction into identity politics don’t bode well.

Much like the missing F-35, our nation’s military is lost with no sense of direction or purpose, and those faithfully committed to the American cause are forced to bail out. Let us hope and pray for new military leadership before it’s too late.



British Parliament Demands Rumble Video Platform Remove or Demonetize Russell Brand – Rumble Says NO!



This is quite a remarkable development.  The Sunday Times, a Rupert Murdoch publication in the U.K, published a hit piece against Russell Brand accusing him of rape and sexual assault 20-years ago.  It did not take long before the accusations triggered the cancel culture and YouTube demonetized the actor and pundit.  Russell Brand has vehemently denied the allegations.

However, in a remarkable escalation the U.K Parliament is now targeting Russell Brand.  The British government has sent a letter to U.S. video platform provider Rumble demanding they take action against Brand.  Not only is the British government targeting an individual and demanding action over an unproven allegation, but they are also sending a letter to the U.S. company demanding acquiescence to their censorship demand.

Rumble has previously stood strong against the demands of the French government, and once again stands at the forefront of freedom in responding to the UK demand.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski responded to the U.K govt and shared his response on Twitter.  “We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.”

[Source]

In an era where social media are more than willing to crawl into bed with the censorship demands of government, looking at you Elon, it is refreshing to see a platform refuse to be pushed into a position of censorship.

Well done Team Rumble.

Now let’s ask why billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch is targeting opinions that might run against the official government narratives?   I seem to remember someone warning about an increased effort to remove specific entities and platforms that will not adhere to official government positions.  👀