The left-wing media is desperate to shore up the sordid reputations of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib and in the doing, the media are ignoring the dozens of anti-American statements these cretins have made.
Since the media refuses to report what these un-American “Congresswomen,” who are going by the sobriquet “the squad,” have said, here is a very useful Twitter storm by Elizabeth Harrington to help chronicle just some of the socialist, un-American, and pro-terrorist things these three have said.
Remember this: These scumbags are entirely representative of today’s Democrat Party.
Since the media refuses to provide any context, a thread of statements made by the socialist "squad" in the House:
Ilhan Omar laughing about al Qaeda, wondering why we don't speak of America in the same tonespic.twitter.com/56rsf5dwoo
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) July 15, 2019
Again, this is only a small slice of the dozens of things these women have uttered while in Congress and out. They hate America, they hate capitalism, they hate our system.
And the media is pumping these anti-Americans up as the ideal example of a member of Congress.
Just remember, these are the immigrants that the demoncraps identify with,
Nancy Pelosi Defends Violent MS-13 Gang Members In Response To Trump, Says They’re Not Animals
then read that last paragraph.
LOS ANGELES – Federal racketeering, murder and other charges were filed against 22 suspected MS-13 gang members who law enforcement officials believe are linked to a series of grisly killings involving baseball bats, machetes and other tools of “medieval-style” violence, authorities said Tuesday.
Nineteen of those indicted are considered illegal immigrants, and most of the group’s members arrived in the U.S. in the past four years from Central America. All but two are under the age of 24, Nicola Hanna, the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, announced at a news conference. Most, he added, participated in the “killing spree.”
The arrests – the last came over the weekend – capped a two-year investigation. While President Donald Trump has singled out MS-13 as a threat to public safety in the making the case for tighter security along the Mexican border, Hanna said the defendants mostly preyed upon other recent immigrants who they believed were rivals.
MS-13 “has been named as one of the top five transnational threats to the U.S.,” Hanna said. “MS-13 has spread like a cancer … throughout the U.S.”
Those arrested were all part of the so-called Fulton clique of MS-13, one of the most violent of about 20 factions of MS-13 operating in the Los Angeles area, Hanna said. The clique operated primarily in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley.
In one of the most horrific allegations, several are accused of luring a perceived rival gang member who they believed to have defaced MS-13 graffiti to the forest outside Los Angeles and killed him with a machete. They dismembered his body and cut out his heart before dumping the remains into a canyon, authorities said.
In Face Of Massive Border Crisis, Democrats Tell Americans Citizenship Means Nothing
A left-wing mob tore down an American flag and replaced it with a Mexican flag. A gunman attacked an ICE facility. Democrats said nothing.
A series of remarkable things happened over the weekend—all of them overshadowed by unfortunate tweets from President Trump and the hysterical overreactions they provoked. But these overshadowed events tell us much more about the state of the country than the controversy over Trump’s tweets, and what they reveal isn’t good.
On Friday night, a mob of protestors tore down an American flag outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Aurora, Colo., and replaced it with a Mexican flag. Local police stood by and did nothing.
The next day, a gunman reportedly associated with Antifa attacked an ICE detention centerin Tacoma, Wash., throwing Molotov cocktails and attempting to set fire to a propane tank. He was reportedly killed by police in a gunfight.
The attack in Tacoma coincided with left-wing protests at ICE facilities all over the country, prompted by nationwide ICE raids targeting Central American families whom immigration judges have ordered to be deported after reviewing their claims.
If you’re a Democrat seeking your party’s nomination for 2020, what’s your response to these events? So far, nothing. No Democrat has said anything about the mob in Colorado or the gunman in Washington, but plenty have issued statements on the ICE raids and Vice President Mike Pence’s border visit.
What’s most remarkable in all this is that not one Democratic 2020 contender has felt the need to breathe a word about the importance of American citizenship and sovereignty. Not one has issued a word of caution or tried to steer the seething left-wing of their party away from street violence. Not one has acknowledged the importance of enforcing our immigration laws.This is strange. According to a new Gallup poll, nearly a quarter of Americans now say immigration is the most important problem facing the country—the largest share since Gallup began asking the question in 1993. We hold mixed, somewhat incoherent views on the matter. One in three Americans think immigration levels should be decreased, a larger share than think it should be increased, and yet the vast majority (76 percent) think immigration is good for the country………The upshot here is that Americans are paying attention to immigration and the border in ways Democrats and the media don’t seem to think they are. What Democratic candidates think they’re conveying—compassion, decency, outrage at injustice—isn’t what many Americans are seeing. They’re seeing a major political party cave to its most extreme elements and align itself with the idea that American sovereignty and citizenship aren’t important, that patriotism is problematic, and that the American people should have no say in who is allowed to enter the country and stay.
Those 10-20 per cent are, for the most part, the ‘useful idiots’ being used by those with their own political power agendas; usually inimical to the western philosophy of individual liberty. However, they can still do as Mr Chrenkoff suggests.
Donald Trump and his typing fingers are in trouble again (as they are pretty much every day) for telling “the Squad” of Democrat Congresswomen to “go back where they come from”. This was deemed to be deeply racist (the hashtag #RacistInChief is currently trending) as well as inaccurate, as three of the four in question were born in the United States……
I will leave the political strategies and tactics to people who are much wiser and more experienced than me, but let me make this observation as a migrant (from Poland to Australia, on the insignificant oft-chance you have not heard me telling you this about twenty times before) who happens to be very happy in his new home and very grateful to the nation that adopted me.
In just about every Western society I am aware of there is a sizable minority of probably between 10 and 20 per cent of the population who appear to be deeply and profoundly unhappy about the shape and the direction of their own country.
This sentiment ranges from a sheer hatred and loathing of the society, which is deemed irredeemably unjust, oppressive, racist, and any number of other characteristics usually ending in -ist or -phobic, and it only deserves to survive if radically transformed, all the way to a milder disappointment and despondency that the society (and the general population) constantly fail to live up to one’s standards of what is good and desirable.
To all these people I always want to say:
You know that you are not imprisoned and kept by force where you are, don’t you? If you really so passionately dislike just about everything about your country, you have to ask yourself a question – why suffer? why keep putting yourself through this endless unhealthy rage and frustration?
There are many different types of societies around the world, some of which are without doubt a lot closer to your vision of what an ideal community should be like. Wouldn’t you be happier living somewhere else? It just doesn’t make sense to me that you would want to live in a place you don’t like when you have options to live in places you would.
In moments of my own great frustration I call it the FOSE principle, which simply stands for “F*** Off Somewhere Else”.
The principle is colour blind and doesn’t discriminate between people who are “native” and those who might have only recently arrived from somewhere else.
Speaking at Nutroots Nation, Ilhan Omar continued the fusillade of abuse that she directs against the country that not only rescued her from an African refugee camp, but elected her to Congress. Talking about the crisis at the Southern border–Democrats now admit that it is a crisis–Omar said that the U.S. treats illegal immigrants worse than dogs because we are racists:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) says Americans treat detained illegal aliens worse than dogs because they're racist: “we live in a society and govern in a body that might value the life of a dog more than they value the life of a child who might not look like theirs” pic.twitter.com/Ed2dkLsou8
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 14, 2019
But here’s the thing: the reason there is a humanitarian crisis at the border is because hundreds of thousands of Central Americans are flocking there, trying to gain entry into the U.S. And the Democrats’ hysteria over “separated children” and “people in cages” has not deterred them one whit.
Would Central Americans having no legal right to emigrate to the U.S. try desperately to enter our country if they thought we were a racist nation that would treat them worse than dogs? Apparently Omar thinks illegal immigrants are too dumb to hate America the way she does.
AOC’s Chief of Change
Saikat Chakrabarti isn’t just running her office. He’s guiding a movement.
It’s a socialist one, that needs to be flushed just like any other movement from leftist wanna-be tyrants.
On a Wednesday morning in late May, emissaries of two of the strongest political voices on climate change convened at a coffee shop a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.
Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), was there to meet Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is running for president almost exclusively on a platform of combating global warming. A newly released plank of Inslee’s climate change agenda had caught the attention of Chakrabarti and his boss, who had tweeted
.@JayInslee’s climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.
It meets key marks:
✅ Big enough
✅ Fast enough
✅ Economically stimulating for working people
✅ Acknowledges injustice + w/ an eye to make communities whole https://t.co/C7nyEsdUxk
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 18, 2019
that Inslee’s “climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.”
Pleased by the positive reception from the demanding Green New Deal wing of the climate struggle, Ricketts had set up this meeting with Chakrabarti to establish a personal connection and share approaches to climate advocacy.
“Congrats on the rollout,” Chakrabarti told him as they sat down. “That was pretty great.”
“Thank you again for the kudos you guys offered,” said Ricketts. “We wanted to be pace-setting for the field, and I think we’re there now. … I want to ask you for input … in addition to hearing what you guys are working on.”
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
One of the central tenets of Climate Change skepticism is that the threat is exaggerated to achieve political ends that are divorced from environmental health.
Here’s an outward admission that the issue is used as a stalking horse for ambitious economic restructuring. https://t.co/tKknlPKkOA
— John Noonan (@noonanjo) July 11, 2019
The Second Amendment is so clear and simple that only liberals, aided by a half-wit liberal law school professor-tariat that is to real lawyering as Jerry Nadler is to Chippendales, could pretend to be confused about its meaning with a straight face.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The whole “shall not be infringed” part is a real problem for the left, since collectivist Castro-channelers prefer that we Americans be defenseless serfs existing at the government’s (i.e., their) mercy when we should be armed, freedom-loving citizens with the personal firepower to veto their pinko utopian schemes. So, they fixate on the 2A’s passing reference to the militia, spinning a prefatory statement that recognizes that a militia is a good thing into a directive to cancel out the whole “citizens having guns” part of the Second Amendment.
In other words, to defeat its very purpose.
It’s a silly interpretation, and one that’s not even remotely asserted in good faith, but why not put aside all the constitutional arguments supporting our right to pack heat and just call their militia bluff? Maybe we should reinvigorate the concept of a militia in our great nation, if only to annoy liberals.
So, pick up your weapon and fall in. Let’s do this thing. America, let’s get our militia on.
What is the “militia” anyway? It’s not goofy dudes in camo playing army. It’s the American people. It was those farmers, blacksmiths and other assorted non-hipsters who the Brits tried to disarm and who got all shooty in response. Today, it’s us, you and me, regular citizens with military arms so they can cap criminals and tyrants like bosses just as Nature intended.
That “well-regulated” part is what the Second Amendment Truthers focus on, but their analysis here (as with everything) is all wrong. They think Congress can well-regulate the militia into oblivion, presuming to misuse the clause to regulate away any right of actual citizens to have firearms with the ultimate goal of a militia that can’t be militant. That violates the longstanding principle that you do not interpret Constitutional provisions in such a way as to negate them, but liberals hate the Bill of Rights so what do you expect?
Just for fun, let’s assume Congress can regulate the militia instead of the individual states outside of the situations set forth in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 (“To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”). If so, then Congress has already clearly chosen to regulate the militia by not really regulating it much at all. It has left it to us citizens to prepare ourselves for armed service, primarily by privately owning guns. And many of us are doing our duty, but tragically, there are millions of Americans who lack the effective modern weapons they need. This must change.
You see, that militia reference, when read as the liberals wish to read it, means Congress can regulate the militia to be more than it is now. You libs are always talking about the militia, so fine. Let’s make the militia a thing again.First, we need to start by re-well-regulating the militia’s exact composition. United States Code Title 10, § 246 defines the “militia” as follows: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Clearly, this definition is far too restrictive for 2019, as well as sexist and cis-normative. The modern militia should consist of all healthy, law-abiding American citizens (and those intending to become American citizens) between 17 and, say, 65. After all, back in the olden days, if you made it to 35 you were pretty crusty, practically Joe Biden-like.
Everybody. Basically, if you aren’t nuts, incapacitated, a crook or as old as a leading Democrat candidate, you’re in the militia. And that’s good, because a republic requires participation. For too long, we’ve outsourced the vital duties of individual citizens to our great first responders and organized military. No more. Time to step up, people.
Now, the militia is not the National Guard, which I’m a bit familiar with after serving in it for 23 years. People who know nothing often claim it is, but that’s silly. Review 10 USC § 246 above. The combined Army and Air Force Guard membership in 2019 is about 442,000 personnel. That’s about .001% of the ~329,000,000 million Americans, not even close to even the limited Section 246 membership. Moreover, the Guard is an organized reserve component of the United States that operates under state control except when mobilized – as an officer, I held both a federal commission and a state commission from California. My uniform read “U.S. ARMY.” I had the same training as active officer – in fact, like most of us, I spent years on active duty. We had guns (the same as the active Army’s) locked away in centralized locations. To join, you had to meet active Army or Air Force standards. It’s an awesome and vital force, but it is not a militia.
The idea of the militia is that it includes (almost) everybody, but everybody can’t join the military – only a fraction of our citizens can. The militia is different. It is about all of us doing our part personally for our nation, like answering a jury summons or paying taxes. Hey citizens, time to do your duty. Time to get well-regulated. And that starts with owning a weapon.
What kind of weapon? Well, the requirement for every citizen should be a firearm suited to combat – an actual assault rifle. The M16/M4 is the classic American military weapon, and every member of the militia should have one or an appropriate analogue. If you want to go with a 7.62 mm battle rifle instead of a 5.56 mm, that’s your prerogative. As a member of the modern militia, you’ll need to provide your own kit, and Kit Item No. 1 is some kind of rifle. You need to be able to defend yourself, your family, your community and your Constitution, whether with an AR, AK, FAL, SIG, HK or some other high-velocity acronym.
Training? We won’t need a huge amount, other than requiring citizens to maintain proficiency on their firearms. Every citizen can show up for a month at 18 years old and take a break from dope smoking and their crappy Taylor Swift music to learn some basics, including safe weapons-handling procedures. Also, it would be a good time to do some basic lifesaving first aid training – stop the bleeding, treating shock, CPR. That’s not just vital for when the lead flies– what if you come on a car wreck and a fellow citizen has face-dived through the windshield and is spurting from an artery? What do you do? Oh yeah, my militia training!
If it saves one life, right?
Once initial training is done, then citizens can be assigned to local militia units with an annual muster. Everyone gathers with their basic equipment, updates contact info, touches base with the leadership, and then goes home after a BBQ to regular life until being called up. Don’t think they could never be called up either – I spent three weeks with the Army on the streets of Los Angeles during the 1992 riots and another week after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. LA is shaking as we speak; we citizens need to be ready. How long is there going to be nonsense going down if everyone on the street is carrying a rifle? Not long.
It’s not too much to ask citizens to take personal responsibility for their own country, and the ultimate responsibility is to defend it. That’s why the Second Amendment’s militia reference, taken seriously, means not stripping Americans of their ability to defend their freedom but enhancing it.
After all, for the security of a free state, it’s necessary that every healthy, law-abiding American citizen owns a real combat rifle and is ready to deploy on a moment’s notice to protect our people and our Constitution.
The Second Amendment prevents the kind of nightmarish leftist hellscape that I describe in my action-packed yet highly amusing novels about the United States’ split into red and blue countries, People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire. Hated by liberals and hailed by the sad Loser Boat crew from the failed Weekly Standard as “Appalling,” your right to be entertained shall not be infringed!
The Islamic doctrine of Hijrah or conquest via immigration is still alive, active and well. The recent arrival of Muslim migrants in Western countries, who don’t migrant here to embrace our Western civilization, but to enforce their own barbaric dogma on the host country has been compared to a Trojan Horse.
The Islamic hydra, with Saudi Arabia and the oil-money bloated Emirs and Sheiks of the Persian Gulf lead the Sunni charge from one side and the end-of-the-world bomb-seeking Shiites of the Islamic Republic of Iran along with its proxies of Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, Houthis of Yemen and the Sadrists in Iraq closing from the other side, have the intention of devouring the free world.
Meanwhile, America is under the effect of Islamic subversion, Muslim escapees of the misery of Islamic countries, exhibit such incredible gall and audacity as to shamelessly demand that their benevolent hosts surrender their liberty and legalize and adopt Sharia in our society.
The Muslims’ presence in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Belgium, represent the tip of the sword of the Islamists protruding from the Trojan horse. Once Sharia is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule, not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Presently, America is faced with a formidable enemy in a Trojan Horse: Islam.
Candace Marie Clairborne on Tuesday broke down in tears as she was sentenced to 40 months in prison for conspiring with foreign agents.
U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee said, “sentencing is never easy,” but also called Claiborne’s crime, “a truly grave offense, a betrayal of her employer and a betrayal of her country” before giving her 40 months in prison in a D.C. courtroom, reported Fox News.
I will always take any opportunity to post the pictures of these masked wearing Antifagoons so they can be exposed for who they are.
One of the violent, far-left thugs who participated in the Portland Antifa beatings was arrested identified and arrested by police on Tuesday. The antifa thug was involved in the lesser publicized mob assault on Adam Kelly, whose head was split open and required stitches and staples.
Even more incredible, Multnomah County district attorney Rod Underhill’s deputy DA, Melissa Marrero, actually pursued the case and has now returned an indictment against the perp.
That is a question that often occurs to me when I watch the Democrats’ anti-American hate-fest. (No, this post isn’t about the media’s slavering homage to Megan Rapinoe, but it could be.) The Southern border is a litmus test: do they believe that the United States has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, or don’t they?
For many Democrats, the answer evidently is No. That goes for all of the Democratic presidential contenders: I believe all of them have signed on to the notion of free medical care (along with many other welfare benefits, of course) for illegal aliens. This isn’t exactly treason–a word that is thrown around much too often these days–but it certainly amounts to selling out the interests of American citizens.
A startling example of the Democrats’ disregard of the interests of American citizens is Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, who reportedly has sent her aides to Mexico to help illegal immigrants game the asylum system by pretending that they don’t speak Spanish. Why, exactly, would an important member of our government, accountable to the citizens of the United States, do this? Last we knew, Escobar’s office had no comment.
Here is a brief report:
"Democratic congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico’s northern border town…to find migrants returned from El Paso, Texas, under the “remain in Mexico” policy, then coaching them to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole letting them to return to the U.S." pic.twitter.com/GQ6kpsXN2i
— NumbersUSA (@NumbersUSA) July 10, 2019
In what universe does it make sense for a Congresswoman to send her aides–all of whom are on the taxpayers’ payroll!–to Mexico to coach illegal aliens on how to improperly gain admission to the U.S. and access to our lavish welfare benefits?
The universe inhabited by pretty much the entire Democratic Party, apparently.
That thinking played into the potentially apocryphal comment made by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, who argued that invading the United States would be a disaster because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” I say it’s potentially apocryphal because no one has been able to confirm that the admiral actually said this, but it’s the kind of valid observation of America that Yamamoto was known to make.
In other words, much of our domestic tranquility – the fact that no nation wants to set foot on American soil and try to get rowdy – stems from the fact that we have an armed populace. And that matters these days. It matters because we do have people who are more than willing to get rowdy on American soil. We have enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Twitter has blocked John Lott’s account because of a post about the New Zealand mosque killer, and won’t explain its decision (see pictures). If you have a Twitter account, please consider retweeting the Crime Prevention Research Center’s tweet about this.The original tweet was completely accurate, and is substantiated here. We have appealed, but we are not optimistic.
The general claim that most mass public shooters are right-wingers is also false (see here).
Here is the opening paragraph of the Washington Post’s account of a rally by a group called Proud Boys protesting the exclusion of some activists from social media:
Hundreds of D.C. police officers descended on the area around Washington’s Freedom Plaza on Saturday, preventing antifascists from clashing with right-wing demonstrators during dueling rallies near the White House.
Who were these “antifascists”?
Police on bicycles and on foot quickly broke up skirmishes and prevented black-clad, hooded leftist antifascists, known as antifa, from erecting barricades in streets with toppled newspaper boxes and chairs.
What is the Post’s basis for telling its readers that Antifa, thugs who go around beating up people whose views they disagree with, is antifascist? It’s probably the fact that the Post also disagrees with the views of those whom these leftist thugs beat up.
It’s true that Antifa claims to be antifascist. But surely the Post, chock full of crack, truth-seeking journalists, isn’t taking Antifa’s word for it.
Donald Trump says he’s making America great again. The Post doesn’t parrot that claim. Why does it parrot the claim of hooded goons that they are antifascist? Again, it’s probably because the Post thinks Antifa, if not exactly on its side, is at least the enemy of its enemies.
It took four Post reporters — Peter Hermann, Peter Jamison, Hannah Natanson, and Clarence Williams — to crank out this pedestrian story, which runs only a little over two dozen paragraphs. Which of these ace reporters decided to buy Antifa’s marketing of itself as an antifascist organization? Maybe it was a collective decision. Or maybe they simply followed an editorial decision made by the Post’s brass.
Speaking of marketing, it’s shocking that a newspaper that markets itself through the slogan “democracy dies in darkness” applies a heroic description to a gang whose criminal behavior constitutes a head-on threat to free speech and, therefore, democracy.
Shocking, but not surprising, given that the newspaper in question is the Washington Post.
A Democratic congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico’s northern border town of Ciudad Juárez to find migrants returned from El Paso, Texas, under the “remain in Mexico” policy, then coaching them to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole letting them to return to the U.S.
The National Border Patrol Council’s El Paso chapter and several Customs and Border Protection personnel told the Washington Examiner aides to Rep. Veronica Escobar, who took over 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s district, and the local Catholic diocese have interviewed thousands of migrants in Juarez over the past few weeks to find cases where Department of Homeland Security officials may have wrongly returned people.
“What we believe is happening is Veronica Escobar’s office is going … to basically second-guess and obstruct work already done by the Border Patrol,” said one senior union official, who shared evidence with the Washington Examiner from concerned CBP managers and rank-and-file members. Those documents have been held to protect identities.
Under the bilateral Migration Protection Protocols, or “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim. A Democratic politician’s aides reescorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP officials said.
Far-left website Vox chose to commemorate July 4th by saying the American revolution was a “mistake” and that the country would have been better off staying under British control.
The reason? Because ‘racism’, or something.
“This July 4, let’s not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it,” writes Dylan Matthews.
Matthews claims that slavery would have been abolished earlier if America had lost the revolutionary war, failing to realize that the country would still be under the colonial enslavement of Great Britain – the very reason for going to war in the first place…………
It used to be somewhat of a cliché to say that liberals hate America, but their recent behavior only confirms that is now very much the case.
After being asked if it’s “time to classify Antifa as a terror group,” Kerik busted out the dictionary definition of terrorist:
Well, listen. First of all, this is an extremely violent group that goes out and threatens, intimidates, attacks with extreme violence for political reasons. If you look up terrorism, the definition of terrorism, that’s what terrorism is. When somebody threats, imposes threats and violence against someone else for political reasons.
“I’ve said this in the past and some people would disagree, I think they should be designated as a terror group, a domestic terror group,” he said.
His reasoning was that “the locals, the local state, police entities out there” were just on doing the job that needed to be done. He then blasted the Portland Police for not doing their jobs to protect the people:
Yep, she really is that stupid.
I tweeted this to her :
She can come by and try her demoncrap-for-brains antics out anytime.
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) on Tuesday went with other members of Congress to tour a detention facility for illegal immigrants. During a press conference following the tour, Wilson made a rather interesting comment. Apparently she believes anyone who “makes fun of members of Congress” on the Internet “should be prosecuted.”
“Those people who are online, making fun of members of Congress, are a disgrace and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable,” Wilson said. “We’re going to shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted.”
“You can not intimidate members of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law in this United States of America,” she said.
It’s rather dangerous for a member of Congress to say they want to prosecute people for “making fun of” others. Seriously? What happened to free speech? If someone says they don’t like Wilson’s hat because it’s ugly, are they going to be prosecuted? If someone says they think former Vice President Joe Biden is looking old, are they going to be prosecuted?
There’s nothing wrong with prosecuting those who go online and threaten our elected representatives. That’s totally understandable. But moving to prosecute people for voicing their opinion is dangerous and it’s a slippery slope. Not only that but it’s arbitrary. Who decides what’s acceptable? And how do we know that lefties aren’t going to persecute only conservatives?
This piece has a prerequisite: Read up on the assaults on Andy Ngo by Portland AntiFa. Read both the accounts of the assault and the comments of “journalists” that amount to “he expected it,” “he wanted it,” and “he deserved it.” Then return here.
Finished so soon? My, my.
Attacks on journalists who dare to cover AntiFa’s violent antics have been going on for a while now. The recent assault on Andy Ngo of Quillette is entirely within that pattern. It’s distinguished (pardon the choice of words) from its predecessors mostly by its near-lethality.
And yes: Ngo, an intelligent man, would have known that once he’d been seen and identified, the probability that AntiFa would attack him would be high. That doesn’t mean he wanted it to happen, Neither does it mean that he was there to be personally attacked rather than to document the Patriot Prayer assemblage and AntiFa’s assaults on it. But he surely had a sense of the risks involved in covering the episode.
This is called devotion to one’s chosen trade. It’s also called courage. But when viewed dispassionately, the episode appears symptomatic rather than basic.
One of the worst aspects of our current political environment is the categorization of news organs and the people who work for them into political allegiances: “He’s for us” versus “He’s against us.” At this point I can’t think of a prominent organ or reporter who’s above such things. Indeed, I can’t imagine how any of them could stand apart from it, for a simple reason: Merely covering and reporting on actual events is enough to get one categorized.
That follows from AntiFa’s use of violence and intimidation to silence the Right. AntiFa is a terrorist organization. By its choice of tactics, it has placed itself above the law. Therefore, anyone who documents its actions, even if baldly and objectively, is its enemy. As we mathematical types like to say, Quod erat demonstrandum.
Ideology doesn’t enter into it. Only tactics matter. Keep that firmly in mind. Keep this in mind as well: Sooner or later, AntiFa will face adversaries as violent as itself, if not more so.
With every person and organization in journalism preassigned to an Us or Them billet, there is no longer any safety for any of them. Their persons are at continuous hazard. Their organizations are equally at risk. Those deemed Left will be exposed to the vigilantes of the Right just as those deemed Right have been exposed to the violence of AntiFa.
The inaction of the Portland police during the attack on Ngo is an equally important indicator. It now seems well established that they were under orders from On High not to intervene. Current trends continuing, we may expect that, should AntiFa confront armed, belligerent Rightists in a city under a Right-leaning administration, the police would be told not to intervene against the Right. It hasn’t happened yet, but it will.
The news game no longer has rules in any meaningful sense. If the behavior of “the forces of order” will henceforward be determined by ideology rather than law, neither does American society.
I could go on at great length about this horror…that is, if I could go on at all. Our nation is breaking down. Indeed, there’s a strong case that the breakdown has already gone to completion and what we’ve been witnessing are merely the inevitable consequences: the opening skirmishes in a non-territorial civil war. Attacks on journalists – and I don’tmean President Trump slagging off the openly hostile Acostas and Ryans of the media – guarantee that from this moment until something resembling public order is restored, all news is war news.
Americans old enough to remember the World War II “newsreels” can surely remember their patriotic gloss, their open celebrations of our victories and their grief over our setbacks and losses. There was Us and there was Them, and there was no equivocation about who were the Good Guys. The newsreels were propaganda as much as news: intended not only to inform but also to sustain domestic morale, that the men in the field might continue to receive the degree of support they would need to keep fighting.
That’s the sort of reportage we might receive at best. At worst? Let your imagination run free; I’m sure you can conjure up a more vivid picture for yourself than any I could construct from mute pixels.
It’s time to pray…for all of us.
In Portland, OR, over the weekend, Antifa attacked journalist Andy Ngo. He had camera equipment stolen and had to be hospitalized. Ngo has been at the forefront of a journalistic movement to document the power abuses of Antifa. In Portland, for example, the thuggish street goons have been encouraged by the mayor of the city to such an extent that even law enforcement feels helpless.
Just a few months ago, Time magazine named journalists as their “person of the year” given both the sustained abuse journalists are subjected to and the President’s ongoing verbal attacks on the press. While CNN and a number of prominent journalists have come out strongly to defend Ngo and denounce the attack on him, it is very, very telling how many blue check marked journalists on Twitter have spent the weekend either excusing or justifying the attack on Ngo.
Julio Rosas, of the Washington Examiner, compiled a pretty good list of blue checkmarked journalists and activists who have defended Antifa in this matter. It is pretty clear that many of the people who call Donald Trump a totalitarian or would be dictator are actually fine with totalitarians provided the despot is on their side………….
Because these people do not like what Ngo reports or covers, they’ve declared him not a journalist and, therefore, open to attack.
Andy Ngo Update: Ted Cruz Calls Out Portland Mayor For Ceding Control Of Streets To Antifa
Cruz: “To federal law enforcement: investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists.”
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and the city’s police force have come under criticism after an attack on a conservative writer at dueling protests on Saturday.
. . . . Police were lined up along the perimeter of the park before the attack, but no one intervened to break up the fight. Late Saturday, police reported that three people had been arrested, including one for assault, but it was unclear if that person had anything to do with the attack on Ngo.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is livid and is calling for legal action against Portland’s mayor who reportedly had ordered police not to protect victims of the antifa-fascist mob.
To federal law enforcement: investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists. https://t.co/5xyCDARICl https://t.co/c0Tf3SsKEf
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 30, 2019
The Washington Post is all-in on stoking the fire of public harassment of Trump supporters, denying them public accommodations. So much for civility and mutual respect.
That’s the only conclusion to draw from this op-ed (non-paywall version here) published by the largest newspaper in our nation’s capital, written by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the Red Hen Restaurant that kicked out Sarah Sanders and her family while dining there.
The paper proudly tweeted out its contribution to the loss of civility.
From the co-owner of the Red Hen: Restaurants are now a soundstage for our national spectacle. And the rules have shifted. https://t.co/Ig6ch7ZjJM
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 29, 2019