Legal Defense Fundraising

Since the commies are so good at legal defense funds, why not go for it, for those in the Loyal Opposition?

Not much follow through though on the January 6th story. Here are a few links on the subject: Julie Kelly on Mark Levin. This one shows the need for a Legal Defense Fund.

Also on Mark Levin's show, there was a short bit about the comparsions between events in the past v. January 6th to give context: Mark Levin on January 6th

Another somewhat related links for your perusal: Change of venue motion for Jan 6th defendant

This one is about Tech Censorship: Matt Taibbi on Big Tech Censorship

Did we all lose our Bill of Rights?

The left is really good at making a claimed injustice towards one as an injustice towards all. An example could be the way that Trump talked about Rosie O'Donnell. Seems like it became an injustice towards all women, or so it was claimed. Another was cited by a commenter on this blog with regards to a Latino judge. Trump criticized him and suddenly it was an attack on all Latinos.

Contrast that with the way the January 6th protesters are being treated. If this isn't an attack on all the Loyal Opposition, then what is it? Did we lose our rights to a redress of grievances? If anybody did do anything provably wrong, well it cannot be defended. But just showing up and taking selfies inside the Capitol Building does not seem like a heinous act.

The Democrats and their Quisling collaborators are going to get their Star Chamber, but we should demand better than that. After all, if they can do this to these folks, they could do it to any of us anytime they want.

We do have power to oppose this, but we have to act together. The trouble with so-called conservatives is that we mind our own business too much than what is good for us. We need to get involved in this. These folks are languishing in the dungeon in DC, and all they have is a court-appointed public defender, who is likely to be on the Big Government payroll. What do you think the quality of that represenatation is going to be?

You rights may only go as far as you are willing to defend them. If these lose their rights, then why should any of us in the Loyal Opposition expect to get any better?

Does the GOP even want to win?

The implausibility of the Democrat's arguments are such that any reasonably intelligent person of intention could blast it to smithereens. Like the late Rush Limbaugh said-- "one half your brain behind your back to make it even".

You cannot support our Constitution and then support those who try to wreck it at the same time. But that's what Democrats do. You cannot fire police and then credibly blame someone else for it. They supported riots that led to police department's defunding, so that's the GOP's fault?!

Where's the GOP on this? Nowhere to be found, evidently. Maybe they're in the Chinese's pockets just like the Democrats are.

The GOP thinks it can win by default. But why just depend upon the usual things, like off-year elections, to carry you to victory? Maybe that won't work if there's too much fraud out there. Also, if you won't even try to win. These guys might lose in a fair fight for all the effort they put in it.

I think this is a winnable fight, but the GOP doesn't show much interest in fighting. It is like 2012, when Romney was gifted with Benghazi, and refused to bash Obama with it. Obama and the Democrats were asking for it, but Romney let himself be silenced like a "good" little boy. Good for nothing is more like it.

The same kind of thing is happening now. The Democrats are leading with a glass jaw. The GOP could deliver a Mike Tyson type punch, and they'd be out for the count. Maybe not even a Mike Tyson punch. Barney Fife could knock these guys out. But they won't lift their fingers.

If they won't fight, we should find others who will.

Can you believe Pelosi?

 

In 2019, Pelosi was asked if she hated Trump. A heated exchanged occurred where she denied that she hated "anyone".

Oh? After reading through some of the conditions to which the prisoners in the dungeon are receiving, one can ask if she really meant that. Pelosi has responsibility for the Capitol Police. If she didn't like the way the prisoners were being treated, wouldn't she be inclined to do something about it?

This business with the political prisoners in the DC dungeon goes beyond that to the question of one's devotion to the Constitution. Once again, Pelosi seemed to make a big deal out of her devotion to the Constitution when she led the impeachment drive against Trump for January 6th.

There was one in which Pelosi said something in support of the Constitution in which you'd swear she was at the Constitutional Convention in the eighteenth century. However, I cannot find it. There are plenty of statements of hers like that, however. If you listen to her, you'd think that this was the most important thing in the entire world to her.

But can it really be true when she allows this to go on with these political prisoners? They are not receiving equal treatment that the summer rioters received. Those folks weren't held without bail and without charges as the Jan 6th people. The claim that these prisoners represent a danger that cannot be risked doesn't square with the criminal records, which don't exist. If they were truly dangerous, wouldn't something else exist in support of that? George Floyd had a criminal record. They made him into a hero. Why the difference?

Many of these folks served in the military and police.

There are those who believe that this could have been an FBI instigated plot, and the ring leader may have been on the FBI payroll. He hasn't been charged. Why not? Has he been questioned? Has he been detained? Why not him, as opposed to some grandma that they "re-educated"?

With respect to the false flag

 

Seems like I've been slipping a bit on this. Evidently there has been more reporting on it than what I've written about, so hopefully, I will do better in the future.

If I uncover something, I will write it up.

Ace has something that got me interested into looking this up more. It's about something on Tablet, which a site that is linked on the sidebar. Furthermore, Julie Kelly's work has been mentioned, there and elsewhere. I'll check into that.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upholds Arizona election law

You can obtain a pdf copy of the decision to read if you wish. I got mine from the CTH blog. There is a link there inside a post which discusses the decision.

In particular, I wanted to read the dissent of the liberals on the court. I read through some of what Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, and I find that it is lacking in persuasiveness.

How is it that a state that allows mail-in voting doing anything discriminatory? It is ridciculous to say that a state that allows mail-in voting at all is in any way being discriminatory.

Arizona's law seems to require a request for a mail-in ballot. If that is too onerous, then all laws in all states that require such a request could have been struck down. Perhaps that is what the liberals were hoping for.

The dissent belabored a lot of discrimination in the past, but from what I read, gave little reason to believe that the current law in Arizona does anything to make it too hard to vote for anyone.

If you can request a ballot by mail, presumably you can also mail the thing in by yourself. It doesn't seem to be a big deal that all you have to do is to fill it out and return it by mail. This may impact some people who have profound issues. However, how much can you do for people of that profound of disability who cannot even fill out and mail a ballot?

You don't have to be a minority to have an issue like that. A severely disabled person may not be able to get around well enough to vote, perhaps. But if it is that bad, how can they be competent enough to vote at all? One might expect at least some competence to exercise the vote.

Such a sentiment may seem unfair, but what can you do about it? The government can only do so much and shouldn't do any more. You cannot guarantee total fairness in all things. To suggest otherwise is silly. For example, it may be unfair that some people are paraplegic. If that impacts their ability to vote, perhaps you could help them. Even not helping isn't discriminatory against them. It's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

The big concern here is about fraud. From what I read in the dissent, there appears to be no concern whatever that fraud could be used to change the outcomes of elections. Before this law could be overturned, it would have to show that fraud is not an issue. But fraud is most definitely an issue. The interest in having election integrity overrides fairness here. That's assuming you AGREE that it is unfair to some people. It should be a tall hurdle to get over in order to rule that an election must be totally fair to all people at all times.

In summary, the complaint did not satisfy a reasonable standard for fairness, nor did it appear to address fraud with respect to the dissent. If it did, then I failed to see it, but I didn't read it all. In my opinion, something else is going on with this complaint than meets the eye. There's no unfairness that I can see. It is almost if the interest of integrity is being tossed aside for the unreachable goal of total fairness. But that may be a guise that may allow the specter of fraud to appear.

If the left wants to be convincing to anybody but zealots, they had better do a whole lot better.

Radio Free America

Tabletmag.com: War on Reality quote: As the mainstream narrative about the origin of COVID-19 falls apart, it’s time to put other widely accepted facts about the virus—and the devastating measures they were used to justify—under the same scrutiny

Comment:

Save America from the Pravda-like media, which is in service to the Deep State, and its henchmen.