When Iran and China were experiencing civil discord, I was amazed that the government there could shut down the internet so that social media platforms could not be used to further the push to democracy, liberty and freedom of speech. Protestors could organize through social media. These dictatorial governments were able to do that, shut down the internet.
What we are witnessing in the USA right now is the most dangerous tilt to totalitarianism we have ever seen. It is a kind of marshal law. One social media platform has been completely shut down and Twitter, Facebook and Amazon sites are being severely censored to limit free speech.
Is President Trump doing this? Is it an act of Congress doing this? Is it the Supreme Court who is upholding the right of the president or of congress to do this? No, No, and No!!!!
It is the tech giants. They have now become the totalitarian deep state. And they have the power now to shut down the sitting President of the USA who has not been charged yet with any high crime or misdemeanor, nor has he been put on trial and convicted. Thus he is innocent until proven guilty by a constitutional method, either impeachment by the House and conviction and removal by the Senate. Or a lesser deal can be made by the 25th amendment of the Constitution or the president can cut a deal with the Vice President and simply resign.
None of that has happened. Yet the deep state totalitarian regime has censured the president and is censoring him.
This is quite dangerous for our democracy and free speech. Hopefully court challenges will ensue and the Supreme Court will eventually act to save our nation from the deep state tyranny.
The Internet has not been shut down. That we are posting on a blog on the internet should give you a clue to that reality.
No one has a right to incite violence. For internet servers to stop providing Parler with access to their property, for Twitter and FaceBook et. al., to ban Trump is not totalitarianism.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with marshal law.
The sitting president has any number of ways to communicate his cockamamie notions to whoever he wants.
The danger to democracy is what we saw on January 6th in Washington, aided and abetted by the sitting president.
You mean "martial" law, not "marshal" law, right?
Three tech giants shut down Parler. As a monopoly they could shut down the internet and my blog. Yes, they can do it. Is it legal? No challenge yet, but I expect it to make it to the Supreme Court.
Your language, FRMJK is wrong in the last sentence. You should have written more precisely except your Trump derangement syndrome prevented any sobriety in that regard. I would have written: “The danger to democracy is what we saw on January 6th in Washington, ALLEGEDLY aided and abetted by the sitting president.
Let’s follow the appropriate ways of reporting alleged crimes and certainly, the president has been charged with nothing that you or others alleging he did.
What did the president say or write that incited violence on 6 January? I have heard it happened, but missed it.
A@11:05, or marital law, whatever turns you on.
"No one has a right to incite violence."
Just a thought, but was not America founded on inciting violence against its British rulers? Was that all wrong so that maybe America should return to being a British colony? It seems that the idea of inciting violence is being used as a pretext to silence certain ideological positions.
Victor - Sorry, no ceegar. "18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. (a)Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years."
Fr. McDonald - No, I do not mean. "ALLEGEDLY aided and abetted." I mean what I wrote.
rcg - This man has incited vioence throughout his presidency. He does it because he is a bully and that's what bullies do. Your "... on 6 January" is a weasel phrase. His encoragement to violence is on record.
I am terribly concerned with all that I am seeing and the way in which the winds have blown so quickly. If I was a "tin hat guy" I would wonder how much of this present situation was facilitated by unseen forces but I will refrain from going to far with that thinking.
Dang, anonymous, I just was asking about the stuff that day because it is being referenced in so much talk but I haven’t seen the quote from whatever platform, e.g. Twitter.
rcg - Dang, I posted a link to his history of inciting violence.
And many knew this violence was coming.
"In a speech ahead of the 2016 Republican presidential contest in which both men would compete, the former Texas governor framed Trump as an unchecked demagogue and chose a striking historical image to illustrate his point: A mob attack on Washington."
"There’s only one presidential candidate who has violence at their events,” Rubio said. He warned that “words have consequences” and Trump was responsible for his supporters’ behavior. As his own campaign ended, Rubio likened Trump to “third-world strongmen” and predicted a “reckoning” after the election."
1084 economists urged Americans NOT to vote for Trump's re-election. Among the many reason cited: "He has a poorly-informed, zero-sum view of economics that engenders needless viciousness and cruelty."
He labels other violent protesters "THUGS," but when they protest and do violence for him and at his behest, he says, "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special."
Tom, I think sentiments can change quickly when a big enough event happens. A man ignoring years of medical advice concerning his eating habits might be shocked into becoming a health nut after surviving a mild heart attack, for example.
You can't force a company, any company, to associate themselves with garbage, filth and hate.
These companies said, "Enough."
They have that right. That's how the free-enterprise system works, conservatives.
Ain't it a bitch when the free market doesn't break your way?
Shed no tears for Donald Trump -- he has an entire network devoted to broadcasting his every burp, snort and flatulent emission. No one can seriously claim that he's been silenced.
Father, if Amazon shuts down your blog, you still have many, many ways to get your message across, including the Sunday pulpit, printing pamphlets or simply standing on a street corner and shouting your message. That's how it worked in 1776.
They simply denied one avenue of expression open to you -- just as if a newspaper refused to publish my letter or a TV network declined to hire me as a commentator.
That's their business. That's how free speech works. Nobody's obliged to hand you a megaphone.
Oh No! The PURGE is coming!
"Cumulus Media, which employs some of the most popular right-leaning talk-radio hosts including Mark Levin, Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro, has told its on-air personalities to stop suggesting that the election was stolen from President Trump — or else face termination."
Run for the hills, strap on your six-shooter, buy your prepper survival food from Jim Bakker: 4 gallons of rolled oats, $55.00, shelf life up to FIFTY years! Or you can purchase the lovely and tasty "Christmas Variety Bucket" for $145.00. 229 servings of Food. (17 Varieties of Food) 30 Year Shelf Life!
That referenced web site is awful.
You like President Trump? That's your right. You despise President Trump? That's your right too.
But nobody has the right to spread lies about the president, even if they are state-approved lies imposed upon us by the new regime.
I defy ANYONE here to tell me just WHAT words in the president's speech incited violence or were a call to insurrection. I have watched that speech three times and I don't see it.
About the closest thing to anything nearing violence was his warning that Americans had to "fight like hell" for democracy. If you're going to argue that THOSE are the words that stirred up the crowd, then we'd better arrest or impeach everyone in Congress,(and the opponents who ran against them) because virtually EVERY political ad always says, "I will FIGHT for you in Washington". No, to take anything Trump said and manipulate it into a call to "insurrection" is the most puerile, nakedly disingenuous lie that anyone could possibly foist upon us, just to silence all political opposition.
Now even saying that one questions the election is "dangerous" speech and is being punished. But wait! Ever since George W. Bush's controversial 2000 victory, Democrats have questioned every Republican presidential victory since. It's pretty clear: If Democrats question an election, they're patriots. If Republicans dare to do the same, they're insurrectionists. It's utter duplicitous hypocrisy at it's lowest and we're all the losers for it.
Everyone, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, globalist or nationalist, who caves in to this groupthink/groupspeak cultural revolution does so at their own peril. Like I said, if you hate Trump, fine...but the next time, it might be YOUR voice that is silenced.
One other observation: I watched the "storming of the Capitol" live as it happened and have looked at a lot of subsequent tapes that have hit cyberspace. There had to be at LEAST 200,000 people surrounding the Capitol, yet very few actually bothered to go inside or appeared to even WANT to go inside. You even had Alex Jones--ALEX JONES, THE POSTER CHILD FOR FOIL-HAT EXTREMISM--shouting at people not to go inside.
If anything, I think THAT is the most remarkable take-away from last Wednesday's "riot".
Our senators and congressmen should be very grateful that it wasn't BLM or ANTIFA surrounding the Capitol. The results would have been dramatically worse.
Tom Marcus - If you limit your search to the President's word on 6 January ONLY, you will conveniently miss the many other times he has encouraged, suggested, or openly supported violence against those who oppose him who disagree with him or who do not carry out his wishes.
You will do this because his record is one of encouraging, supporting, and condoning violence.
It serves your purpose to do so.
Yes, if BLM or ANTIFA has been present - mostly people of color - the results woudl have been a massacre of the people of color, dramatically worse than the pass white rioters were given.
Really anonymous? Words fail me.
I don’t think Antifa are “mostly people of colour”.
We are talking about lawbreakers who damaged property and if they had had access to elected officials in the senate or house and including VP Pence, they could have been held hostage, injured or killed. Name your gang, if they are lawbreakers, be it Antifa, Maga fanatics, Black Lives Matter or other radicalized groups, they are all law breakers. Their gang or organization won't go to prison, but individual will when they break the law.
Not only words, Tom. It seems thinking has failed you as well. It is hard to get out of Cult 45, I know. Pray, do penance, and you will be delivered.
Inciting violence against innocent human beings is a henious act. If an organisation does so, it is fundamentally a terrorist organisation. Why then is the Democratic Party not labeled a terrorist organisation for its rigid platform of inciting the killing of innocent human beings in the womb?
What is being discussed, whether here, or elsewhere on the media or the Internet, is what transpired on January 6th. To serve truth in this discussion we should have the benefit of knowing what words President Trump uttered that encouraged insurrection that took place at the Capitol. I don't really keep up all that much with what the Presidents says and twitters, but if anyone can in inform me of anywhere in the past his words led to violence I would like to know, just so I can bring it up if anyone says otherwise.
What is true is that Antifa and BLM attacked, partially breached, and inflicted damaged on a Federal building in Portland for weeks on end, and this included both destruction of property and attempted arson. United States law enforcement personnel were eventually sent to protect the building but in no way was there " massacre of the people of color, dramatically worse than the pass white rioters were given." That is just conjecture,projection, and opinion. On the other hand, given what Antifa and BLM did and intended to do in Portland and other cities around the country, one could understand why Tom Marcus' commented that," The results would have been dramatically worse" had those two groups been involved.
Only a small number(relatively) of the 200,000 or so protestors that day entered the Capitol building, but it was more than enough to do what only Antifa and BLM could only dream of doing in Portland,had those who entered the building that day chose to do so. The number of people who were in the Capitol were more than enough to overwhelm security and to take hostages and kill members of Congress. Thanks be to God that didn't happen. Things turned out bad enough as it was, but let's not paint everyone at the rally in Washington with a broad brush.
The problem is that CNN and any other network's news department which are aligned with the Democrat party want to brush with broad strokes every supporter and friend of President Trump as a terrorist and enabler of this president. They are pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation and inciting more violence from the fringe group which then they will identify with the mainstream of the Republican party. They also are in cahoots with the tech elites, all democrats, who want the democrats to be the single party in this country. They are now blacklisting Republicans and conservatives.
It is McCarthyism from the 40's and 50's (who was a Republican by the way) but now with Democrats doing it. History repeats itself.
But now, they could be unleashing a civil war with all the gas they are using. There is no toning things down.
You nailed it Father.
"They (CNN and Networks) are pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation and inciting more violence..."
"I defy ANYONE here to tell me just WHAT words in the president's speech /CNN broadcast incited violence or were a call to insurrection. I have watched that speech / Network three times and I don't see it."
"They are now blacklisting Republicans and conservatives."
Can you imagine if, the day after 9/11, the terrorist organizations came along and said, "Oh, no one should be prosecuted! We must have unity now!"?
Neither can I.
Your mixing apples and oranges, FrMJK as usual is the baloney. That republicans and or conservatives who had nothing to do with those who entered the capitol are being blacklisted. It is McCarthyism and the media, the democrats and their supporters in big tech are the new McCarthy.
Prosecute the criminals, places charges against them, and if need be, the president too, and until they are found guilty, refer to the crimes as all networks local and national do, as alleged. The media and the democrats are the the ones to convict, although they are doing it for Trump and his supporters, good, bad and indifferent. They did not do it for the rioters in various cities this summer who destroyed city blocks and businesses.
Politics is a cesspool and so is the media.
"That republicans and or conservatives who had nothing to do with those who entered the capitol are being blacklisted."
Every Republican who ignored Trump's threats, who repeated his lies, who looked the other way when he proclaimed himself to be the best/smartest at everything, who defended his retrograde approach to protecting the environment, and who rep[eated and/or defended his false claim to have won the election, etc., or who in any way supported his disastrous presidency bears guilt.
"They did not do it for the rioters in various cities this summer"
Yeah, they did.
"2 Black Lives Matter demonstrators are facing life in prison." (Insider, 24 Sept 2020)
"California Black Lives Matter activist convicted of 'felony lynching'" (Independent 3 June 2016)
"Life in prison for smashing windows? Utah charges BLM protestors." (Christian Science Monitor, 7 Aug 2020)
"PROTESTERS IN MULTIPLE STATES ARE FACING FELONY CHARGES, INCLUDING TERRORISM" (The Intercept, 27 August 2020)
"America's protest crackdown: five months after George Floyd, hundreds face trials and prison" (The Guardian, 27 August 2020)
Name-calling, whack-job conspiracies, crude stereotypes and whiny victim poses.
This is the very definition of "unhinged."
"The problem is that CNN and any other network's news department which are aligned with the Democrat party want to brush with broad strokes every supporter and friend of President Trump as a terrorist and enabler of this president. They are pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation and inciting more violence from the fringe group which then they will identify with the mainstream of the Republican party. They also are in cahoots with the tech elites, all democrats, who want the democrats to be the single party in this country. They are now blacklisting Republicans and conservatives.
"It is McCarthyism from the 40's and 50's (who was a Republican by the way) but now with Democrats doing it. History repeats itself.
"But now, they could be unleashing a civil war with all the gas they are using. There is no toning things down."
"Trump and his supporters, good, bad and indifferent."
I'm sorry, please name a "good" Trump supporter.
There were no "Good Nazis." Only Nazis.
And the indifferent ones were bad, too. There's Scripture about that.
If you stood back for the past four years and didn't call fascism what it is, you are also culpable.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Nobody ever said history must be kind.
"Can you imagine if, the day after 9/11, the terrorist organizations came along and said, "Oh, no one should be prosecuted! We must have unity now!"?"
Who here is advocating or saying that there should be no prsosecutions?
2 Black Lives Matter demonstrators are facing life in prison." (Insider, 24 Sept 2020)
"California Black Lives Matter activist convicted of 'felony lynching'" (Independent 3 June 2016)
2016? Thanks for reminding us how long this has been going on. But it is 2020 where alot more of this happened.
"Life in prison for smashing windows? Utah charges BLM protestors." (Christian Science Monitor, 7 Aug 2020)
Is the above SPECIFIC examples all you have? And you have conveniently overlooked all the charges against Antifa and BLM that have been dropped or downgraded.
I know a number of Republicans. Some of them have been critical of the President at times. They supported him for his ProLife advocacy such as re-instating the Mexico City policy. The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule protecting healthcare workers who decline on the basis of conscience or religious conviction to participate in procedures such as abortion or assisted suicide.
That may not be important to you Anonymous, but I work in the Healthcare field and for myself and others it is crucially important.
President Trump was also the first president ever to personally attend the pro-life March for Life. We have killed more lives in this country through abortion than the Nazi's ever conceived of doing. Daniel, have you ever participated in a demonstration for life or supported in any way Pro-Life facilities and organizations? I and other Republican voters have and do.
President Trump's Justice Department supported the case of Colorado cake designer Jack Phillips at the Supreme Court (Who was facing massive fines for politely declining to design a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding), and the right of faith-based organizations not to be required to provide access to abortifacients through their health care plans, overturning the Obamacare HHS regulation that had forced them to do so. (Sisters of the Poor anyone?)
You best git your mind right boys. Y'all ain't allowed to say one good think about Trump. Git it? What we got heah is a failure to communicate.
Now das what I call freedom! You gonna think and talk the way we say or we gonna label y'all as Nazis!
The Left's double standard
Substitute President Obama for President Trump (same types of speeches, rallies, tweets, lies, claims of widespread voter fraud, etc., i.e., the entire package, just with a different focus and content) and Black protesters who invaded the U.S. Capitol. Same result? Same conversation on this blog? No, I didn’t think so.
The all-or-nothing demands for the last word by the Trump haters posting here reveals a great deal, especially their juvenile insistence that the president is 100% evil--or something to that effect and refusing to concede one good deed or accomplishment. And for that, I give the left credit: They know how to stick to the script.
As much as some readers here are likely to scoff, there's one point no one seems to be noticing.
We still have not had a pope who would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in conjunction with the world's bishops. Until we do, the world is going to continue spiraling in the wrong direction, in spite of our best efforts.
The bad news: This pope seems highly unlikely to do this (he might try consecrating to pachamama) and the current crop of bishops would surely have a number of member who would refuse to participate. That means the darkness will continue on its path of envelopment.
The good news: In the end, God wins. Mary's Immaculate Heart will triumph.
"I'm sorry, please name a "good" Trump supporter."
Sister Ded Byrne
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano
and millions of simple Americans who go to work every day and would like to see their country move in a direction that doesn't support globalism and the Great Reset and deserve to keep more of the money they earn.
There were no "Good Nazis." Only Nazis.
Attempting to create moral equivalence between Trump's economic nationalism and Hitler's homicidal National Socialism (did you get that: SOCIALISM?) will never hold up. The desperate attempt to paint Trump as "Hitler" and anyone who supports him as a "terrorist" is a cynical broad brush stroke of manipulative dishonesty. When the left sins, they double down and blame their enemies and admit nothing. When those to the right of such extremists sin, they publicly express their regret and the left pounces on it and holds them up to the highest degrees of morality--a morality the left has no use for and would never bother trying to live up to.
Millions of Americans can see this manipulation for what it is. And sooner or later it's going to backfire.
I think that is a valid point. But would the democrats howl and scream if President Obama had incited the insurrection? Would they vote for impeachment? And just what did the democrats say, not to a what if scenario, but in reality when rioters/insurrectionists rioted this summer, burned businesses and torn down statues including that of a Saint and an attempt on one, St. Louis in St. Louis. I think there is enough hypocrisy on both the left and the right. The left has their own Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi. This is where gender makes no difference. 99% of democrats in congress will defend her no matter what.
I think a lot of people completely misunderstand Trump--not that I have any claim to superior knowledge of the man, having never met him and he's not likely to invite me to Mar a Lago--anyway--the media and his haters love to paint him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
At this point, I think it's useful to remember that before he decided to run for president, he was a billionaire developer, enterepeneur and TV personality. Running for president certainly did nothing for him that he really needed. If anything, it's made the later years of his life a complete pain in the _ss. I'm no soothsayer, but upon a closer look, Trump appears to be more of a sheep in wolves' clothing. He attacks issues with ruthless efficiency, but he is tends to be less-than-eloquent in expressing himself and opens himself up for a lot of misinterpretation. If you like Trump, you probably didn't hear any call to violence in his words. IF you don't like him, you probably would take his "Hello" as a call to violence.
Love him or hate him. Trump has changed the face of American politics and I think he has awakened us to the fact that the establishment of career politicos--both Democrat and Republican--are not really too interested in the average American.
With Trump what you see is what you get warts and all. He is a celebrity first and foremost and in cahoots with NBC and the entertainment industry for years. Why, because they thought him a man with virtue, no, that he was a great entertainer and made billions of dollars for them. But they knew his character very well, but won't led on lest they too be blacklisted. But why is it that no one at NBC where he had a wildly popular TV sow, the Apprentice, isn't being called out for supporting him and his vulgarity back then????????
I happen to believe that Trump did become unhinged about the election. Being a Billionaire could it be he is spoiled? So he made up lies about the election to overthrow its results.
Even yesterday's speech at the wall, he was warning those who are impeaching him, a witch hunt according to him, that while he decries violence and calls for calm, that impeaching him will lead to more violence. Is that code to his more ardent radical supporters. We'll see.
He overstepped the bounds last Wednesday. He deserves what is happening in congress and many Republicans are jumping ship. Why? Because of moral standards? No to save their political skin. Democrats do the same thing, btw.
"Running for president certainly did nothing for him that he really needed."
Oh, but it did. It gave him the attention that he pathologically craves.
"If anything, it's made the later years of his life a complete pain in the _ss."
No, HE made the later years of his life a complete pain in the _ss. HIS words, HIS actions, HIS lies. This is, for Trump, entirtely self-inflicted suffering.
I think Anonymous is so blinded by his virulent hatred for Trump (and who could blame him, as ferociously as the media feeds and stokes the hatred?) that he's missing something. No doubt Trump's ego gets a message from public approval, but my paycheck got a nice massage from an improved economy and lower taxes. Our armed forces are once again capable of defending us and we didn't get involved in any stupid wars. Unborn children had a president who did more than just pay lip service to trying to end abortion. And every clergyman and believer in America at least knew that they had a president who valued and wanted to protect religious freedom and had no interest in selling us out to globalist interests. I am sure anonymous has lots of self-righteous vitriol to contradict all of this, but since I am a member of the cult, I've decided to just let him rage.
As for you Father--while you are very fair-minded, you assertion, "he made up lies about the election to overthrow its results" is highly debatable. I strongly suggest you look at this video:
I would also suggest you take a look at this extensive list of evidence which has STILL never been presented in court because of various technical dismissals or contentions of standing:
The list is almost endless and includes affidavits from hundreds of people who have sworn their testimony under oath...and the probes by state governments continue.
But back to the generous anonymous with Trump Derangement Syndrome--can you honestly name ONE president since Carter who didn't have a ridiculously big ego and crave adulation? Most men that hit that level of success don't get there by being humble. And frankly, humble presidents like Carter might be nice guys, but they make lousy presidents. I'd suggest you quit worrying about what Trump thinks, just as I gave up worrying what Nancy Pelosi thinks a long time ago. It's none of our business. Let their families deal with their outsized personalities. Your teeth will probably stop grinding so much too!
You ask a perfectly legitimate and fair question. I can only speak for myself. Yes, I would think and feel the same way if Obama were behaving as Trump has been behaving—or rather, misbehaving! This is because it is not a partisan issue—or at least it shouldn’t be. But then I am a member of the legal profession and the rule of law and the ideal of justice are paramount for me. The meaning of justice (even legal justice) is controversial, the rule of law much less so. It is our strongest defense against tyrants like Trump (or any other president who displays tyrannical tendencies or otherwise overreaches).
I cannot speak for the Democrats but I certainly hope they would also think and feel the same way, much like several Republicans are doing right now with Trump—and I hope this sentiment continues to snowball so that the Republican Party can recover from their own version of Trump Derangement Syndrome (i.e., unwavering support for Trump no matter what).
Once the fever has broken, we can begin the healing of our very sick body politic by building bridges to one another and engaging in mature conversation based on a shared commitment to the discovery of facts and the search for truth.
Whit at 4:52 p.m.:
You need to check out your sources:
Whit at 8:57 a.m.:
I agree with you about the wake-up call. This is part of the silver lining to the Trump Era.
I disagree with both of the wolf/sheep characterizations. Trump is, rather, a wolf in wolf’s clothing. He is an extremely dangerous man. If he were to be re-elected in 2024, I sincerely believe we can kiss goodbye to the Republic. Right now, we have an oligarchy. Then, we would have a tyranny. Trump's total disregard and contempt for the rule of law should scare the you know what out of everyone. He needs to go, and then we need to work on healing the body politic and addressing the very legitimate grievances of so many of the 75 million or so who voted for him and whom he used (and abused—even to the point of endangering their lives at his rallies) to acquire and retain power.
But I do understand Trump's desire to stay in power because he also_fears_the rule of law. After all, he has violated so many of the laws and, if justice is properly served, should (and hopefully will) be held accountable and pay the consequences.
It's almost as if to suggest that the "mainstream" media has no bias. Get real.
Thanks for revealing your identity. I had my suspicions. I consider them confirmed.
"Healing the body politic" as you suggest is a futile venture. We now have a wound that will not heal. And the "progressive" agenda that you delude yourself to believe you can support while remaining in the graces of the Church is only going to lead us deeper in the wrong direction.
As long as we support, condone or enable abortion as a matter of policy, we will continue to be punished for our rebellion. And until we get a pope obedient enough to do what Mary demanded from Sister Lucia, we are just kidding ourselves.
Anonymous (apparently aka Whit Slimman, aka Herman Utica, aka Lyle Goodstone):
Thank you for the Justfacts citation. I have been exploring their websites. It is a useful source. I don’t see much discussion of the election fraud claims, however. Do they address these claims? I did notice from reading the link you gave that Media Bias Fact Check amended its entry for Justfacts in response to some well-taken objections by the latter. This certainly is to their credit. Presumably, the two sources you cited at 4:52 p.m. have the same recourse if they consider that Media Bias has inaccurately characterized them. Have they done so? And if not, why not?
Which identity are you referring to? My identity as a member of the legal profession? If so, why is that identity significant? Do we hear echoes of Dick the Butcher in Henry VI, Part 2? To be sure, we certainly are an inconvenience standing in the way of the passions of the mob or the pretensions of would-be tyrants. Of this you can be sure: do away with the rule of law and you will reap the whirlwind. Heed the wisdom of Robert Bolt’s Thomas More in the following well-known exchange (see ROBERT BOLT, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1960), ACT I, SCENE 6):
ROPER. So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law.
MORE. Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER. I’d cut down every law in England to do that.
MORE. Oh? And when the last law was down—and the Devil turned around on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—Man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
I sincerely hope you are wrong about the futility of trying to heal the body politic. I have two questions. First, what is the “wound that will not heal”? Second, do we not have a duty as Catholics to try to heal divisions (without compromising moral truth of course)?
Your excerpt from that play that we apparently both love makes a point that could be taken a number of different ways. In my case, it makes me think of the Democratic party changing so many rules to streamline the impeachment of the president, eliminating any ability for witnesses to testify and freeing those who hate the president to unleash their passions in scurrilous and vulgar accusations that would normally not be tolerated as Congressional decorum. At some point, the tables could turn and that waiver of rules could be turned against one of them or one of their leaders, since they decided to cut down a few of their own laws to get after their "devil", President Trump. Single-party domination is never perpetual and the harder either party grasps to make that possible, the sooner comes the likelihood of their dominance waning.
However, to answer your question(s): The wound that will not heal is the election. There are five battleground states with serious controversies about fraudulent activity and statistical anomolies in vote-counting that beg some kind of closer examination. You can argue all you like in lockstep with the media and every "respectable" source you can name that it's all nonsense, but close to 50 percent of the population disagrees with you and the only way to clear that disagreement up is to give these questions a fair airing in public view. There have been accusations of election fraud before, but never on this scale and the accusations were not all orchestrated by the president. I know a lot of people questioned Trump's legitimacy upon election in 2016, but the majority of the protests have been more about not liking Trump rather than questioning vote counts.
I am not an apologist for Trump and I have no illusions about his personality defects and tenuous relationship with certain laws. However, I am not so blinded by my hatred of him that I can't see what he has accomplished either. Transformative figures tend to be hated and loved by large segments of the public. Trump is no exception and his presidency and its end seems to have triggered a massive political re-alignment in America that we are only beginning to grasp.
Regarding our duty as Catholics--healing divisions sounds nice and I don't think anyone would question that as a duty, but only so much can be done on our own. Our divisions are so deep and our society is so dysfunctional that only Divine intervention can change the mess we are in. We don't have any leadership in our government and we don't seem to have many shepherds in our Church. In all seriousness, I believe our best recourse is prayer and fasting. I heartily recommending checking out St. Joseph's partners for more on THAT plan: https://www.stjosephpartners.com/Home/Link/poweroffasting
"There are five battleground states with serious controversies about fraudulent activity and statistical anomolies in vote-counting that beg some kind of closer examination."
This is untrue and repeating lies only worsens the rupture we are experiencing.
Of the fifty states that certified their elections, twenty-nine are run by Republicans. Two of the so-called battleground states have Republican leadership.
To believe that there are, in fact, "serious controversies" in these states or elsewhere requires a person to suspend reason and to enter into the phantasy land of conspiracy theorists. Tens of thousands of officials, judges, lawyers, elected officials, most of the Republicans, are not in on some vast conspiracy.
"I saw a video of ballots being ________" Fill in the blank. You saw a video and someone TOLD YOU what was happening. And then, you believed it.
A Democratic party operative was just arrested in San Antonio yesterday for harvesting ballots--an estimated 7,000 and working on other schemes to flip votes. Stanford (not exactly Republican territory) researcher Jovan Pulitzer just issued a report that 65 countries were involved in tampering with our election--academics don't release findings that they can't prove. The State of Michigan's senate has requested and election audit and it is being delayed because the other side (with "nothing to hide") is fighting it. In Arizona, Dominion voting machines were supposed to be turned over and those holding the machines are ignoring the subpoenas. In Georgia alone, there are over 250 CURRENT ONGOING investigations in the electoral and voter fraud--need I go on?
You can make fun of it, mock it, discount it, call everyone who suspects it "idiots"--do whatever you like--but it isn't going away. If those in power with nothing to hide were serious about "healing" our country and ending divisions, they would fine a different approach to handling all of the people who are upset about this than merely telling them that theyn are stupid and need to shut up. If it's all untrue, then let's prove it. Half of America isn't going to accept this as untrue with "Because we say so" as the reason. I hope it IS untrue, because I'd like to think that my vote counts. There have NEVER been this many allegations from so man places and all the accusations didn't just come from the President.
"Shut up and know your place" isn't going to work this time.
"Nothing would satisfy Trump's supporters" is a cop out. The equivalent of saying, "It does no good to talk to you" when you are simply tired of talking to the person.
Sabo - Let's look at ONE of those monumentally essential issues you raise - Dominion voting machines in Maricopa County, AZ, because there's WAY more than you insinuate.
That case involves Maricopa County Board of Supervisors run by REPUBLICANS fighting with the State Senate Judiciary Committe run by REPUBLICANS.
Why would the county not turn over the votes and machines? "There is no legislative authority to audit election results. There is no legislative authority to conduct forensic audits of election tabulation machines, software, and other equipment. There is no legislative authority to examine ballots."
It's not as if the County folk were being SO terrible and SO awful in ignoring subpoenas. The Judiciary Committe has NO AUTHORITY to issue them.
That's why, if half of American is refusing to accept the certified results, then half of America is nuts and must be told repeatedly "Sit down and sut up."
Your answer reveals what you don't seem to get: This ISN'T about Democrats and Republicans. Many Republicans are as committed to the globalist/managed decline/status quo/suppliant to Beijing program as the Democrats are (Mitch McConnell, Liz Cheney, to name but two). This is about the sacred ground of professional career politicians who will not abide outsiders coming in and shaking things up. Democrat or Republican, too many elected (and unelected) government people seem to reflect the "how dare you question us" aesthetic, betraying a belief that they are entitled to govern, consent of the governed be damned. Or did you forget that Trump had to plow through an entire crop of Republican candidates (all of whom would have lost to Hillary Clinton) before he could practice HIS version of Republicanism.
Status Quo Democrats and Status Quo Republicans are just two different sides of the same crooked coin.
Lyle Goodstone aka Walter Sabario:
We need to clearly distinguish two separate questions:
(1) Was there widespread fraud benefiting the Biden-Harris ticket in the 2020 presidential election? I know of no way to resolve this appropriately other than through the strictures imposed by following the rule of law. This means court challenges and otherwise trusting those with legal authority for conducting and overseeing elections. I stand to be corrected, of course, but as far as I can see, this has been done. With one exception, all court challenges have failed so far. Making blanket statements that there is evidence of fraud, but the plaintiffs were not allowed to present it, is easy to do and proves nothing; each case needs to be studied to determine the precise reason(s) why a claim was rejected. Even more tellingly, perhaps, Republican officials (in Georgia, for example) stand by the results and reject the allegations. Why would they do that? The only answer that seems to be offered is that they are all part of some globalist, status quo conspiracy/mindset. Now, applying Occam’s Razor, just how likely is the extremely complicated explanation that they are all lying and conspiring against Trump? Isn’t the much simpler explanation that he simply lost (as people tend to do in elections) more likely? And who is more likely to be telling the truth here—the man who is a pathological liar and who tried to load the dice before the election (heads I win, tails you lose—if I win, fine; if I lose, it must be rigged) or everyone else?
As for “trying the case” in the court of public opinion, Heaven help us! Give me a court of law over the court of public opinion any day. (I am glad you like Man for All Seasons, by the way!)
(2) What should we do about the very legitimate grievances of those many millions who voted for Trump? I am the first to agree that our system of politics is corrupt and have said so for many years on this blog. But for me Trump is not the solution but a further symptom. Let us rather, then, put the election behind us and begin the healing by addressing these legitimate grievances in a respectful and civil manner. Perhaps healing can indeed only occur through divine intervention. But how does God intervene in the world exactly--through us, too, no? The healing must begin by taking our country back from the forces that have sought to divide us (Trump, career politicians of all stripes, Silicon Valley with their infernal internet and social media, not to mention Vladimir) and by treating one another as human beings made in the image of God, preferably in face-to-face conversation (once we get past this wretched pandemic).
W.S. Trump has not practiced his version of "Republicanism." It has been "Trumpism" from day one. If any political term fits what we have seen for the last, dreadful four years, it is Populism.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes about populism:
"Populism is the politics of anger. It makes its appearance when there is widespread discontent with political leaders, when people feel that heads of institutions are working in their own interest rather than that of the general public, when there is a widespread loss of trust and a breakdown of the sense of the common good. Populists stir up resentment against the establishment. They are deliberately divisive and confrontational. They promise strong leadership that will give the people back what they think has been taken from them.
Populism is the politics of disappointment, resentment, and fear."
Populism always fails because it is based on magical thinking, and magic doesn't produce the promised results.
You can question the status quo all you want. But when you assert that the status quo has produced wildly fraudulent election results, and when you rush into a courtroom at any level to press your case, and when you fail over and over and over again to present evidence that your assertion is valid or has merit, and when your position is rejected by tens of thousands of jurists, attorneys, election officials, etc., you must acknowledge that you were wrong.
This doesn't mean the suystem is corrupt. And i doesn't mean that some evil "globalist" cabal is secretly running things from behind the curtain.
Well, whoever controls the language and what the language means controls the debate.
Since you are attempting to define "populism" as merely "resentment" and "anger" from a bunch of "magically thinking" rubes, I guess it's only fair to warn you.
The wonderful, enlightened administration that's getting ready to "save" us from Trumpism is probably going to create a little more anger and resentment.
Actually that's an understatement, but I think you get my drift.
Better get all those stupid, ignorant magically thinking resentful rubes in line so that they think the way they are supposed to think!
"Tens of thousands of jurists"?
"TENS OF THOUSANDS"
I would never suggest than some evil globalist cabal is secretly running things from behind the curtain.
Heaven's no, there IS no curtain and we have fallen so far in our understanding of things that they don't need to hide anything. Now they can brazenly make no bones about their plans! Just look at the World Economic Forum's website:
All those enlightened progressive Catholics had such a laugh, mocking Archbishop Vigano for warning us about the "Great Reset". Heck, it was right under our noses all along! They've made commercial advertisements PROMOTING this wonderful turn of events! They even have a slogan: "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy!"
Oh, us stupid, resentful populists! Thanks be to GOD we have smarter people to lead us!
Hey Anonymous 2--let's celebrate!
Thanks be to God for our enlightened leaders!
Thanks be to God for this New Springtime that will erase the Darkness of Trumpism.
More resentment-filled magical thinking from angry bottom-dwellers:
Of course, the document has no credibility because
1). It comes from a Senate Subcommittee and since the senate had a Republican majority when released it is biased (we all know, apriori, that documents released by Democrats are NEVER biased).
2). It came out during the Trump Administration, which means it is worthless and based on false evidence to give false hope to angry, resentful stupid people who don't know or understand what is best for them.
I will let Randall Smith have the last word:
Or perhaps Randall Smith should share it with Robert Royal:
The "last word" is yet to come. We shall see.
It took years after scoffing and denials, but everyone knows that Kennedy stole the election from Nixon.
Cancel away folks. Sooner or later, the truth is revealed.
I'm sure the establishment groupthinkers here will find some reasonable excuse to dismiss this as illegit too.
Post a Comment