Categories
Guns Police State War on the Right

Domestic Swatting

A woman in North Carolina accused her ex-boyfriend of domestic violence in a civil case, stating that he was in possession of explosives and weapons. She also claimed he was a right wing extremist. Over one hundred Federal agents raided his home in Montana with three armored vehicles, plus more than two dozen other vehicles and a helicopter.

Twice in my life, I have been accused of domestic violence. Both times, the accusation was proven false in court. In both cases, the woman made the accusation long after our relationship had ended.

The first time was in 2004, and the woman filed the complaint six weeks after we were broken up. Why? Because after we broke up, I asked for the return of my automobile that she was driving. She refused, then began hiding it. After some drama and a visit from the cops, I got my car back, so she filed a DV complaint against me.

Forward ten years later to 2014, my newest ex-girlfriend and I had broken up. Nearly five months later, she had read my account of the 2004 incident and thought it was a great idea. She repeated the process.

Both cases were dismissed, but at great personal cost. There are no repercussions for women who lie to obtain these DV orders, so they have become the weapon of choice for jilted women to use the courts in order to extort concessions from their former partners.

Now it appears as though the Democrats are going to use it to give the Feds an excuse to go all shooty on your dogs and steal your guns. Why not? This tactic is only used against MEN, and the cops are fine with that. Since white men are the “Jews in the attic” for the Democrats communists this works perfectly for them.

Categories
Purge opposition War on the Right

The Purge Continues

The communists are eliminating from government service anyone who opposes their agenda. In this case, they are eliminating cops with dangerous ideas.

Categories
Power Grab

Digital Manipulation

Is the President being digitally added to public appearances? They had a fake election, why not a fake President?

Categories
Power Grab War on the Right

Military intimidation of Congress

Democrats are now marching uniformed, on duty soldiers into Republican Congressional offices to intimidate their political opponents.

Categories
Silence the opposition Uncategorized

Military attack

Can you picture what would have happened had a member of the military said the same about Rachael Maddow during the Trump administration?

But remember “The military would NEVER fire on its own citizens.”

Categories
Power Grab War on the Right

and there it is…

The military force to guard Washington DC is about to become a permanent force. Will they call it the Revolutionary Guard, the Palace Guard, or something else? Will the uniform include jackboots right away, or will those come later?

I quote:

“Another option would be to create a QRF that permanently resides within the D.C. Guard by reestablishing a military police battalion and staffing it with active Guard reserve troops who live in or near the city year-round, perpetually on active duty.

Categories
War on the Right

Vaccine protester= terrorist

This editorial in the Washington Post says that anyone who opposes the COVID vaccine is committing domestic terrorism. The editorial is written by a State Senator from California, who has this to say:

A major weapon of anti-vaccine extremists is the ability to organize disinformation campaigns on Facebook and other social media. Corporate owners of these platforms can moderate and close down groups that promote disinformation and endanger lives.

He goes on:

Getting vaccinated is a patriotic act. So is speaking up to support public health efforts. Let’s not allow extremism, division or fear to slow the efforts to end this deadly chapter in our nation’s history.

Anyone who opposes Democrats and their agenda will be declared a terrorist. It has been coming for months.

Categories
Rigging the vote

Not voting out of this

I posted earlier that the Democrats are pushing to eliminate the caucus in favor of a more easily rigged primary. They aren’t stopping there. Today, President Biden signed an executive order, ordering the FedGov to make it easier for more people to register and to vote. Sounds very fair and reasonable, right?

Except it is intended to assist prisoners and criminals in voting.

How many of you still think we are “going to get them in 2024?”

Categories
Rigging the vote

Rigging the primaries

The Democrats continue with their plan of rigging the election process in their favor. This time, they are concentrating on eliminating the caucus in favor of primary voting. Voting is easier to manipulate, as we saw with the last few elections. Don’t believe in rigged primaries? Ask Bernie Sanders what he thinks about that.

They even admit that it is being done to exclude white voters.

Categories
Silence the opposition

Fire in a crowded theater

Just over a century ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known, misquoted, and misused phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Without fail, whenever any controversy about limiting people’s rights comes up, someone will misquote this phrase as proof of limits on the right to free speech, then use that as support for their claim that all rights have limits. Whatever that controversy may be, the law can then be interpreted to mean that we should limit the rights of the people. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every would be tyrant in America, yet the quote is often misunderstood.

Go read the case where the phrase originated before using it as your argument. I will wait. The case is U.S. v. Schenck, and it was so bad that was overturned more than 50 years ago.

The case had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. The case didn’t call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. It simply urged people to vote out any politician who supported it.

The crowded theater remark that everyone likes to trot out was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison. That case, along with two others, was used to toss people in prison for daring to oppose or speak out against President Wilson’s policies.

The case was effectively overturned in 1969, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case, the Court held that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Sound familiar? This is why they can’t do shit about what President Trump had to say on January 6, nor can they legally shut down the speech of the right. So instead, they are allowing large megacorporations to have monopolies on the digital town square, they coopting them into performing the censorship for them.