Shut up, they explained: Comparing Trump's persecutors to the totalitarians of the 20th century
The fascist far left cannot believe they’ve been accused of acting like the authoritarian collectivists of National Socialist Germany or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that persecuted their political opponents for the ‘crime’ of expressing the wrong opinions, even though they’ve been persecuting their political opponents for the ‘crime’ of expressing the wrong opinions.
Just after President Trump was indicted for the ‘crime’ of wrongthink in a manner reminiscent of the socialist nations of leftists Joesph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The Trump campaign had the unbelievable cheek to say that it was reminiscent of the socialist nations of leftists Joesph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Cue Greta Thunberg spitting out “How dare you.”
Anti-liberty leftists lost it on two levels, exemplified by Jake Tapper of CNN casually stating without evidence:
“Obviously comparing this to Nazi Germany is beyond the pale in terms of offensiveness and ignorance.”
Offensiveness in the sense that the pro-freedom right is never allowed to defend itself from the false charges from the left of being fascist or a National Socialist.
The unwritten edict from the far left is that no one is to ever violate ‘Godwin’s rule’ - unless they do it, especially to attack President Trump. Leftists have gone so far as to claim that you shouldn’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler because It belittles Hitler.
So, while the far left has given themselves full permission to hurl whatever fascism (semi or otherwise) or Nazi mendacities they want at the pro-freedom right. Their convenient little ‘rules’ dictate that it’s offensive to apply the same standards to them, especially when they are projecting on all cylinders. Thus, it was ‘obvious’ that this was offensive since the Trump Campaign’s very appropriate rejoinder ‘violated’ one of the far left’s most cherished and sacrosanct rules.
The irony in the ignorance issue of the Tapper quote points straight at the far left in that their biggest lie is that some collectivist authoritarians magically belong on the pro-freedom right of the political spectrum.
Leftists constantly parrot this lie, but they never back it up with a factual argument. They’ve been trying to gaslight people so long that they probably don’t even know the source of the lie.
We’ve proven the “Nazis were far-right” lie can be traced back 100 years to far-left infighting over ideological minutia no one cares about. This internecine political warfare was seen in the old USSR between the ‘far-left’ Bolsheviks and their rivals they deemed ‘right wing’ or some other disparaging pejorative. The same also took place in the states in the early part of the last century, long before the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party gained prominence.
This eviscerates the rivalry claim and shows that leftists don’t know what they’re talking about when they deny their past.
The New York Times dated May 11, 1920, on Page 3 is a prime example with the headline:
'MILD' SOCIALISTS WIN ON PLATFORM; Conservatives, Led by Hillquit, Defeat Attempt to Name New Committee. FIGHT TO CONTINUE TODAY Ultra-Radicals Denounce the Party Principles Presented as "Lacking Punch." DEMAND PROLETARIAN RULE Planks Offered Include Recognition of Soviet Government and Socialization of All Industries.
The "conservative" wing of the Socialist Party won a victory over the "ultra-radicals" at the second day's Session of the Socialist National Convention at Finnish Socialist Hall, 127th Street and Fifth Avenue, yesterday.
Take note that the New York Times referred to ‘The "conservative" wing of the Socialist Party’ in an article published nearly 19 years before WWII and before the National Socialist German Workers' Party gained prominence. The article refers to rivalries and internal conflicts within what is clearly a leftist socialist organization and yet some are referred to as being on the right. So much for the rivalry talking point of the “Nazis were far-right” lie.
The same holds true with the Bolshevik Revolution of October 25, 1917, the Entente intervention in October 1922 where the Bolsheviks set themselves on the far-left flank, shifting all others to the right, and then repressing, exiling, or executing them:
The Bolsheviks intended to rule alone and did not hesitate to eliminate all other parties and factions that did not share their perspective. Thus, the representatives of other leftist parties and party groups—Mensheviks, Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), Socialist Revolutionaries (SR), anarchists—were repressed, exiled, or executed in the course of the Bolsheviks’ power grab.
The supreme irony in some trying to deny what is obvious, that the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party was leftist, asserting these claims come from an alleged lack of research or ‘ignorance.’ Reflects badly on the far left since it shows they don’t even know the source of the lies they propagate. They are projecting their own lack of knowledge and they don’t even know it. And that includes some ‘esteemed’ leftist experts who neglect to look at the history of their own ideology.
This shouldn’t be surprising since they can’t even figure out basic biology and what is a woman. Maybe they need to ‘crack a basic science book’ first before lecturing the rest of us.
The Trump Campaign was correct in labelling these persecutions as reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes. Too bad the national socialist media can’t understand that their lies have been exposed and are now blatantly obvious.
D. Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Image: Picryl // public domain
Dirty Cop: Jack Smith has gotten to work with prosecutorial misconduct
You'd think a carefully hand-picked prosecutor, targeted at a former President of the United States, would be a meticulous and precise legal mind so as to bring an airtight case against his target, with little but political objection.
But that's not Joe Biden's special counsel prosecutor, Jack Smith, who's racking up ethics violations like a dirty big city cop, and that's just in the first weeks of his indictment.
According to Breitbart's Joel Pollak:
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that under his own “fraud” standard, Special Counsel Jack Smith could be indicted for omitting a key portion of then-President Donald Trump’s speech in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
The indictment charges Trump with four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” But in a portion recounting Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally, Smith repeats the errors made by House Democrats in Trump’s second impeachment trial: he focuses on Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell,” and omits a sentence highlighted by Trump’s defense team: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Dershowitz told the Megyn Kelly Show podcast on Friday that by his own standard, Smith could be charged with fraud, because of his omission of Trump’s “peaceful” rhetoric.
“Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted. He told a direct lie in this indictment. He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on January 6th. And he left out the key words, when President Trump said, ‘I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically. You know, a lie by omission, under the law, can be as serious as a lie by commission.”
So he went the Adam Schiff route, leaving off the part about President Trump urging his followers on January 6 to be peaceful, presenting his evidence against Trump by preenting the opposite of what he said. Just leaving it off like it never happened, obviously to sway a jury his way, and too bad about the defendant.
He also did this, according to Matt Margolis at PJMedia:
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team has acknowledged they incorrectly claimed that they had submitted all the necessary evidence as mandated by the law in the classified documents case against Donald Trump.
That’s basically a euphemism for getting caught committing prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutors “discovered” that a crucial video intended to be presented as evidence had not been appropriately processed and uploaded to the designated platform for the defense to review during the investigation.
This discovery occurred just as they prepared to indict Carlos De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago property manager, for his alleged involvement in a conspiracy with Trump to delete surveillance footage from the estate. Trump denies the allegations and says the videos were “handed over to the thugs.”
“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” Smith’s team admitted in its recent filing.
According to Just The News, “All CCTV footage obtained by the government has now been given to the defendants, according to Smith’s team. The so-called Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose all evidence and information favorable to the defendant.”
So in other words, he withheld evidence from the other side which might have been favorable to their defense. The 1963 Brady motion says that as a basic matter of fairness, they can't do that, but Smith did it anyway.
This sounds like quite a pattern of corner-cutting from Smith and his office, characteristic of dirty cops in big cities who will cook up anything for a conviction.
Smith's career has been replete with this kind of unethical behavior, as Margolis noted in his piece, from a case against a congressman which involved witness tampering and wiretapping, to his past case against a Virginia governor, which wat thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Obviously, he's all about pulling fast ones on his latest target, President Trump. This tells us a lot about what this legal process is going to be like: Rules for thee, but not for me.
Why he thinks he can get away with this kind of behavior, and still secure a conviction suggests that he thinks the ground is protecting him and he can rig with abandon because the fix is in.
Image: Screen shot from CBS News video, via YouTube
Where there’s smoke, look for fire. Biden came from humble means, never worked in the private sector, but somehow became wildly wealthy. Several of Biden’s family members essentially work in the family business of apparent influence peddling. Does Biden’s frequent refrain, “I never spoke with my son about his overseas business deals” come to mind? It makes one wonder if “never” really means “never!”. Biden has nine relatives receiving millions in foreign cash. What were they talking about when Vice President Biden and his cronies met 80 times at the White House? Veracity is everything when you solicit the public’s trust, and Biden’s persona is wrapped around his supposed trustworthiness. However, the facts here point to a person who uses hyperbole, manipulation, and outright lying to sway public opinion.
ALLAN J FEIFER
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Kevin McCarthy Delivers Bombshell Impeachment News To Biden - White House In A Panic
HOW MANY OF THESE PIGS ARE LAWYERS?
(ALL BUT THREE)
DID you SEE this?
VIDEO:
WHAT TO DO WITH BIDEN?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSEN
everyone will be WIPED out in 1 week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZWnJShcW4
Biden is, and has always been, a pathological liar of the worst kind, the kind who lies to boost his own ego no matter how easy it is to prove his dishonesty PATRICIA McCARTHY
HOW CORRUPT IS OUR GOV THAT THIS COULD HAVE GONE FOR SO MAN YEARS??
Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo 7/23/23 | BREAKING FOX NEWS July 23, 2023
The Biden Crime Family Comes Undone
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-crime-family-comes-undone-daniel-greenfield/
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The Biden family is notorious for being the crookedest clan not only in Delaware, but in D.C.
The Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
The Essential Impeachment
“There comes a time in the life of every man when he must take the bull squarely by the tail and face the situation.” —W.C. Fields
Our elected representatives in D.C. are faced with just such a circumstance. To impeach Joe Biden or not to impeach Joe Biden. This is almost always presented in an either/or metaphor: Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place, and so on. The essence of these arguments is that impeachment/no impeachment offers no good option. I submit that this is a form of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
Bribery is listed in the Constitution as a cause for impeachment, so there can be no argument that this satisfies the first criterion. But now Democrats will object that there must be evidence of present bribery because Joe wasn’t President when he got paid, and there’s no evidence that he’s getting paid right now. But they leave out a key element of bribery. The person being bribed promises some action in favor of the person bribing. These actions offer occur after the bribe is paid. In the interregnum known as 45, Joe got lots of payola in anticipation of being able to do favors from the White House later. Since those favors are arguably continuing, the bribery continues.
Image: Joe Biden. YouTube screen grab.
We don’t need to rely on that most famous case where Joe bragged on camera about getting rid of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma. That happened while Biden was VP. In the language of the law, it shows a pattern of bribery and impeaches any testimony in his defense. And there’s lots of evidence that his pattern of “favors for fins” is ongoing, particularly with China. And, as the Bard says, “Aye, there’s the rub.” What do we do about it? The Constitution seems to provide for impeachment as the only check on a corrupt President. It’s political act, and legal action can only come after removal from office.
The argument against impeaching Biden is rather simple. We won’t get a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate since Democrats are in the majority, and they won’t convict their guy. So why bother? We’d be wasting time. On the flip side of this are the two Trump impeachments. The Dems knew they wouldn’t ever convict him, but they wanted to throw enough mud at him to make him look dirty in the election. They’ve continued this pattern in New York, Georgia, Mar-a-Lago, and J6. Do I sense a pattern here?
The mantra against impeachment is, “It’s political!” Of course it is. It’s the only constitutional avenue available. But Democrats want that to sound bad, as in, “The only reason you’re pursuing impeachment is that you don’t like Joe.” And lots of low-information voters will hear only that. So, the invertebrates in the “R” caucus will wilt like snowflakes and oppose the inquiry. But let us consider what will result if two things happen.
First, suppose the House does a televised proper inquiry similar to the Watergate special committee. All questioning of witnesses is done by attorneys selected by the two sides. Republicans bring their big guns, and Democrats get a full opportunity to respond in kind. Standard rules of evidence apply, and a retired judge (Justice Anthony Kennedy, perhaps?) sits as the judge on all issues of procedure and propriety. All angles of evidence are presented and cross-examined. Once the process is complete, the matter is put to the House for a vote.
We should note that Donald Trump was not afforded any of this sort of due process in either of his impeachments. Presenting Joe Biden with this degree of legal protection would show that the Republican majority is interested in determining the facts of the matter, not simply rushing forward as Nancy Pelosi did in the second Trump indictment. As you may recall, the House did zero investigation, declaring that none was needed. The optics of that resemble a schoolyard fight.
Having been particularly careful to provide Joe with all legal safeguards, a vote to impeach would begin with a serious presumption of correctness. And since the largest part of the charges would revolve around bribery, Democrats would be unable to hide behind the “high crimes and misdemeanors” term of art. Bribery is a crime at all levels, and it’s very easy for the average citizen to understand. They’ve seen too many TV shows with crooked cops taking dirty money to ignore it when the Chief Executive is directly involved. And this puts Senate Democrats in a bit of a bind.
Democrats clearly have enough votes to block a conviction if they want to. But do they want their vulnerable members to be seen as approving of obvious corruption? There’s a lot of fodder for their opponents in that. If they deep-six Corrupt Joe, they’ll look virtuous to undeclared voters. It’s a win! But that win comes at a price. They elevate VP Harris to the White House, and she’s the most un-serious prominent officeholder in the history of DC. With two or three hysterical cackles, she will fritter away all that Democrat goodwill that came from dropping Joe. On the other hand, if they refuse to send Joe packing, then the undecided middle will see the Dems as the party of official corruption, approved by the party apparatchiks. That’s not a good look for them, either.
It does not matter what the Senate does. The House will have done a very serious job of evaluating the stench from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Having determined that it’s a real sewer and not some whoopee cushion aroma, they will have shown America that at least one party in D.C. does not subscribe to a two-tier system of justice. That would be such a breath of fresh air that many in the middle will decide that it’s time to expand the right side of the aisle.
Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcasts are available on many podcast channels.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
THE BIDEN KLEPTOCRACY
American people deserve to know what China was up to with Joe Biden, especially when Beijing had already shelled out millions of dollars to Biden family members — including millions in set-asides for “the big guy.” What else is on that infamous Hunter Biden laptop? The conflicted Biden Justice Department cannot be trusted to engage in any meaningful oversight on this issue. We need a special counsel now.
TOM FITTON - JUDICIAL WATCH
Hunter Biden Bragged Chinese Mogul Loves Him for His 'Last Name'
Hunter Biden bragged in a 2011 email to his former business partner Devon Archer about how a Chinese businessman who scored them a deal loved his "last name."
"Your question—‘why does Super Chair love me so much?’ is easily answered. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with my last name," Biden wrote to Archer in September 2011, referring to businessman Che Feng who helped Biden partner with a Chinese firm. Biden's comment, which was revealed by the New York Post, appeared in an email found on his abandoned laptop.
Biden added that another reason for Feng's admiration is that Biden brings "very handsome Aryan godlike men wherever I go."
Archer, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings with Biden, met with the House Oversight Committee on Monday and testified that Biden called his father more than 20 times during business meetings to sell the Biden "brand."
Feng helped Hunter's company score a high-paying deal, the New York Post reported:
Feng — who was referred to as "The Super Chairman" by both Hunter and Archer — helped Biden’s firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and James Bulger’s Thornton Group LLC partner with Jonathan Li’s Bohai Capital and lateral launch Bohai Harvest RST, the emails indicate.
The email chain began two days earlier, when Bulger’s co-founder Michael Lin forwarded Hunter and Bulger the terms of the joint venture fund.
Lin also namechecked Feng as playing a key role in securing favorable terms for the deal.
"Good news from Jonathan after his meeting with Super Chairman in [Hong Kong]…We three’s ownership of the fund management co. 20% while Jonathan’s 10%. (Still very very good for you two and me!)," he wrote.
Hunter forwarded the terms of the deal to Archer and expressed his joy at the prospects of the deal.
"I don't believe in lottery tickets anymore, but I do believe in the super chairman," Hunter said to Archer.
Biden last week admitted in court to accepting Chinese money, despite his father President Joe Biden's repeated denials that his son profited from China.
"I started a company [in 2017] called Hudson West, your Honor, and my partner was associated with a Chinese energy company called CEFC," Hunter Biden said last week in a Delaware federal courthouse.
Biden confirmed a point made by the prosecution that he had made $664,000 from a "Chinese infrastructure investment company," according to the court transcript, reported by Fox News.
"Who was your partner?" the judge in the case asked the first son.
"I don't know how to spell his name, Yi Jianming is the chairman of that company," Hunter Biden said. Yi has disappeared since being taken into custody by Chinese officials in 2018.
The president has made repeated claims that his son did not take money from Chinese entities.
"My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China," Joe Biden said to then-president Donald Trump in an October 2020 debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment