Maybe it would be quicker if you guys just answered which parts of the Bill of Rights you *do* support? https://t.co/FgPbNx3dmG
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 21, 2023
Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Tyrant
I’d settle for removing platforms of criminals, insurrectionists, white nationalists and Tucker Carlson. (Sorry to be repetitive there) https://t.co/V4uDsMB48n
— Ryan Busse (@ryandbusse) February 17, 2023
The nomenklatura is real. It sprang to life with the first law Congress passed that restricted the people and exempted goobermint.
A few weeks after Elon Musk formally acquired Twitter in October 2022, a senior official at the company who quit in the wake of Musk’s arrival took to the New York Times to pour cold water on Musk’s vision for the social-media platform. Yoel Roth, whose title had been Head of Trust and Safety, sought to assure his fellow progressives. Roth wrote that even if Musk wanted to remove the web of content-moderation rules and procedures Roth had helped create and enforce, the tech billionaire would be unable to achieve his aim. “The moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online,” he wrote.
What Roth meant was this: No Internet platform is an island, and Musk simply didn’t have the power to do what he wanted despite his 100 percent ownership of the social-media platform. It wasn’t merely that Musk would have to contend with Twitter’s progressive workforce, which believes that some political speech is so awful that it should be throttled or banned. He would also come into conflict with European regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, all of whom also seek to limit what can be said online. And what about the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade organization of some of the world’s biggest consumer brands that advocates for “online safety”—a euphemism for protecting social-media users from accounts that may offend, harass, or trigger them?
He would also be dogged by advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have found a new and lucrative mission monitoring social-media platforms for hate speech. They work hand in hand with elite journalists and think tankers, who have taken to tracking the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. In Washington, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have personnel whose job it is to alert social-media companies to foreign propaganda and terrorism. In Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control seeks to quarantine dangerous information that might lead Americans to forgo masks or vaccine boosters. And perhaps most important, there are other Silicon Valley giants—Apple and Google—that provide the digital storefronts or app stores that Twitter needs to update their software and continue to run its service.
Call it the “content-moderation industrial complex.” In just a few short years, this nomenklatura has come to constitute an implicit ruling class on the Internet, one that collectively determines what information and news sources the rest of us should see on major platforms. Talk about “free speech” and “the First Amendment” may actually be beside the point here. The Twitter that Musk bought was part of a larger machine—one that attempts to shape conversations online by amplifying, muzzling, and occasionally banning participants who run afoul of its dogma.
The existence of this nomenklatura has been known for a few years. But thanks to Musk and his decision to make Twitter’s internal communications and policies available to journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, more detail is now known on why and how this elite endeavors to protect us from all manner of wrongthink.
Der apfel fält nicht weit vom baum (The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree)
Klaus Schwab’s Father Ran ‘National Socialist Model Company,’ Exploited Nazi Slave Labor.
Davos frontman Klaus Schwab’s daddy, Eugen Schwab, while the Third Reich was ravaging Europe in the 1930s and 40s, served as managing director of Escher Wyss Ravensburg, an engineering firm that constructed turbines and fighter plane parts for the regime.
While the elder Schwab worked in this capacity, the Nazis awarded Escher Wyss Ravensburg the prestigious title of “National Socialist Model Company” for all of its hard work in the service of the Führer.
To achieve this recognition, Escher-Wyss Ravensburg, under Eugen Schwab’s leadership, utilized Nazi slave labor and prisoners of war in its facilities.
Ravensburg itself, aside from the slave factory, was the site of numerous Nazi crimes against humanity, such as forced sterilization for the purpose of “racial improvement.” But to Eugen Schwab, that was just the cost of doing business with the Third Reich.
You want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs, right?
Klaus Schwab’s sanitized Wikipedia page contains none of the gruesome details of his daddy’s wartime activities, other than to say “his parents had moved from Switzerland to Germany during the Third Reich in order for his father to assume the role of director at Escher Wyss.”
Newsweek ran a corporate “fact check” in which they cherry-picked a falsely attributed image of Eugen in a Nazi uniform as a way to seem to disprove his connection to the Third Reich entirely. But deep into the article, Newsweek subtly admits that it’s all true — which almost no one will get to, thanks to short attention spans:
The posts shared online in May, 2022, claim Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, was a close ally of Hitler, and include a photo of the World Economic Forum leader alongside a man in Nazi uniform… the photo shared online is not of Eugen Schwab, but of Nazi general Walter Dybilasz… Klaus Schwab’s father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm Escher Wyss.
The history of Eugen’s relationship with Nazism in general is complex… Eugen Schwab was a member of some National Socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology. While the Escher Wyss branch in Ravensburg, Germany, (which Eugen managed) used prisoners of war and forced laborers, it is not clear whether the company was forced to do so by the Nazis or because of a lack of workers.
So, Eugen Schwab was an avowed National Socialist, and yes, okay, his firm did use Nazi slave labor. But, you see, that doesn’t mean he was a Nazi. And maybe Escher Wyss had to use slave labor to make their products for the Nazis because of a worker shortage.
This is a common tactic in corporate media: Take a false claim that circulates on the web (in this case, an image incorrectly identified as Eugen Schwab) and use that single post to discredit the entire factual connection between Schwab and the Nazis.
Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.
Our Federal Government, though, was constructed to serve the people. Everything in our Constitution points to that fact. The people are sovereign, not Government. But, like all Governments, our Federal Government has succumbed to tyranny. That tyranny is mirrored and multiplied in the Governments of many States. New York is one of those States.
The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.
In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.
The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:
- People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
- Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.
Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.
The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.
Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.
SloJoe, his handlers and the rest of the demoncraps were never interested in stopping crime.
DEMOCRATS’ GUN CONTROL DUPLICITY LAID BARE
It is time for President Joe Biden to drop the gun control charade. He – and his Capitol Hill gun control supporters – were never interested in curbing criminal misuse of guns. They are only interested in controlling you.
President Biden’s prisoner swap with Russia of a convicted international arms trafficker for a WNBA star proved that his administration doesn’t care about keeping guns out of the hands of those who should never have them. His only interest when it comes to guns is keeping them out of the hands of those who obey the law. His podium admonitions are betrayed by his actions.
‘Merchant of Death’
President Biden announced last week the trade with Russia of Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner. Bout is a notorious international arms smuggler who earned the moniker “Merchant of Death.” He is a former Soviet-era military officer who was arrested in 2008 in Thailand by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in a sting for proposing a sale of tens of millions of dollars to the Colombian narco-terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The illicit sale was for $20 million worth of “a breathtaking arsenal of weapons — including hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, machine guns and sniper rifles — 10 million rounds of ammunition and five tons of plastic explosives.”
Bout’s history runs much deeper. He was identified as an illicit arms dealer by the United Nations in 2000. He was moving arms to African warlords, Middle East dictators and Central American narco-terrorist groups. His attempt to arm the FARC was what ultimately put him in prison for charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, U.S. officers and employees, conspiracy to acquire missiles to destroy aircraft and conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Bout was traded for Griner, a basketball player arrested by Russia in February on drug possession charges.
Security Threat
The swap has been lampooned by critics for how lopsided it is. Russia continues to hold former Marine Paul Whelan, arrested on dubious espionage charges. Former National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told CBS News, “This is not a deal. This is not a swap. This is a surrender.”
Fox News reported that former DEA Special Operation Director Derek Maltz, who was involved in Bout’s capture, slammed the White House for their “ironic” prisoner swap, arguing that it’s “disgusting” for the Biden administration to sell gun control while celebrating the release of an international arms trafficker.
Even the Pentagon is wary. “I think there is a concern that he would return to doing the same kind of work that he’s done in the past,” a senior defense official told reporters.
The exchange exposed how unserious this administration truly is when it comes to ending the criminal misuse of firearms. Less than one day before the swap was announced, President Biden renewed his pledge to ban Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in America. That pronouncement came just days after he told media, “The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”
Why the Left Must Destroy Free Speech – or Be Destroyed
In Hayek’s famous 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, he warned that the intellectual and political classes of the democracies of that time were embracing some of the same ideas that inspired Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Stalin’s Russia: comprehensive government planning, hyper regulation of industry, nationalization, welfare statism, and collectivism in general. He did not predict that these societies would end up “in serfdom,” however, as some have mistakenly claimed. Quite the contrary. In his first chapter he clearly stated that he hoped the ideas in the book would help these countries to avoid that disastrous fate. He hoped the ideas of the book would be a roadblock on the road to serfdom.
Who In the US Is Objectively Racist? The Left. As the Data Show Definitively.
Joe Biden and the Democrats keep gunning for your guns. Research like this is a major part of their argument. What it shows–definitively–is that it isn’t guns. It’s a particular social pathology enabled by a social psychosis that reached epidemic proportions in 2020. The data are irrefutable.
One graphic tells the tale:
The increase in gun homicides documented in the Emory University study is attributable almost exclusively to one factor: a nearly 60 percent increase in homicide fatalities among black men. Not over a period of many years–but in a little over one year.
And what year was that? 2020. And what happened in 2020? The death of George Floyd, and the subsequent revelation that black lives especially matter.
Yes, but not in the way intended. Not by a long shot. That death and revelation brought in its train myriad consequences. Defund the police. The war on cash bail and the release of numerous criminals. The demoralization of police, who were instructed explicitly and implicitly that arresting black male offenders was a career risk, and the subsequent surrender of the streets to the thugs. And on and on. (The release of many from jail because of COVID didn’t help either.)
This is as close to a natural experiment as can exist in social science. An exogenous shock–the death of one man–leads to a tectonic shift in law enforcement, especially with regards to a particular demographic. The result?: a hyperbolic increase in homicide rates in that demographic. (I note that the previous uptick observable in the chart in 2014 corresponds to the proto-Floyd event, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, which was the catalyst for Black Lives Matter.)
This is as close to a definitive proof of causation as is possible in observational social science.
This is not complicated. We sowed. We reaped. There is no other plausible explanation for the data.
It is sickly ironic–and mainly sick–that so many black lives have been sacrificed on the altar of Black Lives Matter.
But it gave an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi and the like to demonstrate their superiority over us plebs by taking a knee wearing kente cloth, so it was all for the best, right?
The whole ugly spectacle makes me literally nauseous. (And yes, I literally know what it means to say “literally.”) Hell is not hot enough to torture properly all those preening better-thans who have cost more black lives in a couple of years than the KKK did in its entire, horrid, sordid history (which dates to 1866).
But you are the problem you see. You and your icky guns.
No, the real problem is the social psychosis that is modern American leftism, which obsesses over race, and in the name of helping one race is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of that race.
So tell me: who are objectively the racists here? (See Orwell on “objectively pro-Fascist” if you don’t catch my point.)
If this does not make you incandescent with anger, some serious self-reflection is definitely in order. Unless you are a leftist, in which case that is something of which you are constitutionally incapable.
Cue the shocked meme…..
Independent journalist Bari Weiss took to Twitter on Thursday night to unload a second trove of internal memos and documents exposing how Twitter officials silenced the voices of prominent conservatives on the platform. Radio host Dan Bongino, Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, and activist Charlie Kirk were among those Twitter censored or blacklisted, along with the popular “Libs of TikTok” account.
“A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users,” Weiss, a former New York Times reporter, wrote. “The authors [of the Twitter Files] have broad and expanding access to Twitter’s files. The only condition we agreed to was that the material would first be published on Twitter.”
The left’s newest stealth attack on free speech
America’s two most important rights are free speech and the right to bear arms. Without the first, no people are free; and without the second, there is no first. Totalitarians always go after both; that is, they silence and disarm them. For decades, the left has been open in its war on the Second Amendment. They’ve struggled more with the war on speech, but they may finally have come up with a new approach that will sneak around constitutional muster.
When it comes to speech that incites violence or is otherwise imminently threatening, the law has always been clear: The threat must be very explicit and imminent for the speech to lose its First Amendment protections. At the most simplistic level, saying, “I wish so-and-so were dead” is not an actionable opinion. However, saying, “I’m going to kill so-and-so this week” or “You all need to kill so-and-so; I’ve got a plan” is criminally actionable speech. (The standard is more sensitive when speech is directed at the president, of course.)
This constitutional limitation on making (conservatives’) political speech criminally actionable has long vexed the left. They’ve trained their young acolytes that speech is violence (so much so that almost half of college students say “hate speech” should get the death penalty) but, so far, courts haven’t fallen for that gambit. Unless speech creates an imminent threat, it gets a pass.
Lately, though, the left has come up with a new concept that seeks to say that any speech that opposes leftist policies is actual and imminent “terrorism.” Or as leftist academia calls it, “stochastic terrorism.”
Christopher Rufo discusses the concept in an important City Journal essay. He begins by revealing that he is being identified as someone who is directly responsible for the attack on Paul Pelosi:
BLUF
Democrats, Demoncraps, who have spent years delegitimizing the Supreme Court and rule of law, undermining legislative norms, cheering on unprecedented and blatant executive abuses, and using the DOJ to target their political enemies, among other “democracy”-destroying behaviors, do not occupy any high moral ground. And while “democracy” was once just a transparently silly euphemism for “stuff we want,” it has since evolved into a rhetorical device that denotes a decisively illiberal mindset.
DEMOCRATS Demoncraps: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule.
‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘Russia Collusion.’
At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.
If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”
Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?
Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.
We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.
BLUF
That’s why I don’t really care what 97Percent wants or claims to be about. They’re no different than Giffords, Brady, Everytown, and every other group that wants to annihilate our Second Amendment rights.
Don’t get too excited about “common ground” survey results
For many, the goal is to find common ground on issues relating to guns and gun control. It’s their hope that if they can find enough points of agreement, gun control laws can be passed.
Even if I accepted this premise, though, I know what will happen. Those laws will be passed, only we see no results (at best) so now they want to find “common ground” on still more regulations. Little by little, we’ll see our rights whittled away.
Yet the question remains, does the common ground exist?
According to a recent report, it does.
The majority of gun owners are concerned about gun violence and support policies to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths, according to new research from Tufts University and gun safety organization 97Percent.
Three-fourths of gun owners surveyed said they are concerned about the frequency of school shootings, and 71 percent said the same of mass shootings, according to the research released on Monday. Seventy percent said they also want to help find a way reduce gun-related injuries and deaths.
Most gun owners, including Republican ones, said they support several proposed laws to prevent people with a high risk of violence from accessing guns.
Gun safety organization 97Percent, which touts itself as a bipartisan group of both gun owners and non-gun owners, noted in its report on the research that this defies the current perception that there is an “intractable divide” over gun control in the U.S.
And since 97Percent paid for this study, it’s not surprising that the result was exactly what 97Percent wanted.
It’s part of why all such “studies” need to be questioned vigorously.
The idea that 1/6 was this rare instance of violence that was a unique threat against our Democracy is ridiculous, but the left has droned on and on about this unique political violence. Let me take you on a journey.
“The bomb completely destroyed the area it was placed in and could have caused untold harm to human life if it had gone off closer to where the people had been gathered.” 1983 bombing of the Senate
Sorry that didn’t count, it was leftist political violence. Let’s try again:
Oops my bad, that was a Republican that was shot by a leftists who thought Republicans voting against Obamacare would “kill people” That one doesn’t count either.
Or how about the time that protestors stormed the supreme court and pounded on the doors to breach it, because they were mad at a SCOTUS nominee?
Biden sends 70 airplanes of immigrants to Florida: crickets
Florida sends 50 immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard: OMG HUMAN TRAFFICKING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS!!!
Martha’s Vineyard sends those 50 to a military base: brave hugs and tears
— Razor (@hale_razor) September 17, 2022
Is Fascism Left- or Right-Wing?
Copied from Facebook:
Is fascism a left or right-wing ideology?
“We know the name of the philosopher of capitalism: Adam Smith. We know the name of the philosopher of Marxism: Karl Marx. But who’s the philosopher of fascism?
“Yes—exactly. You don’t know.
“Don’t feel bad. Almost no one knows. This is not because he doesn’t exist, but because historians, most of whom are on the political left, had to erase him from history in order to avoid confronting fascism’s actual beliefs. So, let me introduce him to you. His name is Giovanni Gentile.
“Born in 1875, he was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the twentieth century. Gentile believed that there were two “diametrically opposed” types of democracy. One is liberal democracy, such as that of the United States, which Gentile dismisses as individualistic—too centered on liberty and personal rights—and therefore selfish. The other, the one Gentile recommends, is “true democracy,” in which individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the state.
“Like his philosophical mentor, Karl Marx, Gentile wanted to create a community that resembles the family, a community where we are “all in this together.” It’s easy to see the attraction of this idea. Indeed, it remains a common rhetorical theme of the left.
“For example, at the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.
“Nothing’s changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” They might as well have been quoting Gentile.
“Now, remember, Gentile was a man of the left. He was a committed socialist. For Gentile, fascism is a form of socialism—indeed, its most workable form. While the socialism of Marx mobilizes people on the basis of class, fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. German Fascists in the 1930s were called Nazis—basically a contraction of the term “national socialist.”
“For Gentile, all private action should be oriented to serve society; there is no distinction between the private interest and the public interest. Correctly understood, the two are identical. And who is the administrative arm of the society? It’s none other than the state.
“Consequently, to submit to society is to submit to the state—not just in economic matters, but in all matters. Since everything is political, the state gets to tell everyone how to think and what to do.
“It was another Italian, Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943, who turned Gentile’s words into action. In his Dottrina del Fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, Mussolini wrote, “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” He was merely paraphrasing Gentile.
“The Italian philosopher is now lost in obscurity, but his philosophy could not be more relevant because it closely parallels that of the modern left. Gentile’s work speaks directly to progressives who champion the centralized state.
“Here in America, the left has vastly expanded state control over the private sector, from healthcare to banking; from education to energy. This state-directed capitalism is precisely what German and Italian fascists implemented in the 1930s.
Leftists can’t acknowledge their man, Gentile, because that would undermine their attempt to bind conservatism to fascism.
“Conservatism wants small government so that individual liberty can flourish. The left, like Gentile, wants the opposite: to place the resources of the individual and industry in the service of a centralized state. To acknowledge Gentile is to acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology of today’s left. So, they will keep Gentile where they’ve got him: dead, buried, and forgotten.
“But we should remember, or the ghost of fascism will continue to haunt us.”
Biden “on a war footing” to dehumanize “roughly half the population who voted against him”
My interview on Newsmax: “What we’re seeing come out is the real Joe Biden. Anybody who has followed his career knows that the 2020 portrayal of him by the media as kind grandfatherly Joe Biden is a fabrication. He was deemed the father of ‘Borking,’ the vicious attacks on judicial nominees dating back many decades ago. His entire career has been one of viciously attacking people.”
Joe Biden is still on the warpath against MAGA. First it was dehumanizing MAGA Republicans, in a September 1 speech that was widely panned as “one of the most menacing, bitter, angry and divisive speeches in modern US political history”:
Then Biden walked it back a bit, and said he wasn’t referring to “all” MAGA voters.
Now Biden has modified the message, perhaps in the realization that calling for a civil war was not the best strategy, so now Biden’s social media team is putting out tweets that what Biden is really criticizing is MAGA policies. Using the official presidential account (@Potus) instead of his personal account, Biden tweeted:
“MAGA proposals are a threat to the very soul of this country.”
Ah yes, like energy independence and securing the southern border, such a threat to the soul of Joe Biden’s America.
It would be easy to blame Biden’s Team Obama handlers for this, but I think Jesse Kelly had it right:
A lot has been made about Biden and how he’s a feeble old man and how it’s all his handlers. And a lot of that is true. Do keep this in mind though: Biden is a prick. A nasty, vindictive prick. This is well known in DC. And that speech, that was HIS idea. Little birdie told me.
That the campaign of demonization was Joe’s idea and obsession was confirmed in a Politico report. That’s not surprising, he’s a nasty piece of work and has been his entire career, as I previously pointed out:
“Biden has been a corrupt sleaze his entire career, he’s a malicious flame thrower who hides behind the facade of being ‘regular Joe’ and now kind elderly Joes. He’s the worst of our political system.”
I had a chance to pick up on this theme when I appeared on Wake Up America on Newsmax this morning to talk about the Biden strategy, with discussion of the Mar-a-Lago raid towards the end:
Well, I think they have developed a campaign strategy, which is to turn the country upside down. They don’t want to talk about inflation. They don’t want to talk about all the economic problems. They don’t want to talk about the border. What they want to talk about is Donald Trump and bad Republicans. So this is a deliberate campaign strategy. This is not by chance. And so that’s really what you’re seeing play out is the Democrats have decided the way they limit their losses in 2022, or maybe even hold the house or maybe even hold the Senate is to make the campaign about evil Republicans as opposed to the problems of the Biden administration….
What we’re seeing come out is the real Joe Biden. Anybody who has followed his career knows that the 2020 portrayal of him by the media as kind grandfatherly Joe Biden is a fabrication. He was deemed the father of Borking, the vicious attacks on judicial nominees dating back many decades ago. His entire career has been one of viciously attacking people.
We now know from the Hunter Biden laptop that he sold his office to enrich his family, and his campaign worked with the media to suppress that story. So what we’re seeing is the real Joe Biden, who you saw on that stage the other night is the real Joe Biden.
It is not an anomaly. And that’s very dangerous when you have a leader who has a career of attacking people, who embraced segregationists when it was convenient for him politically, who now is attacking people who love the country and support the country as if they are somehow the problem. It’s a really nasty vicious sort of thing he’s doing. And he needs to be called out on it….
I think he’s basically on a war footing and you’ve heard other Democrats say that, you’ve heard other TV commenters say that, that he’s on a war footing against roughly half the population who voted against him….
Top Biden Advisor’s Disgusting Rant Against Republican Voters Leads to a Key Question
Did you know that Keisha Lance Bottoms, once an abject failure of a mayor in Atlanta, is now working for the Biden administration? I didn’t either, but apparently, she’s serving as a top advisor because as I’ve said many times, failing up is a staple of Democrat politics.
On Sunday, Bottoms appeared on ABC News, no doubt friendly territory, to try to explain away Joe Biden’s grotesque national address where he essentially labeled half of the country a threat to the republic. When pressed on whether the president has “given up” on those tens of millions of Americans, she had no real answer.
"Has the president essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans — some 70 million people?"
Top Biden advisor Keisha Lance Bottoms won't say. pic.twitter.com/aOeA5TNvli
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 4, 2022
But while Bottoms refused to answer the question directly, the rest of her commentary left little to the imagination. Here’s the transcript for those who can’t watch the video.
RADDATZ: All of us? He wasn’t calling out to the MAGA supporters certainly. He mentioned them more than a dozen times and — as a threat to democracy.
Has the president essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans, some 70 million people?
BOTTOMS: Well, what the president has done is said that he will continue to work with mainstream Republicans, that he will work with Democrats, that he will work with Independents, to get things done in our country.
But this MAGA Republican agenda, this hate-fueled agenda, this MAGA Republican agenda that we saw incite violence on our nation’s Capitol has no place in a democracy. And if we are not intentional about calling it out, which is what the president did, then our country — everything that our country is built upon is in danger.
Let me dissect this a bit. Notice Bottoms’ language about Biden working with “mainstream” Republicans. What that translates to is any Republican who is willing to do what the president wants. If you aren’t amicable to his demands, then you aren’t “mainstream.” Biden has made himself the arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable in the opposition party, and the media just goes along with that standard as if it’s not ridiculous and hypocritical.
So if you are Mitt Romney and vote for Biden’s infrastructure boondoggle, then you are a “mainstream” Republican who can be spared. But if you oppose his destructive agenda and dare to have counter opinions to that of the far-left, then you are a “threat” to democracy and must be destroyed. Isn’t that nice? That’s only the kind of viewpoint that tin-pot dictators throughout history have held and abided by.
Past that, I’d love to ask Bottoms and the rest of the Biden administration one question. If “MAGA” Republicans are so horrible and dangerous, what exactly should be done about them? I’m hearing a lot of heated rhetoric and absurd proclamations, but what would Joseph R. Biden like to do with all these evil Republicans hanging about? Throw them in camps? Take away their rights? Not allow them to vote?
No reporter with access will ever be brave enough to ask that question, but it’s the big one at hand, isn’t it? If Democrats are going to go all in with not just opposing but “othering” their political opponents, where does that train end? They ought to be made to provide an answer to that, otherwise, they should stop their ridiculous ranting.
NY's goal has always been to keep the average citizen from exercising his or her rights. Now that they can't unilaterally and arbitrarily do that through discretionary permitting, they're of course going to make sure they price out as many of you peasants as possible. https://t.co/7awht3p5wb
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) September 2, 2022
“This scares tyrants, and it should” – Couldn’t say it better.
Joe Biden’s Ghost Gun ‘Ban’ Lasted Less Than A Minute
The ability to manufacture arms today ensures that free Americans will never truly be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.
As the gun control movement describes it, America’s streets are now safe from the scourge of homemade firearms because companies cannot sell the kits to make these guns without the purchaser receiving them through a licensed gun store and undergoing a background check.
Their celebration was short-lived, however. As soon as the clock struck midnight and Biden’s new rule went into effect, retailers had already adjusted their inventory to comply with the new regulations. Biden’s ban on “ghost guns” lasted no longer than a minute.
A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.
In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.
A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.
The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.
In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.
What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.
Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?
One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.
Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.
That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.