Earlier today, I got myself into trouble on Twitter: I had suggested that we shouldn’t immediately dismiss an idea because it conforms in some to what BLM might want. I got a pretty consistent explosion of outrage directed my way. And, I understand it and am sympathetic to it. But it was difficult to try and explain myself in a series of Tweets…so, here is a larger exposition of my ideas.
Our opponents aren’t a rag-tag bunch of Bolshevik wannabees: they are a well-funded and tightly organized Ruling Class which is determined to have its way. The rag-tag rioters out there shouting to kill the police and such are just the bought and paid for operatives of this Ruling Class. And the key is that the rioters don’t know it.
Some of them don’t know, simply: in other words, they are just ignorant fools following along with whatever seems cool at the moment. But others have a level of sincerity against injustice and simply think they are fighting the Establishment when what they are doing is the Establishment’s bidding. You’ll note how quickly “Defund the Police” got discarded…and even when it has advanced a bit, as in Minneapolis, the big shots are merely hiring private security details (on the taxpayer dime, of course). The target of the mob is, what? It is Trump. It is religion. It is you and me. It isn’t Nike and Hollywood. It isn’t Pelosi. It isn’t Yale’s gigantic endowment. It isn’t the actual system of control: the government bureaucracies; the intelligence agencies; the megacorporations; popular culture manufacturers.
My idea is that there is, indeed, a great deal of injustice out there – and a great deal of this is visited on the poorest Americans, who are disproportionately minority. I’ve talked about this before: poor people simply ground up in a legal system they can’t navigate their way out of. Some times, of course, because they are incompetent…but some times simply because once you get caught in it, there’s no way out unless you have a bucket of money. From the perspective of such a person, it seems at times like things are stacked against them…and then they see us, on our side, backing the blue…the same blue which the Establishment set up and which goes lightly where it can get burned (ie, rich and middle class neighborhoods) and drops like a hammer where it can (ie, poor neighborhoods). It can seem to such a person that you and I are the problem…that we set this up.
We know we didn’t. We back the blue not because we’re bastards, but because we know that law is a must. But even our side has been a little blind here: what if the laws, themselves, are insane? Shouldn’t the blue we back have gone, at some point, and said “I won’t enforce this insane law. Fire me if you want, but I became a cop to make sure justice and peace prevail.” Never a peep like that – and, finally, we got our taste of it with the lockdowns: we were finally the people being targeted for the enforcement of insane decrees of government. And the ground shifted and we were prepared for deep reforms of the police…which also entailed a willingness for deep reforms of all government and how it interacts with the people. Hey, presto!, riots…and we’re all back to “back the blue” and lets crack some heads. We’re forgetting that the same people who sent the cops out to arrest kids in a playground also let the rioters run wild…and in both the arresting of kids and the allowing of riots the police did as they were told.
How about we stop being suckers, at least for a bit?
We really have to start thinking and stop reacting. The riots do need to stop. The police do need to enforce the laws. But the laws have to be sane – and we can’t get sane laws until we get power and we won’t get power until the overwhelming mass of the people swing in line behind us. 51% won’t do it. That’ll just lead to our eventual political defeat or civil war…or both. We need 60 and 65%. We need to convince huge masses of people who ostensibly hate us to come over to us. This means we must talk to them – and talk to them about what they think is important. And do things they would like to have done. Not the Bolshevik stuff (the Establishment tolerates the odd Bolshy in the realms of power…but keeps them on a leash: eg, Bernie). But stuff like reforming the police. Instituting neighborhood militia for routine patrols. Pouring in buckets of money confiscated from liberal moneybags (Yale’s endowment would be a good place to start).
It comes down to this: what are you trying to conserve? A theory, or a civilization? The institutions are corrupt to the bone. Our Ruling Class is un-American and merely interested in keeping its wealth and privilege; and to do so it feels it must destroy family, property and religion. I think it is time we thought anew and acted anew…that we cease to fall into the categories the Ruling Class has provided for us and start to reach out to all. Some will spit on us. That’s ok. But some will come over if we show that we want justice…and if we show them who their real enemies are.
Blogs For Victory 
A couple thoughts …. I don’t think we need more laws for the police to enforce, sane or not, we just need to consistently enforce the laws we currently have and maybe even get rid of a few. I think we need to have a completely different law enforcement approach to drugs. Let’s face it, our government is largely responsible for the addictions across this country due to their refusal to secure the borders so let’s not fill the jails and courts with lower level drug offenses. Let’s not put a permanent mark on the record of low level drug offenders which only serves to hurt their employment chances. Let’s educate and try to rehab. Additionally, let’s stop letting hardened criminals out of jail on plea bargains. These people reoffend at a high percentages and typically for high level crimes involving a firearm so make them serve their sentence in full. Lastly, any crime that involves a firearm requires a mandatory jail sentence of 5 or 10 years. Mandatory. No option.
The ruling class wants a class structure and class structures are not a benefit of a capitalist, free market representative republic. Class structures are part and parcel to a socialist or marxist system, hence the current upheaval. Our political class, ruling class, and media class hope to cement their legacies and positions at the top of the American class structure and to do that they need a permanent lower class and societal division and they are doing their best to make those dreams come true. From the previous thread:
But they have to rush it, even with the risks inherent in pushing too far too fast …. They have to do SOMETHING and they have to do it NOW.
They are ALL IN at this point. The coordination between the DNC, Media, and the Deep State is transparent and will only ramp up in the next 4 months. Let’s make no mistake about this, we are in a fight for this country’s life. Something that all of us have wondered about over the last 14 years is now right in front of us. It’s a little surreal but let’s confront it and defeat it. If Joe Biden is elected, our country will be governed by Marxists and socialists and will change forever. Not on my watch.
Hillary testifies Sept. 9, stay tuned. And this also explains the noise the Left is making now trying to distract …..
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115
Mark, you say Our opponents aren’t a rag-tag bunch of Bolshevik wannabees: they are a well-funded and tightly organized Ruling Class which is determined to have its way. I’d like a little clarification on that.
My perception is that the opposition IS well-funded, IS tightly organized, but is a wholly ideological entity dedicated to the overthrow of our government and the imposition of Leftist tyranny. And I don’t see the Ruling Class as being part of that. I see the Ruling Class as self-involved, focused only on what is best for it, as well as craving power. One might suggest that the craving for power is really just a desire to control things so they go the way the Ruling Class wants them to go, not power for the sake of power as we see in the Schiffs and Nadlers and many activists.
It’s not as if there is one “opposition”. I suggest that while there IS a Ruling Class focused on retaining its positions of power and wealth, it is being used by the International Left, or at least is a willing junior partner. But the driving force behind this revolution is not money, it is ideology. I don’t see the Ruling Class as having a political ideology, other than “whatever we need to do to get what we want”, while the Left has its clear ideology of a specific form of government they want to impose on the world.
I see a Jenga-like structure, with the string-pullers, the ideologues, at the top. They are the ones with the vision, with the strategy and with the funding. Then there is the top level of Useful Idiots, The Ruling Class/Deep Staters, supporting the ideologues because they believe that when the dust settles they will have fortified their positions and will be stronger and richer than ever. If we make it through this election they can be defanged to some extent, particularly the Deep State.
Below that level are the hard-core activists and lower-level ideologues like Patrisse Cullors—smart, focused, fiercely ideological and tapped into funding from above but still tools, not decision-makers. Beyond that point is just rabble, a mongrel mix (in no particular order) of professional rioters and agitators, wannabe Bolsheviks with only vague ideas of what that means, Democrat sheeple who are too stupid to question the propaganda fed to them and therefore ruled by blind hatred of Trump (and by extension all conservatives and easily led, recreational rioters, Victim Class blacks so dominated by irrational rage and resentment they are volatile and also easily herded, and the basic criminal class eager to use riots as cover for looting.
I think most prior revolutions have been clearly ideological or clearly economic, but this one is a hodgepodge of different (and sometimes conflicting) agendas and motives, cobbled together in an effort to create a mob of sufficient size and volume to appear to pose a significant threat. But, like Jenga, if enough of the disparate components can be pulled out of the structure it will topple.
The top level ideologues are implacable and immovable. This is their core belief system and they will not give an inch. The Ruling Class, however, and the Deep State, are not independent—they depend on the government to shore them up and give them power, or at least acquire power, and that means a strong president can erode that power and severely undermine their influence, particularly that of the Deep State. The mid-level ideologues are as entrenched as their leaders and all we can do about them is prosecute them when they break the law and bleed off their support from below.
The wannabe Bolsheviks and Democrats are much the same, passionate in their ignorance but with a passion that depends on ignorance and can therefore, sometimes and in some cases, be educated. In this category I put the morons who bleat that they support Black Lives Matter—-but I don’t see any voices from our side pointing out that it is not only possible but much better to support the stated ideals of Black Lives Matters without supporting that specific organization, which is really about the overthrow of our government “by any means necessary”.
And this is the group, which is largest in size but weakest in strength of support, that can most easily be pulled out of the Jenga structure. IF we actually start talking to them.
Which we won’t do because we are impotent and mute.
The bottom levels, the black ragers and the criminals, are not worth bothering with except to try to rein them in through the legal system.
OK, I am officially fed up with the semantic infiltration of the volatile phrase “police brutality” and its acceptance by pretty much everyone. Personally, I reject it.
Brutality by a police officer is often necessary, and desirable. The idea that an officer has to use restraint in the defense of his or her life, or of the lives of others, is just plain stupid. There is no soft, kind, gentle way to deal with someone trying to beat you to death, or choke you, or pointing a gun at you or shooting you. When these things happen, the appropriate (and only intelligent) response is some level of “brutality”.
What we are really talking about are two things: One is the policy of some police departments to allow the use of some forms of restraint that have been known to be lethal when used improperly. This is primarily the infamous “choke hold”. The thing is, it is seldom dangerous if used properly by trained person, and if a cop is fighting to keep from being beaten or shot and has the opportunity to end the conflict with a choke hold I say “go for it”. But it will make a symbolic gesture to ban choke holds, even when they play such a miniscule role in injuries to people in encounters with the police.
BTW, a choke hold was never used on George Floyd. Banning choke holds is merely virtue signaling. It is a condescending but essentially meaningless pretense of significant “reform” tossed to the crowd like a fish to a trained seal. But its symbolism is that it is NECESSARY to protect people from the police and that pisses me off. It is demeaning to the people who risk their lives every single day to tell them “You are so immoral and dangerous we need to restrain you”.
The other thing is criminal acts by police, such as the act that killed Floyd. These are individual acts committed by individual officers, not based on or condoned by official policy. Sometimes they are panicky overreactions to perceived threats, and sometimes they are just brutal bullying to a lethal extent. Neither can be controlled by a rule. All we can do is evaluate each case on its merits and prosecute those which are criminal assaults.
I am sick and tired of seeing so much of “society”, including putative conservatives, doing the Left’s work for them. We parrot their lies and their propaganda without even knowing we are doing it. The other day I saw in some online “conservative” news site Antifa defined as being “anti-fascist”.
Below that level are the hard-core activists and lower-level ideologues like Patrisse Cullors—smart, focused, fiercely ideological and tapped into funding from above but still tools, not decision-makers. Beyond that point is just rabble, a mongrel mix (in no particular order) of professional rioters and agitators, wannabe Bolsheviks with only vague ideas of what that means, Democrat sheeple who are too stupid to question the propaganda fed to them and therefore ruled by blind hatred of Trump (and by extension all conservatives and easily led, recreational rioters, Victim Class blacks so dominated by irrational rage and resentment they are volatile and also easily herded, and the basic criminal class eager to use riots as cover for looting.
I think that’s an excellent description of the lower level of what we’re faced with, and it’s the level that has the potential to do the most damage in terms of both property and lives. It begs the question, how far do they get before the bodies start piling up in the streets? And if it gets THAT far, will the media cover it or cover it UP? Will google, Facebook and Twitter censor photos that the media will not print and/or broadcast? Will cell phone networks be shut down to prevent people from exchanging such photos? I can’t imagine anything that would deter a bunch of useful idiots from continuing than a photo of a pile of their friends’ bullet-riddled bodies in the middle of the street. In the book One Second After, the first book in a trilogy about the aftermath of an EMP attack that leaves the U.S. without electricity for an extended period of time, the citizens of the small Appalachian town where most of the book takes place defeat an army of the very kinds of individuals you describe and hang the leaders’ bodies from a nearby Interstate sign framework. Great deterrent.
I do think that there are those on the Left who think a French-style revolution is a good idea. Given how well armed about 2,500 of the nation’s 3,100 counties are, I don’t see any kind of Leftist revolution getting much outside the major cities. Quite frankly, I’m having difficulty wrapping my head around the fact that we’re even talking about such a possibility.
Given the different motives of the groups, I think different outcomes will influence them.
As for the average Legacy Democrat, who isn’t consumed by hatred of Trump but still convinced he is not good president, who are devoid of ideology other than a few emotion-driven ISSUES we need to tell them that supporting Black Lives Matters is NOT about standing up for racial equality, it is support for a political system based on overthrowing our government at any cost and there are many other ways to stand in solidarity with other races that do not indicate a desire for a violent revolution. That is, according to Glenn Beck this morning, information that is starting to bleed through some of the rhetoric to some people. I think if we push that and push it hard, so these well-meaning but fuzzy-brained people can act on their good natures without the unintended consequence of being part of subversion many would be happy to make the shift. That will make it easier to get them to condemn the violence—-and remember, for people like this is always about “easy”. This IS the Path of Least Resistance demographic.
One should be that BLM was founded by hardcore self-described trained Marxist activists, to advance the Marxist agenda, and its claim to be about defending black lives is just a cover story—and then show how little the movement has done to actually accomplish anything good for black people and contrast it with the damage they have done to the image of peaceful protests. Quote “Pigs in a blanket let them fry” and the other incitements to murder law enforcement officers. Cite the riots they have promoted and the damage done to innocent people, many of them black, destroying homes and businesses.
Another should be information about alternatives to BLM, with the double benefit of helping black people and turning the public against not only the rioters but—more important in the long run—the Dems who support and enable them.
These are people who might march in “peaceful protests” but who are also appalled by the violence and anarchy. They CAN be reached, if we try and are smart enough.
But—again—we need a voice. We need a strong coherent voice that can and will send the messages over and over again:
As I have said about the recreational rioters, many of them will probably go on to become fairly good citizens, with this as a memory of being wild and crazy in high school and college. That group can be reined in by making rioting so very much not fun—–skunk juice ruining clothes, parents having to bail them out of jail, the possibility of ruining careers by racking up criminal records. It won’t take much to deter this group. It’s the approval and egging-on of the Left and its mouthpieces, the Agenda Media, that has led stupid young people from former examples of youthful rebellion to out-and-out rioting. It’s too bad so many cultural references don’t make sense to people of this age, so referring to them as “rebels without a clue” wouldn’t mean anything to them.
Hammer the professionals and hammer them hard, with federal charges for domestic terrorism and interstate and international terror activity and very stiff penalties. Make it harder to recruit professional thugs.
I think a coherent and focused and organized strategy with cooperation from law enforcement can head off a lot of violence. That would leave the hardcore ideologues, and yes, it very well might take a few bodies piled up to make the point to the average American that these people are dangerous to out country. But the hard part is always going to be getting past the entitlement mentality. You may have seen the hysterical reaction of a stocky blond girl waving a sign when police shut down an attempt to take over part of a small town. She rushed in and challenged the cops, waving her sign in their faces and shrieking “How DARE you!” when they tried to impose order. The conviction that self-indulgence is an absolute right is at the heart of much of this, and I don’t know how to deal with that.
As for media shutting down information all TV stations are licensed through the FCC.
The Enforcement Bureau (EB) is responsible for enforcement of provisions of the Communications Act 1934, FCC rules, FCC orders, and terms and conditions of station authorizations. Major areas of enforcement that are handled by the Enforcement Bureau are consumer protection, local competition, public safety, and homeland security. I would not be surprised to learn that the government has the right and the ability to transmit information necessary to homeland security regardless of the wishes of the management of any TV or radio station. In addition to that, you and many others have HAM radio licenses, and people have always been quite resourceful about transmitting censored information and bypassing government controls. Think “Wolfman Jack”. The mere act of trying to censor information gives it more power and credibility.
Basically, if there is an armed insurrection it would have to occur without foreign intervention, meaning the locals would have to do the fighting. And that would mean a few pockets of violence in areas of some cities but with quick and firm response from the National Guard. I just keep thinking of the screeching bully-boys in front of that house where the owners came out armed, and the instant backing-down and loss of arrogance.
I’ve been thinking of implementing a semi-Biblical theme—that is, Liberals put a blue check mark above their doors, and that means police and armed neighbors will not step in to rescue them from the mobs. Let them learn that their cowardly appeasement of the mobs and desire to avoid being targeted by them, by groveling to BLM and engaging in the bizarre antics of white guilt is not going to protect them and that the blue check mark is not going to mark them as “Friend” and therefore safe—but it will leave them on their own when it is their turn in the barrel.
We can all ignore the current polls. The complicit media is playing the same game they did in 2016 and trying to shape opinion rather than reflecting it. Here is a headline that tells you exactly what’s going on in this country:
2020 keeps seeing gun sale records beaten month after month, with an all-time high 3.9 million NICS firearm background checks being conducted in June alone, according to FBI statistics.
The Democrat party has become a domestic terrorist party and their militant constituents have become the equivalent of the Taliban. If Democrats think they have a winning message and a winning candidate for November, all I can say in my finest souther drawl is – “Bless their hearts”
https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/01/2020-gun-sales-june-record-fbi/
For the past 20 years or so the number of guns in the U.S. per household has actually gone down even though the number of guns in the hands of private citizens has not just gone up but gone up a lot. The guy who had a couple guns now has 5 or 10. I suspect we’re about to see that change. I was talking to a friend who works in a gun store last week, and he said the majority of recent sales have been to first time buyers who believe we’re on the cusp of something really bad. He also said the vast majority are inquiring about training classes, which is a really good sign.
My house in Denver was broken into last month. It is still under renovation, was unoccupied, and the culprit was probably a recently fired contractor as only tools were taken, but still…
In anticipation of occupancy, I decided to buy a home defense tactical shotgun. Yeah, right. I have a friend who has an FFL on a watch list for one for me. I just added two more guns to the list of guns he is watching for me.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/07/02/mass-hysteria-and-fury-when-vanilla-ice-happily-announces-independence-day-concert-in-texas-941883
Get past the Vanilla Ice part. (Who???) Subtext of the comments: If you don’t F-bomb it, you must not really mean it.
The interesting part follows, which is about the COVID panic .
“[H]eard several stories of how discharge planners are being pressured to put Covid as primary diagnosis — as that pays significantly better. Hospitals want to avoid the discussion but if they don’t they risk another shutdown,” a self-identified “Managing Partner and General Counsel” of a Texas-based firm that owns and operates 13 “free-standing emergency clinics” in the state, wrote in an email to former New York Times reporter Alex Berensen last week.
“This may be an explanation for why there is a gap in hospital executives saying they have plenty of capacity and the increasing number of Covid hospitalizations. You open up your hospitals for normal medical care and you test every one of those patients — the result is a higher percentage of patients who have Covid,” the executive wrote.
The managing partner adds that “most” patients winding up in hospital ICUs are not there because they have contracted a serious case of COVID-19.
“The hospital ICUs are filled with really sick people with non-covid issues. They didn’t come in earlier because they were scared and now they are super sick,” the executive wrote…
………………
Also people don’t understand that ICU’s are normally at high capacity because they’re treating every thing and not just Covid patients. That’s the weird subset of this new fear, people somehow think ICU’s are normally empty, which they’re not.
………………….
I am not on Twitter but when I looked at the tweets about the COVID thread, above, I was fascinated by the number of comments from people supporting the information with personal accounts. It is a Twitter thread worth reading.
In the meantime, we have learned (sarc) that COVID-19 is not, cannot, be spread by social justice warriors, protesting, rioting or generally gathering to harass people. It can only be spread by people who are shopping, eating in restaurants or drinking in bars. (/sarc) This must be true, otherwise brave politicians with only the best interests of the people at heart would be breaking up the aforementioned protest, riots and harassment groups—or at least making them stay at least 6 feet apart, and maybe stop all that spittle-spraying screeching.
Looking at the COVID tweets, above, I ran across a couple of comments from a young Republican woman from Western Colorado who just won a primary against a Republican incumbent. Her comments intrigued me, so I looked her up.
This is the headline of the first article that came up, from a site called “Heavy”—I need to check it out, but from its dishonesty I already have a pretty good idea of what to expect.
Lauren Boebert: QAnon Supporter Wins Colorado GOP Congressional Primary
There is some information about Boebert which tends to focus on her 2nd Amendment stance, which by the way is one of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, as she and her husband run a restaurant where all the staff is openly armed and guns are encouraged. But that is not what has Heavy’s focus. I’ll highlight the phrases that got my attention.
Lauren Boebert is a right-wing congressional candidate who, on Tuesday, defeated five-term Rep. Scott Tipton in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District primary, despite Tipton having President Trump‘s endorsement.
Heavy’s list of the “five things you need to know about Lauren Boebert” says, in large-font bold black letters, Boebert Said She Believes the QAnon Conspiracy Theory — Which Involves a Cannibalistic, Child-Sacrificing Cabal of Democratic Politicians — Is Making America ‘Stronger & Better’ claiming she is .. also an apparent supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. quickly going on to erase the qualifier “apparent supporter” with the connection of Last month another QAnon believer, Marjorie Taylor Greene, also won a Republican Congressional primary in Georgia. That was typical of Leftist propaganda—-put out a questionable comment with plausible deniability (“I SAID she was only an APPARENT supporter!”) but then go on to making a solid claim by the use of “another supporter”. It’s the kind of slippery semantics we need to learn to recognize.
So Heavy has quickly accelerated through the disclaimer of “apparent supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory” to linking her to someone who is asserted to be an actual “supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory” through the phrase “another QAnon believer,”.
Now the stage is set for the Congressional Campaign Committee’s adoption of this tactic and escalation into describing what so far had only been “apparent” as an actual “extremist, dangerous conspiracy theor(y)…” Now we get to fold CNN into the mix with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Heavy, all working to smear Roebert.
Heavy asked Boebert about her apparent support of the conspiracy theory. In a statement, she denied following QAnon, but referenced the “Deep State” undermining Trump — a pillar of the theory.” OK, in the single answer to a direct question about her alleged support for Q Anon she DENIED following it—but that was obviously negated by her “reference” to the Deep State, which is a pillar of the theory.” (And never mentioned anywhere else, by anyone else, in any context?) I’d like to see the whole transcript of that interview, not just a cherry-picked two-word reference to a commonly discussed concern. After all, the term “Deep State” is “referenced” so often, it is blatantly misleading and dishonest to imply it was only “referenced” as a “a pillar of the Q Anon theory.”
BTW, in another hit piece there is the statement that “Boebert’s soleknown comments on QAnon came during a May interview with internet journalist Ann Vandersteel, whose site highlights other conspiracy theories. Vandersteel asked Boebert what she thought of “the Q movement”.”
Boebert’s primary win raised many eyebrows Tuesday because of her interest in the QAnon conspiracy theory. Yet she did not bring it up, or independently show any “interest” in it. She responded to a question.
“In a May interview with QAnon supporting commentator Ann Vandersteel, Boebert said she was “very familiar with” the theory. This claim of being “very familiar” is not included in the quote, which raises the question of what she really said about her familiarity with Q Anon. “I hope it is real, because it only means America is getting stronger and better,” she said What Boebert also said was …..she knew about it from her mother, who was “a little fringe”. Pressed, she added: “If this is real, it could be really great for our country”. As there doesn’t seem to be any information about the nature of the Q Anon subject matter discussed in this interview (and as online references to Q Anon focus almost exclusively on the Deep State aspects of the theory) without further information it is most likely, based on the rest of Boebert’s comments and stated political beliefs, that she was speaking of a belief that open discussion of the Deep State is a good thing and “only means America is getting stronger and better.” ( One can argue about that, but it doesn’t mean a belief that there are people sacrificing and eating children. As a matter of fact, those outrageous and salacious claims ascribed to Q Anon only appeared after there is evidence it had been hacked and hijacked by people who are either pranksters or vandals or operatives trying to discredit the more reasonable claims it made.) It certainly would explain the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s panic about having it openly discussed.
More to the point, Boebert never said she believed in the Q Anon theories. When you dig a little deeper and google Ann Vandersteel/Boebert you learn from the South China Morning Post (!) that “…she didn’t shy away from the far-right conspiracy theory..” What does that mean? It goes on: “At the time, Boebert was on the political fringe…” (which I take to mean on the edge of political influence though the implication is that she was on the lunatic fringe) and “Roebert is part of a small but growing list of Republican candidates who have in some way expressed support for QAnon“. IN SOME WAY. Some vague, undefined, way that boils down to saying IF IT IS REAL it COULD be great for the country.
Then the smear: “The more times you have candidates who are crazy, the more it hurts your brand,” said John Feehery, a Republican consultant and former House leadership aide. “The trick is for Republicans to embrace the anti-establishment mood without embracing the crazy.”
Oh, by the way, buried deep in the Heavy hit piece, in the second to last paragraph, if you have had the fortitude to wade through the excrement to get that far,. you find this:
When reached for comment by Heavy, Boebert said she believed the “Deep State” has been undermining Trump, but distanced herself from the QAnon theory specifically. Hmmm. I wonder just how she “…distanced herself from the QAnon theory specifically…” Funny how they neglected to quote her “distancing” statement, though to protect themselves they did admit it was a specific “distancing”.
What I get from all this is (1) typical sly innuendo that, without analysis, appears to say what it really just implies; (2) that it is interesting to see that the biggest online reference to Ann Vandersteel/Boebert is the South China Morning Post !!! (3) That an entrenched and supposedly Republican operative is trying to prevent her election to the House, inadvertently supporting the whole concept of the Deep State, and (4) both the Left and the Deep State are scared spitless of Roebert and grass-roots true conservatives like her who are finding their voices, and support, in the Heartland.
So here we have an unknown new candidate from a small Western Colorado town who is rattling the cages of the Deep State, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to another of the putative Republican “conservatives” to the point that immediately after her primary win online articles like these pop up, obviously previously concocted to try to stop her in her tracks. Of all the red flags pointing to Leftist propaganda and smearing, the biggest of all is the fact that the Propaganda Machine of the Left had already targeted Roebert and was ready to go into action the day after she won her primary. The SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST ??!! Seriously? Writing about Rifle, Colorado?
Interesting
BTW, I am contributing to her campaign.
I just wonder how many other newcomers to the political arena in other obscure districts are being subject to the same juggernaut of Leftist propaganda and character assassination in the panicky effort to preserve the Dem majority in the House.
Does the Left ever engage in hysterical hyperbole in which it ascribes malignant acts and motives to others because the “others” simply have different beliefs?
Well, here is a HuffPo article referencing a Christian Science couple whose child died of pneumonia, which outraged a Lefty to the point of creating a scenario in his mind which he then lovingly described.
“It’s a curious thing that we humans so easily lose sight of the real world consequences of our self-centered “spiritual” machinations. No doubt many will take exception to the argument that this concession to religious liberty is the equivelant (sic) of ritual child sacrifice.
Can you picture the image… the angry orange and black backdrop of a setting sun filtering through the smoke choked air; the wide-eyed writhing victim roped to the blood stained rock; the cloaked superstitious priest with his arms raised; the blade glinting on the ritual dagger as it plunges down?
Can you picture Mr. and Mrs. Schaible… the playful wallpaper backdrop witness to the dark passion play; the sickly stench choked air; the fever-eyed writhing toddler in the sweat-stained bed; the white collared, superstitious pastor with his hands raised, the anointing oil glinting on his thumb, his mouth moving in silent prayer as the little boy closes his eyes for the last time?
What’s the difference?”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ritual-child-sacrifice-is_b_3510663
When you realize that on some level some version of this kind of invention of insane motive is what forms the “opinions” of so many Leftists about the Invented Other of the Right, it is a combination of creepy and scary.
Another reason to love horses
And now it’s official—the Soros network considers opposition to prostitution (and its associated human trafficking and child endangerment aspects) a harmful ideological agenda.
But hooray for the Court standing up for it and denying the foreign Soros-backed organization The Alliance for Open Society International both American First Amendment protections and access to US taxpayer dollars. Predictably, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and Kagan just sat back without “participating”.
We know the Dems are fine with human trafficking including child trafficking and prostitution—we have seen that from their antics on the border as they try to keep American officials from protecting children there from predators by confirming that their adult companions have legal authority to be with the children and their other efforts to block illegal crossings of the border which so often involve forcing women into prostitution. They sure turned a blind eye to Epstein and the Lolita Express.
But now at least, in this one instance, the predators and traffickers have been denied American funding (except privately by their supporters) and American constitutional protections. It’s a step in the right direction.
https://www.joshwho.net/supreme-court-rules-foreign-soros-backed-operatives-have-no-rights-under-us-constitution/
I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but locally in and around Fort Wayne, Indiana, there is an incredible amount of mask shaming and virtue signaling going on. Hardly a day goes by that there’s not at least one letter to the editor saying how selfish and carelessly indifferent people are who don’t wear masks. Total strangers, particularly in Fort Wayne, less so in the rural area to the west where I live, walk up to me and ask why I’m not wearing a mask. My favorite answer is, “and this is your business why?”
Anyway, I’ve been reading up on masks, trying to decide if there really is scientific evidence that they do any good. Lot of articles say they do, but offer little or nothing in the way of scientific proof. I came across this article in Wired from early April that offers one of the most comprehensive analyses I’ve seen.
I had to go into a Colorado filling station today because the card reader wasn’t working, and there was a big sign on the door saying masks were required for entry. And maybe one customer was wearing one. People are just ignoring requirements. In Wyoming a Safeway had a sign with a very strong request for people to wear masks—again, very few did.
I don’t think the number of new cases (even if it is accurate, which is doubtful) is nearly as important as the severity of the new cases. In the article I posted two days ago one of the quotes was that people just aren’t very sick—most feel a lot better in just two or three days. In addition to this, a new study has confirmed that hydroxychloroquine is not only effective, it is safe. When the howling started to focus on claims it was “dangerous” I knew it was a scam—-it’s been used for nearly fifty years.
I was reminded of this tonight when a TV commercial came on for some drug, with the warning at the end about possible side effects, which include death. Funny how none of the HQ hysterics started trying to ban those TV ads, with their long lists of possible side effects, many of which do include dying.
I’m seriously starting to see this as a part of a multi-pronged attack on Trump. Basically, it was set up so not matter what he did, no matter how he handled it, they could screech that he was wrong, incompetent, and had blood on his hands. Add this to the impeachment effort and the the Russia hoax and now the riots, and I think we are seeing an admission from the Left that Trump scares the living daylights out of them. Which, of course, is all the more reason to reelect him.