Tag: democrats

THE REAL INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE

Leftists have been accusing Donald Trump of “inciting violence” for his speech on Jan. 6 that preceded the Capitol Hill break-in.

Whether Trump’s words rise to incitement or not – or if the actions on the 6th were pre-planned anyway – has received ample scrutiny elsewhere.

What I instead would like to focus on is the concept of “incitement” to violence in the political realm more broadly, and just how guilty progressive leftists are.

The incitement of which I speak, however, is a bit more subtle than clear-cut cases of a politician urging a mob of people to destroy buildings or assault people.

Instead, I want to focus on how progressives use rhetoric to ‘unperson’ and demonize their political opponents, paving the way for social ostracization – using violence if necessary.

Keep reading

Viral #TrumpsNewArmy Video Is Liberals At Their Craziest And Scariest

A new viral video calling on liberals to form “an army of citizen detectives” to gather information on Trump supporters and report their activities to the authorities has racked up thousands of shares and millions of views in just a few hours.

The hashtag #TrumpsNewArmy is trending on Twitter as of this writing due to the release of a horrifying video with that title from successful author and virulent Russiagater Don Winslow. As of this writing it has some 20 thousand shares and 2.6 million views, and the comments and quote-retweets are predominantly supportive.

Keep reading

Nikole Hannah-Jones Calls For ‘Consequences,’ ‘Deprogramming’ For Republicans

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who is best known for her flagship essay in the New York Times’ ahistorical 1619 Project, believes that 74 million Americans deserve to be “punished” as part of deprogramming them for voting for Donald Trump in 2020.

The 1619 Project creator spoke to Eugene Robinson on MSNBC, where he asked her about how the media and social elites can best “deprogram” the “millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans” who voted for Trump, as they are clearly part of a “cult.”

Hannah-Jones responded with a vague call to look toward an undefined “history,” declaring that “there has to be consequences” based on how you vote. She then decried the push towards a quick “reconciliation” between the left and right. The so-called journalist painted Trump supporters with a broad brush, lumping the Capitol rioters in with average Republicans who voted based on policy.

Keep reading

Impeachment is more dangerous than Trump

The most apt parallel for the second impeachment of Donald Trump may not be any other of the three previous presidential impeachments, including his own just over a year ago. It may instead be the PATRIOT Act, which was passed in the heated emotional aftermath of the September 11 attacks, with negligible debate afforded to the long-term implications of what Congress was enacting. Reason and deliberation had given way to a collective desire for security and revenge, and thus the most sweeping curtailment of civil liberties in the modern historical record was approved. Those who departed from the swiftly assembled consensus could expect to be denounced as sympathisers to terrorists.

Likewise, if you deign to raise concerns about the implications of this sudden impeachment sequel — or any of the other extraordinary actions taken in the past week, such as an ongoing corporate censorship purge of unprecedented proportions — you can expect to be accused of defending or supporting the “domestic terrorists” who carried out the mob attack on the Capitol.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, rationalised rushing through Wednesday’s impeachment resolution at spell-binding speed — by far the fastest impeachment process ever — on the grounds that Trump posed a “clear and present danger” to the country, and needed to be removed immediately. “Imminent threats” of various stripes also have a long history of being cited to justify sweeping emergency action, such as the invasion of Iraq. Often upon further inspection, the purported “threat” turns out to have been not so “imminent”, or in fact to have never existed at all.

Keep reading