Dems/MSM Were Against Pre-Emptive Pardons Before They Were For Them

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of his talk with co-host Russell Brand about Joy Reid, Adam Schiff, and other mainstream media pundits having their previous comments on Pre-Emptive Pardons blow up in their faces now that Joe Biden has issued a flurry of pre-emptive pardons of his family members. Watch Dave Rubin’s FULL SHOW:

Schumer/Schiff Flashback!

The Real Lie of the Year | The “Shadow Presidency”

1st Posted 12-29-2024 ~ Updated Info:

President Joe Biden is not fully in charge of the country due to cognitive decline, and a “shadow presidency” is controlling him, a Democratic National Committee member has said.

Lindy Li, a member of the DNC‘s National Finance Committee, expressed her concerns about the mental acuity of the 82-year-old president in an interview on NewsNation on Sunday.

(NEWSWEEK)

REAL CLEAR POLITICS has the transcript of this video

Here is the WALL STREET JOURNAL article not behind a pay wall


PolitiFact said the “lie of the year” was Trump saying that Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs. (CAUTION – SEE: here, here, here, here.) But in reality, the Democrat establishment gets the award in my opinion — AS — this is truly a scandal based on a coverup.

Known as lies. To wit…

@Scott Jennings KY  just dismantled a CNN panel as they attempted to defend Joe Biden’s legacy:

“I think he’s going to leave office in disgrace.” “The Hunter Biden pardon was disgraceful. He’s going to be remembered largely for inflation and for the disastrous Afghanistan pullout. And I think as we continue to we’re just getting the first draft of this now.”

“But as we continue to learn about the massive cover up that went on, not about his health, but about his mental acuity to cover that up, the efforts, that were undertaken by the White House staff, by his family, not in the last couple of months, but for all four years. I think it’s going to be a really ugly chapter.”

“I think we still don’t know the full extent of what they did to try to hide what they’ve been doing over in the West Wing.”

This is a must listen to Armstrong and Getty excerpt. Wow. The Wall Street Journal article is behind a paywall. So here is an unlocked version:

  • “How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge: Aides kept meetings short and controlled access, top advisers acted as go-betweens and public interactions became more scripted. The administration denied Biden has declined.” (TOVINA.COM| Posted Below)

WSJ ARTICLE:

Aides kept meetings short and controlled access, top advisers acted as go-betweens and public interactions became more scripted. The administration denied Biden has declined.

During the 2020 presidential primary, Jill Biden campaigned so extensively across Iowa that she held events in more counties than her husband—a fact her press secretary at the time, Michael LaRosa, touted to a local reporter.

His superior in the Biden campaign quickly chided him. As the three rode in a minivan through the state’s cornfields, Anthony Bernal, then a deputy campaign manager and chief of staff to Jill Biden, pressed LaRosa to contact the reporter again and play down any comparison in campaign appearances between Joe Biden, then 77, and his wife, who is eight years his junior. Her energetic schedule only highlighted her husband’s more plodding pace, LaRosa recalls being told.

The message from Biden’s team was clear. “The more you talk her up, the more you make him look bad,” LaRosa said.

The small correction foreshadowed how Biden’s closest aides and advisers would manage the limitations of the oldest president in U.S. history during his four years in office.

To adapt the White House around the needs of a diminished leader, they told visitors to keep meetings focused. Interactions with senior Democratic lawmakers and some cabinet members—including powerful secretaries such as Defense’s Lloyd Austin and Treasury’s Janet Yellen —were infrequent or grew less frequent. Some legislative leaders had a hard time getting the president’s ear at key moments, including ahead of the U.S.’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.

Senior advisers were often put into roles that some administration officials and lawmakers thought Biden should occupy, with people such as National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, senior counselor Steve Ricchetti and National Economic Council head Lael Brainard and her predecessor frequently in the position of being go-betweens for the president.

Press aides who compiled packages of news clips for Biden were told by senior staff to exclude negative stories about the president. The president wasn’t talking to his own pollsters as surveys showed him trailing in the 2024 race.

Presidents always have gatekeepers. But in Biden’s case, the walls around him were higher and the controls greater, according to Democratic lawmakers, donors and aides who worked for Biden and other administrations. There were limits over who Biden spoke with, limits on what they said to him and limits around the sources of information he consumed.

Throughout his presidency, a small group of aides stuck close to Biden to assist him, especially when traveling or speaking to the public. “They body him to such a high degree,” a person who witnessed it said, adding that the “hand holding” is unlike anything other recent presidents have had.

The White House operated this way even as the president and his aides pressed forward with his re-election bid—which unraveled spectacularly after his halting performance in a June debate with Donald Trump made his mental acuity an insurmountable issue. Vice President Kamala Harris replaced him on the Democratic ticket and was decisively defeated by Trump in a shortened campaign—leaving Democrats to debate whether their chances were undercut by Biden’s refusal to yield earlier .

This account of how the White House functioned with an aging leader at the top of its organizational chart is based on interviews with nearly 50 people, including those who participated in or had direct knowledge of the operations.

Many of those who criticized Biden’s insularity said his system nonetheless kept his agenda on track.

White House spokesman Andrew Bates said Biden “earned the most accomplished record of any modern commander in chief and rebuilt the middle class because of his attention to policy details that impact millions of lives.” Bates, who rejected the notion that Biden has declined, added that the president has often solicited opinions from outside experts, which has informed his policymaking.

He said it is the job of senior White House staff to have high-level meetings regularly and that they were executing Biden’s agenda at his direction.

He also said that staff alerted the president to “significant” negative news stories. Bernal, via the White House press office, declined to comment.

‘Good Days And Bad Days’

The president’s slide has been hard to overlook. While preparing last year for his interview with Robert K. Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents, the president couldn’t recall lines that his team discussed with him. At events, aides often repeated instructions to him, such as where to enter or exit a stage, that would be obvious to the average person. Biden’s team tapped campaign co-chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg , a Hollywood mogul, to find a voice coach to improve the president’s fading warble.

Biden, now 82, has long operated with a tightknit inner circle of advisers. The protective culture inside the White House was intensified because Biden started his presidency at the height of the Covid pandemic. His staff took great care to prevent him from catching the virus by limiting in-person interactions with him. But the shell constructed for the pandemic was never fully taken down, and his advanced age hardened it.

The structure was also designed to prevent Biden, an undisciplined public speaker throughout his half-century political career, from making gaffes or missteps that could damage his image, create political headaches or upset the world order.

The system put Biden at an unusual remove from cabinet secretaries, the chairs of congressional committees and other high-ranking officials. It also insulated him from the scrutiny of the American public.

The strategies to protect Biden largely worked—until June 27, when Biden stood on an Atlanta debate stage with Trump, searching for words and unable to complete his thoughts on live television. Much of the Democratic establishment had accepted the White House line that Biden was able to take the fight to Trump, even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary .

Biden, staffed with advisers since he became a senator at age 30, came to the White House with a small team of fiercely loyal, long-serving aides who knew him and Washington so well that they could be particularly effective proxies. They didn’t tolerate criticism of Biden’s performance or broader dissent within the Democratic Party, especially when it came to the president’s decision to run for a second term.

Yet a sign that the bruising presidential schedule needed to be adjusted for Biden’s advanced age had arisen early on—in just the first few months of his term. Administration officials noticed that the president became tired if meetings went long and would make mistakes.

They issued a directive to some powerful lawmakers and allies seeking one-on-one time: The exchanges should be short and focused, according to people who received the message directly from White House aides.

Ideally, the meetings would start later in the day, since Biden has never been at his best first thing in the morning, some of the people said. His staff made these adjustments to limit potential missteps by Biden, the people said. The president, known for long and rambling sessions, at times pushed in the opposite direction, wanting or just taking more time.

The White House denied that his schedule has been altered due to his age.

If the president was having an off day, meetings could be scrapped altogether. On one such occasion, in the spring of 2021, a national security official explained to another aide why a meeting needed to be rescheduled. “He has good days and bad days, and today was a bad day so we’re going to address this tomorrow,” the former aide recalled the official saying.

While it isn’t uncommon for politicians to want more time with the president than they get, some Democrats felt Biden was unusually hard to reach.

That’s what Rep. Adam Smith of Washington found when he tried to share his concerns with the president ahead of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Smith, a Democrat who then chaired the powerful House Armed Services Committee, was alarmed by what he viewed as overly optimistic comments from Biden as the administration assembled plans for the operation.

“I was begging them to set expectations low,” said Smith, who had worked extensively on the issue and harbored concerns about how the withdrawal might go. He sought to talk to Biden directly to share his insights about the region but couldn’t get on the phone with him, Smith said.

After the disastrous withdrawal, which left 13 U.S. service members and more than 170 Afghans dead, Smith made a critical comment to the Washington Post about the administration lacking a “clear-eyed view” of the U.S.-backed Ashraf Ghani government’s durability. It was among comments that triggered an angry phone call from Secretary of State Antony Blinken , who ended up getting an earful from the frustrated chairman. Shortly after, Smith got an apologetic call from Biden. It was the only phone call Biden made to Smith in his four years in office, Smith said.

“The Biden White House was more insulated than most,” Smith said. “I spoke with Barack Obama on a number of occasions when he was president and I wasn’t even chairman of the committee.”

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said his interactions with the White House in the past two years were primarily focused on the reauthorization of a vital section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes broad national security surveillance powers. Biden’s senior advisers and other top administration officials worked with Himes on the issue, and he praised the collaboration.

But Biden wasn’t part of the conversation. “I really had no personal contact with this president. I had more personal contact with Obama, which is sort of strange because I was a lot more junior,” said Himes, who took office in 2009. Congress extended the surveillance authority for two years instead of the administration’s goal of five years.

Bates said that in every administration, some in Washington would prefer to spend more time with the president and that Biden put significant effort into promoting his legislative agenda.

One lawmaker who did get one-on-one time with Biden noticed that the president lacked stamina and heavily relied on his staff: Sen. Joe Manchin , the West Virginia Democrat-turned-independent who held up chunks of Biden’s legislative agenda during the first half of Biden’s term. Manchin said the job required a level of energy that he wasn’t sure Biden had been able to sustain.

“I just thought that maybe the president just lost that fight,” Manchin said in an interview. “The ability to continue to stay on, just grind it, grind it, grind it.”

Instead of Biden directing follow up, Manchin noticed that Biden’s staff played a much bigger role driving his agenda than he had experienced in other administrations. Manchin referred to them as the “eager beavers”—a group that included then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain . “They were going, ‘I’ll take care of that,’ ” Manchin said.

Klain, who was chief of staff for Biden’s first two years in office, said that “the agenda and pace” of the White House was at the “president’s direction and leadership.”

Dealing With Advisers

Interactions between Biden and many of his cabinet members were relatively infrequent and often tightly scripted. At least one cabinet member stopped requesting calls with the president, because it was clear that such requests wouldn’t be welcome, a former senior cabinet aide said.

One top cabinet member met one-on-one with the president at most twice in the first year and rarely in small groups, another former senior cabinet aide said.

Multiple former senior cabinet aides described a top-down dynamic in which the White House would issue decisions and expect cabinet agencies to carry them out, rather than making cabinet secretaries active participants in the policymaking process. Some of them said it was hard for them to discern to what degree Biden was insulated because of his age versus his preference for a powerful inner circle.

Bates said Biden has daily conversations with members of his cabinet. Several cabinet secretaries contacted the Journal at the White House’s request to attest to the smooth operations between their agencies and the White House. They said Biden would call them individually on the phone when seeking information or to give direction.

“I spoke with him whenever we needed his guidance or his help,” said Denis McDonough , Biden’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs and former chief of staff to Obama. “A lot of times it was him reaching out to us.”

Most often, however, they dealt with the president’s advisers, not the president himself, some of them said.

“If I had an issue or I needed attention on something, I had multiple avenues to explore to raise the issue,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “You don’t always have to raise the issue with the president.”

Vilsack, who also served as the agriculture secretary under Obama, said that presidents should primarily get involved when there’s a dispute between agencies.

Obama would often meet with smaller groups of cabinet members to hash out a policy debate, former administration officials said.

But that often wasn’t the experience under Biden’s administration. Instead, cabinet members most often met alone or with a member of the president’s senior staff, including Brainard, the economic adviser, or National Security Adviser Sullivan. The senior adviser would then bring the issue to the president and report back, former administration officials said.

Former administration officials said it often didn’t seem like Biden had his finger on the pulse.

Traditionally, presidents have more frequent interactions with certain cabinet secretaries—often Treasury, Defense and State—than others.

But Treasury Secretary Yellen had an arm’s length relationship with the president for much of the administration. She was part of the economics team that regularly briefed the president, but one-on-one discussions were more rare, and she typically dealt with the NEC or with the president’s advisers rather than Biden directly, according to people familiar with the interactions.

Some current and former administration officials said they would have expected a closer relationship between the two.

Bates, the White House spokesman, said Biden “deeply values Secretary Yellen’s expertise and counsel” and is “grateful for her service.” The Treasury Department declined to comment.

Defense Secretary Austin also saw his close relationship with Biden grow more distant over the course of the administration, with Austin’s regular access to Biden becoming increasingly rare in the past two years, people familiar with the relationship said.

During the first half of the administration, Austin was one of the cabinet members who would regularly attend Biden’s presidential daily briefing on a rotational basis each week. That briefing would be followed with a routine one-on-one in which Austin and Biden would meet personally behind closed doors.

Officials familiar with these meetings said they helped cabinet members to understand the commander in chief’s intentions directly, instead of being filtered through others, such as Sullivan, the national security adviser.

But in the past two years—a period when the wars in Ukraine and Gaza demanded the president’s attention—Austin’s invitation to the briefing came less frequently, to the point where the one-on-one meeting was seldom scheduled. When the one-on-one meetings did take place, they were more typically virtual meetings, not in-person. Still, Austin could always get an unscheduled meeting with the president if he needed it.

Bates disputed that there was any decline in regular contact or attendance to presidential daily briefings, adding that Austin “is a fixture in these briefings and they speak often.”

A Pentagon spokesman said Biden frequently called Austin on the phone for matters that varied from urgent to lower in priority.

Biden has a close relationship with Secretary of State Blinken, whom he has known for decades, former administration officials said.

Over four years, Biden held nine full cabinet meetings—three in 2021, two in 2022, three in 2023 and just one this year. In their first terms, Obama held 19 and Trump held 25, according to data compiled by former CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller.

Early in his vice presidency during the Obama administration, Biden sought to gather cabinet leaders once a week, saying in a speech that the synergy brought about by the regular meetings made the government more competent.

The White House said Biden meets with smaller groups of his agency heads and that the contemporary work environment means full cabinet meetings can be fewer and farther between.

In the fall of 2023, Biden faced a major test when Hur, the special counsel, wanted to interview him. The president wanted to do it, and his top aides felt that his willingness to sit down with investigators set up a favorable contrast with Trump, who stonewalled the probe into why classified documents appeared at Mar-a-Lago, according to people familiar with the sessions.

The prep sessions took about three hours a day for about a week ahead of the interview, according to a person familiar with the preparation. During these sessions, Biden’s energy levels were up and down. He couldn’t recall lines that his team had previously discussed with him, the person said.

A White House official pushed back on the notion that Biden’s age showed in prep, saying that the concerns that arose during those sessions were related to Biden’s tendency to over-share.

The actual interview didn’t go well. Transcripts showed multiple blunders, including that Biden didn’t initially recall that in prep sessions he had been shown his own handwritten memo arguing against a surge of troops in Afghanistan.

The report—one of just a few lengthy interviews with Biden over the past four years—concluded with a recommendation that Biden not be prosecuted for having classified documents in his home because a jury was likely to view him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

Insulated On Campaign

Biden’s team also insulated him on the campaign trail. In the summer of 2023, one prominent Democratic donor put together a small event for Biden’s re-election bid. The donor was shocked when a campaign official told him that attendees shouldn’t expect to have a free ranging question-and-answer session with the president. Instead, the organizer was told to send in two or three questions ahead of time that Biden would answer.

At some events, the Biden campaign printed the pre-approved questions on notecards and then gave donors the cards to read the questions. Even with all these steps, Biden made flubs, which confounded the donors who knew that Biden had the questions ahead of time.

Some donors said they noticed how staff stepped in to mask other signs of decline. Throughout his presidency—and especially later in the term—Biden was assisted by a small group of aides who were laser focused on him in a far different way than when he was vice president, or how former presidents Bill Clinton or Obama were staffed during their presidencies, people who have witnessed their interactions said.

These aides, which include Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams, were often with the president as he traveled and stayed within earshot or eye distance, the people said. They would often repeat basic instructions to him, such as where to enter or exit a stage.

The White House said that the work by staff to guide Biden through events is standard for high-level officials.

People who witnessed it felt differently. In the past, aides performing these duties were often on their phones, chatting with other people or fetching something from a car or a computer nearby, they said.

The president’s team of pollsters also had limited access to Biden, according to people familiar with the president’s polling. The key advisers have famously had the president’s ear in most past White Houses.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden had calls with John Anzalone, his pollster, during which the two had detailed conversations.

By the 2024 campaign, the pollsters weren’t talking to the president about their findings, and instead sent memos that went to top campaign staff.

Biden’s pollsters didn’t meet with him in person and saw little evidence that the president was personally getting the data that they were sending him, according to the people.

People close to the president said he relied on Mike Donilon, one of Biden’s core inner circle advisers. With a background in polling, Donilon could sift through the information and present it to the president.

Bates said that Biden stayed abreast of polling data.

But this summer, Democratic insiders became alarmed by the way Biden described his own polling, publicly characterizing the race as a tossup when polls released in the weeks after the disastrous June debate consistently showed Trump ahead. They worried he wasn’t getting an unvarnished look at his standing in the race.

Those fears intensified on July 11, when Biden’s top advisers met behind closed doors with Democratic senators, where the advisers laid out a road map for Biden’s victory. The message from the advisers was so disconnected from public polling—which showed Trump leading Biden nationally—that it left Democratic senators incredulous. It spurred Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to speak to Biden directly, according to people familiar with the matter, hoping to pierce what the senators saw as a wall erected by Donilon to shield Biden from bad information. Donilon didn’t respond to requests for comment.

On July 13, Biden held an uncomfortable call with a group of Democratic lawmakers called the New Democrat Coalition, aimed at reassuring them about his ability to stay in the race.

The president told participants that polling showed he was doing fine. He became angry when challenged, according to lawmakers on the call. At one point, Biden looked up and abruptly told the group he had to go to church. Some lawmakers on the call believed someone behind the camera was shutting it down.

Biden dropped out of the race eight days later.

Jimmy Carter Lies About His “Tea Bagging” (Flashback)

Some Carter Flashbacks: Originally posted December 2, 2010

NewsBusters has a story about a recent interview on NPR (11-30-2010) where Jimmy Carter said he never criticized the Tea Party:

REHM: Last question, very briefly, what do you think of the Tea Party movement?

CARTER: You know, I never have criticized the Tea Party movement because, strangely enough, I capitalized on the same kind of situation politically that has made the Tea Party successful — that is, an extreme dissatisfaction with what was going on in Washington. Because I came along right after Watergate and right after the Vietnam lost and right after the assassination of the two Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr., and so I capitalized on that, and I was elected over some very wonderful people who were U.S. senators and immersed in the Washington scene.

…(read more)…

In case you didn’t catch it, the interview/video at the top refutes this NPR interview.

So what about those signs that Brian Williams mentions? Not a lot of people realize this, but most of the signs with connections of Obama to Hitler are actually from what I term as a political cult. It just so happens this cult is a Democratic one. For instance, as a reminder, remember this exchange?

So, since most of these sign wielding nuts are actually Democrats, where does that leave Carter’s critique?

In 1979, LaRouche formed a Political Action Committee called the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC). LaRouche has run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times, beginning in 1980….

Read more at newer links: My Updated Post | Slate

 

What are all those signs about? Is there some sort of study of them done to find out if there is a percentage of them that are racially tinged?

UCLA study: Most tea party signs not racist

A study conducted by a UCLA grad student at the 9/12 taxpayer march on Washington contains some bad news for one of the mainstream media’s favorite narratives: the old ‘racist teabaggers’ meme.

Conversely, quantitative observation showed that the alleged racism was not prominent at the rally, at least not as far as signage is concerned. And to think Obamacrats wasted all those race cards for nothin’.

[….]

The investigation showed only 25% of signs expressing antagonism towards the President himself, only 5% touching on the President’s ethnicity or faith, and a piddly 1% promoting ‘Birtherism’.

I presume the 1% was newly anointed ‘birther’ Jake Tapper, respected journalist of ABC News – or once respected until he had the temerity to mention the President’s long form birth certificate the other day.

The teabag obsessed Obama apologists at MSNBC and the New York Times will no doubt be bitterly disappointed to learn that despite the breathless hype, racism no more typifies the tea party movement than honest unslanted analysis typifies their political coverage.

This study didn’t stop the questionable signs and ask if they were Lyndon LaRouche followers. Here is another story — old news, but needed for this recent news:

NEWSBUSTERS H/T:

NewsBusters reported Thursday, a UCLA graduate student has published a study debunking the myth that the Tea Party is racist.

On Monday, Gretchen Carlson invited the study’s author on “Fox & Friends” to do what every news outlet ought to, namely, tell the truth about what the movement that is radically changing the political landscape is really all about.

[….]

Isn’t it interesting how easily this study was done?

As Carlson asked Ekins, why haven’t any news outlets, apart from Fox News and conservative websites, done any investigation into the allegations of racism within this movement to see if they were at all true?

Yes, that was a rhetorical question, for media have been trying to either dismiss or demonize the Tea Party since its inception.

THE VIDEO IS GONE, BUT THE TRANSCRIPT IS BELOW:

GRETCHEN CARLSON, HOST: Well, Brian, speaking of the Tea Party, the movement has been under attack since it started. Liberal members of the media and politicians have come out calling it racist.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JANEANE GAROFALO: They have no idea what the Boston tea party was about.

KEITH OLBERMANN: That’s right.

GAROFALO: They don’t know the history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And you see folks waving tea bags around. 

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Carrying swastikas, symbols like that to a town hall meeting on healthcare.

FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man. 

HBO’s BILL MAHER: The Teabaggers, they’re not a movement. They’re a cult.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: But is the racist label accurate? A grad student at UCLA just completed a study on the Tea Party and the signs that are carried at the rallies and she came up with a much different conclusion. Joining me now to share her finding is Emily Ekins. Good morning to you, Emily

EMILY EKINS, UCLA GRADUATE STUDENT: Good to be with you. 

CARLSON: So, you went to a rally. You decided to take photographs of about 250 signs, and what did you find out? 

EKINS:Well, what I did is I tried to take a picture of every visible sign I could find and I found that over 50% of the signs were about limited government and lower spending. And only about 6% of the signs were controversial in nature. 

CARLSON: How tough was it for you to go and take these photos and come up with that conclusion? 

EKINS: You know, it was actually pretty straight forward. I’m surprised more people haven’t done this. I just went to the rally, I walked in a systemic fashion, you know, row by row, took a picture of every visible sign and then I categorized them. And I should say that I was very conscientious that any sign that, you know, could be construed as controversial, meaning they had undertones about immigration or race or Islam, you know, I was sure to include those into these controversial categories. But frankly, they just, there weren’t that many, and so it added up to six. 

CARLSON: Why do you think that your test results differ from the perception of the mainstream media and those clips that we just saw? 

EKINS: Well, honestly, I think it has everything to do with your method and your approach. I think what often happens is people go to these events, these rallies, and they’re either attracted or repelled by various signs. And if you just cover a couple of signs no matter how objective you try to be, you’re just, you can’t generalize everybody that’s there by a couple of signs. And so the method needs to be systematic that when we go to these events we need to look at all the signs. We need to say, we need to see what all the signs are telling us. And I think that method revealed something very different than a method that just looks at a few signs. 

CARLSON. Here was a quote from NAACP Ben Jealous on the Tea Parties. “We take issue with the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there’s no space for racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in their movement.” I mean, I guess he’s speaking to the 6% of the signs that you found that were questionable, but you still say that’s a tiny percentage in what the overall message was. 

EKINS: Yes, I mean overwhelmingly, the message is about limited government. At this particular rally that I, that I did conduct the analysis at. 

CARLSON: I know that you want to do further studies, and I find it actually amazing that nobody else has done what you chose to do. So hats off to you. But I’m interested in knowing, you’re at UCLA. What grade did you get? 

EKINS: Well, actually I’m a PhD student, so grades work differently there. This is my research for my dissertation, and actually my advisors, you know, they’re very encouraging and seeking academic truth. So they were, they were pleased with kind of the new approach and they’re very encouraging. 

CARLSON: Well, that’s very good to hear. Congratulations to you, Emily Ekins, she is a UCLA graduate student. She decided to go to that Tea Party movement and decide see what the signs are really all about. Thanks for sharing your findings with us, Emily. 

EKINS: Sure. Thank you. 

So, is this merely another nail in the “worst one’s” irrelevance coffin? I say yes, but I am sure there are NPR fans out there that disagree with me.

REASON.COM did a bang-up job in dealing with the issue:

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Tea Party movement is “struggling to overcome accusations of racism,” some of which has been perpetuated in its editorial pages. Yesterday’s New York Times, home to the most obsessively anti-Tea Party editorial page in America, was stunned to discover that “at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.”

Previously, The Times reported that Tea Partiers are, on average, people with a high levels of education and higher than average incomes. So it would seem that they aren’t, as some editorialists and pundits contend, simply a gang of subliterate militia men or, as actress Janeane Garofalo recently told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, a subsection of the white power movement.

Wandering the recent Tax Day tea party in Washington DC with Reason.tv, we saw some stupid signs — though none that could be considered offensive or racist. We talked to some people that claimed President Obama was both a Czarist and Bolshevik. We spoke to a former star of Saturday Night Live who has previously claimed that president might, in fact, be the anti-Christ. Or a communist. Or both. There were those who fretted that the United States were morphing into a Stalinist state. And there were countless protesters concerned that the Obama administration was spending recklessly, interested in auditing the Federal Reserve, and seething about the General Motors bailout.

So did we find that the Tea Party was motivated by race, by the fact that we now have a black president? Did it seem as if their stated concerns about health care reform and a ballooning national debt simply a smokescreen, designed to concealing a racist agenda? Here is what we found.

 

Stephen A. Smith Starting His Red Pill Journey | Still Holding Out

Stephen A Smith LOSES IT After Realizing Democrats
~ And ~
The Liberal Media LIED TO HIM About Jan 6th!

My Facebook thoughts when posting the raw Smith video:

RPT’S LONG NOTE 》》THEN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION…

this is an admission by JUST BY THE FBI Not only that, but this is a SPECIFIC type of resource the FBI uses. They have others. But the DOJ has other resources that do the same thing. As one example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury probably had undercover members in the crowd, as well as other federal government resources. Easily over a hundred may have been in place leading the crowd into violence.

I WANT TO SAY AS WELL that many a black person I have watched video admissions from have come to the same conclusion as Stephen Smith, but based on the CHARLOTTESVILLE LIE the current “president” [eat your pudding Joe] and most Democrats as well as many friends I have who are on the Left believe to be true and spread this lie incessantly.

The “Big Lie” Biden Continues To Spread

When these fine men and women are exposed to another part of the story — breaking the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Chicago Tribune, NPR, on and on spell over them or the word-of-mouth info friends or family regurgitate — they have left the Democrat Party.

Keep lying and labeling through the media and universities via CRT and DEI regular, hard working Americans as “sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.T.H.I.R.B.)” The GOP will continue to make gains as the O.G. freedom party [At least the base is all about freedom, compare me and others to the Left’s base.]

I say WORD-OF-MOUTH for a reason. I will give an example of a similar situation regarding the Bible I have encountered often. Here is an old response from me via the dial-up-internet days.

  • SOULCANNON SAID: “The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a document that is nearly 2000 years old (if you count the current calendar, which itself has been corrupted, warped, and stretched so many times) and the events and persons written within may have had a high probability of being fact.”

This is one of my favorite skeptical questions to deal with. Reason being is that the statement made is that the Bible being changed over time is “the fact of the matter is” (quoting SoulCannon, but not exclusively). SoulCannon, I will be talking to you for the simple fact that you made the statement, but I will really be speaking to the hundreds of people who really believe the above. So bear with me, okay.

Question posed to you:Can you tell me where you got the information about the Bible being considerably changed and corrupted?

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

The Book of Isaiah! The Christian church’s earliest manuscript, of the book of Isaiah in complete form, it held in its grasp was dated at 900A.D.. But thanks to a shepherd boy, the Qumran caves coughed up a load of Biblical manuscripts and papyri fragments. One was a complete book of Isaiah that was dated at 100B.C.. After many textual scholars and critics went through this particular scroll, they found eleven letters different than the manuscript dated at 900A.D.. All the changes in the letter style did not change any of the meanings of the words they were found in. so after more than 1,100 years, a perfect example of the unchanging Word of God is exemplified.

The Jewish Masoretic scribes who would copy, say the book of Genesis, would know how many letters were in that book (76,064 Hebrew letters), he would literally count out the precise number of times each of the twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet occurred in the text. He would also make notations on the margin of the page to assure that no letters were added or taken away. If even one letter was missed or added improperly, the master scribe would destroy the imperfect copy, lest an error creep into the holy text of the Word of God. This same process is still used in Israel to this day.

Some people think the Bible has been copied from the older manuscripts and papyri fragments and then copied into the Latin Vulgate; then into the Wycliff; then the Tyndale; then the Coverdale; then the Matthew Bible; then into the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Rheims, Douai, Authorized King James (KJV), American Standard (AS), New American Standard (NAS), New International Version (NIV), New King James Version (NKJV).

This is not the case. I will show two different ways of putting this controversy, which is nothing, more than not knowing the facts of the matter:

Greek and Hebrew Latin Vulgate = a = b = c = d = e = etc., etc. = New International Version (NIV); so by the time we reach our present age the Bible has been changed, much like the telling of a secret in a circle of children.

The New International Version actually used all the available (earliest) manuscripts and papyri fragments as their bases (which we will discuss later). They added [+] that information to the Rabbinical priests quoting scripture as well as the early church fathers. They then added that to the notes and commentaries on the Hebrew and Greek translators commentaries on the (still used) manuscripts they used to make past versions and copies.

So its: Early Greek Manuscripts + Early Translated Copies + Early Christian Quotes + Papyri Fragments + Early Notes and Commentaries = New International Version (NIV)

In other words, such playing the “game of telephone” thinking is easily overturned with facts. Such myopic beliefs are easily refuted, and many people begin to question their sources of information that warp their thinking. The same is happening in the political spectrum. Which is why my site is called RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK

Stephen A. Smith revealed on his show that there were 26 FBI informants in the crowd on January 6th when the Capitol was stormed and says that he’s sick and tired of finding something else that the Democrats have lied about.

He highlights Kamala and Democrats claiming that Trump was a threat to democracy when it turns out Trump was right about this all along being rigged.

Watch below — Via, THE RIGHT SCOOP:

Tulsi Gabbard Explains “How She Got ‘Here'” w/Triggernometry

“They called me a traitor. They did it to Donald Trump, they do it with Tucker Carlson, they do it with Bobby Kennedy… Anyone they deem a political threat.”

Trump appointee Tulsi Gabbard explains why she left the Democratic Party, and how they tried to destroy her.

Watch the full episode here:

Tulsi Gabbard – How I Got Here

The super interesting part I didn’t know about starts at the 8:55 mark – the “townhall” video library thing. Wow. CNN campaigned a while back on “Facts First.” Yeah right. They meant “DNC puppet to put a thumb on the scale” campaign.

Joe and Mika Survived Their Trip to Trump’s Death Camp!

This is an excerpt via Megyn Kelly On Rumble:

PJ-MEDIA has a field day with this:

In the wee dark hours of Friday morning, President-elect Donald Trump’s Goldshirt thugs stormed into the West Palm Beach home of MSNBC “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, abducted the couple at gunpoint, and immediately removed them to one of Literally Hitler™’s hastily erected concentration camps.

I’m kidding, of course. Mika and Joe spent a nice time with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate and expressed several differences of opinion, for which Trump had them sent immediately to Gitmo.

Not really. “We didn’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so,” Scarborough said Monday morning from his usual perch on the “Morning Joe” set, free from any obvious signs of abuse. “What we did agree on,” Brzezinski added, “was to restart communications.”

Before we continue, please allow me to remind you that everything is stupid. 

“Don’t be mistaken. We are not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump,” Scarborough assured his audience of panty-wetting progressives. “We are here to report on him” and provide insights in “these deeply unsettling times.”

Ha-ha. Too late. You can’t spend eight years demonizing somebody as Literally Hitler™ and then enjoy drinks and snacks at his swanky Florida home, argue politely for a bit, and then leave freely without normalizing Trump.

Joe and Mika, you ignorant sluts (with apologies to Dan Aykroyd), your visit with Trump was entirely normal — and normalizing. American politicians do these little background talks with people like you all the time.

You were not brave souls venturing into the belly of a murderous beast, whose bloodlust is unprecedented in American politics. You’re part of the well-paid, highly credentialed elite, kept on by MSNBC for your ability and willingness to instill completely unnecessary panic among some of America’s most vulnerable and worst-informed citizens.

I’m sorry to have to tell you this, Mr. and Mrs. Morning Show Hosts, but you aren’t the heroes of this story. ….

 

 

Tough Love Truths for the Democrats | Bill Maher’s New Rule

This comes by way of RIGHT SCOOP

BTW, LANGAUGE WARNING… and … while I don’t necessarily agree with all Bill Maher’s thoughts — in general and below — he is truth telling in a high percentile range:

Staunch Democrat but realist Bill Maher went after Democrats last night who are already attacking the incoming Trump administration while continuing to ignore the reasons why they lost the election.

Maher wrote in a tweet “It’s amazing how an election loss, even as big as this one, still doesn’t put a dent in the thinking that lost it.”

He goes after the woke Democrat orthodoxy and says “Democrats run for office as if the voters don’t live here”, suggesting just how out of touch Democrats have become with the very voters they demand vote for them.”

He even suggests that Democrats must make “too woke a cancelable offense” after describing how Seth Moulton’s campaign manager resigned after Moulton suggested he doesn’t want his daughters to play against a “formerly male athlete.”

It’s time for Democrats to stop screaming at people to “get with the program,” and instead make a program worth getting with.

The Biden Admin Peacefully Transferring Power To Hitler

I add a bunch of stuff to Larry Elder’s recent audio from November 11th (APPLE TUNES). The quick change of tune here is amazing, both from KJP, Biden, and Kamala Harris – as well as the MSM.

ACE of SPADES has a good post on this:

Even stupid, idiot, uneducated leftists are putting it together: Wait, you told us he was Hitler. Literally Hitler. So either you are a bunch of craven quislings who are eager to fete Hitler, oryou lied, gaslit, and drove us crazy for eight years just to cling on to filthy political power.

I think it’s the latter.

Biden called Trump “President-elect” and welcomed him back to the White House. All with a smile on his face:

BIDEN: “Well, Mr. President-Elect and former President Donald, congratulations.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

BIDEN: “And looking forward to having a, like we said, smooth transition. We’ll do everything we can to make sure you’re accommodated, what you need. We’re going to get a chance to talk about some of that today.”

TRUMP: “Good.”

BIDEN: “Welcome.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

They met for two hours — longer than scheduled.

I approve of Trump going there. Not to pay respects to Biden, but to get the concession he never got from Hillary Clinton. He needs the left and the establishment (but I repeat myself) to understand and acknowledge that he has beaten them fair and square, and if they #Resist the democratically-elected, majority-vote president, then they are #Insurrectionists and will be treated with all the mercy that Biden treated the J6 “insurrectionists.”

Speaking of: Good point from Legal Insurrection.

There’s going to be a lot of talk about Trump needing to “extend the olive branch.” NO.

If he had lost, he would have been jailed. And for his support of Trump, Elon likely would have been bankrupted and jailed.

Those who launched the lawfare must be held accountable.

He doesn’t need to persecute random Democrats. He does need to ensure that his DOJ investigates Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Merrick Garland.

SCOTT JENNINGS!

PJ-MEDIA pounces, lol

…. The other oddity of this happy meeting was the fact that Old Joe was palling around with the guy that the Democrats were calling Hitler just a few days ago. In fact, X is still full of videos of hysterical leftists wailing about the descent of fascism upon our once-free country, and the beaming old man to Donald Trump’s immediate left (of course) at the White House on Wednesday was largely responsible for that hysteria.

This did not, of course, start with the election season. The Democrats’ fearmongering about Trump began the moment he announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican nomination, and it never let up in the intervening years. It reached its apex on Sept. 1, 2022, when Biden, in a dark, threatening, nationally televised speech before an ominous red-and-black background and flanked by two Marines in full dress uniform, declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

For the first and only time in American history, a president declared that his primary political opposition was outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. The message couldn’t have been clearer: The establishment left, entrenched in power but deeply afraid of losing that power, was intent on criminalizing political opposition. Dissent from Biden’s agenda, and you could end up with the thought police breaking down your door at 4 a.m. The FBI, on the other hand, comes at 6 a.m., as Polymarket’s Shayne Coplan just found out.

“As I stand here tonight,” Biden declared in front of his ersatz National Socialist background, “equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.” Biden said equality and democracy were under assault, and then he proceeded to assault them. He said he intended to “speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face,” but he wasn’t referring to China, Russia, North Korea, or the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and certainly not to the woke America haters who infest our public schools, colleges, and universities. No, Biden’s big threat to the nation was Trump, along with the Americans who dared to vote against him and reject his policies. Old Joe came closer to calling for war upon American citizens than any president since Jefferson Davis.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice,” Biden declared. “They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” This was the “accuse your enemy of what you’re doing” strategy to a T. Old Joe added, “Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.”

And yet, there he was on Wednesday, cheesin’ and grinnin’, as Barack Obama would put it, with the sinister destroyer of democracy himself. Why, it’s as if the whole thing was a put-on. There never was any threat to democracy, except from Old Joe himself and his henchmen. Trump and his supporters never represented “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” and Biden likely knew this even as he was saying it back in 2022. But will Old Joe, in his present happy mood, call on leftists to calm down and tell them the whole “threat to our democracy” shtick was just a vote-getting tactic? Don’t hold your breath.

MSM Argues/Admits One of the Reasons Trump Won | #WarOnWomen

Before the video, here is some good X comments via Thomas Chatterton Williams:

Content aside. One of the reasons podcasts have exploded their audiences while cable news dwindles is that it’s actually just unbearable as a viewer to watch a bunch of people shout over each other instead of fully making their points.

[The] man can’t even complete a sentence before he’s called a transphobe and accused of using a slur with a level of indignation that is unhinged.

Who at CNN likes this and believes it’s serving their audience?

Dennis Prager has said this for years in a memorable quip, S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted. Somehow “Transphobia” needs to be added. Maybe, SIXTHIRB, like you have a lisp… lol. Remember Hillary’s version?

  • “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Speaking about the CNN debate, Coleman Hughes notes:

Okay, here is what started out just as the CNN video, but blossomed into this monstrosity. Lol.

More from the NEW YORK POST:

Female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, an eye-opening United Nations report has revealed.

The study — titled “Violence against women and girls in sports” — stated that more than 600 female athletes have been bested at various events by competitors who were born male.

“According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports,” the report said.

“The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males.”

The wide-ranging report, compiled by Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, was presented to the UN General Assembly earlier this month.

[….]

“Women and girls already have many odds stacked against them that impede their equal and effective participation in sports. In addition, their ability to play sport in conditions of safety, dignity and fairness has been further eroded by the intrusion of males who identify as female in female-only sports and related spaces,” 

People Are Seeing Thru the Left’s “Hitlerian/Fascist” Tropes

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are at the tip of the spear yet again to paint Donald Trump as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis. When they’re launching this drivel THIS CLOSE to an election, it’s CLEAR how desperate they are over at MSNBC and “Morning Joe.”

The first video below is a “short” of my much longer video (at the end of the post) that includes clips from Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” which I interrupted with a clip from the movie, “Runaway Slave.” The article I am including is a capstone to Larry Elder’s article, “Democrats Want a ‘Return to Civility’; When Did They Practice It?,” used HERE. As well as the Wall Street Journal’s article, “The ‘Fascist’ Meme Returns,” used HERE.

Remember,

Hillary’s Husband Reenacted the 1939 NAZI Rally 

At least it is so bad that the Washington Post has joined the Los Angeles Times in deciding not to endorse Kamala Harris (or anyone else) for president. Woah!

Here is an excerpt as well from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism (pages 71, 73, 74-75), which is actually a wonderful read… even though he is now an unhinged anti-Trumper:

But even if Nazi nationalism was in some ill-defined but funda­mental way right-wing, this only meant that Nazism was right-wing socialism. And right-wing socialists are still socialists. Most of the Bolshevik revolutionaries Stalin executed were accused of being not conservatives or monarchists but rightists—that is, right-wing so­cialists. Any deviation from the Soviet line was automatic proof of rightism. Ever since, we in the West have apishly mimicked the Soviet usage of such terms without questioning the propagandistic baggage attached.

The Nazi ideologist—and Hitler rival—Gregor Strasser put it quite succinctly: “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly ene­mies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

Hitler is just as straightforward in Mein Kampf He dedicates an entire chapter to the Nazis’ deliberate exploitation of socialist and communist imagery, rhetoric, and ideas and how this marketing con­fused both liberals and communists.

[….]

What distinguished Nazism from other brands of socialism and communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right (though there were some). What distinguished Nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate al­most completely with the political left: identity politics. This was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire communism, and it seems hard to argue that the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny. If this was how the world worked, we would have to label nationalist-socialist organizations like the PLO and the Cuban Communist Party right-wing.

[….]

The notion that communism and Nazism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. Or, as Richard Pipes has written, “Bolshevism and Fascism were here­sies of socialism!'” Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses. Communists champion class, Nazis race, fascists the nation. All such ideologies—we can call them totalitarian for now—attract the same types of people.

Hitler’s hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this maneuver has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism and communism had almost nothing to do with those aspects of communism that we would consider relevant, such as economic doctrine or the need to destroy the capitalists and bourgeoisie. In these areas Hitler largely saw eye to eye with socialists and communists.

John Toland - Hitler 330

Here we see a stark admission of the ideals/ethos driving Hitler:

“We are socialists, we are ene­mies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” ~ Hitler

John Toland, Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1976), 223-225.

Here is the WASHINGTON EXAMINERS excellent study of Democratic historical tropes against Republicans. How do the writers at WE sum up the below the idea that Trump and the many other Republicans they call Hitler and Fascists and NAZIs?

  • It is pure, unadulterated, radical, extremist, left-wing propaganda.

Continuing they note that “the only people who believe these Nazi and fascist comparisons are the massively brainwashed and indoctrinated Democrat voters and left-wing sycophants.” To wit:

Let’s start with former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964. Over 50 years before Trump decided to run for president, celebrities, journalists, politicians, and other politicos warned that the GOP presidential nominee was an extreme fascist who would cause considerable harm to the country. Goldwater, who served as a pilot during World War II, was likened to Nazis and fascists for promoting conservatism during his presidential campaign. 

For example, the then-Democratic governor of California, Edmund Gerland “Pat” Brown, remarked about Goldwater’s acceptance speech, claiming it “had the stench of fascism. All we needed to hear was Heil Hitler.” It should be noted that Goldwater served as a pilot in the military during WWII. Brown didn’t have any military service at all.

Other comments about Goldwater included a scathing rebuke from civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

“We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign,” King said. 

Baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, said of Goldwater’s speech, “I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.” 

The then-mayor of San Francisco, the city where the 1964 Republican National Convention was held, said the GOP “had Mein Kampf as their political bible.”

The despicable comments continued the following election in 1968. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Democratic nominee for president, remarked about the election, “If the British had not fought in 1940, Hitler would have been in London, and if Democrats do not fight in 1968, Nixon will be in the White House.” 

Former President Richard Nixon won the election, but the Hitler, Nazi, and fascist comparisons never stopped. For example, in 1970, a political poster featured an image of Adolf Hitler, wearing a Nazi armband, holding a mask of Nixon. 

Meanwhile, a news article from October 1972, available for viewing on the CIA’s website, referred to “Nixon’s Nazis” as part of commentary criticizing Nixon. Then there is a photograph from October 1973 of someone wearing a Nixon mask with a crown, giving the Nazi salute.

Gerald Ford followed Nixon as president and as a Republican who was called a fascist. In 1974, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Ford for his lack of punitive action against Nixon.

“If [President] Ford’s principle had been the rule in Nuremberg,” he said, “the Nazi leaders would have been let off, and only the people, who carried out their schemes, would have been tried,” the ACLU said at the time.

Additionally, in the Gerald Ford Library Museum, a document describes an interaction with a woman in 1975 in which Ford was harassed and repeatedly called a “fascist” and a “fascist pig.”

Surely, over a decade of accusations and allegations of fascism never coming to fruition would stop Democrats from calling Republicans Nazis, fascists, or comparing them to Hitler, right?

Wrong.

Former President Ronald Reagan was the next target in the Democrats’ line of unsubstantiated accusations of fascism.

Rep. William Clay (D-MO) stated that Reagan wanted to “replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were comparable to the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”

American Enterprise Institute scholar Steven Hayward highlighted another incident in which the intelligentsia and academia also contributed to the Reagan fascist comparisons when John Roth, a Holocaust scholar from the Claremont Colleges, commented about Reagan’s election:

“I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism — all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I​—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. … It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.”

Former President George W. Bush might have been the Republican politician who faced the harshest and most vile criticism before Trump. Bush was regularly called every dirty name in the book, from racist to Nazi to fascist to war criminal. There are many examples of linking Bush to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists.

In 2012, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the same Romney so many Democrats love today, was also linked to Nazis and fascism. One delegate from Kansas (at the time) said Romney was a habitual liar and likened him to Hitler “while criticizing the accuracy of Romney’s campaign talking points.”

A chairman of the California Democratic Party compared then-vice presidential candidate (and eventual former Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan, again, the same Ryan loved by many Democrats today, to Nazi filmmaker and propagandist Joseph Goebbels. 

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It is the same line of attacks Democrats have used against Trump.

(READ IT ALL!)

Very long current affairs via ARMSTRONG & GETTY (with additions by me), and a history lesson[s] in the second half of the 42-minute video:

BONUS FLASHBACK:

(March 26, 2010) Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism

  • My Vimeo account was terminated many years back; this is a recovered audio from it.

KILLING BLACK & WHITE REPUBLICANS

This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:

You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Here is a short video discussing the matter:

  • virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

For the record: