The reason I am posting this is for the visitor to watch Senator Leahy being almost completely led by his aid… the entire video can be watched at BREITBART without a moniker blocking the action… likewise, the below 2-short videos highlight the endcaps that are most worth watching. You will see as judge, he is not fit.
As an aside, Judge Roberts said he would not preside over the trial… BECAUSE he doesn’t have jurisdiction — because Trump is not President any longer. So Senator Leahy is presiding over the trial while also serving as a juror–and a witness, since he is a senator and was there on Jan. 6–meaning that a Democrat senator and political opponent of the accused, Trump, is serving as judge, jury, and witness in a trial (Ibid). A NEW YORK TIMES headline sums up this travesty of justice: Trifecta of Roles for Leahy: Witness, Juror and Judge in Trump’s Trial
A friend noted after watching the recommended parts,
“Seems like leading him to say things would be a violation of rules. Why isn’t that woman sitting up there?”
To which I responded,
“I think most of what they are doing is exactly that.”
GOP WAR ROOM:
Senator Mike Lee said that “statements were attributed to me” by the Democrat House impeachment managers and they “are not true and I asked that you strike them,” during the impeachment trial on 2/10/2021.
BLOOMBERG QUICK TAKE:
Wednesday’s session of the impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump has concluded, ending with an objection from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee. House Democrats have agreed to strike some of their impeachment prosecution comments after the objection.
[Watch his aid even tell him to gavel out of session]
UPDATE via INSIGHTS & ISSUES (I excerpt only a portion of this must read article):
A PolitiFact article written by Bill McCarthy declares “there’s no proof that” a left-wing anti-Trump activist named John Sullivan incited rioting at the U.S. Capitol. As a result of this claim, Facebook flagged and reduced distribution of a post that accused Sullivan of doing so.
However, video footage indisputably proves that Sullivan encouraged people to storm and vandalize the Capitol. Moreover, Sullivan was subsequently arrested and charged with “violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds” and “interfering with law enforcement” during the riot. In the wake of these revelations, PolitiFact “updated” its article twice but has not changed its conclusion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
POLITIFACT’S DENIAL
The Facebook post targeted by PolitiFact states that “Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group ‘Insurgence USA’ John Sullivan, incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol.” PolitiFact proclaims “there’s no evidence that he ‘incited’ the violence himself or led the charge into the Capitol.”
PolitiFact’s first evidence for its conclusion is Sullivan’s claim that he was “not leading” the mob in “any shape, form, or fashion” and “was only there to experience and witness what went down.” PolitiFact then cites Jade Sacker, a photojournalist who has done work for NBC and NPR to back up his account. Sacker claims to have been with Sullivan for half of the riot and says that Sullivan was “vocal” and “actively there and interested in what was going on,” but not “directing the charge” or “inciting violence.”
However, law enforcement obtained videos from Sullivan that show him provoking and participating in the riot. As such, the FBI sought and was granted a warrant to arrest him. Per the affidavit and other videofootage, Sullivan:
yelled through a megaphone outside of the Capitol, “Get in that shit! Let’s go! Let’s go! Move! Move! Move! Move! Storm that shit! This shit is ours! This is our fucking house!”
wore a “ballistic vest and gas mask” as he entered the Capitol and declared, “Let’s burn this shit down,” “We gotta get this shit burned,” “It’s our house motherfuckers.”
pointed his camera at a door and said, “Why don’t we go in there?” After someone hit the door, Sullivan said, “That’s what I’m sayin,’ break that shit.”
broke a window and said, “I broke it. My bad, my apologies. Well, they already broke a window. I didn’t know I hit it that hard. No one got that on camera.”
joined a crowd of rioters that were trying to break through a door, and said, “I have a knife. Let me through. I have a knife.”
Moreover, the videos show that Jade Sacker, the photojournalist who PolitiFact used to exonerate Sullivan, was complicit in his plan. Sullivan’s video shows Sacker and him inside the Capitol saying to each other:
Sacker: “I’ll give you your hug now. We did it!” Sullivan: [Laughter] Sacker: “You were right, we did it.” Sullivan: “Dude, I was trying to tell you. I couldn’t say much.” Sacker: “You were right [laughter].” Sullivan: “You just have to watch my chat.” Sacker: “Oh my God!” Sullivan: “Is this not gonna be the best film you’ve ever made in your life?” Sacker: “Yeah [unintelligible].” Sullivan: “Nah, you gotta give me a real kiss for that shit.” Sacker: “That’s it.” Sullivan: “Hell, yeah!” Sacker: “Hell, yeah?” Sullivan: “Hell, yeah!”
Then realizing that they were incriminating themselves, they say:
Sacker: “Wait, you weren’t recording, were you?” Sullivan: “I’ll delete that shit after. But I didn’t record you or me. We’re just voices.”
“one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.”
“one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.”
“one count of interfering with law enforcement engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of civil disorder.”
Faced with those facts, PolitiFact “updated” its original article two separatetimes to include “more detail” from the video and the FBI affidavit. Yet, PolitiFact deceitfully:
ignores the vast bulk of damning content in the video.
summarizes the footage by saying that “it doesn’t show Sullivan clearly engaged in the violence or leading the run up to the Capitol, although it does show him animated as he spoke with police and rioters from the frontlines.”
insists “there’s no proof” Sullivan incited insurgence.
POLITIFACT’S DOUBLE STANDARDS
In contrast to PolitiFact’s claim that Sullivan’s calls to “storm” and “burn” down the Capitol don’t constitute incitement, PolitiFact has not fact-checked any of the hundreds of Congressional Democrats who declare in their impeachment resolution that President Trump incited the riot. This is in spite of the fact that Trump didn’t call for violence and emphasized in his speech on that same day that people should go “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Yet, the impeachment resolution alleges that Trump is guilty of “inciting violence against the Government of the United States” because he stated in his speech: “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” This quote is taken out of context, as Trump used the word “fight” 20 times in the speech, making clear that he was speaking about legal, not physical, fighting. For example, he said that Rudy Giuliani has “guts, he fights.”
POLITIFACT’S STRAWMAN
PolitiFact also uses a dishonest debating technique called a “straw man.” This involves debunking an argument that someone did not make. Again, the Facebook post says: “Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group ‘Insurgence USA’ John Sullivan, incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol.” Yet, PolitiFact twists this by arguing “there’s no evidence that Sullivan ‘incited (the) insurgence’ alone amid a crowd of thousands.”
In short, the post does not claim that Sullivan is solely or even mainly responsible for inciting the riot, but PolitiFact inserts the words “alone” and “the” to make it seem like the post said he was the lone ringleader.
Rumble — One America’s Jack Posobiec is continuing to investigate the events that took place at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He recently sat down with Michael Yon, a war correspondent with years of experience studying tactics of Antifa and other groups. Jack asked Yon to compare what he has seen in other countries to the scenes at the Capitol earlier this month. Here’s what he had to say, take a look.
The below is built off of my Facebook Post on the matter. I post this here to highlight the idea for clarity — as the Left like to misinterpret what is said. THAT IS: “Remember, I am NOT saying Trump supporters weren’t involved.”
A couple UPDATES since I started this post:
Feds back away from claim that Capitol rioters were looking to capture and assassinate officials — Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin told reporters Friday that prosecutors don’t have concrete proof of such an effort.(POLITICO)
CNN Forced To Walk Back Story That Rioters At U.S. Capitol Building Were Specifically There To Kill Politicians… (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
So, since the beginning of the Capital Hill Incident, I have maintained the same point of view. First, riotess gatherings involve people that wouldn’t usually do criminal activity do such things. Which is why I mentioned a book in my first response to the Incident, here is an excerpt of that:
I suggest that every person who has not read Ann Coulter’s book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, read it. This “mob mentality” does not just exist on the Left, but when caught up in the energy of a large crowd, many will make a decision that alone, in a less stressful environment, wouldn’t make. We are human and are vulnerable at times to peer pressure.
Another thought is that I don’t care who you are — Antifa, Trump supporter, progressive, conservative, libertarian… whatever. If you storm the Capital you stand a high chance of being shot.
So, I acknowledged that part of the crowd was made up of Trump supporters (see DAILY BEAST and HEAVYfor instance), but I also noted from the beginning that LEFTIES were involved as well. TO WHICH I got many people on my Facebook saying “no” to. And within 2-days I got links to stuff where the FBI supposedly said that no Antifa was involved — which seems improbable because the investigation would and is a long term investigation. If — within days — the FBI could immediately access that sort of situation, I would ask people to check for responders surgically placed in their body.
“We have no indication of that at this time,” Washington Field Office assistant director Steven D’Antuono said during a briefing when asked about any potential involvement of antifa.
Again, “We have no indication of that at this time,” THAT statement within 2-days seems fair. I was confident Antifa would be found in the crowd. And as a response to my detractors I sent pics of this guy on January 7th (these are not from the 6th at the Capital, they are just meant to show his affiliations… MOONBATTERY has more as well):
(These pics are from a 2nd tear news source [100% FED-UP] I noted to my son who asked for sources to go to while on his tour of duty. Second tear are sources generally good, but may need to be verified — Reagan’s “trust but verify” — by checking their linked sources.) At the time 100% posted this on the 7th… John Sullivan, he was interviewed on CNN — more on that in a bit. Here is a portion of an older story on Antifa John noting how easy to connect him to a Leftist “revolutionary” past of activist activity (at least a good producer from CNN would not have him on):
….Last summer, Sullivan organized a BLM protest with other leftist groups, including a local ANITFA chapter. The event became violent and one person was shot. He was arrested at the time. …. (TOWNHALL)
Here is 100% FED-UP’s follow up story on Antifa John:
Far-Left Antifa/BLM activist John Sullivan has been identified as one of the activists who were part of the group of people who illegally entered the Capitol building on Wednesday. Sullivan is not, however, a Trump supporter, in fact, he’s just the opposite. On his Instagram page that has now been deleted, the BLM activist who is also the self-proclaimed founder of the “Insurgence USA” group, posted warnings like “An armed revolution is the only effective way to bring about change.”
[….]
Only 6 months ago, extreme BLM activist and Antifa leader Sullivan was arrested during a protest he organized. He was also caught on video standing next to a fellow protester who shot an innocent woman.
Sullivan was arrested and was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief. Sullivan was an organizer of a protest in Provo, UT, where an innocent motorist who was trying to get around Sullivan’s roadblock/protest, was shot.
The Deseret News reports- John Earle Sullivan, 25, of Sandy, was captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent.
“As a protest organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun and seeing smoke coming from it. John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.”
Sullivan’s Instagram page is filled with activist posts that contain language like “F*ck Trump.”
Sullivan is also the self-described founder of the Insurgence USA group. On their website, they provide a handy little guide on how to be an Anarchist. The guide explains how to disregard previous and predictable strategies, and instead, to use “guerilla tactics to overwhelm your adversary.” Hmmm…that almost sounds like what happened at the White House?
Strangely, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed Sullivan, he never mentioned his recent criminal history, his threats of preventing President Trump from serving a second term, including “ripping” him from the White House, or the radical group he founded that supports Anarchy and an armed revolution.
Watch his interview with Anderson Cooper that’s impossible to find anywhere on the internet. It’s almost like CNN doesn’t want anyone to see Anderson Cooper pretending that Sullivan is simply a “left-wing activist” or treating him like was a reporter on the scene who just happened to be standing next to Ashli Babbit when she was shot to death:…
Well… Antifa John was arrested by the FBI. Ooopsie Daisy CNN — here is the PDF of the charges. They have seen enough evidence to include him (and other Lefty activists involved as part of the mixed group). Video of him antagonizing the police at the spot of where that nutty gal was shot — rightly shot.
ANTIFA JOHN’S BROTHERS SAYS OVER 200 ANTIFA
So since this last story… Antifa John was turned in by his brother, James — who has spoken at Proud Boy events… a light vs. darkness (fire n ice) thing going on here [called the authorities and said his brother was in charge (100% FED-UP). And noted there were over 200 Leftists at that January 6th rally (NOQ REPORT).
ANTIFA JOHN CALLING ALL ANTIFA
Here is Antifa John leading the charge in getting Lefty BLM and Antifa to go on the 6th (*click to enlarge):
So, just as a recap, the HEADLINE (“No evidence antifa involved in Capitol riot”) mentioned above is in fact wrong. The FBI didn’t state that but rather said “at this point in the investigation.” Not only that, but the FBI HAS been wrong many times — so stating it like a definite is not always the best thing to do either. For instance I told a person I know the following:
…It’s okay Ross … you can say it … the FBI was wrong.
But again, the FBI wasn’t making proclamation’s like the headlines alluded to. Again: “We have no indication of that at this time” — FBI. As radical as I think Antifa John is, I agree with him in part about the riotess nature of the crowd, and for the idea that it was a mixed crowd, and that is was dangerous and large (07:50 min INTO VIDEO). But again, as Bill Maher says, a few thousand “asses” shouldn’t make the rest of the Republican Party be said to be the same. But, who are the killers? Not GOP’ers:
A violent radical BLM/Antifa leftist was arrested in Florida after his plot to organize an attack on peaceful protests ahead of Biden’s inauguration was uncovered by the FBI. You remember Antifa, the group that doesn’t exist and also is mostly peaceful and also is just like the D-Day troops according to Chris Cuomo? Yeah, THAT one….(RIGHT SCOOP)
Rioting first started on May 28 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, over the death of George Floyd, who was allegedly murdered by police officer Derek Chauvin. Since then, the riots have spread to major cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Louisville, and St. Louis. The riots have led to more death, especially among black Americans. The victims include: Dave Patrick Underwood….. David Dorn…. Italia Marie Kelly…. David McAtee…. Chris Beaty…. (BREITBART)
It would not be fair to judge the left on the violence and property destruction carried out by unhappy anti-Trump protesters. After all, didn’t Anti-Obama conservatives smash windows, assault Obama supporters, and set fires after Obama won the election?
Oh, wait, we didn’t do any of those things, did we?
These people call themselves Anarchists, and yet they are committing violence because they want more socialism, socialism being a maximized amount of Government control. Do they see the irony? Or are they just violent and stupid and have latched onto the progressive left because that side of the political spectrum is more accepting of hate and violence?
And I’m sure some lefties are saying (nasal, high-pitched, know-it-all liberal voice), “Oh, I think violence is wrong no matter which side does it.” Yeah, nice virtue signaling, but you’re just evading the reality that most of the time… an overwhelming amount of the time… it’s *your side* that’s doing it. Mainly because, your side tells people that temper tantrums and hatred are okay if they are directed against…. [insert name here]
I laughed out loud when I saw this.
I have a tag [VIOLENT DEMOCRATS] for posts I use detailing the violence from the left. It extends to the violent environmental groups (like ELF), to violent unions/members, and other instances like the Democrats getting very violent at Trump rallies (and often time being paid to do so), I have even asked for analogous actions by conservative as well as noting the joke of “this week in hate” via the New York Times, etc., yada-yada-blada.
Another example that makes me put “tolerant” Leftists in air-quotes is this story via MOONBATTERY:
Some entertainers have refused to participate in the inauguration because they are moonbats who put their self-indulgent leftist posturing ahead of their profession — others, because they are afraid:
Opera star Andrea Bocelli backed out of singing at Donald Trump’s inauguration after receiving death threats, The Mail on Sunday has learnt.
It was rumored that Bocelli backed out because he didn’t want to face a boycott from intolerant liberal fans…
[….]
Bocelli isn’t alone:
The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect’s festivities after being threatened and branded an ‘Uncle Tom’.
[….]
Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was ‘determined’ to sing for Trump despite voting against him.
She also denounced the abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.
However, she knuckled under to this attack, not only canceling her performance but validating the thugs who forced her to….
NEWSWEEK points out that “A new survey report shows that 8.5 percent of current college freshmen expect to participate in a student protest while in college. That figure is up 2.9 percentage points from 2014, and it is the highest percentage to respond that way in the annual survey since 1967.”
As the rapper Tef Poe sharply pointed out at a St. Louis rally in October protesting the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.: “This ain’t your grandparents’ civil rights movement.” (WaPo)
GAY PATRIOT notes this violence in trying to feel as relevant as the 1960s generation:
…The protests began peacefully, but quickly escalated into violence as protesters jumped the barricades set up by campus police. The news station confirmed that one anti-Milo protester threw hot coffee at its camera crew and their equipment.
The DAILY CALLER notes the anti-free-speech movement of the fascist left:
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.
It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.
Around 27 percent of Generation X’ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.
The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation.
Some of the demands include restrictions on offensive Halloween costumes at Yale University to the deletion of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s image and name at Princeton University to “anti-oppression training” for employees at Brown University….
(NEWSBUSTERS) The Anti-Capitalist Anti-Fascist Bloc’s DisruptJ20 Inauguration protest quickly turned violent Friday morning as protestors gathered at Logan Circle in D.C. and marched down 13th Street. Footage shot by MRC Culture and CNSNews.com during the march show protestors vandalizing local businesses, destroying a limousine, and chanting “no cops, no borders, fight law and order.”
This is an extension of a series I started, the first installment being: “Make Orwell Fiction Again (Hunter Biden Edition)” — I was going to include this, but chose to put it here to keep the other post more on it’s “censorship” topic.
Only a society that can effectively block and censor news, and shut down free expression is the kind the sticker refers to. Non-conservative ideas and news stories can be found readily in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle, ABC, NPR, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.
In fact, almost every newspaper WITH THE EXCEPTION of the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the New York Post, and at times FOX NEWS, have a more conservative leaning bias and news stories to be considered.
L.A. TIMES EXAMPLE
One example is that years ago the L.A. Times carried columns by Dennis Prager (and other conservative voices). Today they carry zero. Here is a good letter to the editor:
To the editor (OCT. 3, 2020): I had to laugh when I read the statement that the L.A. Times’ future depends on diversity in its staff and stories. (“The Times’ reckoning on race and our commitment to meaningful change,” Sept. 27)
The Times’ future — and that of its cohorts in the widely distrusted and reviled “mainstream media” — does indeed depend on diversity. But not the diversity The Times is talking about, a surface diversity of skin color, national origin and sexual orientation.
No, The Times’ future depends on ideological diversity, something it lacks entirely.
The Los Angeles Times of 2020 is a daily Democratic Party mailer, and a particularly vituperative one. More and more of the paper is devoted to opinion, and ostensible news stories themselves resemble op-ed articles. All of it, of course, leans in the same far-left direction.
This does special disservice to the largely left-leaning readership of The Times, who still, four years after Donald Trump’s election, have no idea why much of the country holds them in contempt.
The Times should in fact commit itself to diversity — of thought. For every left-leaning columnist who appears in its pages, The Times should commit to hiring one conservative — and not never-Trump conservatives like Jonah Goldberg, but fierce, proudly pro-Trump conservatives who can expose your readers to facts and arguments they otherwise never have to confront.
Sure, some of these readers would threaten to cancel their subscriptions, and a few may. But The Times would become a must-read instead of the partisan rag it is today.
Jordan Chodorow, Los Angeles
NEW YORK TIMES EXAMPLE
Here for instance is Larry Elder noting Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times, admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful disagreement:
Dennis hasn’t changed (I know, I have listed to him for 2-decades), the Democrats and the Left in general have moved leftward.
PEW DATA
The Pew data, however, make it clear that the shift toward the extreme has happened among Democrats, not Republicans.
A new study from the Pew Research Center shows a growing partisan gap in opinions on major issues, driven in part by Democrats’ leftward drift.
Pew found Democrats have moved substantially left on a variety of issues while Republicans’ views remain relatively constant. That was true across social and economic issues; Pew claimed that the split between Republicans and Democrats is more pronounced than any divides by race, gender, or socioeconomic status.
“This poll and some other recent ones show that Democrats are pulling more strongly to the left and Republicans are not pulling quite as strongly to the right as a general matter,” said Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who specializes in American public opinion.
[….]
“The party is being pulled in a more liberal direction, there’s no question about that,” Bowman said. “I mean Elizabeth Warren’s comment a few weeks ago essentially that this isn’t Bill Clinton’s party, we’re not the party of welfare and crime. I think she’s reflecting the views of many of the people in her party. And I think a lot of it happened during the Obama years.”
…Now, while Joe Biden is the new president, it’s Bernie Sanders and his allies who will often be in the driver’s seat making policy. “We’re going to push Joe — the president — as far as we can,” Sanders told CNN.
Wherever that ends up being, it will move this country further to the left than most people thought possible a year ago. Bernie Sanders is proof that if you’re persistent enough, you don’t have to be elected president to be in a position to accomplish your goals.
Senator Kamala Harris is the most left wing Senator — even more Left” than Bernie:
In 2018, Harris was ranked the fourth-most left-wing. But by 2019 — a year she spent running for president — Harris had moved to the furthest extreme.
She was an early co-sponsor of the Senate version of the “Green New Deal” of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the “Medicare for All” bill introduced by Sanders, which would have eliminated all private health insurance.
Harris also supported granting free health care to illegal aliens, slashing military budgets, and other radical proposals.
GovTrack explained its ratings: “Our unique ideology analysis assigns a score to Members of Congress according to their legislative behavior by how similar the pattern of bills and resolutions they cosponsor are to other Members of Congress. The score can be interpreted as a conservative—liberal scale, although of course it only takes into account a small aspect of reality.” The most conservative score is 1.00; the most liberal score possible is 0.00.
Harris ranked #100 — the “least conservative,” or most liberal, Senator on the list, and the only one to score a “0.00”:
#90 0.16 Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD] #91 0.15 Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] #92 0.14 Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN] #93 0.12 Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT] #94 0.10 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA] #95 0.09 Sen. Mazie Hirono [D-HI] #96 0.07 Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] #97 0.07 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR] #98 0.03 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY] #99 0.02 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT] #100 0.00 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA]
The New York Times called Harris a “pragmatic moderate” in its coverage of Harris’s announcement as Joe Biden’s running mate. [RPT editorial: LOL!]
Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports on the increasing leftward shift of Democrats, calling it “striking,” while noting that many formerly liberal fringe ideas are now mainstream in the Democrat Party. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.
What’s happening: You see it in many of the major domestic debates of our times.
Show less
Support for a big government “Green New Deal” to fight climate change. Watch the 2020 candidates jump on this bandwagon.
Support for Medicare for All, calling for a much bigger government role in health care, beyond the Affordable Care Act.
A rush away from tough-on-security as crucial to immigration reform, which until recently was seen by most Democrats as essential to not looking soft on crime or terrorism.
In all three cases, these topics are shaping up as the new litmus tests for liberal activists heading into 2020.
Why it matters: These ideas and their champions are coming to the fore at a moment when there are real opportunities to begin to realize them.
You can see this shift in one important number: the number of Democrats proudly calling themselves liberal.
Gallup said yesterday that 51% of Democrats self-describe as liberal, a new high “following gradual increases since the 1990s.”
In 1992, when Clinton first won, 25% self-identified as liberal, 25% as conservative and the rest as moderate.
And across the spectrum, the country’s traditional lean in favor of conservatives has narrowed: 35% of Americans told Gallup they’re conservative, 35% moderate and 26% liberal………
A family member commented on a sticker on the back-window of my van by affirming the idea of “Make Orwell Fiction Again.” (Click to Enlarge) [This will be a continuing series to address this idea]
However, knowing that his only form of news is essentially late-night [political] comics, CNN, and NPR… he meant it in a differing way than both the novel, and I meant it. So, below will be the beginning of a series of articles with small excerpts that I will continually add to in other posts. And note as well that what we have is a marriage of Orwell as well as Huxley as expressed in the quote from Joshua Charles’ book, Liberty’s Secrets: The Lost Wisdom of America’s Founders, found here: Orwell vs. Huxley (Big Tech Update)
MOST MEDIA EXCLUDES CONSERVATIVE IDEAS
Only a society that can effectively block and censor news, and shut down free expression is the kind the sticker refers to. Non-conservative ideas and news stories can be found readily in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle, ABC, NPR, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.
In fact, almost every newspaper WITH THE EXCEPTION of the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the New York Post, and at times FOX NEWS, have a more conservative leaning bias and news stories to be considered.
One example is that years ago the L.A. Times carried columns by Dennis Prager (and other conservative voices). Today they carry zero.
TWITTER/FACEBOOK CENSOR MAJOR NEWS STORY
THE NEW YORK POST was censored for many weeks… scrubbed from Twitter as well as Facebook. Here is what my past Twitter looked liked when trying to share the story:
Armstrong and Getty cover Glenn Greenwald resigning from the “free speech” news outlet he founded. The article mentioned them of Glenn’s is this one: “Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept”. [As an aside, I added MUCH MORE of the Tucker interview.]:
….The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.
A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.
As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”…
So we’ve all been talking a lot about the investigation into Hunter Biden and how the mainstream media seems to have finally caught up to the fact that yes, it’s real and it’s Russian disinformation as some tried to claim before the election.
Now that they think Joe Biden won, they’re free to just say “oh, well, here’s this thing.”
Never mind that they consciously suppressed it from the American people and completely failed in their supposed job prior to the election.
We saw a lot of conservatives chastising the media today for what they did.
But I wanted to talk about another group.
We expect the Democrats to cover for Biden. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told CNN it was a “smear” straight from the Kremlin. CNN’s Jeff Zucker said in his morning conference call to impress upon people this stuff about Hunter was just more “Russian disinformation.” A lot of mainstream media has become little more than Democratic operatives at this point.
There’s a group that we don’t expect and for sure shouldn’t be playing this game and that’s the intelligence community.
But they have and they did in this instance as well.
There were 50 former senior intelligence officers who signed a letter saying that Hunter Biden’s emails had all the signs of a Russian disinformation campaign……
MEDIA “DISCOVERED” STORY AFTER BIDEN ELECTED
Except the story was [and still is] 100% true. It was Russian disinformation UNTIL BIDEN WON, then the media discovered it’s veracity.
…After the New York Post’s reporting was dismissed and characterized by members of the media as a “baseless conspiracy theory,” a “smear campaign,” and “Russian disinformation,” Wednesday’s announcement from Hunter Biden was ultimately too much for the media to ignore.
All three major networks’ evening newscasts addressed the controversy, with “NBC Nightly News” spending the most time on the subject, clocking in at roughly one minute and 16 seconds of coverage while “CBS Evening News” came in a distant second, with roughly 45 seconds of coverage, followed by ABC’s “World News Tonight” with roughly just 30 seconds.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper reported the breaking news as it happened during his program, which was quite the opposite tone that he took during the election when he dismissed the allegations against Hunter Biden as “too disgusting” to repeat on-air.
Tapper’s colleagues Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper also mentioned the explosive development on their shows, while CNN anchors Erin Burnett, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon avoided the subject….
Jake Tapper declares Hunter Biden claims ‘too disgusting’ to repeat on CNN: ‘The rightwing is going crazy’ — CNN is among other major news outlets that continue to downplay the growing Biden controversy (FOX)
CNN boss, political director spiked Hunter Biden controversy, audiotapes reveal: ‘We’re not going with’ story — Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe vowed he will release ‘raw recordings’ of the over 50 conference calls every day until Christmas. (FOX)
Ric Grenell calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for belatedly covering Hunter Biden story — ‘This story broke in October. You didn’t do it then,’ former acting DNI scolded the CNN anchor (FOX)
1984 JUMPS TO #1 ON AMAZON AMID EXPANDED CENSORSHIP
JUST THE NEWS notes the jump to #1 of 1984 on Amazon
As “big tech” companies have moved to silence conservative voices on the Internet, mega-marketer Amazon reports on Sunday that its overall top-selling book is 1984, a decades old novel that portrays a society completely controlled by government “Thought Police.”
The spike in sales comes amid a rush of shutdowns in which these moves occurred in rapid succession:
Twitter on Friday booted Donald Trump from its platform and erased the entire history of his tweets;
Facebook deleted a grassroots organization for disenchanted Democrats, WalkAway;
Apple and Google banned the messaging platform Parler from its app stores;
and Amazon said it imminently will ban Parler, which is used by many conservatives, from company servers.
As of Sunday morning, Amazon book sales showed that the top-selling book is the dystopian novel published by George Orwell more than 70 years ago. The classic novel, published in 1949, depicts how government Thought Police eavesdrop on citizens in their own homes, searching for heresy of any kind. Anyone whose beliefs deviate from the official norm are declared “unpersons” who never existed.
Reviewers on Amazon drew parallels between the book’s plot and current events in the United States.
“Born and living in communist Romania I went through the same ordeal described in 1987,” wrote Constantin Turculet, who is listed as making a verified purchase. “After 40 years I managed to escape to America, only to find after 35 years of living in freedom that this country is pushed toward the same horror scenario I thought mankind will never forget.”…
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Later ages are always surprised by the casual brutality of totalitarian regimes. What those innocent ages neglect is the unshakeable (though misguided) conviction of virtue that animates the totalitarians. The historian John Kekes, writing about Robespierre in City Journal some years ago, touched on the essential point. If we understand Robespierre, “we understand that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with ideologues. For they are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and that their enemies are irrational and immoral simply because they are enemies.” That is the position of conservatives in American culture today. (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
A former Twitter CEO took measures to ensure messages critical of President Obama wouldn’t circulate too widely on the platform during a 2015 question-and-answer session, according to a new report.
The incident allegedly occurred during a May 2015 “#AskPOTUS” event on the platform, when former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo purportedly ordered the creation of an algorithm to suppress the messages and used employees to manually scrub any critical content missed by the software.
Costolo kept the decision secret from company executives for fear that someone might object, several sources told Buzzfeed….
The tech companies are just emboldened now. That’s all.
TONY BOBULINSKI AND LEFTIE LEGAL SCHOLAR, JONATHAN TURLEY
Yep, there were MANY disgusting videos on Hunter Biden’s laptop: him sexually abusing underage girls, including a family member, smoking crack, etc. But what was more disgusting was covering up a real news story [evidence of pay to play in the Ukraine and China] by almost all news outlets (print or media), as well as the censoring of it on social media. However, as Jonathan Turley notes wisely about NPR….. the designation as “a distraction” shows a bias rather than a news outfit, video precedes Turley’s article for context:
Tony Bobulinski will attend Thursday night’s debate as guest of President Trump.
JONATHAN TURLEY [Lefty Legal Scholar] notes this about Tony Bobulinski giving AMPLE evidence of who “the big guy” is:
A former business partner to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, has made a bombshell statement that not only are the emails on the Biden laptop authentic but the reference to giving a cut to “the big guy” was indeed a reference to former Vice President Joe Biden. More emails are emerging that show Hunter Biden referring to his family as his asset in these dealings.
The emails that have attracted the most attention refer to an actual meeting of Joe Biden with these foreign figures and one referring to a proposed equity split of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Bobulinski confirms that “H” was used for Hunter Biden and that his father was routinely called “the big guy” in these discussions.
Another email Bobulinski being instructed by James Gilliar not to make any mention of the former veep’s involvement: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”
Bobulinski said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar and stated that he believes Joe Biden was lying in denying any knowledge of these dealings, stating Hunter “frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals.” He added that “The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.”
I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
I have written for years that Hunter Biden was clearly influence peddling and he contradicted his father’s denial of any knowledge of his dealings. The media can continue to hold its breath for weeks to try to avoid the obvious in this story. That could well guarantee Biden the presidency but it will destroy the media’s credibility for years.
THIS CENSORSHIP PUSHED BIDEN INTO THE “WIN” COLUMN
…For the post-election survey, The Polling Company interviewed 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, six of which (excluding North Carolina) were called for Biden. The voters were asked about their knowledge of eight news stories, all of which the liberal media had downplayed or censored.
The survey showed “a huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested,” reported the MRC.
For instance, despite the #MeToo movement and the media coverage it garnered, the survey found that 35.4% of Biden voters were unaware of the serious allegations of sexual assault made by Tara Reade against Joe Biden. Reade had worked for Biden in the 1990s.
“If they had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote — either switching to Trump or a 3rd party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all,” said the MRC.
“By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), giving the president a win with 311 electoral college votes,” said the organization.
Another important story buried by the major media was the Hunter Biden laptop story, which showed that Joe Biden was aware of his son’s business dealings in the Ukraine and in Communist China.
Yet 45.1% of Biden voters said they were unaware of the laptop story.
“According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes,” reported the MRC.
Similar results were found when Biden voters were asked about the other six censored stories – Kamala Harris’s radical left-wing policies; positive economic and job reports; Middle East peace deals brokered by Trump; energy independence; and the swift vaccine production as a result of Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.
“Looking at all eight of these issues together, our poll found that a total of 17% of Biden’s voters told us they would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories,” reported the MRC.
“This would have moved every one of the swing states into Trump’s column, some by a huge margin,” said the MRC. “The President would have trounced Biden in the electoral college, 311 to 227.”
The MRC noted that the Biden voters who said they would have voted differently had they been properly informed by the media, did not have to vote for Trump for the president to have won a second term.
“Just by choosing to abandon Biden, these voters would have handed all six of these states, and a second term, to the President — if the news media had properly informed them about the two candidates,” said the MRC. (Emphasis added.)
The more I think about HR127 the angrier I get because it is truly a disgusting bill. It does more harm to good people than help them and makes it easier for bad people to victimize good people.
…..The Left’s message to the public is that there were no consequential 2020 Presidential election malfeasance, irregularities or illegalities — supposedly because the courts objectively and thoroughly investigated those claims, and ruled them to be unfounded.
Neither element of that assertion is even remotely true.
To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a List of Lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc.
We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.)
To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary. (If we didn’t do justice to any of these, please let me know and I’ll issue an update.)
Another idea we implemented was to color-code the decisions — to make it easy for the reader to segregate the various outcomes.
Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”.
So what are the takeaways?
To begin with our list shows that there have been seventy-five (75) lawsuits filed that are relevant to the 2020 Presidential election. (Note 1: we are counting an original filing, plus additional appeals as one single case. Note 2: other lawsuits are possibly undiscovered.)
The results to date are:
a) Eight cases have been withdrawn or consolidated. (These are not wins or losses to either side.)
b) Twenty-five cases have been stopped from proceeding (dismissed) due to legal technicalities (standing, timing, jurisdiction, etc.). These have nothing to do with the merits of the case and should also not be considered wins or losses for either side. That more than a third of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing is more of an indictment that many judges appear to be afraid of opening this pandora’s box. Considering the importance of election integrity to our country, it’s a shame for them to hide behind subjective legal technicalities. How is that in the interest of the citizens in our country?
In any case, this leaves us with forty-two (42) lawsuits relevant to the 2020 Presidential election where a judge has ruled (or hopefully will rule) on the merits. The results so far are:
c) Nineteen cases are completed (adjudicated). These are where the court heard arguments, considered evidence (where applicable), and then formally ruled on statutory issues (e.g. the legality of a state’s election process), etc. Of these:
i) Eleven cases were WON by Trump, et al, and
ii) Eight cases were lost by Trump, et al.
d) Twenty-three cases are still active and have not yet been decided — so the ultimate winner and loser of these cases has not been determined.
So, Trump (et al) have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits! Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?…..
Socialism is now as popular as capitalism among young people. That’s because they are being told nonsense.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, I thought everybody would realize that socialism brings misery. But no, “intellectuals” like Professor Noam Chomsky convinced many that it was capitalism that was “a grotesque catastrophe,” and “The Soviet Union … was about as remote from socialism as you could imagine.” But that’s ridiculous. Economist Benjamin Powell explains that when the Soviets made private business illegal, “that’s about as close as the world ever saw to the purest socialist end of the spectrum.” That’s “Myth 1”. Whenever socialism fails people always say, “but that wasn’t ‘real’ socialism.” In this video (and our next) we debunk 5 ridiculous myths about socialism.
Newsmax host Rob Schmitt opened his show on Tuesday discussing the upcoming impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump. Schmitt also took time to mention the many irregularities, rule changes and fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Schmitt may be the only honest reporter left in America today.
QUOTE via FBI MEMOS:
Pipe bombs found near Capitol on Jan. 6 are believed to have been placed the night before. [RPT Note: planted at Democrats AND Republican offices]
[….]
One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” Some had been preparing for conflict for weeks.
[….]
In the week leading up to the rally and riot, Watkins and Caldwell were in regular contact as they talked about various groups of people meeting up on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to an indictment filed this past week against them.
This was planned weeks ahead of time, the violent crowd had already entered the Capitol even before Trump was half-way through his speech:
Based on Chief Sund’s timeline, the riot at the Capitol began more than thirty minutes before Trump finished his speech, and long before he made the only comment that Democrats pointed to in order to back up their baseless claim that the president “encouraged” insurrection. (LIFESITE)
Again, the pipe-bombs were placed at both Republican and Democrat sites, the DAY BEFORE:
Just to be clear, While I am posting a portion by RIGHT SCOOP, this is them sending people to the fuller article, to quote:
I highly recommend reading the whole article. It may be unusual to send a reader to another site, but this is the kind of thing that requires the group, the crowd, to fight back against.
The bombs were placed the night before. The plans were made weeks in advance. The riot mob and Trump’s rally audience were different groups.
The incitement narrative is “falling apart before our very eyes,” says Kyle Becker in an outstanding new column at his substack.
On January 6th, amid a large gathering at the nation’s capitol to protest what millions of Americans perceived to be illegitimately held elections in key swing states, the former president gave a speech. The timing of the speech was the convening of the Joint Session of Congress to validate the slates of electors from the Electoral College.
It has been argued that Donald Trump’s language at the speech, including using the words “fight” was deliberately incendiary. But let’s take a look at the actual language of the speech. Trump deliberately says “fight” in the commonplace political context:
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible.
It should be noted further that allegations of election “fraud” are not incitement. Indeed, the same mainstream media accusing Trump of ‘inciting’ the crowd with fraud allegations accused Donald Trump himself of perpetrating fraud in the 2016 election.
Becker walks through several of the deceptive headlines that have poured out since January 6th (which is in fact its own form of incitement) and gets into the heart of it.
“For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI,” the report states.
It is quite obvious that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and head of some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, would not incite an “insurrection” or a “coup” from a mob of common political supporters and amateurish rabble like these fellows, who are suspiciously emblematic of the media’s warped reading of who is likely to be a Trump supporter:
After the U.S. Capitol riot, Democrats suddenly discovered law and order, and they no longer want to defund the police. But back during the Black Lives Matter riots throughout the summer of 2020, not so much. In this episode, Larry looks back at the comments made from the Democrats and the mainstream media, and how they served as cheerleaders for the rioters burning and looting in cities across America. Can you say… double standard?
A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here (RUMBLE)
What I find interesting about the article by Rachel S. Mikva (USA TODAY) is her grouping these people with Christianity. For instance, she seems to think that the horned guy mentioning “god” means he is referencing “God” (the Judeo-Christian God). For instance, here is a decent article zeroing in on the neo-Pagan aspects of the white supremacy movement. Of which I know personally about being that I was in jail for almost a year-and-a-half. I know their neo-Pagan systems of belief well. As well as studying the Third Reich love of this Paganism. See for instance:
…Then Jacob Chansley, sometimes called the “QAnon Shaman,” took his bullhorn and announced gratitude to God for being able to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.”Bare-chested to expose his white supremacist tattoos, he had paused briefly to remove his Viking-inspired horned headdress and cap — presumably to assume a properly humble posture as he claimed the United States for himself and his fellow-believers.
One thing that should make it very clear where Angeli’s politics lie are his tattoos. On his torso he has a large Thor’s hammer, known as Mjölnir, and what appears to be an image of the Norse world tree, Yggdrasill.
Mjölnir is one symbol we can be pretty sure was used by the original adherents of the Norse belief system, perhaps to summon the protection of the god Thor. Yggdrasill is the giant ash tree that supports the Norse cosmos, its branches reaching into sky realms inaccessible to humans, and its roots to the subterranean realm of the dead. Unlike Thor’s hammer, it was only rarely depicted by the Vikings, and representations such as the one below are modern interpretations.
Above these tattoos with a central place in Norse mythology is one that is more contentious. It depicts a valknut – an image that appears on two Viking-Age stones from Sweden carved with scenes from Norse mythology, including the Stora Hammars I stone on the island of Gotland.
The symbol’s original meaning is unclear, but it appears in close proximity to the father of the gods, Odin, on the stones. As Odin is closely connected with the gathering of fallen warriors to Valhalla, the valknut may be a symbol of death in battle.
Snorri Sturluson, a medieval Icelandic collector of myths, tells us in his “Language of Poetry” that a famous giant called Hrungnir had a stone heart “pointed with three corners”, and so the valknut is sometimes also called “Hrungnir’s Heart”. Whatever its original meaning, it has been used in more recent times by various neo-pagan groups – and increasingly by some white supremacists as a coded message of their belief in violent struggle…..
Another post with some names of the Norse gods is here. When I was in jail, I met a couple “Odinites”
ODINISM
…Odinism is another term for Asatru, a pagan religion. But in the FBI’s Project Megiddo, it was described as a:
… white supremacist ideology that lends itself to violence and has the potential to inspire its followers to violence in connection to the millennium. What makes Odinists dangerous is the fact that many believe in the necessity of becoming martyrs for their cause. — FBI Report: Project Megiddo
The New Romantics ”A Swedish expert on right-wing extremism says that racist Odinism is the radical religion of the future.” By Mattias Gardell, professor of religious history at the University of Stockholm’s Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations, writing in the Spring, 2001 edition of Intelligence Report (published by the Southern Poverty Law Center). See also: Clarification, by Mattias Gardell.
What is Asatru? Long before Christianity came to northern Europe, the people there – our ancestors – had their own religions. One of these was Asatru. It was practiced in the lands that are today Scandinavia, England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries as well. Asatru is the original, or native, religion for the peoples who lived in these regions. Simply put, you might think of it as ”the religion of the Vikings” since they were its main followers in the years just before our ancestors were forced to adopt Christianity.
What does the word ”Asatru” mean? It means, roughly, “belief in the Gods” in Old Norse, the language of ancient Scandinavia in which so much of our source material was written. Asatru is the name by which the Norsemen called their religion.
[…]
What are the basic tenets or beliefs of Asatru? We believe in an underlying, all-pervading divine energy or essence which is generally hidden from us, and which is beyond our immediate understanding. We further believe that this spiritual reality is interdependent with us – that we affect it, and it affects us.
We believe that this underlying divinity expresses itself to us in the forms of the Gods and Goddesses. Stories about these deities are like a sort of code, the mysterious ”language” through which the divine reality speaks to us.
We believe in standards of behavior which are consistent with these spiritual truths and harmonious with our deepest being.
How does Asatru differ from other religions? Asatru is unlike the better-known religions in many ways. Some of these are:
We are polytheistic. That is, we believe in a number of deities, including Goddesses as well as Gods. (We have a tongue-in-cheek saying that a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism!)
We do not accept the idea of ”original sin,” the notion that we are tainted from birth and intrinsically bad, as does Christianity. Thus, we do not need ”saving.”
We do not claim to be a universal religion, a faith for all of humankind. In fact, we don’t think such a thing is possible or desirable. The different branches of humanity have different ways of looking at the world, each of which is valid for them. It is only right that they have different religions…..
Asatru (pronounced AS-a-tru or OW-sa-tru) is a word which means ”those true to the Gods” in Icelandic. It is one of the words used to label the pre-Christian, native religion of Scandinavia and the Germanic countries. Another term used for these beliefs is ”Odinism,” and it will be used throughout this document as meaning the same as Asatru. (Source: A Brief History of Asatru, or Odinism)
Finally, Odinism is anotherwhite supremacist ideology that lends itself to violence and has the potential to inspire its followers to violence in connection to the millennium. What makes Odinists dangerous is the fact that many believe in the necessity of becoming martyrs for their cause. For example, Bob Mathews, the leader of The Order, died in a fiery confrontation with law enforcement. Also, William King relished the fact that he would receive the death penalty for his act of dragging James Byrd, Jr. to his death. Odinism has little to do with Christian Identity but there is one key similarity: Odinism provides dualism — as does Christian Identity — with regard to the universe being made up of worlds of light (white people) and worlds of dark (non-white people). The most fundamental difference between the two ideologies is that Odinists do not believe in Jesus Christ. However, there are enough similarities between the myths and legends of Odinism and the beliefs of Christian Identity to make a smooth transition from Christian Identity to Odinism for those racist individuals whose penchant for violence is not being satisfied. (Source: White Supremacy, Project Megiddo)…..
Let me say, I think Tulsi will distance herself more and more from the Democrats and affiliate more with people like Dave Rubin does — conservatives — who are the bulwark in protecting free speech and thought.
(TRANSCRIPT) The mob who stormed the capitol to try to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities were behaving like domestic enemies of our country. But let us be clear, the John Brennan’s, Adam Schiffs and the oligarchs in Big Tech who are trying to undermine our constitutionally-protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style “surveillance” are also domestic enemies—and much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, than the mob which stormed the Capitol.
John Brennan said, “Members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”
President Biden, I call upon you and all members of Congress from both parties to denounce these efforts by the likes of Brennan and others to take away our civil liberties endowed to us by our Creator and guaranteed in our Constitution. If you don’t stand up to these people now, then our country will be in great peril.
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Tulsi Gabbard (former Congresswoman) about the Big Tech social media purge, Trump being banned from Twitter, the censorship of Parler by Google, Apple and Amazon and shares an exclusive announcement with Rubin Report viewers. Tulsi Gabbard shares her concerns with the amount of power that tech corporations hold over our ability to communicate with each other. She discusses the ramping up of social media censorship on the major tech platforms and how she is using Locals.com to protect her ability to communicate with her followers.
YOU CANNOT YELL “FIRE” IN A CROWDED THEATRE
Here is a responses to that quote trotted out often, for the curious. The first comes from [of all places] THE ATLANTIC:
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, “the law”–as some have curiously called it–can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday “Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater,” as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone’s suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.
In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”
The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:
It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”
The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.
Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White’s excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.
In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine).
Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act. It would become the first in a long string of dissents Holmes and fellow Justice Louis Brandeis would write in defense of free speech that collectively laid the groundwork for Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s that shaped the First Amendment jurisprudence of today.
In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”……
