Brandon's speech, continued

It is a bit understandable that one would want to turn away from something unpleasant. Such is Brandon's speech. There is something quite hateful about it, which is what makes it unpleasant. There are those who noted the anger in the speech. That is part of it. Another part is the falseness of it. The entire spectacle is a basket of fraud. It cries out for protest. Silence is not the way to address this.

Let's start with the setting. In Philadelphia, in front of the site where the Constitution was written. Also the town most associated with liberty. It is where the Declaration of Independence was signed and proclaimed to the world. 'Tis the birthplace of freedom. But freedom is not what this speech was about. It was about the very opposite of its claimed purpose. It was not an affirmation of freedom, but an intention to enslave.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men in order to secure the rights of the people to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The powers are granted in accordance to consent of the governed ( as opposed to ruled). Also, that if such government becomes destructive of these ends, the right of the people is to alter it or abolish it. We have elections for that purpose. To ask questions of an election is not to deny the election process itself. To demand integrity is hardly a seditious proposition, if such was being sought with Brandon's address.

It is this very thing that is being denied. Not to mention, the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which established by law the right to redress grievances. It DOES NOT say that governments should punish the people when they peaceably assemble for such redress of grievances. To punish people for the same is to violate the founding principles of the nation. Is such being done? Brandon alleged so, but the reaction of Brandon and his sychophantic followers is that to do so amounts to sedition and insurrection. Indeed, there was a riot on January 6th, 2021. But it is also true that ordinary unarmed citizens have been charged with "trespass" for doing no more than walking inside the Capitol Building. That is not in the spirit of the Declaration and the Constitution. Indeed, it is itself a violation of the law.

People have been held without bail for over a year, under terrible conditions. It cannot be other than to extract confessions under the threat of continual punishment. Is this the "freedom" that is being affirmed by Brandon and his crew? On what authority do they have to do this? Clearly, it is not in accordance with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a speedy and impartial trial by a jury of the accused peers.

Brandon claims that MAGA Republicans are a "threat". A threat to do what? Redressing their harms, which is in accordance with the law, and having that turned on its head, and called Insurrection? King George III did the same thing as Brandon has done to MAGA Republicans. Yet here is Brandon claiming the mantle of freedom fighter? This is a lie. It is even The Big Lie. Yet Brandon himself is accusing MAGA Republicans of being the liars. Is anything that is written here, or having been claimed, been fully examined for its truthfulness? There are "fact checkers", whose job is to confirm only what Brandon and Company want to believe. "Fact checkers" as a term, is also a lie.

The January 6th committee was not set up to impartially examine evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion as to what caused the riot in the Capitol; which was called an Insurrection. Instead, it is a political show trial intended to be used as a political hammer to destroy the loyal opposition. Is that how we do things now in this country? Such was not intended neither by the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. The entire spectacle was Orwellian. It was doublespeak, where truth is a lie, and a lie is claimed to be truth. To remain silent in the face of this evil is to deny freedom, as opposed to affirming it. It is as if the ghost of George III was delivering that speech, as opposed to George Washington.