Obama warns: dangers of social media

Oh, it’s another little helpful warning from Obama’s bully police. Something to take very seriously, har har.

Washington Examiner

Obama, who was interviewed by Prince Harry for the BBC, did not mention Trump by name, though his comments appeared to be directed at Trump who frequently takes to Twitter to express himself.

“One of the dangers of the Internet is that people can have entirely different realities,” Obama said. “They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases.”

“The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn’t lead to a Balkanization of society and allows ways of finding common ground.”

Mr. Irresponsibility himself lectures us. I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m sick of his lectures.

From the guy who it turns out did absolutely nothing in response to all the dangers on social media and threats he was supposedly seeing.

A serious WaPo story had the rundown of the timeline where Obama didn’t seem to care much about any of that.

Closer to home for Americans, Russian government trolls in 2012 went after a U.S. ambassador for the first time on social media, inundating his Twitter account with threats.

But for U.S. officials, the real wake-up call came in early 2014 when the Russians annexed Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. An intercepted Russian military intelligence report dated February 2014 documented how Moscow created fake personas to spread disinformation on social media to buttress its broader military campaign.

Imagine this lecture coming from the guy who never got any real opposition on anything? The guy who used social media as his personal playground for all his drooling sycophants to dominate the airwaves. The Obama that couldn’t get him enough FB attention — with his hordes of fake followers on social media. Sickening to listen to this crap he spews.

What about the dangers from what he did? The danger of his 20 trillion dollar debt? The danger of ignoring the largest crime-terrorist organization to get some phony deal with Iran? His web of deceit really has no ends.

We had 8 years of this threat-in-chief in the White House undermining government, weaponizing information and their politicization of every department. Now, he is worried about social media — very dangerous. Balkanization? Surely you are joking. That’s why he came out talking about dangers of our social media, to divert from his record.

And, by the way, all of those things well before Donald Trump ever appeared on the scene. Now all their fingers point to Trump. What hubris, deflection and deception. Now they need to have an investigation into Trump! Really, absurd.

Advertisements

Pelosi goes off along with the obnoxious left

WATCH: Unhinged Pelosi Claims Tax Bill ‘Does Violence’ To Vision Of Founding Fathers

“… it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

Daily Signal

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spewed utter nonsense on the House floor on Tuesday, hysterically claiming that the Republican’s tax plan “does violence to the vision of our Founders.”

Pelosi railed against Republican lawmakers in her speech, decrying the bill as a morally obscene “scam” designed to “install a permanent plutocracy.”

“This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it,” Pelosi said. “The GOP tax scam is not a vote for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation. They’ll be cheering that later. It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. It demands, it morally demands a no vote from every member of this house of the people.”

Earlier in her remarks, the pro-abortion Democrat pulled out the tried-and-true “think of the children” tactic and managed to connect it to Christmas.

“In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God,” Pelosi began. “We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them. We remember our duty to live justly. And for those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God’s children.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24888/watch-unhinged-pelosi-claims-tax-bill-does-ryan-saavedra

Fred Barnes writes, of the resistance, in the Weekly Standard: “Feeble Resistance”

Still, we’ve learned a bit from the resistance. Their policy views haven’t changed much. “Democrats are for jobs, but they’re against business,” Moore says. “They’re no longer a growth party, they’re a redistribution party.”

I don’t know if I’d even say they are for jobs. But they are certainly against business. Really, they are for politics and elections in particular. That’s what they care about. A tax cut? Not so much. Nothing personal but nothing gets in the way of their obsession with politics, not even an international terrorist-crime syndicate like Hezbollah can do that.

The fact that Pelosi has to call tax cuts violent tells us something. Calling it a tax scam, or trying to make their resistance as poisonous as possible, is their gig for successful politics. Start the fundraisers against tax cuts and for impeachment. That is their entire mid-term campaign.

But rest assured, there is always that bastion of world stability called the UN. (achem) Well, they vote to condemn our decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. So Nikki Haley gives them an ultimatum that we are watching and will remember. So for that, John Brennan rushes out on social media to condemn her message. Now having a memory is considered a “threat.”

Only to an Obama radical, remembering the damage done is a bad thing. We all could need full-frontal lobotomies to accomplish that. How can they write and glorify Obama’s legacy like a gift from on high while we are looking at the effects?

The real problem is not just Trump, to them, but all the people who voted for him. It was Nancy’s last part that took it right over the top, making resistance into a religious doctrine. ‘Save the people by opposing Trump on everything,’ is the message. She lost her credibility card by being in bed with Planned Parenthood. Now she lectures us on taking care of the children? A bit much even for my stomach.

So their rhetoric is high but their ethics and responsibility are not. They can oppose the American people who want to fix the problems, not create more of them. People wanted a wall, border enforcement and to grow America, instead of destroying and dividing it by every conceivable group. Dems want the latter.

Now if any of that seems or is offensive to you, well, you are probably right on the mark. It offends because it is meant to. All the left’s agenda drives the message of protest as the means — when elections and courts don’t yield the desired effects. From blocking roadways, to shutting down businesses, to tearing down statues, all are means to offend people. That is the point of it. They tell us that we must be made to feel uncomfortable, made to feel their ridicule. That, they say, is the motive for change.

When NFL players took a knee toward the national anthem and flag, we rightly called them out on it. We said it was offensive to the rest of the country, to the military, to the country at large. And they told us good, I’m glad you are, we want you to be. That’s why we are doing it, that is the point of protest and civil disobedience to disturb and make you feel uncomfortable. Until lots of Americans are offended then nothing changes.

So in that same spirit they carry the offensive objective into the halls of Congress. Resistance. Make no mistake, when it rolls out and hits you right in the face as outrageous and offends you, because that is their whole point. They want to inflame.

Is it any wonder then that it is almost impossible to deal with or work with them? No it isn’t and also why they are in a perpetual protest mode. They operate on the same M/O as terrorists do: to force a political objective, whether it is baking cakes, changing bathrooms, or removing statues, or removing displays, or violent protests, or defending corruption.

And if some of their policies also offend you even more when they are carried out? That’s all the better, it keeps you in the perpetually offended mode, awaiting their next demand. These are not just the collateral effects and consequences of the left, these are their very intentional means. But tax cuts are a violent attack on the founders?

Right Ring | Bullright

Holder calls for protests against Trump

Some things defy words. So here is Exhibit A of the resistance – opposition operation. First, Eric Holder claims to represent the vast majority of Americans.

Then he goes all in on resist and sedition.

Since when does Eric Holder “speak on behalf of the vast majority of Americans”??? Who elected Holder? NO ONE! Not a single person went to a poll and voted for him, much less elected him.

Yet he is organizing calling for protests against a sitting president. Former AG calls for protests? Are these elitists or what? Who are the people that take marching orders from Eric Holder? Obamfiles are radicals, pure radicals.

Open Letter to the Resistance

I know you people are fairly disagreeable by nature but allow me to explain a few things to you. You can accept them or not, at face value, but I really don’t give a shit.

You all seem to be in an even bigger stupor than normal lately as you follow all those sensational headlines that come out, one by one. Did you ever think this could be a tactic of choreography going on? Did you ever think maybe you are the fish falling for the bait, almost every time?

Well, of course you probably didn’t because as soon as that thought entered your gushy head, you succumbed to the “want to believe” doctrine. The same doctrine that led your brain cells over the last 8 years of Obama. Even despite evidence to the contrary, you “want to believe” it all true. And with the left, the law of perception rules supreme. If you want it to be true, it is. You must deny whatever contradicts that belief of yours.

But unlike all your hopes, Donald Trump really is still president and he is not going away. And remember those people who voted for him you claimed were a minority? Well, they are still here. We aren’t going away either. We didn’t change our minds, or make a mistake. We are quite happy and do not have any empathy for your resistance — which if you think about it is actually sedition. We are happy your perverse system is being disrupted.

Worse for you, we will still be here in the coming years and that means through the midterms you are giddy about, all the way to a crescendo of momentum in 2020. You see, you bought into a failing paradigm. We are actually the real “resistance”… to your deeps-state scum that is sucking the blood from our country.

So we are still resisting and bringing correction to this corrupt DC sewer you worshiped at the altar of for at least 8 years. I know, you don’t care about the effects of what you have done, or what your Messiah Obama did. But you should be concerned that it was all destroying the foundation of this country. No. All you care for is your twisted ideology.

Of course you ignored and/or denied that — the ideological dreams of your utopia were more important. It was not a utopia or right but you didn’t want to hear that. Your social justice is really a wet blanket of socialism that doesn’t work no matter how hard you try to ram it down our throats. Again, you don’t care. Your nanny-state desires are more important than life or the preservation of this country. So you actively work to destroy it, which you don’t care about anyway, in order to get what you want.

But your nanny-state also comes with a cost of the sewer sucking the oxygen from society. And it requires fuel. It gave birth to and marinated in corruption, now that your phase of politicization reached its peak. You love the politicization because it was radicalized like you and the leftist base. That feeds the beast. It doesn’t care about the consequences, only the agenda. The fruits of which are as toxic for freedom as it is for the health of the republic itself, though that doesn’t matter to you. In fact, you are willing to cover up all the evidence of corruption or seeds of sedition against America for your own selfish interests, to propel that agenda. And it is not even your noble pipe dreams and illusions you care about.

The real objective is, and always was, power and control of the people you use in your grist mill of politics. The plantation that grows and maintains this manure field is the machine used to propel its political abuse and malfeasance in its lust for power. This plantation utopia can never be satisfied, it isn’t meant to be. Its goal is the evolutionary destruction of the republic into a socialist state. That requires a fair amount of force to accomplish.

What better way to perpetuate that objective, force, than deceptively naming it something like resistance, which is a perversion of the word? If you are actively in a state of resistance against the democratically elected government, it is a state of sedition and insurrection. To be in resistance against the democracy you claim to care about — and rule of law — is to be actively working against America and the Americans who made their choice in the election. Immediately, you went into the persistent state of denial and “resistance” against the government and the people that elected it.

Though we were in dissent with your regime and policies in the last 8 years, we suffered through it. We did not organize all the institutions and embedded radicals against it. Ours was a real resistance not sedition — by any means necessary. Imagine what the press would have looked like over that? And we didn’t try to take power by means other than democratic election. We didn’t try to undermine it or prevent it from taking power. We did not radicalize an insurgency against it. We used the mechanisms of government itself and freedom of speech, peacefully, as the means. Though this was unsuccessful. Our success was in finally stopping that train of abuse in 2016.

Now all of you claim to be under the banner of Resistance, while you are actively opposing America. The fact that you don’t care only proves your loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution, but to an ideology which craves power for its means to success.

Our only option to your craving is to be in resistance ourselves. So once again, we are the real resistance. Without power, your progressive agenda is disrupted. That causes knots in your “by any means necessary” stomach. But the cravings to feed your addiction will not be satisfied in the near future. Your withdrawals will get ugly and violent, but we will not appease your demands. We will not surrender our will or the America you are actively opposing. Your sedition will be opposed. You will not have your way.

Right Ring | Bullright

It’s a strange swamp, Master Jack

We have now reached the point where I have to say that hearings on oversight of the DOJ and Mueller’s rogue operation can be called triggering. On both sides.

Yes, I said it. Dems prove they are triggered just having hearings of Rosenstein. I have my own problems with it that cause frustration and raise my anger to new levels. But Democrats were triggered even before the hearings.

Then Democrats question the fact that we have lost trust in the FBI in particular and the DOJ in general. But not really. They only claim the service of thousands of agents is noble and that, I suppose, we should appreciate their service. That is not the point.

If the entire agency is saddled with this ‘corrupted’ leadership, what good is all that? Seems it is a hard time for FBI and big-government liberals who usually defend it. The problem is this rotting stench coming from the top of the agency diminishes their ‘professional’ service.

We are in strange times. What better illustration of the times than this.

Crazy is Democrats using basic anti-discrimination policy to defend blatant political discrimination and bias within a government agency. They seem to want to give a pass to the political bias that has been exposed in DOJ and the investigations of Trump and Hillary. But the bias only goes one way.

So if anti-discrimination policy can now be used for the very reason to be biased and discriminate, we are in a strange place. But they did almost the same thing with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Radicals and Deep State bureaucrats don’t just wear their biases on their sleeve for all to see, but now they want to use political bias as the justification.

Being triggered like Dems are, especially at the loss of the election and Trump’s victory, they are expected to use the full weight of their bias against the president and his administration. In short, that is what they are there for and what their bias is for. Then they use the bias for what they did as the defense for what they did. Political motives rule.

In that light, I guess hearings about such topics and agenda could be triggering. The culture of bias at the top taints all else, because it is meant to. So don’t worry about Mueller’s investigation being corrupted, it was created by and a byproduct of political corruption.

Right Ring | Bullright

The whackos are whacked

Probably one thing makes me madder than anything else lately. (well I chuckle I don’t waste too much anger) It’s one constant, old theme.

Are you ready? It’s the left and Democrats telling us some things transcend party. Then there is Jones in Alabama saying time to put state ahead of politics. I think I heard Pelosi and Franken use that line. Pretty sad. Anytime they tell you something is over or above politics, laugh at them.

It joins a familiar refrain I see on social media, like this profile: “Independent moderate. Do not cater to either party.” So you go down their list and see all the hard left stuff they post or like. But non-partisan? Nothing can be further from the truth. Why bother lying?

Moderate is the new code word for liberal and proud of it, or progressive activist. Why they all have to try to keep the lie alive, I don’t know. I mean it gets old. So someone tells you they’re a moderate. They aren’t, they are a card carrying Bernie socialist.

Therein is the game: paint all progressive hard-left policies, and the supporters, as the middle of the road “mainstream.” (another word that irritates me) Enough with the anger purge. I feel so much better.

The political marketplace: weaponizing business

Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.

You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:

(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”

“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.

Back to the M/O

But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.

It has had some success I won’t bother to list.

So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.

Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.

First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.

You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.

However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.

Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.

Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.

Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.

Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.

Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.

Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.

Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.

Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.

Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.

By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.

But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.

“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.

The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.

From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?

That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.

Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.

My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?

I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.

Right Ring | Bullright

De Blasio: private property is the problem

Socialist NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Admits In Interview He Wants To Abolish Private Property

American Lookout

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls himself a Democrat but he’s really a Socialist. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, he admitted that he wants to get rid of private property.

Take a look at this:

In 2013, you ran on reducing income inequality. Where has it been hardest to make progress? Wages, housing, schools?

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.

I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development…

Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents.

Perhaps the Mayor could lead by example and give up all of his private property first.

Original see

But no, I disagree: De Blasio is not some kind of socialist, he’s a commie.

Tweet of the Weak

For what it’s worth, I’ll call this one the tweet of the week.

How many things are wrong with this? Is Trump-led the worst part or is the “sad elaboration of consequences”? Or is it the fact it comes from Susan Rice?

I guess in her retirement there are no Sunday talk circuits demanding her continuous lies. She’s apparently now bored. Well, it is so hard from her perch to revise history in real time. But that won’t stop her from trying.

What or who made all these Obama failures the certified experts now? It defies reason.

Good old Uncle Joe and Commie revival

Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem.

Jarrett Stepman / November 03, 2017 | Daily Signal

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, but it didn’t end the ongoing battle of ideas between liberty and collectivism.

A recently released survey by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation revealed some disturbing facts about what millennials think of communism and socialism.

Some of the results are a little disturbing and could have big implications for the future of our country.

For instance, the poll found that about half of millennials said they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism.

The poll also found that nearly 1 in 5 millennials think Josef Stalin was a “hero.”

“Millennials now make up the largest generation in America, and we’re seeing some deeply worrisome trends,” said Marion Smith, executive director for the Victims of Communism, according to MarketWatch. “Millennials are increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

The findings of this study should be a wake-up call to those who think that communism is no longer a threat to the United States and the West. Young people, who had little personal experience with the half-century battle between Soviet tyranny and American freedom.

It is a sad indictment on a generation that grew up with more prosperity than any in human history would turn on the system that brought them there. Alas, socialism appears to be the opiate of prosperous utopians.

Perhaps in the decades of unchallenged international supremacy, Americans let their guards down to real threats to our way of life. We were lulled into a false sense of security about our future and have now fallen into the trap of bringing back dangerous doctrines that we have had the good fortune to escape.

Yet, apologies and even wistful nostalgia for the high tide of communist revolution are being peddled in the pages of mainstream liberal outlets like The New York Times.

…./

Read on http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/03/millennials-clueless-communism-heres-thats-problem/

And weep for this country. Then pray, pray and pray some more that we never fall for this opiate of the past — only to have to kill it again. Here is some food for thought.

Many years back I engaged leftists who would mock any talk of the idea that Marxism and communism was living large among the left. They would scoff saying that is long gone and that we are fighting an ancient war that ended years ago. To believe that is like denying Obamacare passed. You cannot believe them even when trying to lecture you about communism. A Democrat socialist nearly won the nomination. Who are you going to believe? All just to get you to put your guard down.

Coming Insurrection: BLM to Antifa

What me worry? It is not that I worry much about leftists protests, Marxists have been running this scam for a long time. What disturbs me more is the faux religious tone of some Christian clergy getting involved, (I’ve grown accustomed to the face) not just supporting but promoting it. Then there is the evolving names of the left. When one name gets soiled, just choose another. But it’s the same thing.

So just follow any search for refuse fascism and you’ll find the org, the links and the clergy involved. I will note this time at least they are supposedly only using the church names for “identification purposes.” That means they are not directly saying the church endorses the movement. (though implied) I doubt feds or IRS will be investigating their tax status.

From a leading organizer of the movement:

Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany, Los Angeles
“…There is only one way way for us to bring justice and tolerance back to our national life: To hit the streets to demand the removal of this regime on November 4. We are all coming out into the steeets, people of faith, people of conscience, and we are going to stay there until this regime is removed…”

Here’s a snippet of what they say in their long appeal, reading like Luther’s theses, except that they are opposing the Trump administration. All in the name of “Humanity”.

In spite of what many on the religious right are claiming, we know that the politics of division, violence and intimidation that are being employed by the Trump/Pence regime do not represent the heart and soul of what our religious traditions teach. Our traditions insist that we are keepers of the vineyard who have a responsibility to care for this world and its inhabitants. Justice is not peripheral to our identity as religious people; it defines the very core of who we are called by our traditions to be.

Their Justice train is a little late. The proud who’s who in the movement:

National Faith Task Force for Nov 4 (initial): Rev. Frank Wulf, Pastor-in-Charge, Echo Park United Methodist Church; Ernestine Henning, Supervisor (ret.) AME Church; Rev. Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany; Isabel Cardenas, Salvadoran-American activist, co-initiator of Refuse Fascism; Rev. Frank Alton, Provost, Cathedral Center of St. Paul; Ted Jennings, Professor of Biblical and Constructive Theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary; Father Bob Bossie, SCJ; Rev. Taigen Dan Leighton Ph.D., Soto Zen Buddhist priest and Dharma teacher; Rabbi Michael Davis; Fr. Richard Estrada, Church of the Epiphany, Cornel West, Fr. Luis Barrios, Holyrood Episcopal Church, Jon Nathen Wurzel, Atonement Lutheran Church, Lyda Eddington, Pastor, La Tijera United Methodist Church, Sara Lee MacDonald, Communications Director, St. Peter’s Santa Maria Episcopal Church, Rabbi Michael Pollack, March on Harrisburg, Patricia Capers, New Paltz, Shawn Anthony Ward, Luis Harris, Jerry Rivers, The Vineyard Church, Rev. Jim VanderWeele, Northlake Unitarian Universalist Church, D.I.V.A.S Ministry Group ~ (affiliations for identification purposes only)

But then it won’t be long, depending on the endurance of the protests that more churches, clergy are added. And they more actively promote the movement to Christian flocks. So my issue is not as much with the predictable left doing what they do; but once again at clergy for following suit like puppy dogs. Spinoff of Antifa complete. The name was smeared. Make it a little more palatable, refuse fascism.

Congrats, clergy, for identifying more with insurrection than resurrection.

 

Allow me to take the liberty to summarize a message for them:

‘We are first-class religious Hypocrites. We lecture against meddling in electing a president; but run one out of office, or impeach one? You bet! We’re all about that.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Lights Out

The dimwitted left has lost whatever small piece of its mind that may have remained. Now they attack General Kelly and the ‘Empty Barrel’ called that name racist.

It ain’t working! Ha, Planned Parenthood issued a statement that they stand with black women and the black community. There’s an endorsement of culture for you.

So former presidents(Stripes) are having a fundraiser at Texas A&M, excuding Trump. Well, bite my asparagus! That’s bad? Exactly why we elected him.

“Deep from the Heart: The One America Appeal” is part of an effort launched last month by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom are scheduled to attend the concert Saturday.

Their thousand points of light have gone dark. All more of a political appeal.

But their incessant, incestuous lectures continue against voters and we the people?

Planned Parenthood lets us know they are still in business: (from Planet Absurd)

‘Human Rights! Human Rights is the goal! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Just in case there was any flicker of light left, PP makes sure to snuff it out.

Micro macro targeting the opposition

Why does the radical left often appear to gain more, faster ground than the right on issues? Well, again, it may have something to do with Alinsky tactics.

Rules for Radicals: rule #12

““Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

I’m not saying they are more successful as a rule. However, it does seem like the right is constantly caught up in attacking institutions, if by their nature, Yet we know the root of it is the Marxist people. Not like you can go through liberal academia one by one, that would be exhausting. We have. So we focus on the institution they’ve corrupted.

We focus on areas of government they’ve corrupted. But we did have the perfect match with Obama in office — even Holder, Lynch, Rice and Hillary. And guess what? We were told those attacks were off limits, or racist. Republicans frowned on those claiming they did not want it to be personal. Why not though? We ceded the perfect weapon and target. It was successful when they finally held Holder in Contempt.

But we do need to make constant personal examples within the institution. Think about this flag controversy. When we made it about the flag, that was a win, and we used Kaepernick as its poster boy, we saw much more success. Notice how everything the left does is personalized at Trump, even when it doesn’t apply.

Name it and shame it can work. I’ve realized just because Leftists have no shame doesn’t matter. It’s the people who see it who matter. If we concentrate on leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, et al, we are getting more bang for the buck, especially when the Left is also thinking of replacing them. Whenever they stick their heads up we should be zooming in on the opportunity to personalize it.

The same must apply to the RINOs in congress. If they get isolated, they feel it. Sure as heck, those like Corker are going to feel it from home. He can’t even run again. But if he is going scorched earth, then his record and pending scandals are fair game too.

Whether it is tax policy or Obamacare, we have a plethora of personal examples. Just what the left doesn’t want to talk about, real people affected by policy. Besides, the left going after Trump on everything is a tad bit old and stale. Another rule applies there. Rule #7:

““A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.”

At some point even Trump attacks get old. Media can’t keep them alive on life support. Think of how many things Obama just waited out, scandal after scandal, till finally nothing was done. Remember he called it old news when we never got any answers?

Right Ring | Bullright

Means of dissent

Whether consciously among most leftists or not, the idea is that many people all have disagreements and that those individual disagreements can then be harnessed, united and directed, symbolically, at the flag and Anthem. America itself can be the object of individual disagreements under a big tent. (in reverse of unification theory) That big tent often becomes the Democrat party. So people can loosely unify against the flag.

This is evidenced in the NFL protest and all those being sympathetic in some way to it, even including the owners. They parlayed it into a vehicle for generic hatred of Trump, or protest of him. And racism or oppression. The individual issues or disagreements don’t seem to matter, as long as collectively focused or that they march together.

Disagreement to disdain

Why can they unite on a platform of dissent so easily but not uni formally under the flag? Disagreements. They say that they don’t feel united under the flag, or feel left out, or don’t like our policies etc. Even if much of the discontent is a product of what they are doing.

Everyone may have their different disagreements, powerful as they are, with issues or policies or traditions, yet all can sort of agree in protest as a loose-knit group of discontents. That dissent can then be channeled or directed at America. Dissent breeds disdain. And those who are not predisposed to have much affinity for that American flag, America, have no problem transferring their animosity onto the flag. In the end, the source of animosity is often not as important as what it is directed at. The gestalt of the protest reigns supreme.

You see, it amounts to using the freedom of speech to protest the very guarantor of it. This is a radical perversion directed at America’s foundation. Freedom of press, or the first amendment, can be used to solidify dissent against America. That is something Marx and Engels understood well. It does not take a majority to succeed in undermining America.

Protesters and discontents can stand on their freedom to do it, but what of its use?
Does what you do with something not matter at all — but only your right to do it?

It should sound familiar: the ends justify the means. Just like the slogan of the Trump Resistance movement is resist “by any means necessary.” Outcome is all that matters.

On the plus upside: at least one ESPN host is “tired of it,” Stephen A. Smith. Score.
And Ravens’ Anthem singer resigned, a vet, saying to ‘go where you’re welcomed.’

Cost of NFL’s anti-America protest — fans and NFL sponsors.
Cost of American freedom — eternal vigilance.

Right Ring | Bullright

Defining dissent in the kneeling protest

I’m trying to get a grip on this Anthem, flag protest attitude, so I’ll give it a whirl.

The “protesters” are evidently the type of people with an attitude that look around at the current conditions or circumstances in the country to decide if they approve of America, based on satisfaction. Then of course they can’t bring their resentful hearts to respecting the flag or Anthem. The whole America concept is tainted by their disagreements.

It goes hand in hand with identity politics that everything — including your judgement — is based on your own identity. And that is why identity politics are so divisive. By contrast, only if you are satisfied with everything can you support the Anthem or flag. That’s the synopsis of their view. Who could be happy about everything they see? It becomes a false flag; and so dissatisfaction becomes a convenient straw man for American dissent.

If everything is based on your current condition or circumstances, as you see and interpret them, then it is subjective to each person. The old saying is “you can’t please all the people all the time.” – John Lydgate

“You can satisfy some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot satisfy all of the people all the time” ― John Lydgate

Dissent has been turned into an art form.
Enter the Colin Kaepernick kool-aid brigade. 🙃

Right Ring | Bullright

Mayor Carmen Cruz the terrorist supporter

Well, that didn’t take long. The lamestream media made an instant hero out of the San Juan mayor, to oppose Trump. Now they’re entwined with the terrorist supporter.

BUSTED: Anti-Trump Puerto Rican Mayor Supported Terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera

Got News – Sep 30, 2017

Carmen Yulin Cruz, the anti-Trump Mayor of San Juan who has used the national spotlight of Hurricane Maria to attack Trump, has a long history of supporting convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican radical who ran a paramilitary group that waged war against the United States.

Since May 29th, 2012, Cruz has used her official Twitter account 49 times to lend support to Lopez, a man arrested by the United States government in May of 1981 for seditious conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to transport explosives to destroy government property, among other charges. Later that year, Lopez was sentenced to 55 years in jail for his various crimes.

Moreover, it appears Cruz is more than just a supporter of Rivera’s; she appears to be a personal friend of his. On May 29th, 2016, Cruz posted a tribute to Rivera, and wrote “for a great friend, a great patriot: for you Oscar Lopez Rivera.” …/

Read http://gotnews.com/busted-anti-trump-puerto-rican-mayor-supported-terrorist-oscar-lopez-rivera/

Maybe she should drop the Resistance program and concentrate on the assistance.

CNN gets dose of Anthem reality

CNN’s David Axelrod does an interview with James Baker and jumps on the flag National Anthem protest ‘controversy'(everything is a controversy to CNN). But he doesn’t get the answer they wanted.

“There are plenty of ways that you can, that you can call into question some of the racism that may still exist in this country, but that’s the wrong way to do it,” Baker said, adding that being American used to be “the one thing” that unified people.

“You can’t tell me that not standing up for the National Anthem with your hand over your heart is not denigrating to the National Anthem or the flag… it is,” Baker told Axelrod.”

Right, don’t try to tell us this is not a disrespectful protest of the flag, National Anthem or America. Bozos. Now the left is too damn dumb to know what American dissent looks like. They just pretend it isn’t anti-America.

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician.

What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith is deep and authentic,” gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, “and it informs her work as a senator.” How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone’s faith is “authentic?”

We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, “a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade.”

Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man.

This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. …/

Read more https://www.billoreilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html

 
Of course O’Reilly is spot on. I would just add that if she is devout, then it is in practicing at Bernie Sanders’ Tabernacle of Revolution. Why would they choose her sect over — or in place of — Bernie’s in 2020? They’ve already seen the fruits of his. Or maybe Bernie can be high priest and Elizabeth can be the high priestess on a ticket?

Media’s promotion of her faux Christian credentials would “require the willing suspension of disbelief” by the congregants. It’s serving the church of politics. That’s what they do.

Remember how media built up Obama’s Christian cred or how they promoted Hillary’s devout, deeply-rooted Christian beliefs? Planned Parenthood didn’t buy it. That’s what they do — hoping to divide Christians in preparation for slaughter at the ballot box.

However, immediately after election media and the candidates go back to sneering and mocking Christians and Christianity. But that is the very thing we were warned about.

Though in both Obama’s and Hillary’s case, their mentors were theologians of Marx. A dead giveaway. Yet the media got away with selling it as ‘pure as the driven wool.’

Obama studied under Rev Wright’s Liberation (Marxist) Theology, etc. Hillary’s youth minister sent her down the path of socialist activism. Warren brandishes a King James version while claiming to be a nasty, nasty woman of the occupy movement. Money changers anyone? All swear to a blood pact on the altar of abortion. Christian leaders?

So why not? These days progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, operate more like a religious cult. It is no wonder the Left would apply many of their policies as, and with, the piety of a religious sect now.

 

References: Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, Luke 21:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

Orwellian Antifa in perspective

An op-ed describes the proper perspective of Antifa terrorists running rampant across America. From American Majority. Orwellian.

Op-Ed: The real threat to our republic is the Orwellian Antifa

August 30, 2017 — By Ned Ryun — in The Hill

Over the past few months, we have finally entered the fully realized historical revisionism promised in George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the motto, “Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future,” was central to shaping the book’s dystopian world. In the book, history was continually being rewritten and re-promulgated to meet the political necessities of the moment. There was no history to be remembered, let alone lessons to be learned.

For all the talk of Trumpian bluster or exaggeration, there is only one group that seeks to systematically and violently achieve its goals here in the United States on a broad scale: the so-called “anti-fascist” movement, now commonly called “Antifa.” And the goal? It’s not “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist” as they attempt to portray themselves. It’s the systematic elimination of free speech, free assembly, and free thought via any means necessary, including violent protest, the media and Orwellian revisionism.

It is the imposition of a perverse type of intolerance based on Marxist and Chinese communist values that, it turns out, is far more welcome and pervasive within the Democrat Party of Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) than neo-Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists are in the Republican Party. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, who shot Rep. Steve Scalise and four others in Alexandria was a habitual Antifa website visitor and advocate and Sanders volunteer. Even Democrat vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) son has been identified as an Antifa activist.

Yet, the media would have us believe that it is the white supremacist movement that is the real threat to our republic. Consider that most media estimates put the Antifa movement, largely built out of the “Occupy” movement of 2008-2010, at more than 200,000 members. The Southern Poverty Law Center, on the other hand, puts the number of Klu Klux Klan members at about 6,000 KKK …in a country of almost 330 million. But actions speak volumes compared to mere numbers.

The vandalized statue of Christopher Columbus? Antifa. The statue torn down in Durham, N.C.? Antifa. The violence in Charlottesville? Antifa. The violence in Seattle? Antifa. Not excusing the vile nature of the white supremacist protest, but it was a licensed march that remained comparatively nonviolent, albeit troubling, until, as one eyewitness described it, “It started raining balloons filled with urine, feces, paint, burning chemicals & boards with nails driven into them.” …/

Read the entire op-ed: The Hill

Source: American Majority https://americanmajority.org/blog-2/op-ed-the-real-threat-to-our-republic-is-the-orwellian-antifa/