Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Refugees from Communist Countries Are The Canaries In The Coal Mine

What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.” — Hegel

In the classic movie Alien, the crew of a spaceship accidentally brings a small specimen inside their ship when they land on an uncharted planet. As they resume their voyage, the alien transmogrifies into a bigger and deadlier form and begins to kill the crew one by one. At wit’s end, the few remaining crew members ask their android how to kill it. In a tone of incredulity, the android answers back, “You still don’t know what you’re dealing with, do you?”

People such as myself who have lived in countries controlled by Communist totalitarian regimes are thoroughly acquainted with their characteristics: censorship, divide-and-conquer tactics, fraudulent elections, mutilation of the arts and science, forbidding books, sadistic repressions, absence of comedy, snitching to authorities by friends and family members, constant propaganda, rewriting history books, toppling statues, relentless fanaticism, the rule of law jettisoned, political prisoners, self-censorship, propaganda posing as news, ruining the country’s economy, distorting the meaning of words. We can smell the stench of Communism, the plague of the 20th century, a mile away.

Except we can smell it here. Now.

We are the canaries in the coal mine.

I can give hundreds of instances of the above characteristics being carried out in America, which have been increasing in frequency and intensity. However, most people are unaware of them because the major propaganda outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, etc.) ignore them and, on the other hand, conservatives are notorious for only preaching to the choir and stubbornly and stupidly not reaching out to the general public because they are so lazy.

Equally affected by the news blackout of the propaganda outlets are the frantic warnings from immigrants from Communist countries. On several other occasions in various conservative outlets, I have expressed my alarm at what is happening and I could repeat myself here. Instead of writing yet another article sounding the alarm that the barbarians are not at the gates, but inside the gates, I will cite other refugees and dissidents if for no other reason that their voices deserve to be heard by more people, contrary to the efforts of the media hivemind to suppress them. Some may object to my merely listing their voices and that it is a long list. Well, the point is that it is a long list. So, you should pay attention.

Continue reading “”

1, Behar has the intellectual capacity of an amoeba.

2, This was already addressed by SCOTUS in Heller. to wit:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,…….
., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search……….., the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding

Joy Behar: It’s Time To ‘Tweak’ 1st And 2nd Amendments Because Founding Fathers Didn’t Have AR-15s And Twitter

“The View” co-host Joy Behar said Tuesday that the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the U.S. Constitution needed to be “tweaked a little bit” because the Founding Fathers did not have things like AR-15s and Twitter.

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg began the discussion with the news that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey had stepped down a day earlier and noted that he had been proactive in policing hate speech — namely because Twitter was first to eject former President Donald Trump from its platform.

Continue reading “”

It’s actually quite fun to watch demoncraps fight among themselves

Centrist Dems sink Biden’s nominee for top bank regulator.

Five Democratic senators have told the White House they won’t support Saule Omarova to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, effectively killing her nomination for the powerful bank-regulator position.

Why it matters: The defiant opposition from a broad coalition of senators reflects the real policy concerns they had with Omarova, a Cornell University law professor who’s attracted controversy for her academic writings about hemming in big banks.

  • Their opposition also hints at a willingness of some Democratic senators to buck the White House on an important nomination, even if it hands Republicans a political — and symbolic — victory.
  • Republicans have attacked the Kazakh-born scholar in remarkably personal terms, and turned her nomination into a proxy battle over how banks should be regulated.

Driving the news: In phone call on Wednesday, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), all members of the Senate Banking Committee, told Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) — the panel’s chairman — of their opposition.

  • They’re joined in opposing her by Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
  • The five senators’ offices either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Go deeper: Biden officials also have heard directly from the senators. They’re aware of their deep opposition and know Omarova faces nearly impossible odds for confirmation.

  • Still, they continue to back her publicly.
  • “The White House continues to strongly support her historic nomination,” a White House official told Axios.
  • “Saule Omarova is eminently qualified for this position,” the official said. “She has been treated unfairly since her nomination with unacceptable red-baiting from Republicans like it’s the McCarthy era.”

Omarova tried to salvage her candidacy during a hearing last week, where Republicans savaged her for her previous academic writings about how community banks should be regulated.

  • Her nomination, reflected in an ugly hearing in which Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) questioned whether he should call the native of the former Soviet Union “professor” or “comrade,” became a proxy battle.
  • It split between the banking industry and progressives eager to impose more regulation on it.
  • “The OCC charters, regulates and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations, as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks,” it says on its website.

The big picture: Now that the president has stared down progressives by renominating Jerome Powell for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, ideological fights between centrists and progressives about economic appointments are going to become more pronounced.

  • Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have already indicated they’ll work to oppose Powell.
  • Warren does support another Biden move, elevating Fed governor Lael Brainard to the vice-chair position.
  • With centrists like Tester getting their preferred Fed candidate nominated for a second term, they may feel more emboldened to challenge the White House on lower-level nominations.

Celebrity crap-for-brains on display once more.

Quote O’ The Day
As you look at the insane reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict, it’s important to understand why we’re here and what kind of people we’ve dealing with.
–-Jesse Kelly

The Sky is Green Theory.

We’re at a place now in America like no other time in this nation’s history. A very dangerous place. You see, cultures are held up by pillars. Government, religion, sports, education, entertainment, etc..

Our pillars are all rotted with same sickness: Cultural Marxism

The wacko leftist on the street corner you used to mock as you drove by, he now brings you the news. He runs your FBI. He plays in the NBA. He pastors your church.

And because all the pillars believe the same thing, you no longer have a check and balance cultural system. If the government lies, the media should be there to expose it. A huge Hollywood star should expose it. The pillars check each other in a healthy society.

But we don’t have that. And because we don’t have that, they don’t feel the need to shade the truth or manipulate a story. They now can simply invent something out of thin air and they know no other pillar will check them on it.

The Kyle Rittenhouse case red-pilled a few more million:

Half this country believes Kyle Rittenhouse illegally crossed state lines with a weapon and murdered two people. Half of those people think the ones “murdered” were black.

Some will believe anything to get ahead:

Which brings us to the Sky is Green theory. It sounds crazy, but The System could wake up tomorrow and convince half this country that the sky is green.

News program after news program would have “experts” on to discuss the newly green sky. Professors would teach about it. Our entertainers would all have a video up on Instagram about it in short order.

Our brain dead athletes would repeat it. Nike would be running commercials showing a green sky by the end of the week. Every Hollywood movie would have a green sky.

And the shaming would begin. Oh the shaming. Anyone talking about a blue sky would be treated like some deranged conspiracy theorist. Families would divide over it. Facebook would ban you for discussing “blue skies”.

You get the idea. Because there are no longer cultural checks outside of a few people with balls on the Right, we now live in a time when a huge percentage of your countrymen occupy a world of make believe.

I don’t know the solution for this. I genuinely don’t. But I do know we won’t last much longer this way. This nation does not exist in its current form 100 years from now unless this is fixed.

In Eastern Europe under communist rule, ordinary people had only contempt for the dwindling minority of the population who listened to the state propaganda and appeared to believe it. No checks and balances there either.

And how did that end? The communist fantasies grew too divorced from reality, until one glorious day in 1989 the even people who profited from the communist system realized they were being left behind by the West — and communism ended.

Thanksgiving: The Left Desperately Wants to Cancel the Great American Holiday.

I’ll publish a tribute to the pilgrims on Thursday in honor of Thanksgiving, but today, let’s check the polar opposite of the honesty, humility, and gratefulness we should celebrate this week.

Thanksgiving, of course, is a uniquely American holiday celebrating how English settlers and Native Americans overcame cultural and linguistic barriers to share a meal and initiate a worldwide model for tolerance and cooperation. Oversimplified? Maybe, but it’s mainly correct.

And it is surely more accurate than proclaiming Thanksgiving to be about murder, greed, and bigotry.

Yet in a weekend segment for — you guessed it — what MSNBC called “The Thanksgiving history you’ve never heard,” a person called Gyasi Ross shouts from a pre-written, Howard Zinn-influenced screed:

“The truth is that pilgrims did not bring turkey, sweet potato pie or cranberries to Thanksgiving. They could not. They were broke! They were broken! Their hands were out! They were begging! They brought nothing of value. But they got fed! They got schooled! Instead of bringing stuffing and biscuits, those settlers brought genocide and violence. That genocide and violence is still on the menu! And state sponsored violence against Native and black Americans is commonplace!”

I’ve heard this before. It’s not original.

I am sure Ross knows all this information because he — a rapper and storyteller from Seattle — was in the arena 400 years ago for a first-person account.

Ross’ hateful rant reminds us that not only is dangerous revisionist history alive and well in left-wing cable news, but also, no matter the topic, progressives and their media allies will always change the subject back to their favorites: race and hating America’s founding.

The Washington Post, for example, recently informed us, “Just as Native American activists have demanded the removal of Christopher Columbus statues, they have long objected to the popular portrayal of Thanksgiving.”

This crazed essay was written by their traffic reporter, I kid you not!

And yet with 2,500 words, she didn’t tell the paper’s self-loathing readers that Native Americans themselves abhor Thanksgiving or admire political correctness (recall how 9 in 10 weren’t offended by the Washington Redskins’ name before white progressives forced a change two years ago), but rather “Native American activists” are angry about Thanksgiving. Activists, by definition, are regularly irate.

People are free to hate since we do not live in the left’s beloved socialist regimes where they can be jailed for unpopular views.

But the rest of us should not pay attention to whatever cancel culture crusade the banal wokesters are onto this week. They’re brainwashed, deranged, and unhappy. We Americans prefer gratitude in the face of adversity.

Quote O’ The Day:
“One of the great advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.”
–Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Journos and Other Libs Can’t Defend Darrell Brooks, So They Attack Andy Ngo.

For the past 15 months, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the press have screamed that Kyle Rittenhouse is a “white supremacist” for shooting three white men who were attacking him. Now those same journos are trying to suppress information about a black supremacist who ran over dozens of people at a Christmas parade in Wisconsin. The journos and other libs can’t use this mass murder for their own political purposes, so they’re blaming Andy Ngo for revealing facts about the killer’s past that they’d rather you didn’t know.

Ngo and a few others confirmed the identity of Darrell Brooks, the Waukesha mass-murderer, almost a full day before the mainstream media got around to it:

Twitter avatar for @MrAndyNgoAndy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 @MrAndyNgo

That would be this individual from a prior arrest. (He has a very long criminal record.) #Waukesha

Image

Karol Markowicz @karol

Darrell E. Brooks, black male, late 30s is the suspect in custody in Waukesha.

November 22nd 2021

6,501 Retweets

Then Ngo immediately got to work, collecting evidence from Brooks’ social media accounts:

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
“…what is needed is a change in the behavior of gun owners.”
No, what is needed is a change in the behavior of criminals who commit 90%+ of the non-suicide shootings in the U.S. Law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. We are not the ones responsible for the cost of “gun violence”.

Miss Bland thinks: ‘Let’s use high taxes to make it harder to exercise a right’.
Taking notes, right?
And I don’t think she remembers that there was a rebellion over depriving rights through high taxes that ended up being a revolution. Of course, modern education seems to be purposefully lacking in U.S. History and Civics

The Second Amendment, Taxes, And Gun Control

Americans may be divided over the necessity and efficacy of gun control, but it is hard for anyone to deny that the healthcare costs for victims of gun violence are substantial.

State and local governments must spend a significant amount of tax dollars for law enforcement, ambulance services, and more, which can cut deeply into the budget and leave less money for other important government services.

When a state or locality proposes a new tax on firearms and ammunition to recoup some of the costs resulting from gun violence, the opposition argues the measure constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment. The question is whether that is true.

Continue reading “”

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense

The American left’s determination to conduct a media-inspired political trial of Kyle Rittenhouse had as its objective the ultimate disarming of Americans and the elimination of the Second Amendment.  While Kyle Rittenhouse was listed as the defendant, it was the right of self-defense that was on trial.

To what extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-defense and protection of himself and his property?  This question has been bandied about for thousands of years and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-defense), is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights.
Among these are self-defense and property.  Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom.

The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property but also one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others.  Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.

Continue reading “”

Tools in the service of tyranny

What do a virus, a Marxist movement, and bans on firearms have in common?  Nothing, superficially.  Delving deeper, they are tools of federal oppression.

An obvious common element of the three tools is the fear they engender: of infectious death, of unchecked rioting and looting, and of gun violence.  These dangers are in fact greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether.

Stanford economist Paul Romer is credited with first saying, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”  Washington has taken this idea to heart.

In 2019, when no crisis existed, the Washington establishment created the perception of existential threat from COVID that would kill 2.2 million Americans without drastic federal intervention.  In fact, COVID carried a risk for the general, healthy population similar to seasonal flu and was dangerous only to elderly, immuno-compromised individuals with pre-existing conditions.  Biden, Fauci, and the media made it seem as if we all would die if we did not follow Washington’s draconian orders for lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccine mandates.

Fauci commanded Americans to put aside concerns about “personal liberties” for the greater public welfare.  We had to accept federal suppression of constitutionally guaranteed rights such as free speech, religious liberty, right to assemble, and even right to work to defeat the “common enemy.”

The “swamp” used fear of COVID as a tool to impose pseudo-martial law.

Biden COVID mandates exceeded federal authority.  They are unconstitutional, as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reminded Washington.  Public health measures are state, not federal, responsibility.

BLM (Black Lives Matter) is a proudly Marxist, domestic organization hiding behind the obvious slogan that the lives of black people matter — just as the lives of all people matter.  Yet the Biden administration has tolerated the violence, arson, looting, and even murder by armed BLM agitators in all-black garb and ski mask anonymity.

Washington and Biden’s DoJ tacitly condone BLM’s domestic terrorism for one reason: it promotes an atmosphere of fear and insecurity.  This led to cries to the federal government: do something, anything!  In response, they changed or suspended rules, laws, and constitutional rights using violence in the name of social justice as an excuse.  Washington encouraged defunding local police departments while offering federal “policing” for local communities.

Washington’s tolerance and covert encouragement of BLM is another way to justify extending federal power and reach.

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no real difference in military power of a state militia compared to the Continental Army.  They both had muskets, handguns, bayonets, horses, and even cannon.  The Second Amendment does not use words such as “may” or “should” or “cannot.”  It reads “shall not [italics added] be infringed” — a simple, unambiguous, and unarguable command.

The Founders wanted private citizens to have the military capability to resist central government attempts to reimpose tyranny on its citizens.  Thus, after free speech and religious independence, the next most important “right” was to keep and bear (use) firearms, in armed defense, if necessary, of personal liberty and American freedom.

This is why Democrats seek to circumvent the Second Amendment and take away guns from private citizens.  Gun bans are another tactic of federal oppression.

In progressive hands, COVID, BLM, anti-gun laws, and many others are tools in the service of tyranny…if we allow it.

I think El Presidente better learn to live with disappointment.

Mexican President Threatens U.S. Congressmen to Support Amnesty for 11 Million Migrants

Mexico’s President issued a veiled threat to Republican congressmen who oppose an immigration deal to grant amnesty to 11 million migrants who illegally entered the U.S. Politicians who oppose the forthcoming plan will be singled out and denounced during daily press briefings, he said.

During a morning press briefing this week, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador praised President Joe Biden, claiming no other U.S. counterpart had made a commitment to address 11 million illegal immigrants.

“He had committed to 11 million, to regularize the situation for 11 million immigrants,” Lopez Obrador said toward the end of the conference, adding the plan did not rest on Biden alone and he needed support on Capitol Hill.

“It depends on the Congress–it depends on this initiative being backed up and supported by the Congress,” he said. “By legislators from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.”

Lopez Obrador said he hoped for unified support of the future initiative, but opponents would be directly attacked.

“We will make it known from here, that one party–their legislators–did not help something that is fair and humanitarian,” Lopez Obrador said.

The Mexican leader said that he would not accept a negative result and opponents would be made famous in his morning conferences.

I wonder how they’d feel if someone ‘lamented’ their misuse of the 1st amendment like Toobin is by sliding in lie or two?

CNN Laments Americans Exercising Their 2nd Amendment Rights

National media attention has focused in on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man charged with murder after shooting his attackers during the Kenosha riots of August 2020. As Rittenhouse took the stand himself to testify, facing harsh interrogation from the prosecution and accusations of faking his own emotional breakdown while on the stand, even CNN’s own experts were forced to conclude that his testimony was compelling. On Thursday, the liberal cable channel took a different tack: actually complaining that people are allowed to carry firearms in public.

CNN’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, began by introducing the self-defense case as partly “a matter of public policy. What is a 17-year-old with no training, no gun permit, no ties to this community, doesn’t even live in the state of Wisconsin, going in the night — in the middle of the night to a riot to help out? Just an incredibly stupid irresponsible decision.”

Newsroom host Jim Sciutto appeared very concerned that people can exercise their Second Amendment rights by carrying firearms. Ignoring the fact that Rittenhouse was allegedly in Kenosha to provide medical aid and put out fires, Sciutto asked Toobin, “Do we as a country, in effect, allow people from anywhere to show up anywhere else and sort of self-appoint themselves sheriff, right? Or sheriff’s deputy. Are there any laws that govern that…are there any laws that bar me from showing up somewhere else and saying I’m going to help fight crime?”

Toobin replied by lamenting the fact that he has recently seen more people openly carrying guns:

One of the big changes in state laws over the last two decades are the increasing freedom that is being granted to individuals to carry concealed weapons, to carry publicly you know, visible, visible weapons. I mean, it is such a sea change in, in how the, how the law works. And, you know, I was just in Oklahoma the other day, in Arizona. You just see people carrying guns in public that you didn’t used to see.

He went on to suggest again that Rittenhouse was appointing himself as law enforcement, despite all the evidence in court thus far pointing to him acting solely in self-defense.

This commentary followed a line of questioning by the prosecution in the trial wherein the prosecutor seemed to imply that carrying a firearm is only acceptable when someone is actively in danger. This type of dangerous rhetoric tramples on the Second Amendment and makes everyday gun-carrying citizens into villains, just like the liberal media has attempted to make Kyle Rittenhouse into a villain.

Continue reading “”

Wake Up Patriots: The Commies Are Winning.

Democrats (It’s demoncraps) Communists are horrible people. They are dedicated, I’ll give them that. They refuse to go away and they spread quickly, much like herpes.

If you don’t believe me when I say Democrats are commies, ask Ilhan Omar. She’s pretty clear about her plans.

 

I used to think the nation had “systems” in place to prevent such a takeover. I was wrong. The Democrats found a way to pry Trump, a true patriot, out of the White House. Mark Zuckerberg was a big part of that plan.

Biden sent his apparatchik lap dog, Merrick Garland, to Arizona to threaten the auditors into stopping. Democrats are fighting election audits in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. What’s there to hide, Dems?

Continue reading “”

I’ll say that using the First Amendment to protect a lie is a threat to the whole Bill of Rights.
The – well known to be leftist hacks-  editors of The Atlantic see the ability of their political enemies to defend their rights as a problem for the advancement of their agenda…..and it is.

The Second Amendment Has Become a Threat to the First

Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.

This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.

These kind of data fill a void in ongoing debates about the compatibility of free speech and firearms at protest events. For example, is the phenomenon of armed protests new? Is it frequent? The open display of firearms at public protests, including long rifles and what are sometimes called “assault-style rifles,” is a relatively new phenomenon. Although many states allow firearms in public places, until recently few Americans have openly toted firearms to political demonstrations. The Everytown/ACLED study examined thousands of protests, showing a marked uptick in protests at which people were visibly armed following the police murder of George Floyd. It found that at least 560 events involved an armed protester or counterprotester. Loose state firearms laws are part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The incidence of armed protests was three times higher in states with expansive open-carry laws, the study noted.

Such research makes much clearer the implications of open carry for public safety, public protest, and constitutional democracy. Some have argued that open carry will make protests safer. In fact, tragedies were far less frequent at protests that did not involve firearms, the Everytown/ACLED research revealed: One in 37 turned violent or destructive, and only one in 2,963 unarmed gatherings turned fatal.

In short, the visible presence of firearms increases the risk of violence and death when exercising one’s First Amendment rights. The increased risk of violence from open carry is enough to have a meaningful “chilling effect” on citizens’ willingness to participate in political protests. Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations. In addition, concealed carry may not have the same chilling effect; it’s possible that without weapons visible, protesters will not be deterred. But at the same time, merely knowing that people might be armed could keep people away from public protests.

Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study on the impact of open carry of firearms on the exercise of protest rights, and confirmed what common intuition suggests but included some surprises. The study found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

Participants were asked about their willingness to participate in protests in two groups. In the control group, firearms were not mentioned in the questions. In the experimental group, they were. The questions did not specify whether the participants were visibly carrying firearms or not. The participants in the experimental group were much less willing to participate in expressive activities than participants in the control group to whom firearms were not mentioned.

That hesitation was present regardless of respondents’ political ideology. It was experienced by gun owners and nonowners alike. Survey respondents’ explanations as to why they would refrain from participating in protests where arms are present revealed the significant chilling effects of guns at protests. Among other things, respondents indicated:

I feel like I would be antagonizing [firearms carriers] and that could lead to me being injured.

If they started shooting, I would be concerned they would target me for what I said.

I’ll let the people with the guns do the talking.

Nothing is important enough to be shot over.

Some open-carry proponents insist that they bring firearms to protests to defend themselves against potential violence or to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all participants are respected. However, the Everytown/ACLED study concluded that 77 percent of armed protests during the observed period were “driven by far-right mobilization and reactions to left-wing activism.” The study also found that 84 percent of armed protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were counterprotesters from extremist groups such as the “boogaloo boys,” the Proud Boys, and other right-wing groups. Rather than being motivated by self-defense or civil-rights concerns, the decision to carry a gun tends to follow far-right political ideology.

Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms and other weapons in public places, a question it has yet to weigh in on. A pending case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves restrictions on concealed-carry permits. To decide it, the Court will need to determine whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. As the studies show, the answer has profound implications not just for public safety but also for constitutional democracy. As courts and legislatures consider gun regulations, they ought to bear in mind not just the physical dangers of armed protests but also the social harms associated with them. For many—perhaps an increasing number of—Americans, participation in armed public protests may simply not be worth the risk. Even if public protest survives, only those willing to risk their life, or who are inclined and able to carry weapons in defense of their own right to protest, may want to participate. Rather than serving as a democratizing means of expression, protest may become an armed contest and the exclusive preserve of the non-peaceable. Most concerning is that public protest as we know it may cease to exist at all. That would deprive Americans of participating in one of the greatest traditions of this country: expressing their views, engaging in public life, and advocating for democratic change.

UC Berkeley Students Happily Pledge Money to Help the Taliban Kill Americans Inside the U.S

Anyone who may still be skeptical about the assertion that today’s college students are taught to hate America should take three minutes to watch this video from filmmaker Ami Horowitz, in which he asks students at the University of California, Berkeley to pledge money to the Taliban so that the jihad terror group can strike inside the United States and kill Americans.

“We’re trying to raise money for the Taliban,” Horowitz tells student passersby, and as if that wasn’t hard enough in itself to believe, he piles on more absurdities: “Tax deductible. I mean, if you earn money in Afghanistan, so that’s probably less helpful to you guys.” Horowitz explains to one man: “We’re Taliban 2.0. We’re kinder, gentler. Not really, but okay. You know, it’s our, it’s the way, it’s the way we roll.”

Those who stand there and take all that seriously get even more: “We want to be able to train our fighters to fight back against American interests. There’s a lot of weapons that were left there, we need money to train them how to use it against American forces.” It gets even worse: “We want to train our fighters to strike back against American interests around the world and in the homeland.”

Horowitz knows just what to say to move woke Berkeley students to open their wallets: “Before America got there, we used it as a base to strike against America. We want to do that again….We got to fight back, you know? And America’s destroying the world, and we want to secure it for striking against the American homeland.” He tells another student: “So we want to be able to create a bulwark against America in Afghanistan, to fund and help its enemies around the world strike back against American interests, both abroad and in the homeland.” And: “Basically we want to create a safe space for enemies of the United States….9/11 was a lesson, but this is, they didn’t learn their lesson from 9/11. We want them to do that again like we did it in 2001.”

The pitch couldn’t have been clearer that the money was going to go for jihad massacres on American soil. Horowitz tells a student that he wants to “create a safe haven for America’s enemies.” To another avidly listening young woman, he says, “We want to strike the US both abroad and in the homeland, to teach them a lesson. Life means nothing to them, and America needs to be brought to heel.” The student replied: “Very true.”

Other students in the video respond enthusiastically as well. To one young woman, Horowitz says, “I don’t know if you know that much about American imperialism.” She responds, “Oh, yes, yeah.” Horowitz continues: “So you know how damaging the US is.” Her reply: “Definitely!”

One student hears Horowitz’s pitch and responds, “Okay, that sounds great!” Another tells him, “Appreciate what you’re doing here.” A third says, “What you’re talking about is really important and I agree with you fully.” One young man tells Horowitz, “I would work for you.” One student pledges $50; Horowitz gives him a hug and exclaims, “Do you know how many Taliban fighters we can train on that?”

Horowitz told the New York Post: “Every time I dream up an idea for a new video, I always have the same conversation with myself: ‘I’ve gone too far, this is too insane.’ There’s no way that people will accept the premise I’m going to present them with. I thought, ‘How can I go to a major American university and ask people to give me money for the Taliban, specifically to kill Americans? What universe do I have to be in to find American kids willing to give me money to kill Americans?’ But that’s exactly what we found….This is probably one of the only times where if someone punched me in the face, I’d be happy. Not a single person told me to go to hell or go f–k myself….The majority of people who stopped and talked to me decided they’d give me money for this — to fund the Taliban and specific use of proceeds to kill Americans, and strike back at America, and fund a new 9/11 on the US homeland.”

Even the cameraman, whom the Post describes as “a left-of-center San Franciscan,” was shocked, and asked Horowitz, “Am I being punked right now? Are these actors? I don’t understand what’s happening.”

I do. So do you. Every day at UC Berkeley, these students’ professors regale them with propaganda about how America is an evil agent of imperialism, colonialism, and racism, and that the Americans among them should regard their American nationality with shame. This relentless indoctrination bears the fruit it was intended to bear: a generation of Americans who not only wouldn’t fight to defend this country but would cheerfully aid in its destruction. That fruit is what this video shows us.

 

They’re stupid enough to believe they will be immune to any consequences if things ever go kinetic.

Democrats aim to make anyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-The Moon) made the Democratic position clear Thursday: If you’re not with us, you’re terrorists.

During his opening statement for the Attorney General Merrick Garland hearing, Nadler said there was no difference between the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and parents who are angry about what is being taught in schools.

“This growth in extremist ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers, school board members and election workers,” Nadler said.

Nadler, a partisan loon who spent the past four years stirring up every conspiracy theory against President Trump, claimed there was a “broader pattern” here, including “the growing threats of violence against public servants.”

Yes, it is terrible when a sitting senator is harassed and followed into a bathroom . . . Oh he wasn’t talking about Krysten Sinema? The incident President Biden said was just “part of the process”? Huh.

We’re sure he was inspired by the climate change activists who stormed the Department of the Interior last Thursday, breaking down the front door and attempting to occupy the building. He was calling on AOC and others to denounce them. No?

How about the fact that the letter the National School Boards Association sent to Garland asking for the FBI for help, as reported by columnist Christopher Rufo, “cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official.” That the letter is in fact hyperventilating bunk, describing shouting as “violence” and people who disagree with school boards as “domestic terrorists.”

Turns out the White House knew about the letter before it was made public. Did the president order Garland to get the FBI involved?

It seems like the Biden administration is guilty of what they always accuse Republicans of: Politicizing the Department of Justice, and stifling free speech through intimidation.

Continue reading “”

Leftism Is the True Pandemic

We have suffered through a year and a half of a viral pandemic, which has become for a majority of us the Alpha and Omega of everyday life. We think of little else and organize our lives around media-inflamed anxiety, ever-changing medical reports, and government ordinances. We wear masks. We put distance between ourselves and our fellows. We isolate. We line up for what seems like a never-ending succession of jabs. We devour the News as if it were the truth. We are victims of what is called “fear appeal,” defined as “a persuasive message that attempts to arouse fear in order to divert behavior through the threat of impending danger or harm.”

Yet, in our addiction to the doctrine and apparatus of the COVID industry, far too many of us have missed the big picture. “Maybe there is something darker and more nefarious at work,” remarks Jeffrey Tucker in Liberty or Lockdown. For there is indeed a pandemic that has spread its pathogens across the world and afflicted the West with a disease from which it may not recover, a kind of viral contagion from which there may be no immediate or even long-term escape. We are confronting a curve that may not be flattened in the foreseeable future.

It is a political disease for which we have many names—progressivism, Wokeism, Agenda 2030, the Great Reset, etc.—but they are all subsumed under the aegis of the Left, which approaches in stages or “waves.” We recall Israel’s official virologist Salman Zarka informing us that “[t]his is our life from now on, in waves.” We might say that the Welfare State is the first wave; “Democratic Socialism” is the second wave; full, undisguised socialism is the third; and the absolute tyranny of Communism is the fourth.

Admittedly, the analogy with the COVID regime partially breaks down since, in the transposition I’m proposing, the disease itself is the object and booster shots cannot be regarded as preventative. (Many will argue that this is the case with the medical pandemic as well, but the question is moot.) In the correlate scenario, however, the “boosters” should be thought of as social and cultural “injections” whose ulterior purpose is to prolong the virulence of the political pandemic. For example, “health and safety” mandates—that is, official rhetoric—are designed to convince the people that they are being cared for, thus rendering them obedient and docile; or “vaccine passports”—that is, identity papers—are intended to fracture social unity by creating a compliant class of propagandized citizens and an outcast class subject to harsh measures of repression and exclusion.

The parallel may not be as farfetched at it initially seems. After all, citizens of state collectives are conditioned to regard their political rulers as ostensible benefactors, having their best interests at heart. Those who resist—the politically “unvaccinated”—are regarded as malefactors, agents of subversion, enemies of the state, social pariahs, and finally as traitors to be interned, cast out, or otherwise punished. In this comparison, what we call “escape variants” are merely specific aspects of the fourth wave, particular manifestations of social and political domination applying to local conditions. The “new politics,” for which the COVID event is a convenient stalking horse and pretext—a “dress rehearsal” for the one-party state, writes Cheryl Chumley in Lockdown: The Socialist Plan to Take Away Your Freedom—will have become the authoritarian dispensation under which we would be condemned to live. And the new politics is the old politics redivivus, the pandemic of Leftism intent on annihilating the common, democratic life of rights and freedoms we have known and taken for granted for several generations past.

COVID is a virus that will be with us in perpetuity, like the common cold and the flu. The plague of Leftism in its various forms, issuing ultimately in Communism, is also a perpetual menace, circulating around the planet like the SARS virion. And as with any despotic regime, there will always be privileges and exemptions enjoyed by the governing elite but not by the governed: the freedom to break the rules, the advantage of accumulating capital, private and unobstructed travel, special favors for family, friends and collaborators, access to the best medical facilities, and the absolute exercise of power—precisely as we have seen with the COVID hierarchy of medical experts and political authorities. The official response to COVID appears to be a strategy and preparation for something far more deadly, a pathology of governance based on economic threat, mass surveillance, police repression, and unitary state control, as we see developing in many Western countries such as Australia, Canada and the U.S. under Biden. As Dr. Peter Breggin explains in his monumental COVID-19 and the Global Predators, it is a function of “military civil fusion [which is] the nature of the totalitarian state.”

We need to recognize that Communism advances on many fronts and, as noted, under various denominations, in its effort to revive Marx’s dream of global hegemony. Of course, the situation “on the ground” has changed since Marx’s day. Its new watchword may well be: Oligarchs of the World, Unite! But we should make no mistake about this. Leftism is a superspreader. It is COVID by another name. It is a thought-virus with real-world consequences. It is the true pandemic.

Of course, we will never reach Communism-zero. There are no miracle vaccines against it, but there are therapeutic measures to halt the scope of its diffusion. As Breggin advises, “It shouldn’t make you helpless. It should rouse you to look with reason at what is happening in the world…unless we unite against the implementation of this plan, there will be no happy ending for any of us.”

Although the Leftist pathogen and its end point in Communism cannot be eradicated, it is, like COVID, treatable by sane and responsible measures: education, political wisdom, a knowledge of history, personal courage, a phalanx of patriots who will not be intimidated and who will not allow the Constitution to be trampled on, and, yes, where necessary, militant quarantine. Recovery is possible and herd immunity may be attainable. Or so we hope.

The green movement flirts with violent sabotage.

What actions are you recommending for the pro-life movement?’ the New Yorker Radio Hour host asks his guest, a tenured university professor and author of How to Blow Up an Abortion Clinic.

‘Well,’ the guest replies, ‘I am recommending that the movement continue with the March for Life and crisis pregnancy centers but also open up for property destruction. We need to step up because so little has changed and so many babies are still being killed. So, I am in favor of destroying machines and property, not harming people. I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways. It can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion, or in a more spectacular fashion as in potentially blowing up an abortion clinic.’

‘Do you yourself plan to be involved in such actions?’ the host asks, scandalized and titillated like a 16-year-old girl whose prom date just whispered his untoward intentions in her ear.

If I were planning things, I wouldn’t tell you, but I’m prepared to be part of any kind of action of the sort that I advocate in the book.’

God, he’s so cool.

And scene.

Of course, this interview never happened. Not only would the author never have been booked on that particular podcast, he’d have been fired from his university, blacklisted by every major publisher, denounced as a terrorist, stripped of his bank account, and placed under federal surveillance.

But replace ‘pro-life movement’ with ‘climate movement,’ and you’ll find that this interview did happen, less than a week ago, with Andreas Malm, whose very real book is called How to Blow Up a Pipeline.

Identity, Opposition and Hate.

Say hello to Shardé Nabors, Oregon project manager for a Seattle-based activist organization called Social Justice Fund NW. Curious readers may ask, “What sort of ‘social justice’ does Shardé advocate?” And the answer is, the destruction of the United States of America.

“So, earlier this week I made a post saying that it doesn’t sit right with me that there are white people who own property — multiple properities, at that — in the United States of America while black and indigenous people are experiencing homelessness. And I want to expand on that, especially for my new followers who are white, who followed me because of my anti-racist content. I’m glad that you’re listening to me, but I really want to make sure that you’re hearing what I’m saying. There will never be black liberation or indigenous sovereignty as long as the United States of America exists. If you want black folks around the globe and in this country liberated, if you want indigenous folks to be able to have sovereignty over the lands that their indigenous to, then the United States of America needs to cease to exist. And I don’t know if y’all are ready for that, I don’t know if that’s what y’all signed up for. I’m not sure if anti-racist work is just something you do to lessen the inconvenience of racism in your life, but I hope you’re ready for this. It’s not for the weak.”

That’s the kind of 501(c)3 tax-exempt “activism” she gets paid for. This is where the logic of the “social justice” narrative leads — hatred and destruction, advocating genocide as the Final Solution.

Milley confirms he told China he would call ahead of US attack, claims Esper ordered calls based on intel

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley confirmed that he told his Chinese counterpart that he would “call” to warn of any potential U.S. attacks on Beijing, maintaining he had that conversation at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper after assessing intelligence suggesting heightened Chinese concerns about escalation between the two “great” powers.

Milley addressed allegations that he held “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, in October 2020 and days after the Capitol riot in January 2021, which were included in “Peril,” a book co-authored by Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

Milley has faced calls to resign since the revelations were made public earlier this month. The book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims that Milley contacted Li after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea. The book claims Milley contacted Li a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form.

On Wednesday, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee focused on the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, Milley responded to questions about the allegations.

Continue reading “”