Liz Cheney Weaponizes Racial Division For Political Power, Baselessly Labeling GOP Leadership White Supremacist

Liz Cheney Weaponizes Racial Division For Political Power, Baselessly Labeling GOP Leadership White Supremacist

Wyoming Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney reached a new milestone in her transition from a center-right lawmaker to a full-blown collaborator in the left’s cultural revolution within 18 months. On Monday, Cheney claimed, without evidence, members of GOP House leadership where she was expelled last May are enablers of white supremacy.

“The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and antisemitism,” Cheney wrote on Twitter. “History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. [GOP] leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them.”

The post was published Monday morning after an 18-year-old shooter allegedly killed 10 people in a Buffalo supermarket on Saturday. Moments before the killing spree, in which the majority of victims were black, the white shooter published an online “manifesto” airing antisemitic grievances in 180 pages where he also showcased anxiety over “replacement.”

The racial circumstances of the tragedy make the event ripe for leftists and their allies in the corporate media and government to stoke their routine race war, smearing political dissidents as complicit in the latest episode of domestic terrorism. Those allies now include Cheney, whose competitive re-election campaign has been endorsed by Occupy Democrats and funded by the Lincoln Project.

Corporate outlets that were quick to move on from the Waukesha Christmas Massacre last fall — when a black suspect motivated by anti-white racism allegedly rammed an SUV through a holiday parade, brutally killing at least six — have been even quicker to place blame for this weekend’s New York shooting on Fox News.

The New York Times ran a 2,000-word piece Sunday tying the Buffalo attack to the modern Republican Party, Fox News, and the network’s lead prime-time host, Tucker Carlson.

“By his own account, the Buffalo suspect, Payton S. Gendron, followed a lonelier path to radicalization, immersing himself in replacement theory and other kinds of racist and antisemitic content easily found on internet forums, and casting Black Americans, like Hispanic immigrants, as ‘replacers’ of white Americans,” the Times wrote. “No public figure has promoted replacement theory more loudly or relentlessly than the Fox host Tucker Carlson, who has made elite-led demographic change a central theme of his show since joining Fox’s prime-time lineup in 2016.”

Never mind that the “manifesto” from the weekend shooting’s suspect showcased his own contempt for conservatism and Fox News while never mentioning Carlson.

That didn’t stop other outlets from following suit, capitalizing on the episode to amplify their predetermined narrative that the Republican Party, its leadership, and rival networks are to blame for another episode of politically motivated violence. The Washington Post targeted House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik in particular, who replaced Cheney in GOP leadership a year ago.

“Stefanik echoed racist theory allegedly espoused by Buffalo suspect,” headlined the paper, referring to the New York congresswoman’s objections to unchecked immigration — legitimate concerns that were even given credence by Politico.

Stefanik was indicted by the Post as a lawmaker captured by “Replacement Theory,” an idea declared conspiracy by legacy media hellbent on smearing Republicans who merely repeat the open desires of left-wing activists. Former Trump communications adviser Michael Anton outlined the irony as “The Celebration Parallax” in the American Mind.

The Left insists that concerns from certain quarters that immigration policy in America (and Europe) amounts to a ‘great replacement’ is a ‘dangerous,’ ‘evil,’ ‘racist,’ ‘false’ ‘conspiracy theory.’ But a leftist New York Times columnist can write an article entitled ‘We Can Replace Them‘ and … nothing. Same fundamental point, except she’s all for it and her targets aren’t. A U.S. Senator can exult that demographic change will doom Republicans. Joe Biden himself can refer to an ‘unrelenting stream of immigration.’ Except they’re celebrating it and calling for it. Anyone on the Right who uses the exact same words will not merely be denounced; the very fact pattern that is affirmed when Biden says it will be denied when the Rightist repeats it.

The knee-jerk reaction to cast anyone on the right as agitators of extremist violence — nuance be darned and leftist attacks be whitewashed when the profile of the suspect and the victims don’t fit the right demographics — has now drawn Cheney as new recruit, adopting the left’s double standards.

Cheney joined the media chorus to smear opponents in leadership as responsible for spilled blood in Buffalo despite the fact that House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was almost killed by a leftist “Bernie Bro” five years ago who wanted to “terminate the Republican Party.” But yes, Liz Cheney wants you to think that Scalise is a cheerleader for extremist violence.

Wyoming’s sole representative was coopted by Democrats last summer when she enthusiastically accepted a request from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to vice chair the Select Committee on Jan. 6. Cheney’s appointment replaced Republicans selected by GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who were barred from fulfilling their congressional service by the speaker.

One of 10 Republicans in the lower chamber who supported former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment, Cheney has carved out antagonism of Republican voters as a hallmark of her time in Congress.

Cheney faces a primary challenge from Trump-endorsed attorney Harriet Hageman in August.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

New York Times, testosterone and Tucker the terror of the liberal left


By TONY MOBILIFONITIS

“Tied to the anxiety over testosterone is another hotly disputed assertion: that sperm counts have been declining among men in the Western world for decades. Huge numbers of studies have been done, and there is no scientific consensus on the scope of the problem or whether it exists at all.”

THE New York Times probably got that statement right in its recent articles attacking Tucker Carlson of Fox News, who went a little bit over the edge in a commentary championing a red-light treatment at the crotch for those who lack the essential hormone in masculinity.

It’s true that studies, including at least one in Australia, suggest a rising fertility problem among males. But other studies apparently contradict that. It’s the same with the climate change issue, but on that subject The Times only acknowledges those studies which support the alarmism scenario.

The red-light therapy for infertility may or may not work, and the outfit that sells it even admitted to The Times there’s very little evidence it does. But the rare breakout of truth was remarkable because everything else the NT Times says about Carlson is not only leftist but quite laughable too. It’s mostly the snooty-nosed drivel you would expect from Democrat Party media hacks.

In fact, there are many issues where “huge numbers of studies have been done and there is no scientific consensus”, but seldom do media admit so. As we saw recently with “COVID”, this same media told us vaccines were the only viable and safe treatment, despite thousands of medical practitioners worldwide disputing that.

The Times recently dedicated a team of 10 or more journalists to probe Carlson and his nightly reports. “A New York Times analysis of 1150 episodes reveals how Tucker Carlson pushes extremist ideas and conspiracy theories into millions of households, five nights a week. He’s done so since the beginning but the show has gotten darker. Mr Carlson, 52, has one of the largest megaphones in all of cable television. When President Donald J. Trump left office, Mr Carlson filled the void on the right.”

So say the Times journalists who Carlson calls “obedient little establishment defenders”. On COVID, climate change, racism and sexual politics, The Times’ writers are guaranteed to push the prevailing acceptable narrative churned out by the establishment think tanks, policy writers and their global neo-liberal media apparatus, in which The Times is a leading player.

Journalist Nicholas Confessore’s naivety, or willful blindness, regarding the big issues of the day is illustrated in this passage: “Night after night, hour by hour, Mr. Carlson warns his viewers that they inhabit a civilization under siege — by violent Black Lives Matter protesters in American cities, by diseased migrants from south of the border, by refugees importing alien cultures, and by tech companies and cultural elites who will silence them, or label them racist, if they complain. When refugees from Africa, numbering in the hundreds, began crossing into Texas from Mexico during the Trump administration, he warned that the continent’s high birthrates meant the new arrivals might soon “overwhelm our country and change it completely and forever.” Amid nationwide outrage over George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Mr. Carlson dismissed those protesting the killing as “criminal mobs.”

Confessore apparently thinks the idea of a “civilization under siege” is some sort of mythology or conspiracy theory. Even Blind Freddy knows that when powerful forces attempt to redefine gender and break down all societal norms, you have a civilization under siege. The French, Russian and Chinese revolutions are historic examples of this. The most recent book on the subject is War on the West by Douglas Murray, which addresses what we now know as the “culture wars”.

Confessore goes on to refer to “violent Black Lives Matter protesters” in American cities. Try “rioters” who literally destroyed city centres across America after the highly politicised George Floyd murder. BLM publicly stated on their original web page their objective is to overthrow American society, but the NY Times insists they are merely “protesters”. Their naivety is mind boggling.

Like the leftist radicals who habitually use the term “racist” to discredit their political opponents, the New York Times tries to smear Carlson with the same term. Why? Because Carlson has become more outspoken against the woke ideology spread by The Times and other big media channels.

How is it that refugees from Africa were crossing into Texas from Mexico during the Trump administration? Carlson apparently warned that their high birthrates meant they might soon “overwhelm our country and change it completely and forever”. A bit overstated? Consider that during the Biden administration about a million illegal immigrants (the Times calls them “migrants”) have crossed the border, overwhelming the border patrols. And the Democrat-controlled agencies have had them flown off to cities in key electoral states across the US. In total there are some 22 million illegals in the US.

Looking after illegal border crashing migrants is a vote catching business for the Democrats, aided by left-wing Catholic social action networks. They not only sign them up for government social services but also register them as potential voters, while pushing so-called voter’s rights legislation allowing voting without IDs.

But don’t worry that these poor souls were trafficked across the border by Mexican drug cartels and crashed the border illegally. To The Times, NPR, CNN and other like-minded media, they are simply “migrants”. They don’t even call them “illegals” anymore.  But you, dear reader, fly to the US and try to sneak past the immigration desks at the airport and see how far you’ll get before you’re roughed up, cuffed and put behind bars.

Such is the world of the US “liberal media”. It’s dirt cheap to subscribe to for obvious reasons and somewhat informative, if you filter out the propaganda. Meantime, you can listen to Tucker Carlson on YouTube for free on your phone, PC or smart TV. Even YouTube can’t afford not to have the millions who listen to the leading populist voice for freedom and truth.

Source

Is Canada Euthanising Its Poor and Working Class?

Is Canada Euthanising Its Poor and Working Class?


ER Editor: We urge readers to go to the links for these stories. For copyright reasons, we cannot publish the Spectator piece (see below) in its entirety but it’s certainly worth checking out.

Readers may also get a little more information from this Post Millennial piece, titled WATCH: Tucker Carlson discusses Canada’s euthanasia laws that put down ‘poor people’.

Check out this eloquent and moving Canadian blog piece we ran earlier this week:

6 Million Canadians Detained In Largest Prison In the World

****

An April 30th, the UK’s Spectator published a piece by Yuan Yi Zhu asking Why is Canada euthanising the poor? Briefly, in 2020/2021, the Supreme Court of Canada passed Bill C-7, which amends the criminal code to permit ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID). This overturned the normal requirement (normal in Canada only since 2015) that a person seeking euthanasia should be terminally ill, where their death is foreseeable. Now, a person only needs to be suffering from an illness or disability that ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’.

The government had already prepared the ground for getting to this point, first by revoking Canada’s longstanding ban on assisted suicide, then subsequently by passing a bill permitting euthanasia for the terminally ill:

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

Its next move was enactment of this MAID provision (under Bill C-7 in 2020, revised in 2021) lowering the bar way way down for those with an illness or disability that, as we quoted above, ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable. (The word ‘acceptable’ chillingly invites the word ‘unacceptable’.) What does this look like? According to the Spectator piece:

A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

The three personal stories linked to above range from 2019 to just 2 months ago. All involve people (women in fact, so where are the feminists??) who are chronically ill in some way or disabled, and who need economic help for life to become simply functional and tolerable. They’ve more than likely run themselves into debt as far as they can go. The stories are worth checking out for how difficult life can be, how much suffering a person has to go through just to simply get through the day.

And it’s all about money, of course. Notes the Spectator article,

Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honourable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. …

How on earth did a country that prided itself on being civilized society in so many ways, where people could get affordable healthcare without going into debt (always a mark of distinction between Canada and the US), end up like this?

Here is Tucker Carlson speaking about this to Charles Camosy. Carlson rightly links it to the financialized, neoliberal economy most people have been suffering from for decades in the West.

‘Killing yourself is not liberation. It’s really sad. You shouldn’t be forced to do it. Why does nobody say that?’

It simply beggars belief.

************

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

J.D. Vance And The New Right Are Racking Up Wins, While The Establishment Stabs At Their Backs

“What is conservative?” columnist Bret Stephens asked in Tuesday’s New York Times.

“It is,” he posits, “above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

Stephens was responding to the broad conservative and Christian excitement that America’s extreme abortion regime might finally be struck down by the Supreme Court; but Stephens might as well have been writing about J.D. Vance’s hard-fought Tuesday night victory in Ohio’s Republican primary. Or Blake Master’s primary race to represent Arizona. Or Tucker Carlson’s intellectual ascendancy. Or the rise of a young and invigorated American New Right.

Stephens is wrong, of course. Conservatism isn’t remotely about process: It’s about traditional wisdom and values; it’s about conserving things of generational, transcendent value.

It means understanding that man is fallen, and society must protect families, workers, traditions, and, yes, the unborn from being wiped aside; oppressed from above.

It means conserving the truth — the truth about men and women, the truth about the unborn, the truth about human equality, and the necessary limits on government power.

That’s not to say there isn’t still an important place for process: In a civilization governed by prudent and benevolent institutions that buttress and strengthen traditional wisdom and values, process protects those cherished things from rapid change.

In a world governed by imprudent and vindictive institutions, however, that claw, gnash, and tear at traditional wisdom — that usurp traditional values — the “process” merely fools us into believing that what these institutions are doing is normal, when in reality it is profoundly abnormal.

In the September 1961 issue of Young Americans for Freedom’s New Guard magazine, a young M. Stanton Evans asked, “Can a conservative be a radical?” Yes, he concluded: “Confronted with an established revolution, the conservative must seek to change the status quo; he has no other means of affirming his tradition.”

Vance understands this. That is why, Axios’s Jonathan Swan and Lachlan Markay report, “The Republican establishment privately regards [him] with the same disgust many felt toward Donald Trump when he entered the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.”

It’s why Senate Minority Whip John Thune looked forward to reading the coverage of Vance’s loss.

It’s why one “senior Republican aide told The Hill 70 percent of Senate Republicans share that sentiment.”

The reality is, they should all fear Vance. He’s a man who doesn’t “care if Google is a private company, because they have too much power; and if you want to have a country where people can live their lives freely, you have to be concerned about power — whether it’s concentrated in the government or concentrated in big corporations.”

He thinks our corporate overlords would happily satiate us with whirling gizmos and gadgets while capturing our culture and selling us out to China. This places him directly at odds with tired, established Republicanism, which would prefer to slander the ghost of Ronald Reagan while they simp for corporations that work to undermine our national economy, our traditions, our families, and even our children’s sexuality.

Vance is also a man who doesn’t “really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” and thinks “it’s ridiculous that we are focused on” their border over our own.

Far more than Ukraine, he cares “about the fact that in [his] community right now, the leading cause of death among 18- to 45-year-olds is Mexican fentanyl.” This places him directly at odds with all of established Washington, where $5 billion for our country’s border security is too much to ask, but politicians crow about sending six times that amount to defend the sacred territorial integrity of another’s.

Vance is a man who thinks, “If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”

“So much of what we want to accomplish,” he recognizes, is “…fundamentally dependent on going through a set of very hostile institutions, specifically the universities, which control the knowledge in our society, which control what we call truth and what we call falsity, that provides research that gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in our country.”

This once again places him directly at odds with Washington, which every years sends billions in federal aid to colleges and universities, with nary a whimper of a fight.

More broadly, “Vance,” Harpers editor James Pogue writes, “believes that a well-educated and culturally liberal American elite has greatly benefited from globalization, the financialization of our economy, and the growing power of big tech.”

“This,” he continues, “has led an Ivy League intellectual and management class… to adopt a set of economic and cultural interests that directly oppose those of people in places like Middletown, Ohio, where he grew up.”

In other words, Vance knows what time it is.

Cracks In The Wall

He’s joined in this understanding by Blake Masters, another New Right candidate for Senate who Republican leadership would rather see lose his primary.

They’re joined by Tucker Carlson, whose influence over the New Right was enough to trigger The New York Times into putting 10,000 words, 1,150 hours of television-watching, nine reporters, and three pieces toward taking him out.

They’re joined by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose fights with teachers and corporate America have earned him the ire of process-loving conservatives.

They’re joined by the broader American New Right rising across the country.

And there are signs that together, we’re beginning to earn wins: that the rock of the permanent, institutional left-wing-revolution is showing cracks. In the past month alone, we’ve seen a bellwether American state choose an outspent New Right candidate to run for Senate, adding a young face and new voice to conservative leadership.

We’ve seen elected politicians in Florida stand up and say, no, you won’t get corporate carve-outs and perks, and use those to attack the parents and children of our state without consequence.

We’ve seen the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, pick a fight with the entire ruling class, causing them to get so angry they exposed how anti-free speech they really were — and then winning the fight to control Twitter.

We’ve seen The New York Times’ full-body blow on a New Right cable host land as impotently as a limp-wristed pat.

We’ve seen CNN Plus put down, with Chris Wallace finally (if only temporarily) off TV; his lasting legacy reduced to the Republican Party withdrawing from the liberal-dominated Commission on Presidential Debates.

We’ve seen a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court imply that finally — after a half century of political dodging and hiding — the Supreme Court might strike down Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

And we’ve seen Senate leaders sit silently, or chuckle along with reporters, as they anticipate the New Right’s failings. We’ve seen columnists like Stephens complain that curtailing one of the world’s most barbarous abortion regimes “would be a radical, not conservative, choice.”

That’s not surprising, though. These men aren’t actually conservatives: they’re simple institutionalists. And in an age where America’s institutions — her colleges and universities, corporate media, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, hospitals and medical associations, Pentagon, Hollywood, children’s entertainment — are dominated by the left, their acquiescing makes them what M. Stanton Evans derisively called “silent partners in the work of destruction”; “silent partners” in the left’s permanent revolution.

In this moment, we don’t need silent partners: We need rebels willing to break the institutions of the left; to battle their champions in their own halls of power. We need men and women willing to fight for traditional wisdom and values; men and women who understand mankind is fallen, and that our elected leaders must protect families, workers, traditions and the unborn. 

In an age where our institutions have become so used to living in the dark that they hate the light, we need men and women who are willing to fight for the truth.

In America today, we need radicals.


Source

J.D. Vance And The New Right Are Racking Up Wins, While The Establishment Stabs At Their Backs

J.D. Vance And The New Right Are Racking Up Wins, While The Establishment Stabs At Their Backs

“What is conservative?” columnist Bret Stephens asked in Tuesday’s New York Times.

“It is,” he posits, “above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

Stephens was responding to the broad conservative and Christian excitement that America’s extreme abortion regime might finally be struck down by the Supreme Court; but Stephens might as well have been writing about J.D. Vance’s hard-fought Tuesday night victory in Ohio’s Republican primary. Or Blake Master’s primary race to represent Arizona. Or Tucker Carlson’s intellectual ascendancy. Or the rise of a young and invigorated American New Right.

Stephens is wrong, of course. Conservatism isn’t remotely about process: It’s about traditional wisdom and values; it’s about conserving things of generational, transcendent value.

It means understanding that man is fallen, and society must protect families, workers, traditions, and, yes, the unborn from being wiped aside; oppressed from above.

It means conserving the truth — the truth about men and women, the truth about the unborn, the truth about human equality, and the necessary limits on government power.

That’s not to say there isn’t still an important place for process: In a civilization governed by prudent and benevolent institutions that buttress and strengthen traditional wisdom and values, process protects those cherished things from rapid change.

In a world governed by imprudent and vindictive institutions, however, that claw, gnash, and tear at traditional wisdom — that usurp traditional values — the “process” merely fools us into believing that what these institutions are doing is normal, when in reality it is profoundly abnormal.

In the September 1961 issue of Young Americans for Freedom’s New Guard magazine, a young M. Stanton Evans asked, “Can a conservative be a radical?” Yes, he concluded: “Confronted with an established revolution, the conservative must seek to change the status quo; he has no other means of affirming his tradition.”

Vance understands this. That is why, Axios’s Jonathan Swan and Lachlan Markay report, “The Republican establishment privately regards [him] with the same disgust many felt toward Donald Trump when he entered the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.”

It’s why Senate Minority Whip John Thune looked forward to reading the coverage of Vance’s loss.

It’s why one “senior Republican aide told The Hill 70 percent of Senate Republicans share that sentiment.”

The reality is, they should all fear Vance. He’s a man who doesn’t “care if Google is a private company, because they have too much power; and if you want to have a country where people can live their lives freely, you have to be concerned about power — whether it’s concentrated in the government or concentrated in big corporations.”

He thinks our corporate overlords would happily satiate us with whirling gizmos and gadgets while capturing our culture and selling us out to China. This places him directly at odds with tired, established Republicanism, which would prefer to slander the ghost of Ronald Reagan while they simp for corporations that work to undermine our national economy, our traditions, our families, and even our children’s sexuality.

Vance is also a man who doesn’t “really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” and thinks “it’s ridiculous that we are focused on” their border over our own.

Far more than Ukraine, he cares “about the fact that in [his] community right now, the leading cause of death among 18- to 45-year-olds is Mexican fentanyl.” This places him directly at odds with all of established Washington, where $5 billion for our country’s border security is too much to ask, but politicians crow about sending six times that amount to defend the sacred territorial integrity of another’s.

Vance is a man who thinks, “If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”

“So much of what we want to accomplish,” he recognizes, is “…fundamentally dependent on going through a set of very hostile institutions, specifically the universities, which control the knowledge in our society, which control what we call truth and what we call falsity, that provides research that gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in our country.”

This once again places him directly at odds with Washington, which every years sends billions in federal aid to colleges and universities, with nary a whimper of a fight.

More broadly, “Vance,” Harpers editor James Pogue writes, “believes that a well-educated and culturally liberal American elite has greatly benefited from globalization, the financialization of our economy, and the growing power of big tech.”

“This,” he continues, “has led an Ivy League intellectual and management class… to adopt a set of economic and cultural interests that directly oppose those of people in places like Middletown, Ohio, where he grew up.”

In other words, Vance knows what time it is.

Cracks In The Wall

He’s joined in this understanding by Blake Masters, another New Right candidate for Senate who Republican leadership would rather see lose his primary.

They’re joined by Tucker Carlson, whose influence over the New Right was enough to trigger The New York Times into putting 10,000 words, 1,150 hours of television-watching, nine reporters, and three pieces toward taking him out.

They’re joined by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose fights with teachers and corporate America have earned him the ire of process-loving conservatives.

They’re joined by the broader American New Right rising across the country.

And there are signs that together, we’re beginning to earn wins: that the rock of the permanent, institutional left-wing-revolution is showing cracks. In the past month alone, we’ve seen a bellwether American state choose an outspent New Right candidate to run for Senate, adding a young face and new voice to conservative leadership.

We’ve seen elected politicians in Florida stand up and say, no, you won’t get corporate carve-outs and perks, and use those to attack the parents and children of our state without consequence.

We’ve seen the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, pick a fight with the entire ruling class, causing them to get so angry they exposed how anti-free speech they really were — and then winning the fight to control Twitter.

We’ve seen The New York Times’ full-body blow on a New Right cable host land as impotently as a limp-wristed pat.

We’ve seen CNN Plus put down, with Chris Wallace finally (if only temporarily) off TV; his lasting legacy reduced to the Republican Party withdrawing from the liberal-dominated Commission on Presidential Debates.

We’ve seen a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court imply that finally — after a half century of political dodging and hiding — the Supreme Court might strike down Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

And we’ve seen Senate leaders sit silently, or chuckle along with reporters, as they anticipate the New Right’s failings. We’ve seen columnists like Stephens complain that curtailing one of the world’s most barbarous abortion regimes “would be a radical, not conservative, choice.”

That’s not surprising, though. These men aren’t actually conservatives: they’re simple institutionalists. And in an age where America’s institutions — her colleges and universities, corporate media, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, hospitals and medical associations, Pentagon, Hollywood, children’s entertainment — are dominated by the left, their acquiescing makes them what M. Stanton Evans derisively called “silent partners in the work of destruction”; “silent partners” in the left’s permanent revolution.

In this moment, we don’t need silent partners: We need rebels willing to break the institutions of the left; to battle their champions in their own halls of power. We need men and women willing to fight for traditional wisdom and values; men and women who understand mankind is fallen, and that our elected leaders must protect families, workers, traditions and the unborn. 

In an age where our institutions have become so used to living in the dark that they hate the light, we need men and women who are willing to fight for the truth.

In America today, we need radicals.


Source

Tucker Carlson Reminds America That Its Current President Voted AGAINST Roe Vs Wade

Tucker Carlson Reminds America That Its Current President Voted AGAINST Roe Vs Wade


Tucker Carlson Reminds America That Its Current President Voted AGAINST Roe Vs Wade

“Biden concluded Roe had gone ‘too far.’”

Steve Watson

Fox News host Tucker Carlson noted Tuesday that Joe Biden voted against Roe vs Wade when he was a Senator, favouring making it a State issue, rather than a decision that should be made by the Supreme Court.

Carlson told viewers that “Joe Biden has always supported legal abortion, but nine years after the Roe decision was handed down, he was still willing to admit it was indefensible as a legal decision.”

The host continued, “Pregnant women, Biden explained in 1982 as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should not have “the sole right to say what should happen” to their unborn children, because, after all, no one creates children alone. It takes two people. That’s obvious.”

“In fact, Biden concluded Roe had gone ‘too far.’ And of course, it had gone too far. That was obvious then. It’s obvious now. Then, as now, many Americans believe that abortion is murder. Many other Americans consider abortion a prerequisite to happiness,” Carlson further noted.

During the monologue, Carlson called Roe vs Wade “the most embarrassing court decision handed down in the last century,” but noted that the leak of the draft opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito was dangerous and that “people could get hurt”.

Carlson suggested that the leak was an intentional attempt to pressure conservative justices not to go through with overturning the ruling.

***

Recent polls have revealed that almost half of Americans believe that states should decide for themselves on the issue of abortion, with many of the opinion that terminations should be capped at 15 weeks.

In a Marist poll, 44% of people said it should be down to individual states to decide, while 48% said they would support the same law to apply after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

A Wall Street Journal poll also found 42% would support a ban on abortion after 6 weeks, while 48% supported a ban after 15 weeks.

A Gallup poll also found that 48% believe abortion should only be legal under certain circumstances.

*********

(TLB) published this article from Summit News as compiled and written by Steve Watson


Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.


Header featured image (edited) credit: Tucker/FOX News screen shot

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

Naomi Wolf Eloquently Deconstructs the Terms Dis, Mis, and Malinformation

Naomi Wolf Eloquently Deconstructs the Terms Dis, Mis, and Malinformation

The first principle in battling against the Alinsky crew is to not to accept their terminology.  Controlling language is a specific tactic of the professional political left.  We used to call it labeling, but modern leftists moved beyond labels into the creation of new definitions.  Modern leftists now use two different strategies depending on their target: (1) create new words, the traditional labeling; and (2) redefine existing words.

In this interview Naomi Wolf is one of the few people I have seen who correctly starts her discussion by dispatching the linguistics and framing her own baseline argument.  All politicians and candidates for office should watch how Wolf responds to the first question from Tucker Carlson, and then makes the better argument.

Wolf doesn’t waste time debating “misinformation”, “disinformation”, or “malinformation”, instead she accurately just says those things do not exist. Information stands undefined. From that position there are truth and lies.  Her approach is exactly correct.  Do not accept the insanity of the Alinsky language effort.  A refreshing and really good interview, WATCH:

.

On January 13, 2022, the fraudulent and managed autocrat, the installed occupant of the White House, gave instructions to his fellow travelers in Big Tech, and I quote:

“I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets: Please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that’s on your shows.  It has to stop.”   ~ Joe Biden

It was crystal clear what Joe Biden was telling his allies in social media to do.  There is information the Government wants us to hear, and everything else is disinformation or misinformation the U.S. Govt disapproves of.

Immediately CTH encountered criticism for our position on information. However, Wolf understands exactly what we have discussed:

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”…  (link)

Ultimately, the government is not trying to control words, they are trying to control thoughts.

Source

Carlson: ‘This Is the Point Where We’re Just Going to Have to Draw the Line — No, Joe Biden, You Can’t Have a Federally Funded Ministry of Truth’

Carlson: ‘This Is the Point Where We’re Just Going to Have to Draw the Line — No, Joe Biden, You Can’t Have a Federally Funded Ministry of Truth’

Thursday, FNC host Tucker Carlson decried recently unveiled efforts from the Biden administration to crack down on so-called disinformation through the use of the federal government’s power.

Homeland Security Secretary announced his cabinet agency was establishing a disinformation governance board “to more effectively combat” what he deemed a threat to election and homeland security.

CARLSON: When Elon Musk first announced that he was buying Twitter, it was pretty obvious the Democratic Party would soon become unhinged, not just angry or annoyed in the way you’re very used to, but instead, legitimately terrified and hysterical.

Imagine how you’d feel if an armed intruder broke into your home at three in the morning. You couldn’t exactly know where things were going, but you’d be dead certain that everything was at stake. That’s how Democrats feel right now. Because in fact, everything is at stake.

Joe Biden cannot continue to control this country if you have free access to information. It’s that simple. Biden certainly is not improving your life. He is not even trying to improve your life. So the best he can do is lie to you and demand that you believe it.

But to do that, he needs to make certain that nobody else can talk because if you were to hear the truth, you might not obey. How is Biden going to pull that off? It’s not easy.

Well, one option would be to get men with guns to tell you to shut up. Most Americans probably haven’t thought of that because this isn’t Africa or Eastern Europe, this is America, and we don’t do things like that here and never have more precisely, we haven’t until now.

But now, Joe Biden is President and everything is different.

So today, to herald the coming of the new Soviet America, the administration announced its own Ministry of Truth. This will be called the Disinformation Governance Board. Laugh if you want but just to show you they’re not kidding around here, this board is not part of the State Department or any other agency focused on foreign threats from abroad. No.

The disinformation governance board is part of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is a law enforcement agency designed to police the United States and that, by the way, has a famously large stockpile of ammunition. So it’s not a joke at all.

Here is DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We have just established a mis- and disinformation governance board in the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively combat this threat not only to election security, but to our homeland security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, so one of America’s top law enforcement officers just announced this to the Congress that actually we are going to be policing what you say, and everyone in the room kind of nods, “Oh, yes, that’s totally normal.”

But here’s what he didn’t say. So America has told us the disinformation is a threat to Homeland Security. He is the head of the Department of Homeland Security, so presumably he would know since assessing threats to Homeland Security is his job, but what he didn’t tell us is how he is defining disinformation.

So, here you have this new and terrifying thing that the Biden administration is so concerned about that it has created a new agency to fight it. But Mayorkas never said or even hinted as to what it might be. So the man in charge of the disinformation governing board never defined disinformation. It’s almost unbelievable when you think about it.

Would you declare war on a country you couldn’t name? Would you send someone to death for a crime you couldn’t describe? Of course, you would, not if you were a sane and decent person, because you can’t have justice without precise definitions. That’s why we have very large books of law that define what is allowed and what is not.

But they’re not defining the core concept at the heart of what is effectively a new law enforcement agency. Maybe that’s because Mayorkas doesn’t want justice, and neither does the President he serves. They want power, and to get power, they plan to control what you think. Watch Mayorkas explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYORKAS: We have so many different efforts underway to equip local communities to identify individuals who very well could be descending into violence, by reason of ideologies of hate, false narratives, or other disinformation and misinformation propagated on social media and other platforms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, did you know that? So, one of our biggest law enforcement agencies has men with guns around the country doing so many things to stop disinformation and false narratives. Those aren’t even lies, they’re just deviations from the approved script.

Mayorkas told us again that men with guns plan to quote, “identify individuals who could be descending into violence.” Could be descending — not people who have committed violence or even been accused of any crime at all. DHS is instead using law enforcement powers to identify and punish people who think the wrong things, that would be opponents of the Biden administration. Is this dystopian fiction? No, it’s happening right in front of us.

That means that Joe Biden’s partisan political enemies are now officially enemies of the state. How is this happening in America? Good question. But it is happening.

And Biden’s new thought cop in chief has been revealed. She is a 33-year- old, fairly self-confident young woman called Nina Jankowicz. Jankowicz comes from a place called the Wilson Center. That’s a nonprofit name for America’s other mentally incapacitated war monger bigot President.

Ironically, because everything is irony, the Wilson Center is itself a major producer of yes, disinformation, but of the neocon variety, and for that reason is heavily funded by the Biden administration. Jankowicz is also, because everything is connected, a former adviser to the neo-liberal government of Ukraine, the government, we’re shipping tens of billions of tax dollars to as our own economy swirls down the drain.

So you really can’t make any of this up. It’s too grotesque. Would you believe a novel with this plot? No, you wouldn’t. But it’s happening. And that’s the bad news.

The good news is, everyone involved in Joe Biden’s new ministry of information is a buffoon. They may be evil, but they’re also ridiculous. Nina Jankowicz is the most ridiculous of all.

So you read about her appointment in “The Washington Post” this morning, and you immediately thought of the NKVD, because why wouldn’t you. Yet even the NKVD, even at the height of Stalin’s purges, never did karaoke. They were too dignified for that. But Nina Jankowicz happily does. Here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NINA JANKOWICZ, AUTHOR, “HOW TO LOSE THE INFORMATION WAR”: Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It’s when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or in mainstream outlets so disinformation’s origins are slightly less atrocious.

It’s how you hide a little lie, little lie. It’s how you hide a little lie, little lie. It’s how you hide a little, hide a little lie. Rudy Giuliani shared bad Intel from Ukraine. Or when TikTok influencers said COVID can cause pain. They’re laundering disinfo and we really should take note, and not support their lies we our wallet, voice or throat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: This is the point of the show, we’re going to say, we’re kidding. We’re making all this up. It’s not really happening in the country you were born in, but it is happening. That’s now a law enforcement official. It’s also the person you just saw, an individual who brags about getting a Master’s Degree from Georgetown University. In case you’re wondering if the entire academic credentialing machine that sustains America’s ruling class is, in fact, a joke? Spoiler alert. Yes, it is a joke.

This is somebody with so few useful skills that she describes herself in the first words of her own bio as a quote, “internationally recognized expert on disinformation,” as if that’s a job of some sort. Imagine if one of your kids grew up to be an internationally recognized expert on disinformation. The shame you would feel, the pain of knowing that truly and unequivocally, you had failed as a parent.

After all those years of advanced education, Nina Jankowicz became an internationally recognized expert on disinformation and not only that, she can’t even rhyme very well. What Nina Jankowicz can do, her one skill, the purpose for which she was hired, is level partisan attacks on the other side with maximum ferocity. That is her real job.

Now, you may have noticed if you listened carefully to the ditty that she just sang that every example of disinformation in her karaoke performance came from people who opposed Joe Biden’s policies. Is that a coincidence? Probably not. In fact, we know it’s not because Nina Jankowicz is telling all the disinformation is on the other side of the political divide. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANKOWICZ: Most of the disinformation that we’ve seen in this highly emotionally manipulative content is coming from the right. If you look at the top-10 most engaged with posts on Facebook or Twitter on a given day, they are usually posts that are coming from the right and that’s because the right does deal on this highly emotional rhetoric.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You’d have to live in a self-awareness-free vacuum. You might even have to go to Georgetown University to utter a sentence like that. “The right deals in this highly emotional rhetoric,” says Nina Jankowicz. Now, it’s worth noting here, because we can’t resist that this very same Nina Jankowicz once wrote an entire book about how women can’t use the Internet because it’s just too upsetting for them. They’re too fragile to read words they disagree with. It makes them faint.

Here’s a direct quote from Nina Jankowicz’s book, quote: “To be a woman online is an inherently dangerous act.” Keep in mind, if you’re a lady and you were to, I don’t know, order UberEats, you’re exposing yourself to danger.

This is the same woman, Nina Jankowicz, telling you that it’s the right that uses emotional rhetoric. Now, to be fair, Nina Jankowicz probably didn’t expect a lot of people to read that in her book because no one read her book. It has a total of two reviews on Amazon, but we did read it. We’ll get in a moment to what we found because it tells you exactly what we can expect from our new Ministry of Truth under Nina Jankowicz, but first, it’s necessary to know a little more about this person.

Now, she is not simply a hypocrite, she obviously is, whether she knows it or not. She would be too dim to understand hypocrisy. What she really is, of course, is a hippie for the Democratic Party, and she’s done that job flawlessly.

Nina Jankowicz, the disinformation hunter, once called the Hunter Biden laptop story, which is entirely true, a quote, “Trump campaign product.” In October of 2020, she wrote, quote: “Voters deserve the context, not a fairy tale, about a laptop repair shop.”

Now, did she give us the context or any countervailing facts? Did she deliver the truth about the story? No, of course not. She just read a bunch of lies somebody handed to her on a card because she is a useful idiot and now, she is a law enforcement official.

Nina Jankowicz is repeating a lie that was, of course, widespread on the eve of the presidential election and when she repeated it, made it possible for Joe Biden to repeat it on the debate stage during a presidential debate. In case you’ve forgotten, here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), THEN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are 50 former national Intelligence folks who said that what he is accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the — four, five former heads of the C.I.A., both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except them, his and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You mean the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? You’ve got to be —

BIDEN: That’s exactly what — that’s exactly what we’re told.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Just to be clear, this is a nightmare unfolding in slow motion, but this is the point where we’re just going to have to draw the line. No, Joe Biden, you can’t have a federally funded Ministry of Truth and no, Nina Jankowicz can’t run it. Period.

It’s not your country. You’re not even compos mentis and you don’t get to do this to a free people. Period. This can’t happen, and what is this? Well, if you want to know what’s going to happen, look at what just did happen.

So Nina Jankowicz made it possible for a presidential candidate to lie from the debate stage about a story that may have changed the outcome of election, our election. Our presidential election, speaking of disinformation. She’s never apologized for that. That’s because her role has nothing to do with the truth or stopping disinformation. Her job is to restrict any speech that challenges Joe Biden or the Democratic Party.

Now, you’d think that would be illegal in this country as a Federal employee, because we do have a First Amendment, but Nina Jankowicz doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.

As she wrote recently quote, “The free speech versus censorship framing is a false dichotomy.” First of all, here’s a pro-tip. Anyone who uses the term “false dichotomy” is a moron, okay, that is one of countless academic phrases designed to prevent thought rather than facilitate it.

False dichotomy means they’re never going to have to explain why their position is correct or yours is wrong. That is dismissed with, “Oh, it’s a false dichotomy.”

Again, that’s an NPR phrase used by low-IQ people who for some reason want our country, all of a sudden. False dichotomy.

Here is what’s not false at all: Government censorship is banned by the First Amendment, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. This whole country is predicated on that, but according to Joe Biden’s new minister of truth, the First Amendment no longer applies in this country because Russia and systemic racism. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANKOWICZ: It’s clear that actors like Russia are using those internal fissures, things like our systemic racism here in the United States, things like economic inequality to amplify these issues and really make us distrust the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So we reached out to DHS, the law enforcement agency now in charge of policing speech about Nina Jankowicz and her plans to censor you from saying what you think is true, and they assured us that they weren’t going to do that. They’re going to focus on human smuggling and Russia propaganda on Ukraine.

First of all, it’s not their job to decide what you learn about the border or Russia or Ukraine. It’s your job. You’re an adult. You can read whatever you want, but of course it’s not about that anyway.

If you read Jankowicz’s book, which we did, you will realize very quickly she was hired to police domestic social media use. Period. Quote: “I have hope we can change the norms by which our online ecosystem is governed,” she wrote in a typically illiterate sentence. This is what our colleges are producing: Morons who can’t even write in English.

Later in the book, she encourages women to go to law enforcement if they see something online they don’t like on Twitter. She called that quote, “an important step in the denormalization of women’s treatment online.”

It is hard to even believe our system produces people like this. She is an illiterate fascist.

In another book, Jankowicz made it clear that she’s not in favor of government regulation of social media when it allows conservatives to speak freely. So, she devotes an entire chapter to criticizing the country of Poland for establishing its own Ministry of Digital Affairs. Polish officials said their ministry was a way to quote, “deal with rampant online censorship of conservatives and social networks,” but she’s against that. She’s against the anti-censorship program. She’s for censorship.

She wrote that Poland is making a big mistake in pulling back censorship and we’re quoting: “Poland’s nearsightedness is leaving it extremely vulnerable,” she wrote, and the solution, she wrote back, is for the U.S. government to quote: “Lead in regulating and conducting oversight” of people who disagree with the Democratic Party on Twitter. So, the truth was never the goal. And we’re quoting again: “We are not even sure that facts can prevail over disinformation,” Jankowicz wrote. We must first begin with addressing social media.

Just to be totally clear, the means of the distribution of information are the key to their rule. It’s all they have. They have nothing but that. If you knew what was actually going on, you wouldn’t put up with this for a second, and they know that, and the Biden administration knew that Jankowicz wrote all of this. That’s why they hired her.

What you’re seeing is a full-scale attack on free speech in a country that has been free for nearly 250 years and it is happening at the direction of the U.S. government through a law enforcement agency.

We can reveal that Biden’s Pentagon, another group with guns, awarded a $750,000.00 contract to a group called NewsGuard. Now, that contract is for misinformation fingerprints. NewsGuard is an organization that claims to fight, quote, “misinformation,” but in practice is a censorship organization. It targets anyone who challenges the people in power.

NewsGuard is currently preparing a blacklist of sites that contradict the national security state’s talking points on Ukraine and Russia.

So this week, NewsGuard wrote a threatening e-mail to the news site Grayzone, informing The Grayzone that they’re spreading “disinformation” because they’re not reading a script. So, here’s how the editor of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal, responded. He wrote this: “Do you seriously expect us to grovel for approval from the same tentacle of the national security state and financial oligarchy that has rated CNN as a highly credible news source and whose Board of Advisors is a grotesque gallery of corporate propagandist spooks, documented liars and war criminals who’ve never faced a scintilla of accountability for their actions?”

Kind of overheated language. Is it true? Yes. Every word of it.

So, when Joe Biden’s censors come, that’s the way you respond. “Hey, pal, up yours. You want some disinformation? Here you go.” You are a free person in a free country, and no law enforcement agency can ever tell you what to think or say. Period.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)