01/12/21

Parler Sues Amazon

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

There are 3 counts in the lawsuit where a temporary restraining order is demanded so that Parler can restore their network.

Count One: Sherman Act, Section 1

AWS is prohibited from contracting or conspiring to restrain trade or commerce.

Count Two: Breach of Contract

AWS breached its contract with Parler by not providing thirty days’ notice before terminating its account.

Count Three: Tortious Interference with a Contract or Business

Expectancy By terminating Parler’s account, AWS will intentionally interfere with the contracts Parler has with millions of its present users, as well as with the users it is projected to gain this week.

The lawsuit is found here.

Parler received more than three-quarters of a million downloads between last Wednesday when a mob stormed the United States Capitol and Sunday when the app was suspended.

And as of Monday:

Face­book Inc. said Mon­day it is re­mov­ing all con­tent men­tion­ing “Stop the Steal,” a phrase pop­u­lar among sup­port­ers of Pres­i­dent Trump’s claims about the elec­tion, as part of a raft of emer­gency mea­sures to stem mis­in­for­ma­tion and in­cite­ments to vi­o­lence on its plat­form in the lead up to Pres­i­dent-elect Joe Biden’s in­au­gu­ra­tion. More censorship…Stop the Steal is hardly violent speech in a public forum.

The logical question now is will Twitter and Facebook or Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram come clean about what was planned and coordinated on their platforms? Facebook owns WhatsApp, Telegram is owned by 2 Russians based in Germany, and Signal was developed by the Signal Foundation and Signal Messenger LLC Whisper, in which Jack Dorsey invested.

Per Wikipedia with footnotes: Signal was reportedly popularized in the United States during the George Floyd protests. As U.S. protests gained momentum, on June 3, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted a recommendation for users to download Signal Messenger.[70] Heightened awareness of police monitoring led protesters to use the app to communicate. Black Lives Matter organizers had used the app “for several years”.[71][44] During the first week of June, the encrypted messaging app was downloaded over five times more than it had been during the week prior to the death of George Floyd.[71] In June 2020, Signal Foundation announced a new feature that enables users to blur faces in photos, in response to increased federal efforts to monitor protesters.[44][72]

Read that? Dorsey endorsed the protests and encouraged the protestors to use Signal…..blur faces? WTH?

How about this one just a few days ago?

Terror and Big Tech

How many protests were plotted and launched on big tech platforms and yet AWS targets Parler? Oh, the irony…. maybe just maybe… there should be a counter-suit against big tech or by Parler.

How about we just exposing facts… this lil’ website and author is trying… can you help?

ABC reported:

A few weeks ago, several members of President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team set up a Zoom meeting with senior members of the Anti-Defamation League, the group that studies and tracks hate crimes, to hear recommendations for fighting domestic terrorism and right-wing extremism.

The weighty meeting, focused on one of the most complex threats facing America today, was initiated in the simplest of ways: The ADL requested a meeting through a form on Biden’s transition team website.

“I find it remarkable that … [they] are taking substantive time to meet with advocacy organizations like ours,” said ADL senior adviser George Selim, who participated in the meeting.

“What it says is that this issue is a priority for the incoming administration,” added Selim, one of the Department of Homeland Security’s top experts on domestic terrorism until he was sidelined in the early days of the Trump administration.

But even if such threats are a priority for the incoming team, transition officials acknowledge that when they take charge of the federal government in three weeks, the recent promise Biden made to “shut down violence and hate” will face significant challenges.

In fact, as part of its tone in recent years, the Trump administration has “chosen to defy the data” on domestic threats by publicly focusing on left-wing radical groups like Antifa, instead of white supremacists and anti-government ideologues “that the data show are much more prone to pushing people toward violence,” the former Homeland Security official said.

The majority of domestic terrorism investigations are focused on racially-motivated individuals, and white supremacists are “the biggest chunk of that,” Wray, the FBI director, told lawmakers in September. More here.

The progressives all dismiss the destruction and fear across America that began in Minneapolis and went on to major cities across the country by ANTIFA and BLM… that Wendy’s in Atlanta?

Atlanta protests after Wendy's shooting of Rayshard Brooks ...

Remember? The jewel of the south, Atlanta has yet to recover. Was all that coordinated on Facebook or Twitter? Inquiring minds want to know.

01/12/21

Procedures for the 25th Amendment

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Democrats are moving forward with trying to remove President Donald Trump from office days after he allegedly incited violent riots at the Capitol.

Pelosi told her members in a letter that the House would attempt to pass a measure Monday to call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office. If he does not act, Democrats will proceed with impeaching Trump.

“In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both,” she wrote.

Many so-called Trump supporters inside and outside government have called on Trump to resign to save and rebuild the government, transfer power peacefully, and restore confidence in the Republican Party.

 

Pelosi introduces legislation for 25th Amendment ...

Some questions and answers about the 25th Amendment:

WHY WAS IT PASSED?

The push for an amendment detailing presidential succession plans in the event of a president’s disability or death followed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. President Lyndon B. Johnson in his 1965 State of the Union promised to “propose laws to insure the necessary continuity of leadership should the President become disabled or die.” The amendment was passed by Congress that year and ratified in 1967.

HAS THE 25TH AMENDMENT BEEN INVOKED BEFORE?

Yes, presidents have temporarily given up power, but those instances have been generally been brief and voluntary, for example when the president was having a medical procedure.

In 2002, President George W. Bush became the first to use the amendment’s Section 3 to temporarily transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney while Bush was anesthetized for a colonoscopy. Section 4 of the amendment, which allow the Cabinet to declare the president unfit, has never been invoked.


HOW CAN THE CABINET DECLARE THE PRESIDENT UNFIT?

The 25th Amendment’s Section 4 lays out what happens if the president becomes unable to discharge his duties but doesn’t transfer power to the vice president himself.

The vice president and majority of the Cabinet can declare the president unfit. They then would send a letter to the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate saying so. The vice president then becomes acting president.

The president can send his own letter saying he is fit to serve. But if the vice president and majority of the Cabinet disagree, they can send another letter to Congress within four days. Congress would then have to vote. The president resumes his duties unless both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote say the president is not ready.

ISN’T THERE SOME OTHER LEGISLATION ABOUT THIS?

Section 4 of the amendment also gives Congress the power to establish a “body” that can, with the support of the vice president, declare that the president is unable to do the job. If they agree the president is unfit, the vice president would take over. But Congress has never set up the body.

01/12/21

Impeachment 2.0

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

195 lawmakers cosponsor articles of impeachment of President Trump.

Congressman Ted Lieu

Meanwhile, legal expert Jonathan Turley who is a Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University has this summary to offer Congress:

The author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this. Guilt is never to be doubted.” Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends.

Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.

When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”

These kinds of legal challenges have been made by Democrats in the past under the Electoral Count Act, and so Trump was pressing Republicans in Congress to join the effort on his behalf. He ended his remarks by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to provide Republicans “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He told the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Moreover, marches are common across the country to protest actions by the government.

The legal standard for violent speech is found with Clarence Brandenburg versus Ohio. As a free speech advocate, I criticized that 1969 case and its dangerously vague standard. But even it would treat the remarks of Trump as protected under the First Amendment. With that case, the government is able to criminalize speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.

So Congress is now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president blamed for violent acts of others after using reckless language. What is worse are those few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke against the draft in World War One and led figures like Woodrow Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.” Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, a new favorite term for Democrats to denounce Trump and Republicans who doubted the victory of Joe Biden.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. It dismissed the free speech rights for Debs and held it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the international conflict.

That decision was a disgrace, but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.

Democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own remarks given new meaning from critics. Conservatives have pointed to Maxine Waters asking her supporters to confront Republicans in restaurants, while Ayanna Pressley insisted amidst the violent marches last year that “there needs to be unrest in the streets,” and Kamala Harris said “protesters should not let up” even as some of those marches turned violent. They can legitimately argue their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this standard is filled with subjectivity.

The damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous, however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very threat that the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process of deliberative judgment, the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated. This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters.

01/11/21

Pearl-Clutchers on Parade

By: Joan Swirsky | Canada Free Press

Pearl-Clutchers on ParadeTime to get out the ledger.

On the left––literally––we have had nearly eight months of rampaging criminality and violence in the many Democrat-controlled cities in our country, all conducted by thugs belonging to groups called Black Lives Matter and Antifa. This is the shortlist of what they have done:

  • Committed widespread arson, including burning down hundreds of minority-owned businesses in the Latino, Asian and black communities (the black owners clearly didn’t matter);
  • Incinerated cars and burned down buildings, courthouses, police stations, et al;
  • Shot laser beams in the eyes of policemen;
  • Assaulted civilians, resulting in 30 deaths and thousands of hospitalizations;
  • Smashed plate-glass windows of numerous businesses, both large and small, and then engaged in looting, stealing, and grand theft;
  • Terrorized and then dragged people out of restaurants;
  • Tore down historic statues, including those of black icons (duh);
  • Defaced streets and avenues with BLM’s block-long, block-lettered, yellow-painted name.
  • Terrorized the citizenry of entire neighborhoods and towns for months on end;
  • Attacked people in locked cars;

  • In all those eight months––220 days, over 5,000 hours––what was the reaction of Democrats, both elected and civilian?

    A thunderous silence. Not a word of opprobrium or disapproval or condemnation. Not. One. Word.

    WHY?

    Who's To Blame For The Violence

     

    Because, as the esteemed Daniel Greenfield points out, Democrats heartily approve of violent acting-out riots ––as long as they support Democrat ideology! In 2018, he reminds us, there were “glowing stories” about the hundreds of Women’s March members who were engaging in “direct action” to disrupt the Senate’s Kavanaugh hearings. They blocked hallways, shouted down Senate members, and draped protest banners from balconies. Democrats cheered them on.

    “In 2020,” Greenfield continues. “Black Lives Matter rioters vandalized the Lincoln Memorial and the WW2 Memorial, along with statues of Gandhi, General Kosciuszko, and Andrew Jackson. And Democrat House members proposed bills to protect the racist mobs from law enforcement.

    “Meanwhile the BLM mob besieged the White House and battled Secret Service personnel, allegedly forcing the evacuation of President Trump and his family to a bunker. And a bail fund backed by Senator Kamala Harris and the Biden campaign staffers focused on helping the rioters and looters get out of prison.

    “Now, as the Democrats expect to take power,” Greenfield writes, “they suddenly decided that rioting is bad.”

    And let’s not forget that it was only last summer that Kalamity Harris encouraged her supporters to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to provide bail money to the militant anarchists facing charges for setting fire to Minneapolis.

    But don’t tell these things to Democrats who observed 55,000 hours of BLM and Antifa destruction with nary a critical word but watched the 4-5 hour incursion into the U.S. Congress on January 6th and could only wring their hands, clutch their pearls, gasp in horror and exclaim: the building, the building, the history, the sanctity, the inviolability!

    Tolerant, Peaceful Democrats

    BACK TO THE LEDGER

    On the right––literally––you have a president who has been conducting dozens of rallies over the past four years with jaw-dropping attendance. The “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6th was estimated to have about 150,000 attendees––with no untoward incident, upheaval, or arrest until the Capitol was breached. Back to this later.

    Before this rally, the president chalked up accomplishments that made America safer, stronger, and richer. But because he repudiated both the paltry achievements and political philosophies of all his predecessors and the corrupt shills they left behind in the swamps of D.C., and because he had access to their indictable criminality, he became the biggest threat to the political establishment that ever existed. That said, President Trump:

    • Lowered taxes (which Democrats hate and never vote for);
    • Boosted the economy to all-time highs (which Democrats hate, which is why they vote for socialists);
    • Elevated black employment to an all-time high (which Democrats really hate, the reason why blacks have never risen during Democrat rule);
    • Strengthened our military (which Democrats hate since they loathe the military);
    • Signed the first law ever to make cruelty to animals a federal felony;
    • Signed Right-To-Try legislation allowing terminally ill patients to try an experimental treatment that wasn’t allowed before.
    • Signed the First-Step Act prison-reform bill that frees mostly black prisoners from unfair sentences.
    • Supported and strengthened Israel by moving her capital to Jerusalem, giving Israel control over the Golan Heights, establishing peace treaties with the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Morocco, Bahrain, and several to follow (which will never happen under Biden since his first priority is resurrecting the genocidal-to-Israel Iran deal––which Pres. Trump canceled––which the mullahs have oft-stated is necessary for them to fulfill their Number One goal––to eradicate Israel forever! Yet Democrats, including Jewish Democrats, support a candidate who wants to revive this deal, partly because their poor hearts bleed for the people who call themselves Palestinians….you know, the people who routinely strap suicide bombs on three-year-old toddlers and celebrate the death of Jews with streets named after the murderers and lifelong pensions).
    • Supported the pro-life movement, which the Democrats hate more than anything, given their devotion to abortions. In NY, the entire Democrat legislature stood and applauded when they allowed abortion up to the moment of birth! Not to be outdone by the Democrat Governor of VA, Ralph Northam, M.D., who signed a law that allows infanticide after the baby is born!
    • Here are some of President Trump’s other staggering achievements for the American people.

SO WHAT WAS THIS COUP ALL ABOUT?

On November 3, 2020, the presidential election was held. Routinely, polls close at about 7 or 8 p.m., the votes are tallied electronically, and the Democrat operatives who pose as TV reporters start calling states as early as 9 or 10 p.m., with the final result usually not known until noon or so the next day.

On November 3rd, the entire world––which follows American elections assiduously––witnessed something unprecedented in the history of American voting. Just as President Trump was winning a huge number of states––and electoral votes––and appeared to be winning most or all of the six battleground states by a landslide, the tallying stopped abruptly. And it didn’t start again. Not for an hour. Not for two hours. Not for three hours. After three hours it did start again, and the whole world saw actual MAGIC befitting David Blaine, even Harry Houdini!

All of sudden, Joe Biden magically gained hundreds of thousands of votes, ultimately enough to win the election. This in spite of a Mt. Everest of reports of massive voter fraud into the multimillions, including (this is the shortlist):

All were strangely rejected by American courts––the same courts that believe traffic violations deserve their attention––but apparently not presidential voter fraud! Umm…does anyone else smell the rat I do?

As a final tribute to the outgoing president, a huge throng traveled to Washington, D.C. the other day to hear him speak and cheer him on. His entire speech was a rehash of the voting fiasco and an exhortation to protest peacefully the choosing of electors––and not the fomenting of violence that the corrupt media drones on about. Read the speech here.

Then, as if choreographed by George Ballanchine, a group of rally attendees marched across the street to the U.S. Congress to try to delay Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote. Who were they?

According to unassailable reporter Paul Sperry, a former FBI agent on the ground in Washington D.C “texted me and confirmed that at least 1 ‘bus load’ of Antifa thugs infiltrated peaceful Trump demonstrators as part of a false flag op.” Mmmmmm.

To compound this allegation, we then see that the Capitol policemen actually opened the doors to the protestors and invited them inside. Who authorized this? You can watch the whole thing here.

Of course, the Democrats and their acolytes who have been hounding the president for five years, besieging him with false accusations, dragging the entire country through their “show trial” hoaxes (of Russian collusion, Ukraine, Stormy Daniels, Impeachment, et al), topped off this false-flag operation with demands that he resign immediately. And in the predictable behavior of all fascists, the social media outlets run by the globalists among us––Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Shopify, Snapchat, on and on––cut off his ability to communicate with the American people. Starting to smell the same rat?

Yet life goes on. President Trump will leave office as a man of monumental accomplishments and tremendous esteem from more than the 75-million people who voted for him. If he starts a third political party, there is no counting the numbers of conservatives, moderates, blacks, Hispanics, and women who will jump eagerly on board. If he starts a media company, Americans will have their first taste in years of genuinely unbiased news. And if he and Melania––who served America so gracefully and effectively these past four years––decide to go back to their old life, every one of their admirers will wish them only abundant health and great happiness.

Americans, unfortunately, will have to endure an Obama-redux regime. But America is strong and we will weather this debacle as we did the two failed terms of Obama, all the time hoping for the appearance of another peerless populist president like Donald J. Trump.

01/11/21

Biden Inauguration Donors

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

It is a cyberwar of a financial order… against America.

Let’s begin here with Section 230, shall we? Full immunity… and never amended. Just how decent is big tech? Well on the heels of Alphabet, the parent company of Google giving exclusive assistance to then-candidate Hillary Clinton and later as we find out that all big tech uses our data, which we are forced to approve is their terms of service as we are users, while they make big money off of us. Then we find out the conspiracy and collusion between all big tech operations against little and new Parler, as well as thousands of other websites as competitors. Big tech is more powerful than the federal government.

Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.[a] Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

There has been hearing after hearing on The Hill in many committees where the CEO’s of big tech are called out for their abuses and they simply defer to feeble apologies or blame algorithmic operations. As President Trump worked diligently to stop or amend Section 230….it ever happened at the congressional level…reading on, perhaps we know why…

Big Tech, Media, Fashion Exec.s Seek to Blackmail Pro-Life ...

Donations and donations and more donations.

Big tech colludes to protect Biden - Advance Australia

Even Australia gets-it.

TheBlaze reports: The Biden Inaugural Committee released its list of donors, which included big tech companies Google, Microsoft, and Qualcomm. The Biden Inaugural Committee published the list of its top donors on Saturday, all of whom contributed “over $200 to the 59th Presidential Inaugural activities.”

Besides the big tech giants, other notable benefactors include multinational telecommunications conglomerate Verizon, cable television behemoth Comcast, mass media company Charter Communications, defense, and aerospace manufacturer Boeing, health insurance provider Anthem, and medical technology company Masimo Corporation.

Several unions made donations, including the American Federation of Teachers COPE, United Food, And Commercial Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The amount of the donations are not provided, but the committee will have to disclose that information within 90 days after Inauguration Day, according to FEC guidance.

“President-elect Joe Biden’s newly formed inaugural committee will accept donations from individuals up to $500,000 and from corporations up to $1 million,” CNBC reported on Nov. 30.

An organization can be named a chair of the inaugural if it gives $1 million, and an individual can be designated as a chair if they donate $500,000. The VIP chair package includes “an invitation to virtual events with the President-elect and Vice President-elect and their spouses with virtual signed photos, along with ‘preferred viewing’ for the inauguration, among other things,” according to Fox News.

A since-deleted “donor” page on the Biden inauguration website had stated the committee “does not accept contributions from fossil fuel companies (i.e., companies whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution or sale of oil, gas or coal), their executives, or from PACs organized by them.”

Biden’s campaign had also banned donations from lobbyists and the oil and gas industry. Employees of fossil fuel companies were allowed to donate up to $200.

Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20 is expected to be significantly smaller in scale because of the coronavirus pandemic. Biden’s inauguration will have a “virtual parade across America,” and feature “diverse, dynamic” performances.

“The parade will celebrate America’s heroes, highlight Americans from all walks of life in different states and regions, and reflect on the diversity, heritage, and resilience of the country as we begin a new American era,” the inaugural committee said in a press release.

“We are excited about the possibilities and opportunities this moment presents to allow all Americans to participate in our country’s sacred inaugural traditions,” said Presidential Inaugural Committee executive director Maju Varghese.

President Donald Trump has proclaimed that he will not attend Biden’s inauguration.

01/11/21

Fact Checkers Should Investigate the Murder of Ashli Babbitt

By: Cliff Kincaid

On top of liberal media bias that has become outright dishonest journalism and propaganda, so-called “fact-checkers” on the right have emerged, attacking other conservatives. A so-called fact-checker with The Dispatch is Alec Dent, a graduate of the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at UNC-Chapel Hill who is apparently pictured above his name on the site in front of what appear to be bottles of hard liquor.

He claims there were no credible accounts of left-wing Antifa agitators having infiltrated the pro-Trump rally on January 6 in Washington, D.C. One story alleging that facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol was retracted. But there are other credible accounts.

I sent these “fact-checkers” my own video interview of a person who was at the rally and saw Antifa-like people with skeleton masks and smelled the dope they were smoking. Antonio Chaves told me what he saw and encountered at the rally. These people didn’t seem to be Trump supporters. He saw a member of Antifa trying to break a window and Trump supporters trying to stop him.

He believes some Antifa people were trying to pass themselves off as Trump supporters.

Were a few Trump supporters in the group that went into the Capitol, some with a police escort? No question about it. One of them, Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran, was murdered by the Capitol police. That’s a fact.

Although technically closed because of Covid-19, the Capitol is usually not a closed building. The Senate and House galleries are specifically designed for the public to enter the Capitol at will to watch their Senators and Congressmen at work.

The Capitol Police claimed, “As protesters were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place, a sworn USCP [US Capitol Police] employee discharged their service weapon, striking an adult female.  Medical assistance was rendered immediately, and the female was transported to the hospital where she later succumbed to her injuries.  She has been identified as Ashli Babbitt.”

Jonathon Moseley, an attorney, concludes that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt inside the Capitol qualifies as murder, or more precisely an unjustified killing.

Moseley notes that the reports are clear that the massive, bank-vault-strong doors into the Capitol were open and pro-Trump protesters (and others) were able to just walk in.  He notes some reports indicate that police gestured Trump supporters inside the building through the open doors. Trump had called on anybody going to the Capitol to be peaceful.

Reports are not completely clear. But he notes that it may be the case that Ashli Babbitt climbed up on top of the window opening in the interior wall where someone had broken out the window and was therefore likely committing the crime of trespass. But he notes that under D.C. law trespass alone would not justify the use of deadly force.  It would justify an arrest by other means, such as a taser.

Did the Capitol Police shooter reasonably believe he was in danger? Not likely. The presence of police officers near where Babbitt was shot must also be examined. Did they think standing there was a threat?  Why didn’t they arrest her?

The Capitol Police say she was rendered medical assistance “immediately.” So she must have been very close to the officers or other Capitol Hill employees.

Ignoring all of this, choosing not to fact check the Capitol Police,  Alec Dent of The Dispatch wants instead to discredit reports of Antifa being part of the mob.

The Dispatch claims, “We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy, and culture—informed by conservative principles.”

Conservative principles like the Mitt Romney variety? Biden says Romney has integrity. Romney turned on Trump after Trump turned Romney down for the Secretary of State job.

I previously tried to correct Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch about his sweeping claims about Joe McCarthy failing to uncover real communists. You can read my findings in my column, “A Battle Against Lies.”

Here’s what I wrote to him:

Mr. Goldberg:

You claim [in your New York Post column] that Sen. Joseph McCarthy liked to insist he had evidence of Communists in the government, but he couldn’t show you the names right now. The number of Communist infiltrators on his secret list changed from speech to speech.

In fact, McCarthy had actually cited 59 suspected communists in the State Department, and he produced that list, plus 22 others. McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving foreign service officer John Stewart Service and Phil Jaffe, the editor of a pro-communist magazine. He targeted Owen Lattimore, a key State Department adviser, and communist. McCarthy’s charge against Mary Jane Keeney, a State Department, U.N. employee, and Soviet agent, was proven correct. McCarthy was right about Annie Lee Moss, an Army Code Clerk who was a member of the Communist Party.

The John Stewart Service spy ring also involved Laughlin Currie, an adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, and they succeeded in manipulating U.S. foreign policy to enable the communists to seize China. Other top communists in government included Harry Dexter White at the Department of the Treasury and, of course, Alger Hiss of the State Department, a founder of the U.N.

The JC Hawkins book on McCarthy and others, Betrayal at Bethesda, includes an Appendix B and 224 Communists identified by McCarthy and other investigations.

Please correct the record.

I never heard back.

Goldberg achieved prominence because of his mother’s role in the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal. His mother was Lucianne Goldberg, whose notoriety got him a job at Fox News.

Author J.C. Hawkins discussed Goldberg’s strange views during a recent episode of America’s Survival TV.

Returning to Dent’s big fact-checking “story,” another “journalist” at The Dispatch, former conservative Stephen Hayes, says, “It’s scary how deeply the Antifa-did-it conspiracy has penetrated the right, aided by desperate Republican politicians and irresponsible media-entertainment provocateurs.”

Promoting his own story, Dent claimed, “I’ve done a comprehensive fact check on claims that the attack on Congress was an Antifa false flag. Rioters IDed as Anfita [sic] weren’t Antifa, Trump supporters IDed themselves at the riot, and the attack had been planned on pro-Trump discussion boards.”

Comprehensive? So what if some of the demonstrators were in fact Trump supporters? The issue is that eyewitnesses also saw Antifa agitators and detected the smell of marijuana from several participants. That’s not the usual mark of a MAGA rally.

The New York Post ran a video of pot smokers inside the Capitol on January 6.

In his American Thinker article about the rally that got my attention, Chaves reports:

  • My group boarded a D.C. Metro train at 10:30 am. Upon arrival at the next station, I saw three young white men board the train with dark clothes and skeleton face masks.
  • The main difference that struck me as unusual during this rally (apart from the three young men who boarded the train) was the frequent smell of marijuana…
  • Suddenly the three young men I saw earlier on the train with scary masks in front (but pro-America symbols on their backs) made sense to me, as did the widespread smell of marijuana.
  • Based on what I saw and read, I have no doubt that dozens and possibly even hundreds of Antifa and/or other provocateurs had infiltrated the rally in order to carry out violent acts and suck impressionable Trump supporters into their antics.

Alec Dent also claims to have fact-checked the report that one John Roberts vacationed on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island. The name of John Roberts was on a list of passengers.

We don’t know which John Roberts this is.  Somebody claimed it was Chief Justice Roberts and ran a picture of someone with black hair in the water near Epstein’s island and supposedly on a trip that included Bill Clinton. This picture has now been labeled “false information” and taken down from Instagram.

Dent disputes this was THE John Roberts by reporting, “The individual identified as Roberts was not identified in reporting on Clinton’s vacation, but photos of Roberts at Trump’s inauguration, which also occurred in January 2017, show that his head of hair, with all respect to the chief justice, is grayer and not quite as full.”

So this is how the initial report is disputed? By photos showing a different head of hair?

Why not get hold of Roberts and get a statement on the record? Dent fact-checks articles without getting facts.

If someone claimed Bill Gates appeared with Jeffrey Epstein, we know that’s true, since the New York Times published a photo of them together. Check out the article, “Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past.” Read it and weep, Mr. Dent.

The fact is that many prominent people did associate with Epstein. It would be nice to know who they were.

By the way, on his LinkedIn page, Dent is identified as having been an intern in the Office of Jonah Goldberg at the American Enterprise Institute and an intern at the Washington Free Beacon.

The AEI and Washington Free Beacon are supposed to be “conservative” organizations.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

01/11/21

Apple Bans 39,000 Apps After Demands By The CCP

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

And counting… including the newly launched conservative open free speech social media site Parler.

HONG KONG (Reuters) – Apple removed 39,000 game apps on its China store Thursday, the biggest removal ever in a single day, as it set year-end as deadline for all game publishers to obtain a license.

The takedowns come amid a crackdown on unlicensed games by Chinese authorities.

Including the 39,000 games, Apple removed more than 46,000 apps in total from its store on Thursday. Games affected by the sweep included Ubisoft title Assassin’s Creed Identity and NBA 2K20, according to research firm Qimai.

Qimai also said only 74 of the top 1,500 paid games on Apple store survived the purge.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Apple initially gave game publishers an end-of-June deadline to submit a government-issued licence number enabling users to make in-app purchases in the world’s biggest games market.

Apple later extended the deadline to Dec. 31. Cases still pending.

China’s Android app stores have long complied with regulations on licenses. It is not clear why Apple is enforcing them more strictly this year.

Analysts said the move was no surprise as Apple continues to close loopholes to fall in line with China’s content regulators, and would not directly affect Apple’s bottom line as much as previous removals.

“However, this major pivot to only accepting paid games that have a game license, coupled with China’s extremely low number of foreign game licenses approved this year, will probably lead more game developers to switch to an ad-supported model for their Chinese versions,” said Todd Kuhns, marketing manager for AppInChina, a firm that helps overseas companies distribute their apps.

In December, shares of Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) were down a bit after the company removed thousands of paid game apps from its China App Store.

Meanwhile, Disney (NYSE:DIS) stock rose after the company reportedly plans a price increase for its ESPN+ streaming service.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that tech giant Apple planned to remove thousands of game apps from its App Store in China due to government pressure. Apple reportedly warned Chinese developers earlier this month that paid gaming apps were at risk of removal.

China requires paid video games to be licensed before being released, a policy that has been in effect for the past four years. However, app developers have been able to get around that rule on Apple’s platform. Apple began closing the loophole this year, the Journal reports.

On Thursday, Apple followed through by removing 39,000 game apps from its China App Store, according to Reuters. These include popular titles like Assassin’s Creed Identity and NBA 2K20. Just 74 of the top 1,500 paid game apps on the China App Store are still available, according to research firm Qimai.

The license requirement applies to paid games and games with in-app purchases, so the move by Apple could push more developers to opt for an ad-supported model. Apple takes a cut from the sales of apps and in-app content, so such a shift would hurt Apple’s sales in China. source

*** Expect more stock price decline given the recent anti-trust cases in the legal pipeline against Apple and other big tech corporations. Apple and Google both take a cut of the revenue of the apps on their respective stores.

The factory in China where Apple products, specifically iPhones, undergo final assembly has approximately 230,000 workers. In the US, there are only 83 cities that have the same population as this factory’s number of employees. Meaning the number of possible workers in the US is not enough to cover Apple’s needs.

In China, an estimated quarter of their workforce lives in company-owned dormitories. These barracks are located on factory property. Many people are living and working at the factory. Such jobs are in high demand in China, and they can hire many people overnight. These examples prove that the measure, speed, and efficiency of Chinese manufacturing surpass anything the US is presently capable of. (read slave labor)

'Made in China 2025': is Beijing's plan for hi-tech ...

Apple is a willing partner in the China 2025 plan. You will then understand the China policy of President Trump and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Continue reading…you need to understand the past implications and those when Biden takes office.

When the US and ultimately the rest of the Western world began to engage China, resulting in China finally being allowed into the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s, no one really expected the outcomes we see today.

There is no simple disengagement path, given the scope of economic and legal entanglements. This isn’t a “trade” we can simply walk away from.

But it is also one that, if allowed to continue in its current form, could lead to a loss of personal freedom for Western civilization. It really is that much of an existential question.

Doing nothing isn’t an especially good option because, like it or not, the world is becoming something quite different than we expected just a few years ago—not just technologically, but geopolitically and socially.

China and the West

Let’s begin with how we got here.

My generation came of age during the Cold War. China was a huge, impoverished odd duck in those years. In the late 1970s, China began slowly opening to the West. Change unfolded gradually but by the 1990s, serious people wanted to bring China into the modern world, and China wanted to join it.

Understand that China’s total GDP in 1980 was under $90 billion in current dollars. Today, it is over $12 trillion. The world has never seen such enormous economic growth in such a short time.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed and the internet was born. The US, as sole superpower, saw opportunities everywhere. American businesses shifted production to lower-cost countries. Thus came the incredible extension of globalization.

We in the Western world thought (somewhat arrogantly, in hindsight) everyone else wanted to be like us. It made sense. Our ideas, freedom, and technology had won both World War II and the Cold War that followed it. Obviously, our ways were best.

But that wasn’t obvious to people elsewhere, most notably China. Leaders in Beijing may have admired our accomplishments, but not enough to abandon Communism.

They merely adapted and rebranded it. We perceived a bigger change than there actually was. Today’s Chinese communists are nowhere near Mao’s kind of communism. Xi calls it “Socialism with a Chinese character.” It appears to be a dynamic capitalistic market, but is also a totalitarian, top-down structure with rigid rules and social restrictions.

So here we are, our economy now hardwired with an autocratic regime that has no interest in becoming like us.

China’s Hundred-Year Marathon

In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power.

They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.

The strategy has been well documented in Chinese literature, published and sanctioned by organizations of the People’s Liberation Army, for well over 50 years.

And just as we have hawks and moderates on China within the US, there are hawks and moderates within China about how to engage the West. Unfortunately, the hawks are ascendant, embodied most clearly in Xi Jinping.

Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.

Grand dreams of world domination are part and parcel of communist ideologies, going all the way back to Karl Marx. For the Chinese, this blends with the country’s own long history.

It isn’t always clear to Western minds whether they actually believe the rhetoric or simply use it to keep the peasantry in line. Pillsbury says Xi Jinping really sees this as China’s destiny, and himself as the leader who will deliver it.

To that end, according to Pillsbury, the Chinese manipulated Western politicians and business leaders into thinking China was evolving toward democracy and capitalism. In fact, the intent was to acquire our capital, technology, and other resources for use in China’s own modernization.

It worked, too.

Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.

Sometimes this happened voluntarily, as companies gave away trade secrets in the (often futile) hope it would let them access China’s huge market. Other times it was outright theft. In either case, this was no accident but part of a long-term plan.

Pillsbury (who, by the way, advises the White House including the president himself) thinks the clash is intensifying because President Trump’s China skepticism is disrupting the Chinese plan. They see his talk of restoring America’s greatness as an affront to their own dreams.

In any case, we have reached a crossroads. What do we do about China now?

Targeted Response

In crafting a response, the first step is to define the problem correctly and specifically. We hear a lot about China cheating on trade deals and taking jobs from Americans. That’s not entirely wrong, but it’s also not the main challenge.

I believe in free trade. I think David Ricardo was right about comparative advantage: Every nation is better off if all specialize in whatever they do best.

However, free trade doesn’t mean nations need to arm their potential adversaries. Nowadays, military superiority is less about factories and shipyards than high-tech weapons and cyberwarfare. Much of our “peaceful” technology is easily weaponized.

This means our response has to be narrowly targeted at specific companies and products. Broad-based tariffs are the opposite of what we should be doing. Ditto for capital controls.

They are blunt instruments that may feel good to swing, but they hurt the wrong people and may not accomplish what we want.

We should not be using the blunt tool of tariffs to fight a trade deficit that is actually necessary. The Chinese are not paying our tariffs; US consumers are.

Importing t-shirts and sneakers from China doesn’t threaten our national security. Let that kind of trade continue unmolested and work instead on protecting our advantages in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and so on.

The Trump administration appears to (finally) be getting this. They are clearly seeking ways to pull back the various tariffs and ramping up other efforts.

01/9/21

Beware: Patriot Act 2.0 Coming

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

But there already is a domestic terrorism law… meanwhile it was not applied to BLM or ANTIFA as those protests still go on… .just a few arrests have been made while people and small businesses were not only terrorized but hundreds or maybe thousands lost their businesses. It is okay, however, as VP -Elect Kamala Harris is good with that and supported it all.

Just one day ago –> it is terrorism but they call it unlawful assembly.

Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police declare unlawful assembly

Portland police arrived on the scene and told the crowd it had declared an unlawful assembly.Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police declare unlawful assembly | Fox News

So why the new proposed legislation? Hardly balanced application of the law and that is good with the new administration and progressive members of Congress.

The Patriot Act 2.0 coming your way.

Note:

March 11, 2020
Press Release

Legislation introduced by Schneider would empower federal law enforcement to better monitor and stop domestic extremist violence

Today, legislation introduced by Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) to address the threat of domestic terrorism passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-2. The Committee’s markup and bipartisan vote reports H.R. 5602, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020, out of the House Judiciary Committee.

“The rising tide of domestic terror across our country, particularly from violent far-right extremists and white supremacist organizations, demands a response from Congress,” said Schneider. “It is not enough to just condemn hate, we need to equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify threats and prevent violent acts of domestic terrorism. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act improves coordination between our federal agencies and makes sure they are focused on the most serious domestic threats. I thank Chairman Nadler and Chairwoman Bass for their leadership on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation in markup. I look forward to building support for a vote by the full House as soon as possible.”

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020 would enhance the federal government’s efforts to prevent, report on, respond to, and investigate acts of domestic terrorism by authorizing offices dedicated to combating this threat; requiring these offices to regularly assess this threat; and providing training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing it.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2019, domestic extremists killed at least 42 people in the United States in 17 separate incidents. This number makes 2019 the sixth deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings. Last year, a Trump Administration Department of Justice official wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the Federal and State levels, has been slow to respond.”

H.R. 5602 would authorize three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires these offices to provide Congress with joint biannual reports assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists. Based on the data collected, H.R. 5602 requires these offices to focus their resources on the most significant threats..

H.R. 5602 also codifies the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which would coordinate with United States Attorneys and other public safety officials to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism. The legislation requires DOJ, FBI, and DHS to provide training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. Finally, H.R. 5602 directs DHS, DOJ, FBI, and the Department of Defense to establish an interagency task force to combat white supremacist infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020  has been endorsed by the following organizations: Anti-Defamation League, Arab American Institute, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Muslim Advocates, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, and Unidos. .

The legislation has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House. A Senate companion bill is led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

01/9/21

Reichstag Fire and the Rise to Total Power

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

On March 23, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, the partner piece of legislation to the February 28 Decree for the Protection of People and State. The Enabling Act assigned all legislative power to Hitler and his ministers, thus securing their ability to control the political apparatus. When President Hindenburg died in August 1934, Hitler wrote a new law that combined the offices of president and chancellor. It was sanctioned by a national plebiscite.Reichstag fire

Ex-Nazi testimony sparks fresh mystery over 1933 Reichstag fire | News | DW | 27.07.2019

When the German parliamentary building went up in flames, Hitler harnessed the incident to seize power

Smithsonian: It was the canary in the political coal mine—a flashpoint event when Adolf Hitler played upon public and political fears to consolidate power, setting the stage for the rise of Nazi Germany. Since then, it’s become a powerful political metaphor. Whenever citizens and politicians feel threatened by executive overreach, the “Reichstag Fire” is referenced as a cautionary tale

Germany’s first experiment with liberal democracy was born of the 1919 Weimar Constitution, established after the conclusion of World War I. It called for a president elected by direct ballot, who would appoint a chancellor to introduce legislation to members of the Reichstag (who were also elected by popular vote). The president retained the power to dismiss his cabinet and the chancellor, dissolve an ineffective Reichstag, and, in cases of national emergency, invoke something known as Article 48, which gave the president dictatorial powers and the right to intervene directly in the governance of Germany’s 19 territorial states.

Following a stint in jail for his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler poured his energy into attaining power through legal channels. He rose to the head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis), and by 1928 the group’s membership exceeded 100,000. The Nazis denounced the Weimar Republic and the “November criminals,” politicians had signed the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty forced Germany to accept responsibility for World War I, pay huge remunerations, transfer territory to their neighbors and limit the size of the military.

Despite its considerable growth, the Nazi party won only 2.6 percent of the vote in the 1928 election. But then the Great Depression hit, sending the U.S. and Europe into an economic tailspin and shooting the number of unemployed up to 6 million people in Germany (around 30 percent of the population). The sudden slump caused massive social upheaval, which the Nazis exploited to gain further political traction. By 1930, the Nazis won 18.3 percent of the Reichstag vote and became the second largest party after the Social Democrats, while the Communist party also grew to ten percent of the vote.

The economic unrest of the early 1930s meant that no single political party had a majority in the Reichstag, so fragile coalitions held the nation together. Faced with political chaos, President Paul von Hindenburg dissolved the Reichstag again and again. Frequent elections followed.

The Nazis aligned with other right-leaning factions and gradually worked their way up to 33 percent of the vote—but were unable to reach a full majority. In January 1933, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed Hitler as chancellor on the advice of Franz von Papen, a disgruntled former chancellor who believed the conservative bourgeois parties should ally with the Nazis to keep the Communists out of power. March 5 was set as the date for another series of Reichstag elections in hopes that one party might finally achieve the majority.

Meanwhile, the Nazis seized even more power, infiltrating the police and empowering ordinary party members as law enforcement officers. On February 22, Hitler used his powers as chancellor to enroll 50,000 Nazi SA men (also known as stormtroopers) as auxiliary police. Two days later, Hermann Göring, Minister of the Interior and one of Hitler’s closest compatriots, ordered a raid on Communist headquarters. Following the raid, the Nazis announced (falsely) that they’d found evidence of seditious material. They claimed the Communists were planning to attack public buildings.

On the night of February 27, around 9:00, pedestrians near the Reichstag heard the sound of breaking glass. Soon after, flames erupted from the building. It took fire engines hours to quell the fire, which destroyed the debating chamber and the Reichstag’s gilded cupola, ultimately causing over $1 million in damage. Police arrested an unemployed Dutch construction worker named Marinus van der Lubbe on the scene. The young man was found outside the building with firelighters in his possession and was panting and sweaty.

“This is a God-given signal,” Hitler told von Papen when they arrived on the scene. “If this fire, as I believe, is the work of the Communists, then we must crush out this murderous pest with an iron fist.”

A few hours later, on February 28, Hindenburg invoked Article 48 and the cabinet drew up the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State.” The act abolished freedom of speech, assembly, privacy and the press; legalized phone tapping and interception of correspondence; and suspended the autonomy of federated states, like Bavaria. That night around 4,000 people were arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the SA. Although the Communist party had won 17 percent of the Reichstag elections in November 1932, and the German people elected 81 Communist deputies in the March 5 elections, many were detained indefinitely after the fire. Their empty seats left the Nazis largely free to do as they wished.

Later that year, a sensational criminal trial got under way. The accused included van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler (leader of the Communist Party in the Reichstag) and three Bulgarian Communists.

As the trial in Germany proceeded, a different kind of trial captured the public discourse. Willi Münzenberg, a German Communist, allied himself with other Communists to undertake an independent investigation of the fire. The combined research resulted in the publication of The Brown Book on the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror. It included early accounts of Nazi brutality, as well as an argument that van der Lubbe was a pawn of the Nazis. Hitler’s party members were the real criminals, the book argued, and they orchestrated the fire to consolidate political power. The book became a bestseller, translated into 24 languages and sold around Europe and the U.S.