When protests in the United States happen that help the establishment in some way, whether by stoking divide or pushing an establishment agenda, corporate media is all over them, bombarding us with news of packed streets. However, when massive crowds take to the streets to have their anti-establishment voices heard, it’s crickets on FOXSNBCNN.
Such is the case recently as millions of people across the world have taken to the streets to protest the draconian laws which segregate society and deprive people of their freedoms over their choice in taking a vaccine they may not even need.
One place, in particular, that is currently seeing massive protests is Italy whose government just passed the strictest vaccine mandate in Europe. Starting on October 15, Italy begins enforcing the new workplace green pass requirement. If employees cannot show proof of vaccination, they will not be allowed to go to work nor will they be able to enter any public places like restaurants, theaters, gyms, etc.
If an Italian citizen misses five days of work by failing to comply with the new mandate, the government forces their employer to stop paying them. If employees are caught working without a green pass, the state will extort them to the tune of $2,100 per instance.
When a population is placed in a state of sufficiently grave fear and anger regarding a perceived threat, concerns about the constitutionality, legality and morality of measures adopted in the name of punishing the enemy typically disappear. The first priority, indeed the sole priority, is to crush the threat. Questions about the legality of actions ostensibly undertaken against the guilty parties are brushed aside as trivial annoyances at best, or, worse, castigated as efforts to sympathize with and protect those responsible for the danger. When a population is subsumed with pulsating fear and rage, there is little patience for seemingly abstract quibbles about legality or ethics. The craving for punishment, for vengeance, for protection, is visceral and thus easily drowns out cerebral or rational impediments to satiating those primal impulses.
The aftermath of the 9/11 attack provided a vivid illustration of that dynamic. The consensus view, which formed immediately, was that anything and everything possible should be done to crush the terrorists who — directly or indirectly — were responsible for that traumatic attack. The few dissenters who attempted to raise doubts about the legality or morality of proposed responses were easily dismissed and marginalized, when not ignored entirely. Typically, they were vilified with the accusation that their constitutional and legal objections were frauds: mere pretexts to conceal their sympathy and even support for the terrorists. It took at least a year or two after that attack for there to be any space for questions about the legality, constitutionality, and morality of the U.S. response to 9/11 to be entertained at all.
For many liberals and Democrats in the U.S., 1/6 is the equivalent of 9/11. One need not speculate about that. Many have said this explicitly. Some prominent Democrats in politics and media have even insisted that 1/6 was worse than 9/11.
Joe Biden’s speechwriters, when preparing his script for his April address to the Joint Session of Congress, called the three-hour riot “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” Liberal icon Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), whose father’s legacy was cemented by years of casting 9/11 as the most barbaric attack ever seen, now serves as Vice Chair of the 1/6 Committee; in that role, she proclaimed that the forces behind 1/6 represent “a threat America has never seen before.” The enabling resolution that created the Select Committee calls 1/6 “one of the darkest days of our democracy.” USA Today’s editor David Mastio published an op-ed whose sole point was a defense of the hysterical thesis from MSNBC analysts that 1/6 is at least as bad as 9/11 if not worse.S.V. Date, the White House correspondent for America’s most nakedly partisan “news” outlet, The Huffington Post, published a series of tweets arguing that 1/6 was worse than 9/11 and that those behind it are more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda ever were.
After obtaining over 500 pages of internal documents from the DC Metropolitan Police, Judicial Watch has found that they believe the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, who inside the Capitol during the riot on January 6, was unjustified.
In May, Judicial Watch filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain more than 500 pages of internal documents from the DC Metropolitan Police regarding the killing of Ashli Babbitt.
In the report, eyewitness testimony from a Capitol Police sergeant, whose name was redacted, suggests that while Babbitt did in fact climb through a broken window to enter the Capitol building, she was not carrying a weapon when she was shot by Capitol Police officer Lt. Michael Byrd.
“Sergeant [redacted] observed a white, female protester was climbing through an opened area where the glass pane had been knocked out,” a document from the Internal Affairs Division states.
“He heard a gunshot and this female fell backwards through the opening. The crowd on the other side of the barricaded east doors, began to step back and some put their hands in the air. Sergeant [redacted] observed Lieutenant Byrd step back just after hearing the gunshot. He did not see anything in the female protester’s hands prior to the gunshot.”
Southwest Airlines canceled over 1,000 flights this weekend. Thousands of passengers were left stranded in airports across the country on Sunday, after a quarter of all flights never took off. Southwest blamed air traffic control issues for the cancelations, but to many, they seemed connected to Southwest’s new COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which its pilots asked a court to block. Were the canceled flights the result of a “sick out” on the part of pilots refusing to get vaccinated? The pilots’ union denied it, but when Amtrak started canceling trains Sunday afternoon due to “unforeseen crew issues,” the idea that a general strike is brewing started to circulate, a response to the mass firings of other working-class and middle class Americans—nurses and police officers—who have refused the vaccine.
You might have expected that the Left would be championing what looks like it might be a powerful form of collective action on the part of working-class Americans. There was a time some can still recall when the Left stood for labor and collective power. Instead, you saw prominent Left-wing voices denouncing Southwest employees as terrorists and demanding they be put on no-fly lists; many others defended the mass firing of nurses and cops. And it was Republicans and conservatives, infamous for their laissez-faire free market policies that favor the rich, who were cheering the striking workers and tweeting the hashtag #GeneralStrike.
This inversion of the politics that ruled the U.S. for much of the 20th century didn’t happen overnight. Most recently, it’s an extension of the COVID lockdown class divide that separated those who could work from the safety of their homes—accountants and bankers and lawyers and project managers and, yes, journalists—from those whose jobs required they brave the pandemic to support their families—grocery store workers, deliverymen and women, drivers, pilots, small business owners, and of course, healthcare workers. This was a class divide as much as an economic divide—the college educated vs. the working class. And you can see where each side of the political aisle sees its base by which position it took on this divide: Democrats favored lockdowns while Republicans took the side of those whose work was either outside the home or eliminated.
The Department of Justice has been hit with a lawsuit for failing to provide public access to its records about the “killing” of Ashli Babbitt.
She was the California woman, unarmed, a 14-year Air Force veteran, who was shot and killed by Capitol police last January when dozens of protesters got rowdy, broke windows and doors, and vandalized parts of the building.
Democrats over and over have claimed the events that day as worse than 9/11 and a true threat to the future of American government.
Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window.
Congress and federal and local authorities kept secret for months before finally revealing that her killer was U.S. Capitol Officer Michael Byrd, and then they quickly confirmed he would face no punishment for killing her.
Now government watchdog Judicial Watch has confirmed it filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for its records relating to her death.
Earlier, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all failed to provide the records responsive to Judicial Watch’s April 14, 2021 and May 20, 2021, FOIA requests.
Those were for records of the shooting, including video footage, and communications about the case and more.
The New Yorker amplified calls for eco-terrorism in the name of sparking action on climate change last week by inviting Andreas Malm, the Swedish author of “How To Blow Up A Pipeline,” onto its podcast.
In the episode titled “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” Malm explains how it’s time for the climate change movement to “diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle, and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.”
Malm stopped his recommendations short of “kidnapping oil workers” but said that “civil disobedience” ostensibly to save the planet should include mass acts of “intelligent sabotage” and property destruction, such as blowing up pipelines.
“I’m not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind. I’m all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects,” Malm said. “So I am in favor of destroying machines, property — not harming people, that’s a very, very important distinction there. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways, or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion as when we defeated the SUVs, or in a more spectacular fashion, as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that’s under construction. That’s something that people have done.”
“So you’re recommending blowing up a pipeline,” the host confirmed.
Malm justified such actions by claiming that the supposedly moral pros of combatting the “climate crisis” outweigh the cons.
“I don’t see how that property damage could be considered morally legitimate, given what we know of the consequences of such a project,” Malm said.
The author also pledged “to be part of any kind of action of the sort that I advocate in the book” before criticizing the climate change movement’s tendency toward nonviolent protest.
In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, an obscure arm of the U.S. Postal Service did some serious internet sleuthing.
On Jan. 11, the United States Postal Inspection Service’s Internet Covert Operations Program — better known as iCOP — sent bulletins to law enforcement agencies around the country on how to view social media posts that had been deleted. It also described its scrutiny of posts on the fringe social media network Wimkin.
Few Americans are aware that the same organization that delivers their mail also runs a robust surveillance operation rooted in an agency that dates back to the 18th century. And iCOP’s involvement raises questions about how broad the mandate of the Postal Service’s policing arm has grown from its stated mission of keeping mail deliverers safe.
The documents also point to potential gaps in the Jan. 6 select committee’s investigation by revealing concerns about a company it is not known to be scrutinizing. And those documents point to a new challenge for law enforcement in the post-Jan. 6 era: how to track extremist organizing across a host of low-profile platforms.
In footage that has to be seen to be believed, citizens in Australia are sharing with the world the moment police turn up at their door, warning them over their social media posts.
Police appear to be scanning social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and looking for users who they think may support protests.
“We’re here to have a chat to you because we have instructions that you’ve been posting some things on social media,” the plainclothes police officer said in a viral TikTok video.
“Why I’m here is to remind you to ensure that you need to stay at home in relation to COVID and stay at home orders.”
In another viral video, an officer asks a man on his doorstep, “Are you aware of any communication circling around between people about any protests coming up?”
An Oklahoma man pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after taking one of Nancy Pelosi’s beers from her office on January 6.
Andrew Craig Ericson, 24, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Prosecutors will drop three related misdemeanor charges in exchange for his plea. Ericson said in a signed statement that he is pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty.
He will face six months in federal prison and a $5,000 fine after he was tipped off to the FBI by someone who had known him since high school.
Six months in prison for one beer?
Ericson posted a photo of himself on Snapchat while sitting comfortably with his feet on a table at Pelosi’s conference room and taking a beer out of a mini-refrigerator.