12345...10...


Slow Joe Biden is a few fries short of a Happy Meal: Howie Carr – Boston Herald

As he left for Wisconsin Tuesday, President Trump said this of his doddering opponent:

Biden doesnt know hes alive.

That was just Tuesdays back of the hand. POTUS has also said that the 77-year-old Biden is not all there.

And that hes not playing with a full deck.

Not to mention, He doesnt know where he is.

And, no doubt in the coming days, the president will inform us that Slow Joe is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, not to mention three bricks shy of a load.

But why has Trump come to the conclusion that Joe Biden, never known as the sharpest knife in the drawer or the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, no longer has anything left on his fastball as hes rounding third on the back nine while approaching the checkout counter?

(Did I miss any? Do you see it easy it is to get into the rhythm of these dismissals?)

Perhaps Trump was watching Joe on TV in Pittsburgh Monday at his live event, in which he appeared in a cage, in what was in fact an almost empty auditorium.

And the Democrat nominee delivered yet another, well, Biden-esque oration:

COVID has taken this year just since the outbreak, has taken more than 100 years look, heres the lives its just its just, I mean, think about it, more lives this year than any other year for the past hundred years.

May we quote you on that, Mr. Vice President?

Every time his handlers lead him gently out of his basement, Dementia Joe steps in it.

Sometimes he confuses his wife and his sister. Or he forgets who he is (Im Joe Bidens husband) or the office hes running for (Senate? President?) or the offices hes held (hes said Congress when he apparently meant the city council).

Hes confused the name of viruses (Luhan, N1-H1). He thinks 40 people were shot at Kent State, not four. Hes said 150 million have been killed by firearms since 2007, that 120 million have died of the virus, that 720 million women are in the U.S. workforce.

He thinks Margaret Thatcher is still alive. He talks about his prior job in the OBiden-Bama administration. He brags that hes known eight presidents, three of them intimately.

On Monday, in Pittsburgh, Biden developed a new verbal tic. He started adding rs to words, on a very random basis.

Here Biden is on the violence in the urban areas. You recall that this is the same rioting and looting and mayhem that the alt-media media and the Democrats have been endlessly assuring us for months were peaceful protests.

But now its all Trumps fault. All those peaceful protests are now an orgy of what we all saw with our own eyes.

Every day George Orwells 1984 becomes more prescient. Here is Biden on how Trump is handling the, uh, peaceful protests:

He doesnt want to shed light, he wants to generate heat and hes stroking violence in our cities.

Stroking violence. Thats what Joe said, he accused the President of stroking violence. He was reading off a Teleprompter and he added an r, to make the word stroking.

Why is Trump stroking violence, Joe?

Since Donald Trump and Mike Prence cant run on their record.

Mike Prence? Of course, during the primary campaign he once called the president Donald Hump, I guess you could say Biden is running against the Hump-Prence ticket.

In his speech, in front of maybe five people, including cameramen, Joe also mentioned building the nations roads, bridges, solar rays.

And Biden bemoaned the declining faith in the birth of the right American future.

He also asked the empty auditorium if anyone thought he had a soft spot for radicals.

If I were one of Dementia Joes handlers, I would make sure he never again uttered the word soft. Thats a key part of a couple of more of those Trumpian phrases, you know, like soft as a grape, or softer than a sneaker full of

Biden is just lucky that the alt-left media averts its eyes from his obvious decline. They even allow him to lie with impunity, as he did Monday when he denied saying that he wanted to ban fracking.

He has said that, repeatedly. But nothing to see here, folks, move along. Thats the verdict from CNN, MSNBC and all the rest of them.

Same thing with his endorsement of defunding the police. Biden denies now that he ever said it, and to be fair, he didnt use the d word. Instead, Biden just said he wanted to reallocate law enforcement budgets.

Ill leave you with one final thought, from Bidens final words at the virtual Democrat convention two weeks ago.

Theres never been anything weve been able to accomplish when weve done it together.

I think Uncle Joe misread unable as able. But if hes talking about his campaign, I can only hope hes right. For once.

Visit link:

Slow Joe Biden is a few fries short of a Happy Meal: Howie Carr - Boston Herald

Hungarian Press Roundup: No Compromise in Sight over Theatre and Film University – Hungary Today

As the controversy over the restructuring of the University of Theatre and Film rages on, the political debate has escalated into a full-fledged culture war between the government and the opposition. Both sides rule out the possibility of compromise.

Hungarian press roundup bybudapost.eu

Related article

Following the resignation of the leadership of the University of Theater and Film Arts (SZFE), a demonstration was organized by the students on the eve of the new system entering into force. They later barricaded themselves inside the university building in a protest against the forced restructuring, that in their view results in total loss []Continue reading

Magyar Nemzets Bence Apti accuses the outgoing leadership of the University of Theatre and Film (SZFE) of left-wing liberal ideological bias and propaganda. Apti writes that the mad-lib professors at SZFE have incessantly criticized the government and advocated gay marriage and transgender rights as well as migration. In addition, they expected students to follow their ideology and political leanings, whilst silencing right-wing and conservative students. Apti concludes by claiming that it was the previous leadership of the SZFE that launched a political and ideological attack on the university thirty years ago when they took over the institution.

On Vasrnap, Kristf Trombits calls for a regime change in culture. Trombits finds it justified for conservative nationalists to demand a greater presence in cultural institutions. The conservative pundit writes that right-wing individuals purged from cultural life under Communism are still in a minority, as the pre-2010 left-wing liberal governments failed to break the monopoly of Communist cultural elites. Trombits believes that Christian conservatives need to confront the current left-leaning elites in order to claim back their role in Hungarys cultural life.

In Magyar Demokrata, Lszl Szentesi Zldi interprets the resistance to the new SZFE leadership as an effort by liberal, Communist, anarchist, feminist and homosexual elites to preserve their power positions in cultural life. The pro-government commentator also labels the current liberal cultural elite as the successors of Communists. Szentesi Zld proclaims that the battle for cultural domination is no longer a fight between the governing party and the opposition, but rather a matter of Hungarian culture, thinking and way of life. No compromise is therefore possible between the two camps. Either liberals maintain their domination in culture, or those that put the national interest first take over, Szentesi Zld concludes.

444.hus Mrton Bede praises the students of the SZFE for occupying the university in protest against the governments restructuring plans and the new leadership. The liberal commentator thinks that both the editorial staff of Index (who collectively resigned fearing government interference with editorial policies) and SZFE students set a good example for Hungarians as they show that the government should be resisted in an uncompromising way. Bede hopes that the revolt of the students and the resignation of leading faculty members will cause the government a powerful headache and will also become the first sign of a more general resistance against the government.

Magyar Narancs in a first-page editorial also celebrates the SZFE students determination to fight to the last bullet. The liberal weekly suggests that the student revolt may not last long, but even if they fail, they will have shown a good example by trying to resist a government that wants to plunder everything.

On Mrce, Mrk Losoncz goes so far as to claim that the protest of the SZFE students is relevant for the whole country or even the world. The alt-left blogger contends that public universities belong primarily to students, and therefore they should be the ones to decide how the universities are managed, and by whom. Losoncz likens the governments restructuring plan to capitalist privatization, claiming that the government intends to hand over the university to its acolytes and friends. He hopes that students taking part in the protests will taste grassroots democracy and collective decision-making, and also that they will set an example for others, how to resist the government.

Npszavas Pter Nmeth calls for organized resistance against what he calls a piecemeal takeover of all important institutions by the government. The left-wing journalist acknowledges that we are not in 1944, and there is no open dictatorship in Hungary, but thinks nonetheless that those threatened by the government need to join forces, otherwise the government will hunt them down one by one. After the Central European University, the research network of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and now the Theatre and Film University, further institutions will be targeted, he believes.

Related article

A pro-government commentator accuses students occupying the Theatre and Film University of political bias. A left-wing pundit calls for dialogue. Hungarian press roundup bybudapost.eu Background information: students protesting against the restructuring of the University of Theatre and Film occupied the university building on Monday night, and say they intend to stay there. Several faculty members []Continue reading

Featured photo via Theatre and Film University Students Unions Facebook page

Read the original here:

Hungarian Press Roundup: No Compromise in Sight over Theatre and Film University - Hungary Today

[OPINION] Law and order president? The chaos and violence Trump wants you to be fearful and hateful of is happening now under his watch – Asian…

President Donald J. Trump participates at a roundtable on donating plasma Thursday, July 30, 2020, at the American Red Cross-National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)

DOOMSDAY in America is what President Donald Trump has been scaring people about in his campaign. He warns that if his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, wins in November, then people will not be safe with all the chaos, violence, and killing happening in the country. He claims only he can fix this and bring law and order back in America.

No self-respecting and thinking Republican, Democrat, or Independent will choose to be blind to the truth because the fact is: all that he is warning voters about is already happening under his watch, in Trumps America.

Trump purposely fans the flame of hate, mistrust, and division in America. He emboldens racists, white supremacists and right-wing extremists. This is his own doing. His words, actions and policies have been inciting the chaos, violence and carnage we are now experiencing.

Falling behind in the polls because of his failed leadership, especially in handling the coronavirus pandemic, he uses the tactic that got him elected in 2016: stoking racial and cultural divide. He is desperate to be re-elected to buy time and escape all the lawsuits waiting to be filed against him for all the crimes and transgressions he has committed against the Constitution and the American people.

The violence, looting, and destruction we now see are perpetrated NOT by the peaceful Black Lives Matter Movement protesters rallying against racism and racial injustice in America, but by opportunists, anarchists, right-wing extremists and white supremacists, some of them coming from other states and cities. This is tactically done so Trump can blame protesters and the Democrats, and cast himself as the savior and the hero for the crises he and his administration have created.

Trump has been using people as pawns and props for his fabricated narrative to appeal to his base and to convince those who are still undecided to vote for him, using lies, fear-mongering and doomsday scenarios.

The violence and crimes happening in America are not mainly perpetrated by peaceful protesters, Black Lives Matter activists, Antifa, immigrants and Democrats as alleged by Trump the so-called bad guys in his playbook that he loves to blame and demonize.Here is the truth about the issue from Anti-Defamation League (ADL). ADL is a leading anti-hate organization that was founded in 1913 in response to an escalating climate of anti-Semitism and bigotry, and its timeless mission is to protect the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all.

The facts from the ADLs annual Murder and Extremism report that Trump does not really want you to know:

Of the 42 extremist-related murders in the U.S. last year, 38 were committed by individuals subscribing to various far-right ideologies, including white supremacy.ADL ranked 2019 as the sixth-deadliest year on record for extremist-related violence since 1970.

A total of 17 separate incidents were counted last year. The deadliest, by far, was the August white supremacist shooting spree at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, which left 22 people dead and at least 24 more wounded. Including the El Paso attack, white supremacists were behind 81 percent of the domestic extremist-related murders in 2019.

Right-wing extremists were responsible for 90 percent of such murders in 2019 and for 330 deaths over the course of the last decade, accounting for 76 percent of all domestic extremist-related murders in that time.

Over the last decade, right-wing extremists have been responsible for more than 75 percent of extremist-related murders in this country, said ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt. This should no longer come as a shock to anyone. Lawmakers, law enforcement and the public need to recognize the grave and dangerous threat posed by violent white supremacy. We cannot begin to defeat this deadly form of hatred if we fail to even recognize it.

The past five years (2015-2019) include four of the deadliest years on record for extremist murders. Last year, the number of extremist-related fatalities in the U.S. declined slightly from the previous year, dropping from 53 fatalities in 2018 to 43 in 2019. But last years total was still higher than 2017, when 41 deaths were recorded.

For the eighth year in a row, firearms were the weapon of choice for domestic extremists.

Guns were involved in 86 percent of last years fatalities. In the past 10 years, 315 of the 435 people (72 percent) killed in the U.S. by extremists were shot to death. The increase in extremist-related shooting sprees in recent years is of particular concern.

These are the people Trump referred to as very fine people after one woman, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, was killed by a white supremacist while she protested at a rally of alt-right groups, who were defending the white supremacists and neo-Nazis in August 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia.

These very fine people in Trumps playbook were neo-Nazis who staged a torchlight parade, unabashedly chanting anti-Semitic slogans, and roughed up students locked in arms around a statue of Thomas Jefferson. When the violence escalated and became fatal, Trump immediately blamed the alt-left, the Antifa, and defended the neo-Nazis.

In May of this year, Black American George Floyd was arrested and killed by a white Minneapolis police officer who knelt on his neck for eight minutes as he was handcuffed and faced down pleading for his life, saying I cant breathe.

In the wake of this brutal murder, Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement protesters rallied in Minneapolis (and in other parts of the country and the world) to fight against racial injustice. Chaos, looting and violence perpetrated by anarchists, opportunists followed. Trump and his administration were quick to blame antifa without bases in fact.

Antifa is not a single group with a clear organizational structure or leader. It is a decentralized network of activists who dont coordinate. Antifa is a monicker for these people whose common goal is opposing anything that they think is racist or fascist.Experts who have studied antifa say there is no evidence that the fringe, amorphous group is driving nationwide protests, and Trump hasnt cited anything specific as he accused them of doing so, theWashington Postreported.

But according to thePost, even as the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful in recent days, Trump and Barr have made a concerted effort to implicate antifa involvement in them.

The Trump administrations own intelligence reports reveal that most of the violence appears to have been driven by opportunists. A separate DHS document dated June 17 stated, anarchist and anti-government extremists pose the most significant threat of targeted low-level, protest-related assaults against law enforcement. The document did not mention antifa by name and the documents definition of anarchist extremist

appears to exclude the group, thePostfurther reported. Did Trump tell you about this?The president also did not differentiate the Black Lives Matter (BLM)s peaceful protesters from anarchists who infiltrated the rallies, and did not acknowledge what BLM was fighting against racial injustice and police brutality. Trumps malicious attempt to tie antifa with peaceful protesters is an assault to peoples constitutional right of peaceful assembly to a voice out their legitimate grievance in a democracy.

So who is behind this misinformation about antifa? Twitter has shut down multiple accounts that it says were operated by a white supremacist group posing as liberal groups encouraging violence. This account violated our platform manipulation and spam policy, specifically the creation of fake accounts. We took action after the account sent a Tweet inciting violence and broke the Twitter Rules the company said, as reported by CBS News.

Twitter said the white supremacist group Identity Evropa used one fake account, @Antifa_US, with the intent to call for violence in majority white suburbs, maliciously using the name of the Black Lives Matter movement. Did Trump tell you about this?Yet despite all of this, Trump even wanted to declare antifa as a domestic terrorist group.

Have you ever heard the president denounce white supremacists, right extremists and vigilantes subscribing to far-right ideologies for the violence and deaths they have perpetrated despite all the facts? Did he ever call for the right extremists, and white supremacists to be declared as domestic terrorists? No. He even defends them.

And what about the supposed peaceful protests against the white police officer who shot an unarmed black man seven times at the back, witnessed by his kids in the car in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 23?

TheNew York Postreported that of the 175 arrested during protests, a total of 105 were not from the city. They came from 44 different cities, including 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen accused of shooting dead two men and seriously injuring a third with an assault rifle.

The teenage shooter, along with his mother, had also allegedly crossed state lines and was arrested in his home in Illinois. What were they doing in Kenosha, Wisconsin armed with military-style weapons? The report said police seized more than 20 firearms during the protests, leading to numerous charges for carrying concealed weapons. And did you see the video of the police ignoring this teen as he walked around with his weapon amid the chaos?

And what did Trump do? He defended the teen, who we now know is a Trump supporter. He attended a Trump rally in Iowa, seating in the front row. This kid is not old enough to vote, smoke nor drink but was already in possession of an assault weapon that has killed innocent people.

When Trump was asked if he would condemn the actions of vigilantes like the teen Kyle Rittenhouse, he ignored the question and claimed Rittenhouse probably wouldve been killed if he had acted differently, BuzzFeed reported.

Rittenhouse idolized the police and posted pictures of him on social media posing with guns, in support of Blue Lives Matter. How ironic that he chose to turn an otherwise peaceful protest to tragedy with his knee-jerk vigilante approach to discord.

The president refused to condemn the actions of vigilantes like Rittenhouse even after denouncing the shooting of a right-wing demonstrator in a pro-Trump rally in Portland on Monday, August 31.

This prompted Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to challenge Trump in a statement: The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same.

Throughout the Republican National Convention, Trump has been branding and selling himself to be the president who will bring back law and order in the United States. He failed to do it as president now, why should we believe he can solve this crisis when re-elected?

Trump accused the Democrats of spreading hate, when in fact, his rhetoric of hate, prejudice and divisiveness against people of color, immigrants, Muslims and his political opponents is the one that has led to the surge of hate crimes in the United States.Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler nailed it when he said:

Its you who have created the hate and the division. Its you who have not found a way to say the names of Black people killed by police officers even as people in law enforcement have. And its you who claimed that White supremacists are good people.

Your campaign of fear is as anti-democratic as anything youve done to create hate and vitriol in our beautiful country.

* * *

Gel Santos Relos has been in news, talk, public service and educational broadcasting since 1989 with ABS-CBN and is now serving the Filipino audience using different platforms, including digital broadcasting, and print, and is working on a new public service program for the community. You may contact her through email at gelrelos@icloud.com, or send her a message via Facebook at Facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos.

Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFCs Balitang America. Views and opinions expressed by the author in this columnare solely those of the authorand not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to http://www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com and http://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos

More:

[OPINION] Law and order president? The chaos and violence Trump wants you to be fearful and hateful of is happening now under his watch - Asian...

Here’s Why You Should Never Use the Term "Alt-Left" – POPSUGAR

On Aug. 15, President Donald Trump stood before a podium in the lobby of his New York City home. Trump was ostensibly there to talk about infrastructure, but the conversation swiftly turned to Charlottesville and the administration's failure to appropriately handle the fallout of the events of the weekend before. A heated Trump brought back his much-derided "many sides" argument from a few days prior . . . and then took it to a whole new level, asking the members of the press gathered before him: "What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?"

Let's set the record straight here and now: there is no alt-left; there has never been an alt-left, and there will never be an alt-left. And there's a good reason why.

The phrase "alternative right" first entered the public consciousness in a real way in 2008 when Taki's Magazine published "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right." The outrageously highfalutin speech was given by conservative philosopher (and son of Jewish immigrants) Paul Gottfried to the H.L. Mencken Club, an organization that in and of itself has nationalist-leaning ideologies. Two years later, the questionable association would be concreted when noted white supremacist Richard B. Spencer who had long been hopping around the conservative blogosphere, facing job troubles due to his extremist views used it as the domain name for his very own editorial website: AlternativeRight.com.

Spencer and like-minded hate-speech enthusiast and white supremacist Jared Taylor would use the shorthand "alt-right" to describe their following and the "intellectual" movement that they claim to have given birth to. Fueled by the propaganda issued by the National Policy Institute think tank an organization in which they both sat at the top of the org chart and by their respective websites, the two men would slowly nurture a burgeoning neo-Nazi movement in the darkest depths of the internet. Spencer was not satisfied with his underlying claims of ownership of the phrase and would go on to launch AltRight.com in 2017.

For many, the first time they confronted the hatred and rage of the group was during the 2016 election when the alt-right coalesced behind then-candidate Donald Trump. But it's important to recognize that there is a difference between the right, conservatives, and even an "alternative" conservative movement and the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who Taylor and Spencer represent. Therefore, it's crucial that we are clear in our usage of these phrases when identifying groups of Americans and meticulous about the ideas and actions that we attribute to them. Richard Spencer wants his white nationalist following to be called the alt-right so that they don't have to be called what they are: hate-filled racists who seek to add inequality and despair to each and every conversation on the national scale.

And so we come to the "alt-left." While some have tried to equate the alt-right to a left-leaning counterpart, one underlying fact has made this a false equivalent: the alt-right is a movement fueled by sentiments that have been relegated by modern thought to the deepest, darkest caverns for their impossibly hateful rhetoric. Alt-left, for all intents and purposes, is merely an epithet used by these individuals to indicate that they are not the worst, to pretend that those who oppose their views are just as bad.

But let's dispel of that notion right here and now: there is no alt-left. There is nothing worse than the alt-right. They deserve to stand alone in the unique category of evil that has no counterpart. There is no place for white nationalism, white supremacy, neo-Nazism, or the KKK in 2017. And no amount of deflection about some countermovement on the left, right, or anywhere else can ever change that fact.

View original post here:

Here's Why You Should Never Use the Term "Alt-Left" - POPSUGAR

With Republicans like these, who needs Ds? – The Highland County Press

After working my usual day, I arrived home to find that three people in our house had received our "official absentee ballot applications" from Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who does not like to be photographed with his eyes wide shut in public meetings in Hillsboro.

To be clear, not one us had requested an "official absentee ballot application." For the vast majority of the last 41 years, I have voted in person in either Highland County or Adams County. You could, as I told a former mayor years ago, look it up.

I have not opened my "official absentee ballot application," nor do I plan to. I know where and how to vote, thank you very much.

Upon receiving the "official absentee ballot application," I couldn't help but recall a recent story by the alt-left NPR. (By the way, my MacBook Pro dictionary recognizes "alt-right" but not "alt-left." No surprise, there.)

In a June 25, story (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/25/883441640/nearly-1-4-billion-in-coronavirus-relief-payments-sent-to-dead-people), NPR reported that nearly $1.4 billion in coronavirus relief payments were sent to dead people.

The Government Accountability Office said the error involved almost 1.1 million checks and direct deposits sent to ineligible Americans. The payments were part of the COVID-19 package passed by Congress in March and known as the CARES Act.

Reasonable minds must wonder how many unrequested "official absentee ballot applications" have been sent to dead people. Without question, we will be assured that there's a distinction between these government mailings.

Signatures must match. (Not true. After decades of writing notes during public meetings, I am fortunate if I sign my name the same way more than 10 times in a row. That's why I always vote in person with a valid ID, including using my state fishing license just for fun one time in Tranquility.)

There will be checks and balances. Sure there will. Just like the $1.4 billion in coronavirus relief payments that were sent to dead people.

Unrequested official absentee ballot applications are the same as absentee voting and are not to be confused with universal vote by mail. Wrong.

The traditional definition of absentee voting involves a voter who, is for some reason, unable to make it to the polls on Election Day. The voter obtains a form to request a ballot, fills that form out with his/her excuse for not being able to vote in person and sends it to the state. The state sends the voter a ballot and the voter finally returns the ballot with his or her vote.

The official absentee ballot application that we and, no doubt, millions of other Ohioans received, allows voters to receive a mail-in ballot without providing a reason why they need one, much less asking for one.

Voters ought to at least have some skin in the game when exercising their constitutional right to vote.

Universal vote by mail is a great opportunity for fraud.

* * *

Given that the Nov. 3 general election is closer than we may think, and given that letters to the editor of this newspaper in support of some and in opposition to others are inevitable, let's get this out of the way now.

For the record, I edited portions of a recent letter that disparaged someone's political opponent. As I told the author of that letter, I've done this job longer than most people in southern Ohio, and I've learned that political letters to the local newspaper are best when written in support of Candidate A, rather in opposition to Candidate B.

To the letter writer's credit, he understood. That policy is a two-way street, too. I really don't care about the letter after your name. That doesn't impress me.

* * *

In recent news, one Highland County public official deserves some well-deserved recognition. Lord knows, many public officials over the years have begged that I not mention them. No good can come from that, given my own track record of endorsements and other political musings for the last 30 years.

Nonetheless, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney Anneka Collins does deserve some credit for standing on principle.

First, her office worked diligently to have approximately $30,000 in taxes paid by a North Shore Drive business. That issue was half-arsed addressed a decade ago to no avail. Counselor Collins corrected this. Thank you.

Last week, county commissioner Terry Britton pointed out that State Rep. Shane Wilkin said the State Controlling Board had approved the release of $175 million to help local communities with the cost of COVID-19 pandemic-related expenses, including $501,166.42 for Highland County. This was in support of unbudgeted administrative leave funds for the county engineer's office.

Im just too conservative to vote yes for this, Collins said. If you guys want to vote, we can argue this all day long. Im not going to change my position.

Collins said that as long as the prosecutors office isnt at a shortfall, Im not asking for any more money, because that money can be used somewhere else.

Indeed.

Other counties have considered small businesses that are hurting before adding to the coffers of already bloated government budgets, whose salaries, wages and benefits far exceed the family per-capita incomes in Highland County.

Four Republicans voted to shake the federal "free-money tree," all three commissioners and Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley. (What is the federal deficit these days, anyway? Republicans used to care about that.)

Highland County has one public servant working hard to recoup $30,000 and four others who are spending twice that before the first check is cashed.

Good for Anneka Collins for speaking truth to power.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press, Highland County's only locally owned and operated newspaper.

See the rest here:

With Republicans like these, who needs Ds? - The Highland County Press

Resident Evil survival horror TV series is coming to Netflix and fans think its the next Stranger Things – The Sun

RESIDENT Evil fans will be pleased to hear a new TV series based on the video game franchise is coming to Netflix.

The streaming platform has revealed some details about the live-action adaptation.

The @NXOnNetflix account tweeted: "When the Wesker kids move to New Raccoon City, the secrets they uncover might just be the end of everything.

"Resident Evil, a new live action series based on Capcoms legendary survival horror franchise, is coming to Netflix."

For those who don't know, the Wesker kids referred to are the daughters of the main villain from the first five video games.

He's known as Albert Wesker.

1

Netflix added: "The 8 x 1 hour episode season will be helmed by Andrew Dabb (Supernatural), Bronwen Hughes (The Walking Dead, The Journey Is the Destination) will direct the first two episodes."

The first episode will be called "Welcome to Raccoon City".

According to Deadline, the series will feature two timelines.

The first timeline will reportedly focus on the two fourteen year Wesker sisters who move into a manufactured, corporate town.

This is where they learn a potentially world destroying secret.

The second timeline will apparently feature a virus stricken world with a dwindling human population, where the sisters are separated.

With Resident Evil fans already tweeting excitedly, it is possible that the series could become as popular as Stranger Things.

We don't have a date for when the series will air but seeing as the first episode is written, we can hope they'll start filming soon.

Use Netflix on a computer or laptop? Try these useful shortcuts

Here are some handy keyboard shortcuts...

CHANGING PLACESFind YOUR town 750million years ago with mind-blowing Earth map

Hot Deals

LISTEN UPSpotify is giving away FREE Google Nest Mini smart speakers to subscribers

SPEAK EASYActivate these 4 WhatsApp settings NOW to stop snoopers including face-lock

ROCKY HORRORNASA tracking huge asteroid which will 'hit Earth's orbit next month'

TINY-SAURUS REXT-Rex may have weighed HALF of previous estimates coming in at 7 tonnes

FREE NETFLIXWatch Netflix for FREE with no subscription thanks to a global promotion

In other news, Disney fans are fuming after the entertainment giant announced its live-action remake of Mulan will cost up to 26 to stream in the UK.

Gamers will have to pay as much as 449 for the PlayStation 5, a new leak suggests.

And, Disney recentlyreleased a trailerfor its latest Star Wars TV series, "The Bad Batch".

What's your favourite thing to watch on Netflix? Let us know in the comments...

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

Read more:

Resident Evil survival horror TV series is coming to Netflix and fans think its the next Stranger Things - The Sun

Checking In With the Newsletter Economy – New York Magazine

Photo: Universal History Archive Images/Universal Images Group via Getty

Over the past few years, online-publishing platforms have made it easy for users to charge a subscription fee for newsletters. As Facebook, Google, and private equity have laid waste to print media nationwide, these platforms have given rise to a new publishing economy, in which any writer with a dedicated following might be able to make a living. Of all the platforms out there, Substack, launched in 2017, has become the preferred tool for writers striking out on their own. According to the company, more than 100,000 subscribers now pay for at least one newsletter, and the platforms top users collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, which, in some cases, amounts to more than they might earn as staff writers at legacy publications.

Substack collects a 10 percent fee from all subscriptions, which allows it to maintain its one sacred oath: no advertisements. Like traditional media, publishing platforms have been crushed under the pressure advertisers put on traffic expectations and Substack sees its commitment to remaining ad-free as insurance against venture capitalists looking to bulk up or scrap publishers for parts. But that doesnt mean Substack hasnt gotten attention from investors. The company raised $15.3 million in funding from Andreessen Horowitz last year, some of which has been used to provide fellowships and sizable advances to writers, and it the company is also considering using the some of the money to provide its users with legal and editorial guidance.

The newsletter trend is bigger than independent journalists. Print veterans like Graydon Carter and Jonah Goldberg have styled their new publications staffed with editors and funded by investments from private equity as newsletters. And some Substack users are beginning to join forces, bundling their subscriptions at a discount, to offer their readers something that resembles a traditional publication (and that, perhaps, can bring together writers across the ideological spectrum). The question may no longer be whether readers are willing to pay for hyper-focused newsletters, but how many are willing to do so. Substack CEO Chris Best thinks the appetite is great.

Weve developed this habit of outsourcing everything were reading to our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Paying for writers that you trust is a way to take back control, Best said. People are ready to take back their mind.

National Review editor Jonah Goldberg and Weekly Standard alum Stephen Hayes founded this conservative newsletter, which they describe as a center-right Atlantic.

For: Your uncle who rails against Trump but probably wont vote for Biden.Launch: October 2019.Cost: $10 a month.What you get: Regular columns from Goldberg, Hayes, David French, and a collection of editors and writers drawn from The Weekly Standard, The Bulwark, and various conservative think tanks.

Heather Cox Richardson, a professor at Boston College, contextualizes todays news with American history.

For: Ken Burns fans.Launch: November 2019.Cost: $5 a month.What you get: Richardsons newsletter started as a regular Facebook post in which she offered historical context for Trumps Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment. Now, readers wake to a roundup of the previous days news delivered in the clear-eyed language of an email from your smartest friend, who happens to have a Ph.D. from Harvard and has spent decades researching American history and politics.

Matt Taibbi moves his alt-left blogging from Rolling Stone to a sort-of-weekly newsletter.

For: Gonzo nostalgics and Russiagate skeptics.Launch: April 2020.Cost: $5 a month.What you get: Taibbis irreverent columns are just as critical of corporate greed and the barbarism of Trumps GOP as they are of anti-racism initiatives and cancel culture, which, according to Taibbi, are symptoms of the New Lefts tendency to divide people between victimizers and victims (he adds an asterisk as a sarcastic scarlet letter to the name of anyone who has been canceled).

Bill Bishop, who formerly wrote newsletters for Axios and the New York Times, strikes out on his own with a daily newsletter on all things China.

For: Day traders and retired spooks.Launch: October 2017.Cost: $15 a month.What you get: Bishop breaks down the days essential eight most-important stories, from a Xi Jinping inspection tour, to Huawei, to TikTok. Bishop knows when to be skeptical of Chinas propaganda and when to be skeptical of propaganda about China.

Former New York Magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan returns to blogging.

For: People who despise Trump but think wokeness is also a threat to the American experiment.Launch: July 2020.Cost: $5 a month.What you get: A cosmopolitan conservatives analysis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, and class, sprinkled with deconstructions of Trumpism.

A former staff writer at The New Republic, Emily Atkin writes an impassioned, deeply reported newsletter on climate change four times a week.

For: People who are the right amount of angry (outraged) about climate change.Launch: September 2019.Cost: $8 a month.What you get: Atkin breaks news, as she did recently when she discovered Democratic congressman Tim Ryan had taken $10,000 from a corrupt fossil-fuel company despite signing the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge. Atkins work has earned her about 2,500 subscribers and, according to The New York Times, she expects to gross $175,000 this year.

Boston-based writer and reporter Luke ONeil.

For: Your friend who laments the death of alt-weeklies.Cost: $6.65 a month.Launch: July, 2018.What you get: ONeil packages his columns in stream-of-consciousness reports that detail the many reasons reasonable people have to be angry right now. His reports are filled with accompanying exhibits and tweets and he frequently includes original interviews and guest posts. ONeil has said he is on track to make $100,000 annually.

When G/O Media folded the news site Splinter, eight journalists started a WordPress site. In March, they switched to Substack and in July launched a paid subscription.

For: Your friend who laments the death of Splinter.Cost: $8 a month.Launch: March 2020.What you get: A leftist politics newsletter thats heavy on the labor beat.

ThinkProgress founder Judd Legum reinvents his liberal news and opinion blog as a newsletter.

For: Your cousin who canvasses for Dems.Cost: $6 a month.Launch: July, 2018.What you get: Want a comprehensive guide to the Trump Administrations attack on the USPS? Or an investigation into Sarah Palins Facebook grift? Popular Information has you covered.

Anonymously written analysis on investing, restructuring, and bankruptcies.

For: Anyone looking for a break from GMAT prep.Cost: $49 a month.Launch: November 2016.What you get: Two newsletters a week provide a skim of corporate bankruptcies and disruptions in the countrys largest industries and offer analyses on everything from airlines and J. Crew in the time of Covid to WeWorks epic implosion.

Business, technology, and media analysis from Ben Thompson.

For: New York tech investors.Launch: March 2013.Cost: $12 a month.What you get: Thompsons daily columns cover everything from the Big Four, to venture capital, to the future of business and media. Thompson is considered by many to be the godfather of the modern paid-subscription newsletter.

Gender, politics, and whatever else is on her mind that day.

For: Anyone in search of a friend.Launch: March 2013.Cost: $5 a year, minimum.What you get: Like Thompson, Friedman is a newsletter pioneer and has spent the better part of the last decade winning readers over with insightful writing and reporting, reading recommendations, and doodled pie charts.

Magazine legend Graydon Carters weekly newsletter picks up where he left off at Vanity Fair, albeit with a smaller platform and a tighter budget.

For: Globe-trotting boomers and bankers who buy art.Launch: July 2019.Cost: $9.99 a month.What you get: Culture, crime, travel, politics from magazine luminaries (including many Vanity Fair alums). The newsletter is a weekly window into Carters proclivities vacations on Lake Como, designer suit recommendations. It all smacks of an era when magazine editors could afford such decadence.

Charlotte Ledger: North Carolina business news, by Tony Mecia.The Dog and Pony Show: Tennessee news and gossip, by Cari Wade Gervin. Street Justice: Washington, D.C., newsletter, by Gordon Chaffin. Importantville: Indiana politics, by Adam Wren.

ParentData: Evidence based parenting advice, by Emily Oster.Hola Papi!: Witty LGBTQ advice column, by John Paul Brammer.BIG: Thinking on monopolies, by Matt Stoller.Margins: The intersection of business and technology, by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk.

*This article appears in the August 31, 2020, issue ofNew York Magazine. Subscribe Now!

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Continue reading here:

Checking In With the Newsletter Economy - New York Magazine

Say Goodbye to IITs, IIMs Et Al? NEP 2020 Will Convert Indias Top Institutions Into JNU Copies – Swarajya

If the vision outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 for higher education institutions is realised, it will not only spell disaster for the country but will be Prime Minister Narendra Modis worst legacy. (I am not using these words lightly but with full responsibility.)

This is sad because in the last five years, Modi government has taken numerous steps to improve higher education such as providing unprecedented levels of academic and financial autonomy to Indian Institutes of Management, graded autonomy to institutions of higher learning based on their performance, freeing top 20 institutions 10 public and 10 private the so-called Institutions of Eminence from excess regulatory load, launching Massive Open Online Courses (MOCCs) under SWAYAM initiative where teachers of top institutions provide free courses, opening seven new IIMs, six new IITs, establishing a agency to give financial support to institutions, setting up a new regulatory council, the National Testing Agency and so on.

The government is also trying to achieve some level of internationalisation of its university spaces - by attracting foreign teachers and foreign students. The Study in India programme launched in 2018, for instance, envisions to increase foreign student strength in India to over two lakh by 2023 from present 40,000.

But if NEP 2020 is implemented, all this good work wont matter.

Most dangerous idea

The NEP states that, By 2040, all higher education institutions (HEIs) shall aim to become multidisciplinaryinstitutions and shall aim to have larger student enrolments preferably in thousands, for optimal use of infrastructure and resources, and for the creation of vibrant multidisciplinary communities. This - transforming all higher education institutions into large multidisciplinary universities - is the highest recommendation of the NEP.

Even engineering institutions, such as IITs, will move towards more holistic and multidisciplinary education with more arts and humanities, the NEP states.

NEP justifies this approach in two ways:

First, it eludes to ancient Indian universities such as Takshashila, Nalanda et al which were multidisciplinary institutions in nature. This notion of a knowledge of manyarts or what in modern times is often called the liberal arts (i.e., a liberal notion of the arts) must be brought back to Indian education, as it is exactly the kind of education that will be required for the 21st century, the NEP reasons.

Second, NEP says that as per assessments of educational approaches in undergraduate education, mixing arts and humanities with Science, Technology, Engineering, Management (STEP) courses leads to positive learning outcomes, including increased creativity and innovation, critical thinking and higher-order thinking capacities, problem-solving abilities, teamwork, communication skills, more in-depth learning and mastery of curricula across fields, increases in social and moral awareness, etc., besides general engagement and enjoyment of learning, research.

Nalanda and Takshashila were not successful because they were multidisciplinary in nature. Moreover, touting liberal arts part education as something that is required in the 21st century is a liberal opinion, not a fact.

And it is bizarre to think that learning (say) sociology along with (say) coding will improve learning outcomes, critical thinking and accrue to the students other assorted great benefits the NEP has listed out. This reasoning is so poor that it doesnt merit discussion but contempt.

In fact, injection of liberal arts into anything and everay thing, which seems to be the overarching focus of NEP 2020, will not lead to establishment of even a single Nalanda but will certainly help create thousands of JNUs throughout the country.

After independence, the Indian State took a different approach of setting up higher education institutions than the western world. It established institutions focussing on different areas: IITs are for engineering, IIMs for management, IISc for Sciences, NLUs for Law, Jawaharlal Nehru University focussing on liberal arts and so on.

These were supposed to be institutes for specific purposes rather than universities which mean everything for everyone. In hindsight, this has proved to be a boon for the country, especially in 2020 when we are witnessing some of the finest education institutions in the West fall victim to alt-left politics, activism and values thanks to the liberal arts education chicken finally coming home to roost.

We are seeing the same in India - in places like JNU, Jadavpur university, Jamia Milia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University, etc. But the reason why we are facing only scores of alt-left mutinies and not thousands is precisely because of our unique higher education setup which has kept STEM institutions (the places of excellence) segregated from liberal arts ones thereby providing the much-needed inoculation against bad ideas.

Now, NEP wants India to ape the West and inject arts and humanities in IITs, IIMs, IIScs, etc. We will end up with little JNUs in these top-quality institutes known for their academic excellence.

Of course, it is no ones case that IITs, IIMs et al shouldnt come up with courses which blend their specialism with some social sciences. For example, IIIT-Delhi started a B.Tech course in 2017 which would be a blend of Computer Science and Social Sciences. The idea is to producesocial scientists who can understand and use computational technologies.

This is a unique, rational and better approach for Indian institutes like IITs, IIMs to take based on the institutions needs rather than the one size fits all approach advocated by the NEP.

Second worst idea

On top of making every HEI a multidisciplinary one, the NEP envisions that all HEIs will gradually move towards full autonomy - academic and administrative. Additionally, the autonomy of public institutions will be backed by adequate public financial support and stability. Now, imagine a thousand JNUs, scores of them funded by public monies, enjoying unprecedented autonomy in selecting faculties, students, management, courses and curriculum, etc.

Giving autonomy to IITs, IIMs, IISc, etc is great because more freedom leads to more excellence as there are no political agendas to push through funding certain areas and the research is chiefly driven by market needs and aspirations of brilliant minds studying there. But autonomy in liberal arts hijacked by one ideology (which is inevitable) is a recipe for disaster.

The narratives and politics will drive the research and not the other way round. For those who question the inevitability of left controlling all higher education institutions should only look at the United States where conservatives dont lack resources or the numbers but have never been able to enjoy any kind of influence in the universities. The situation of the so-called right in India (or whatever other name Dharmic side wants to use) is many times worse.

Another bad idea

Just as the NEP talks about opening schools in areas with high populations of SCs/STs/minorities, it has similar plans for higher education as well. Such ghettoisation will lead to creation of caste/religion based institutions and will be detrimental to national unity and integrity. But unlike the schools, the NEP doesnt mention that there should be focus on hiring faculties from certain communities. This is a relief.

However, it directs that all governments and HEIs will have to

a) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to socio-economically disadvantaged students

b) Make admissions processes more inclusive

c) Make curriculum more inclusive

It is yet to be seen how the term inclusive is defined but prima facie this opens a can of worms. The NEP is handing over a big Social Justice tool in the hands of the government which can be wielded in a very harmful manner. It is one thing for the government to directs public funded institutions to do something but entirely different to direct private ones to implement its agenda. It also doesnt gel well with its vision of autonomy for these institutions.

Is there anything positive for higher education in NEP?

Of course, there is.

NEP bats for giving institutions and faculty autonomy to innovate on matters of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment within a broad framework of higher education qualifications. This is great idea in principle.

Mainstreaming of vocational training and education into credible higher education institutions is a much needed move. Providing vocational courses through HEIs is a smart move that will not only greatly improve the quality of skilling courses but also encourage more people to take them up. Also, HEIs are in much better position to forge partnerships with industry and design relevant courses based on skills which are in demand in the market.

Breaking up of 3/4 year duration degrees into 1/2 year certificate/diploma courses is also a great improvement. Students will be able to exit from 3-4 year duration bachelors degree courses after one or two years, with a diploma or certificate in a domain, with an option to continue and finish their degree later. Students couldnt have asked for a better arrangement in this age of lifelong learning. Since academic credits will be digitally scores under Academic Bank of Credits, students will be able to collect these from different HEIs as well. This combined with vocational courses in HEIs are the top two best recommendations in the NEP.

Setting up of National Research Foundation is a welcome move though its effectiveness is in questions given that the implementation will be in hands of just another government department.

Regulatory environment may see an improvement as the NEP promises to give importance to self disclosure over inspector raj and also intends to make it easier for HEIs to set shop.

However, the damage potential of the bad idea of converting every HEI into a multidisciplinary institution cant be underestimated. Good ideas such as vocational training, institutional autonomy or flexibility of curriculum wont matter much if liberal arts education get a foothold in every institution.

There is not much to be gained from vocational course if you are brainwashed enough to believe that internship is child labour (as the JNU Student Union President recently called it).

If someone has put a time bomb in the basement of the house, it doesnt matter if you are hanging nice paintings on the first floor.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take a really hard look and reverse his governments stance before it is too late. Otherwise, three decades down the line, people will remember the destruction of Indias premier education institutions via this NEP as his worst legacy.

The rest is here:

Say Goodbye to IITs, IIMs Et Al? NEP 2020 Will Convert Indias Top Institutions Into JNU Copies - Swarajya

Is There an ‘Alt-Left’? – Snopes.com

On 15 August 2017, as President Trumpdoubled downon his earlier position that the violence at a neo-Nazi rally in Virginia that left a woman dead was the fault of both sides, he used a term that has only recently come into existence: the alt-left.

Responding to a question about calls to condemn the movement known as the alt-right, Trump responded, What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?

So what, exactly, is the alt-left? Unlike the term alt-right, which was created by members of an ideology by its supporters(in order to make more palatable to the mainstream what had previously been considered radical views),the term alt-left appears primarily in social media and news reports as a term leveled against an inconsistently defined group of people with liberal ideologies in an effort to imply a parallel of extremism on both sides.

Use of the term alt-left gained ground quickly online (according to Google Trends charts) when conservative Fox News host Sean Hannityused the term in adebatewith BuzzFeed writer Rosie Gray over media coverage of the so-called alt-right. Searches for the term spiked again directly after Trump used it in his 14 August 2017 press conference:

It is unclear if Hannity himself coined the term, but we could not find widespread use of the term on reddit or4chan, a web form popular with the alt-right, prior to his 22 November 2016 use of it.

There was prior to Hannitys use of the term a web site founded in 2015 (AltLeft.com) that espouses a philosophy that it describes as the left of the AltRight. It presents a philosophy ideologically closer to the actual alt-right than the leftists with which the alt-right stands in opposition, based on an archivedversionof the site:

The AltLeft exists in that small space where Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan begin to meet. Its that point in time where Mussolini ditched marxism and moved toward fascism. The question is, can the AltLeft be divorced from political correctness and white ethnomasochism?

This appears to be a small group, and is most likely not what Trump meant by the alt-left.

This does not mean that people who could be considered left-leaning do not use the term. For example, James Wolcott, a cultural critic for Vanity Fair, argued in March 2017that the alt-left provides a mirror image distortion: the same loathing of Clinton, rejection of identity politics, and itch for a reckoning. Here, as in nearly all of its other uses, however, it is a term leveled against a group from which the writer is separate. Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake articulated this in a 1 December 2016 story:

The difference between alt-right and alt-left is that one of them was coined by the people who comprise the movement and whose movement is clearly ascendant; the other was coined by its opponents and doesnt actually have any subscribers.

This differs substantially from the derivation of the term alt-right, which was either invented or co-invented by white nationalist Richard Spencer. The term found a home on the internet in 2010 when Spencer founded the blog AlternativeRight.com. Though heterogeneous, the alt-right broadly represents a collection of far-right ideologies that primarily object to multiculturalism and support racially-based policies that explicitly and implicitly serve to benefit white people.

Put more simply, the term alt-right does refer to an actual movement, while the term alt-left is primarily a rhetorical device used either to imply an equivalency between radicals on the left and on the right or for left-leaning moderates to criticize those those who they see as spoilers.

However, now that the president has used the term, those with an interest in undermining the left or antifa groups (anti-fascist protestors) will likely push its use. Days after Trumps press conference, a reddit user created the forum /Alt_Left_Violence/ (which has no posts as of press time). Users of the 4Chan /pol/ forum, from which many dubious political blogs are sourced, have already promoted the term:

THE PRESIDENT HAS GIVEN US A LABEL TO USE

NOW IS OUR CHANCE, DON WENT UP TO BAT FOR US AND IS TAKING HITS FOR US, DONT LET IT GO TO WASTE

REDPILL THE NORMIES ON THE ALT-LEFT

THEY ARE COMPARING THE ALT-LEFT TO WWII VETS

SHOW THEM THE TRUE FACE OF THE ALT-LEFT

IM TAKLING ANTIFA RIOTS, VIOLENT ATTACKS ON INNOCENT PEOPLE, THE WHOLE KIT AND CABOODLE

FIRE UP YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA SOCK PUPPETS, SEARCH FOR THE TERM ALT-LEFT

LOOK FOR POSTS COMPARING THEM TO WWII VETS

THEN REDPILL THE NORMALFAGS

The term will likely continue to be a moving target, depending on who the person using it is seeking to discredit, and thus cannot yet be accurately defined.

In fact, less than an hour after we originally posted this article, alt-right social media figure Mike Cernovich demonstrated its lack of meaning better than we ever could have in a tweet blaming a 17 August 2017 terrorist attack in Spain on the alt-left and conflating leftists with radical Islamic terrorists two groups that have absolutely nothing in common:

Go here to see the original:

Is There an 'Alt-Left'? - Snopes.com

What is the "alt-left" Trump was talking about? – CBS News

President Trump on Tuesday said "there is another side" to the violence in Charlottesville, specifically calling out the "alt-left."

"What about the alt-left that came charging at, what you say, the alt-right?" Mr. Trump asked. "Do they have any semblence of guilt? What about the fact they charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do."

What is the "alt-left"? Let's start with the basics.

It's the group Mr. Trump is partly blaming for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend. Except it's not really a group, and more of just an epithet that's gained currency in some conservative and liberal circles to describe leftists, particularly "Antifa" groups that sometimes skirmish with right-wing demonstrators.

The term "alt-right" was coined by the white supremacist Richard Spencer, who used it to describe people like himself. The alt-right is a loosely defined movement that rejects traditional conservatism and typically embraces a white supremacist viewpoint.

It is usually used to encompass far-right activists who reject the idea of racial egalitarianism and equality of the sexes. Some alt-right adherents, such as Spencer, also hope for the dissolution of the United States and the creation of an "ethnostate" for non-Jewish people of European heritage.

Mr. Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon once said that the news website he used to run, Breitbart, was "the platform for the alt-right." But that was before internal disagreements within the alt-right created what some adherents call the "alt-light," which is less extreme in its views and tends to distance itself from the outright white supremacy of people like Spencer and David Duke, a former KKK leader. Both Spencer and Duke were present at the Charlottesville protests.

The alt-left, meanwhile, is a purely pejorative description. Few, if any, people on the left claim to be part of anything called the alt-left, as the term was created in an attempt to demean leftists and imply they are morally equivalent to the alt-right.

It grew out of the conservative media. In particular, Fox News host Sean Hannity, an outspoken supporter of Mr. Trump, frequently references the alt-left on Twitter.

In a November appearance on Hannity's show, former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said the alt-left think Trump voters "are misogynists and misanthropes and negative people."

But conservatives aren't the only ones talking about the alt-left. Some liberal commentators have employed the term as well when writing about left-wing activists and politicians. For example, an April article in New York magazine identified Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, French politician Jean-Luc Melenchon,, and British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as "evidence of an active contemporary 'alt-left.'"

Liberals and conservatives tend to use "alt-left" somewhat differently, however. Hannity will often use the term to describe mainstream liberals, while liberals sometimes use it to describe socialists, social democrats, and other far-left groups.

The people who arrived to protest white supremacists at the rally were mostly clergy, students, and residents of Charlottesville, according to CBS News' Paula Reid. And the vast majority of them were unarmed, despite Mr. Trump's claims to the contrary.

While there were some Antifa protesters with batons, but they were vastly outnumbered by armed white supremacists. The white supremacists committed the worst acts of violence at the rally, including one who appeared to deliberately plow into counter-protesters with a car, killing one woman.

Excerpt from:

What is the "alt-left" Trump was talking about? - CBS News

Antifa Berkeley: Why the ‘Alt-Left’ Is a Problem | Time

Donald Trumps challenge on August 15 what about the alt-left has stirred silly arguments. Claiming there is no alt-left because no one calls themselves alt-left, ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming. And claiming there is no alt-left because all leftists hate Neo-Nazis mistakenly defines the alt- modifier as being about racism not fanaticism. With 100 goons from the Left having attacked peaceful demonstrators from the Right as recently as this Sunday afternoon in Berkeley, we must stop viewing the growing epidemic of political brutality through myopic, partisan lenses. The real question remains: Is alt-left a useful term?

You can repudiate racism unequivocally, yet still recognize an alt-left in America today. The term emphasizes a new breed of extremist virtual, vitriolic and violent without getting tangled in the rights or wrongs of being anti-Trump, against police violence or bigoted. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, when Americans condemned Communism and Nazism for being totalitarian, they werent accusing Communists of murdering Jews like the Nazis did.

Moreover, believing that in order to exist, the alt-left must call itself alt-left neuters the power of political nicknaming. In the 1950s, the liberal Washington Post cartoonist, Herblock Herbert Block coined the term McCarthyism to demean right-wing anti-Communists. More recently, Politically Correct, RINO (Republican in Name Only), Snowflake, Libtard, and Cuckservative, were imposed by opponents.

Two centuries ago, the British essayist Isaac DIsraeli called political nicknaming one of the arts practiced by all political parties. DIsraeli noticed that sometimes, politicos hijacked a contemptuous name, making it their own: The first revolutionists of Holland known as Les Gueux or the Beggars accepted the name as much in defiance as with indignation, and acted up to it.

Although the label alt-right originated with alt-rightists, Hillary Clinton mainstreamed use of the term. In a sweeping attack a year ago, Clinton condemned Trump as representing the paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment. Introducing an unfamiliar term, she explained: Alt-right is short for alternative right. She failed to connect the growing familiarity with the word alt to the computer keyboard. She quoted the Wall Street Journals description of this loosely organized movement, mostly online, that rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.

Clintons analysis proves why alt-left is a useful term. The alt-left is also a paranoid fringe steeped in resentment, and some of the resentment is racial, although moral, in that it is resisting racism. It too is loosely organized, mostly online, wallowing as the alt-right does in Internet-fueled hysteria and harshness. It too rejects mainstream ideology, in this case, liberalism. And it is broader than Antifa, the violent anti-Fascist fringe that combats neo-Nazis and the KKK.

The alt-left designation helps explain the Democrats emerging civil war, with extremists assailing centrist liberals, and turning the word neoliberal into one of their overused epithets. It exposes the postmodern fanatics: bullies who violate liberal principles by shutting up speakers they dislike; brats who riot in Berkeley, Portland, Oakland and elsewhere when they dont get their way; hypocrites who denounce their opponents unreason and violence yet cant see their own; and brutes who whip each other into vulgar frenzies on the Internet. The alt-left is populated by ideologues who reject the American value of compromise. They see a world of conspiracy theories, imagined enemies and exaggerated slights. Ironically, they echo their far right rivals by demonizing Wall Street, the Big Banks, the Mainstream Media and, frequently, Jews or Zionists. Both far right and far left radicals represent a politics of backlash and lashing out, not consensus-building or reaching out.

Neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on virtue or violence. The alt-left continues the violence of the Weatherman and the Black Panthers in the 1970s, and the hooliganism of the Battle of Seattle WTO Protestors in 1999. And like the alt-right, leftwing radicals are finding ideological allies worldwide, particular among Jeremy Corbyns Labourites; these British leftists also prefer dictating the outcomes they seek instead of trusting democratic processes to work.

Yes, calling radicals the alt-left is mischievous, tarring those fanatics with their ideological rivals brush. But as Communists and Fascists showed, the political world is round. If you go too far left or right, you meet in the anti-democratic land of intolerance and violence.

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

See the rest here:

Antifa Berkeley: Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem | Time

Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist …

President Trump angrily denounced the so-called alt-left at a news conference on Tuesday, claiming that the group attacked followers of the so-called alt-right at a white supremacist rally that exploded into deadly violence in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday.

What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? he asked. There was blame on both sides, he said. I have no doubt about it.

Both phrases are part of a broad lexicon of far-right terminology that has become important to understanding American politics during the Trump administration. Many of these terms have their roots in movements that are racist, anti-Semitic and sexist.

Here is a brief guide to the meaning of those expressions and others used by white supremacists and far-right extremists.

The alt-right is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like white nationalism and far right.

The movements self-professed goal is the creation of a white state and the destruction of leftism, which it calls an ideology of death. Richard B. Spencer, a leader in the movement, has described the movement as identity politics for white people.

It is also anti-immigrant, anti-feminist and opposed to homosexuality and gay and transgender rights. It is highly decentralized but has a wide online presence, where its ideology is spread via racist or sexist memes with a satirical edge.

It believes that higher education is only appropriate for a cognitive elite and that most citizens should be educated in trade schools or apprenticeships.

Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the alt-left. Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and anything vaguely left-seeming that they didnt like.

Some centrist liberals have taken to using this term.

It did not arise organically, and it refers to no actual group or movement or network, Mr. Pitcavage said in an email. Its just a made-up epithet, similar to certain people calling any news they dont like fake news.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said the alt-left was partly to blame for the Charlottesville violence, during which a counterprotester, Heather D. Heyer, was killed.

The alt-light comprises members of the far right who once fell under the alt-right umbrella but have since split from the group because, by and large, racism and anti-Semitism are not central to its far-right nationalist views, according to Ryan Lenz, the editor of Hatewatch, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Members of the alt-right mocked these dissidents as the alt-light.

The alt-light is the alt-right without the racist overtones, but it is hard to differentiate it sometimes because youre looking at people who sometimes dance between both camps, he said.

The two groups often feud online over the Jewish Question, or whether Jews profit by secretly manipulating the government and the news media.

Antifa is a contraction of the word anti-fascist. It was coined in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s by a network of groups that spread across Europe to confront right-wing extremists, according to Mr. Pitcavage. A similar movement was seen in the 1980s in the United States and has re-emerged recently as the alt-right has risen to prominence.

For some so-called antifa members, the goal is to physically confront white supremacists. If they can get at them, to assault them and engage in street fighting, Mr. Pitcavage said. Mr. Lenz, at the Southern Poverty Law Center, called the group an old left-wing extremist movement.

Members of the alt-right broadly portray protesters who oppose them as antifa, or the alt-left, and say they bear some responsibility for any violence that ensues a claim made by Mr. Trump on Tuesday.

But analysts said comparing antifa with neo-Nazi or white supremacist protesters was a false equivalence.

Cuck is an insult used by the alt-right to attack the masculinity of an opponent, originally other conservatives, whom the movement deemed insufficiently committed to racism and anti-Semitism.

It is short for cuckold, a word dating back to the Middle Ages that describes a man who knows his wife is sleeping with other men and does not object. Mr. Lenz said the use of the word by the alt-right often had racial overtones.

S.J.W. is short for social justice warrior and is used by the right as an epithet for someone who advocates liberal causes like feminism, racial justice or gay and transgender rights. It is also sometimes used to imply that a persons online advocacy of a cause is insincere or done for appearances. It became widely used during GamerGate, a controversy that began in 2014 over sexism in video game subcultures.

Mr. Lenz, whose organization has specific criteria for which groups it classifies as Nazi organizations, said the right used the phrase to rhetorically address the fact that the left sometimes calls anyone who disagrees with it Nazis. He said the alt-right had created the term so its followers had a similar blanket term to deride the left.

Video taken at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville on Saturday showed marchers chanting blood and soil. The phrase is a 19th-century German nationalist term that connotes a mystical bond between the blood of an ethnic group and the soil of their country.

It was used as a Nazi slogan in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s and since then has been transported to neo-Nazi groups and other white supremacists around the world, Mr. Pitcavage said. It is one of several Nazi symbols that have been adopted as a slogan by some members of the alt-right.

Globalism is sometimes used as a synonym for globalization, the network of economic interconnection that became the dominant international system after the Cold War. The word has become more commonly used since Mr. Trump railed against globalism frequently on the campaign trail.

For the far right, globalism has long had distinct xenophobic, anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic overtones. It refers to a conspiratorial worldview: a cabal that likes open borders, diversity and weak nation states, and that dislikes white people, Christianity and the traditional culture of their own country.

White genocide is a white nationalist belief that white people, as a race, are endangered and face extinction as a result of nonwhite immigration and marriage between the races, a process being manipulated by Jews, according to Mr. Lenz. It is the underlying concept behind far-right, anti-immigration arguments, especially those aimed at immigrants who are not white Christians.

The concept was popularized by Bob Whitaker, a former economics professor and Reagan appointee to the Office of Personnel Management, who wrote a 221-word mantra on the subject that ended with the rallying cry: Anti-racist is code word for anti-white.

Mr. Pitcavage said the concept of white genocide was often communicated online through a white supremacist saying called the Fourteen Words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

The saying was created by David Lane, a white supremacist sentenced to 190 years in prison in connection with the 1984 murder of the Jewish radio host Alan Berg.

See original here:

Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist ...

McCarthyite witch-hunt over alleged anti-Semitism explodes in British Labour Party – WSWS

By Chris Marsden 29 July 2020

Sir Keir Starmer has launched a witch-hunt against the left, in the Labour Party and beyond, of unprecedented scope.

He leads an alliance of Blairite Labour MPs, Zionist groups, the Conservative Party, and the mainstream media, intent on driving out what remains of the official Labour left, expelling hundreds, if not thousands, of members, setting up former party leader Jeremy Corbyn and others for legal prosecution, bankruptcy and worse, and is planning the same for various left-leaning websites.

In the process, political opposition to the criminal suppression of the Palestinians by Israel will be officially recast as a form of anti-Semitism, slandering, and virtually outlawing, a vast swathe of left-wing opinion. The only disagreement within this unprincipled cabal, given that it extends into Tory central office and has the support of Benjamin Netanyahus far-right government, is whether the entire Labour Party should be bankrupted in the process.

On Wednesday, July 22, Labour apologised in the High Court to seven former staffers from Labours governance and legal unit, involved in investigating accusations of anti-Semitism, who became whistleblowers in a July 2019 BBC Panorama documentary, Is Labour Anti-Semitic? A letter of apology was sent to BBC journalist and Panorama presenter John Ware. Undisclosed financial compensation was made to the whistleblowers and to Ware, reported to be worth around 500,000.

Under Corbyn, the party had issued a press release immediately after the Panorama programme aired, that Labour now accepted, contained defamatory and false allegations about the seven whistleblowers. We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication.

Corbyn and the former party leadership had rejected the accusations made in the Panorama programme that they had shown a lack of commitment to investigating charges of anti-Semitism levelled against Labour members. A party spokesman had called the whistleblowers disaffected former officials, who had worked actively to undermine Corbyn and had both personal and political axes to grind.

They described the Panorama programme as a seriously inaccurate, politically one-sided polemic, which breached basic journalistic standards, invented quotes and edited emails to change their meaning.

Labour has been investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into its handling of anti-Semitism allegations under Corbyn. A report was commissioned by Labours former General Secretary Jennie Formby to be submitted as evidence to the EHRC, but which was blocked by the partys lawyers. This internal report was leaked in April. It accused the Panorama whistleblowers of bad faith in their charges made against Corbyns leadership and insisted that all accusations of anti-Semitism had been pursued once Corbyns team had control of the partys governance and legal unit. The report referred to a hyper factional atmosphere of hostility towards Corbyn in Labours head office.

With Starmer having accepted all the allegations made against Labour, Corbynas his opponents would have anticipatedwas forced to respond, insisting in a Facebook post, The Partys decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last years Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one.

Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence, and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an NEC [National Executive Committee] inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme.

Others, including Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite trade union, voiced criticisms. McCluskey tweeted, Todays settlement is a misuse of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court.

A fresh round of legal action was swiftly announced, instigated by Ware, the seven whistleblowers, and by some of those named in the leaked internal Labour Party report commissioned by Formby. Mark Lewis of Patron Law, representing Ware and the whistleblowers, said, I can confirm that I have been instructed to pursue cases. Wednesdays settlement, he said, was the first battle of many battles. The leaked Formby report had seriously harmed a whole list of people and would now also have to be challenged in the court.

The findings of the EHRC are due to be published in September, after which many of those named in the leaked report and other Jewish members would be entitled to bring discrimination cases against Labour, citing personal injury. Each of these claims can be for an upper limit of 47,000. The Jewish Chronicle has reported that the pro-Zionist Jewish Labour Movement is considering bringing a class action against Labour, on behalf of its members, if the EHRC report finds they have been discriminated against.

The internal party inquiry into the leaked report, led by Martin Forde QC, will also no doubt become an occasion for condemning its authors.

For Patron Law, Lewis revealed that former Labour General Secretary Iain McNicol is already suing the party over the leaked report, adding, There are many other people who are named in the report, they come under different categories: people who work for the party, people who were in the party in political positions.

Claims covering the Data Protection Act, invasion of privacy, and libel have already been submitted. Estimates of the potential costs of various cases, encompassing more than 50 individuals, range from 5.5 million to 8 million.

Corbyn is being personally targeted. The Mail on Sunday reported that some of the ex-party staff would drop their legal action against Labour if Corbyn were to be expelled. A source said, Labour says they have zero tolerance to anti-Semitism. Zero tolerance means no Corbyn and no Corbynistas. Its Keirs choice, zero tolerance, or zero money.

Campaign Against Anti-Semitism chief executive Gideon Falter has also called for Corbyns suspension or expulsion for gaslighting the whistleblowers he bullied for standing up to Jew-hatred.

Corbyn already faces a legal case based on allegations of anti-Semitism. On July 10, blogger Richard Millett won the first stage of a libel case against Corbyn for claiming that Zionists in the audience at a 2013 meeting featuring Palestinian ambassador to the UK, Manuel Hassassian, lacked English irony and were disruptive and abusive.

Mr Justice Saini ruled that Corbyn was making factual allegations as to Mr Milletts behaviour. By then, Millett had been publicly identified as one of the two individuals referred to by Corbyn on BBC1s Andrew Marr Show in September 2018 while defending his 2013 comments from claims of anti-Semitism. Millett, too, is represented by Lewis, of Patron Law.

Starmer had already begun purging the few remaining Corbynites from the party leadership before making his apology to the Panorama whistleblowers. He dismissed Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary for retweeting comments by actress Maxine Peake that were critical of Israel. Peake had pointed out that Israeli security forces trained US police in the restraint techniques that led to the May 25 death of George Floyd.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a shadow environment minister, did not even need to be expelled. He quit after the Jewish Labour Movement demanded his resignation for an old Facebook message describing Zionism as a dangerous nationalist idea.

This is nothing compared with what is to come. The legal and political witch-hunt will extend far beyond Corbyn and his immediate periphery and prepare the machinery for a more ferocious onslaught on any socialist movement of workers and young people. Lewis for Patron Law warned, This is just the start. Actions are being taken against those who repeat the libels and will be taken against those who choose to do so in future. An honest opinion has to be based upon facts.

On July 23, John Ware wrote in the Jewish Chronicle, in which he has a commercial interest, of a year-long fusillade of falsehoods from a stream of Left wing bloggers, media activists, Labours people powered Momentum faction, and alt-Left outletsall of whom share a conviction that the mainstream media is fundamentally dishonest.

Acknowledging an unwritten code that says we journalists should never sue because however offensive or defamatory criticism of our journalism may be, we hold free speech sacrosanct, he continued, It was a rule with which for decades I agreed. I no longer do. That is why my proceedings against Labour are only the first of several I have begun against alternative media outlets and individuals.

Ware cited the then Chair of Momentum Jon Lansman, pro-Corbyn alt-Left outlets, notably Skwawkbox and the Canary, and more mainstream journalists who should have known bettersuch as Owen Jones, the Guardian columnist.

Lansman has already issued a public apology effectively blaming Corbyn for statements he (Lansman) made, because they were based on the partys advice and assurances.

This orgy of McCarthyite slanders must be opposed by all workers and young people. This includes defending Corbyn and others facing legal censurea crowdfunding appeal for Corbyn has already raised over 300,000.

But opposing this right-wing offensive cannot be left under the leadership of Corbyn and his allies. The working class has already paid a bitter price for the glorification of the Corbynites as a supposedly socialist alternative by pseudo-left groups such as the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party.

Even as the Blairite right and their Zionist and Tory allies prepare for all-out war, Corbyn, McDonnell, Long-Bailey, et al. remain tight-lipped in the faint hope of a compromise on the rights termsincluding allowing ordinary Labour members to be expelled or driven out of the party.

Corbyn is absolutely opposed to any political struggle by workers and young people against the Labour and trade union bureaucracy. He stands for a policy of death by a thousand compromises. That he now faces a personal attack of such magnitude is because he spent his four and a half years as party leader demobilising opposition to the Blairites and bowing to their every dictateincluding granting free votes on war against Syria and the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, dropping opposition to NATO, and instructing Labour councils to impose Tory austerity cuts. In the process he delivered an electoral victory to Boris Johnson, before meekly handing back control of the party to the representative of the right wing, Starmer.

Corbyns refusal to oppose the Zionist and Blairite rights anti-Semitism witch-hunt epitomises his political cowardice and lack of principle. He allowed some of his closest allies to be driven from the partyincluding Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, and Chris Williamsonon trumped up charges, along with hundreds of other members. Moreover, his endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)s designation of legitimate political criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism, and its inclusion in Labours new code of practice, has fashioned the noose his opponents intend to hang him with.

Even now, the message of unity with the right wing remains the same. Responding to the sacking of Long-Bailey, for example, McCluskey complained, Unity is too important to be risked like this. Unite Assistant General Secretary Steve Turner tweeted, Sacking her is wrong and undermines unity in our Party.

The working class must respond to the witch-hunt by striking out on a new political road.

Corbyns abject betrayal of his popular mandate to end the Blairite era of austerity and imperialist militarism and take the fight to the Tories and the ruling class was predicted by the Socialist Equality Party. Basing itself on Trotskys writings from the 1920s onwards, the SEP explained that the role of the Labour and trade union lefts has always been to ensure the domination of the right wing.

Today, moreover, no change of leader, or influx of left-leaning members, could reverse Labours transformation into a naked party of big business. Labours abandonment of reforms and embrace of Thatcherite neoliberalism was not the product of the scheming of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Rather, fundamental changes within world capitalism associated with globalisation have objectively undermined all organisations embedded in the nation state and seeking limited reforms through an accommodation with their own bourgeoisie.

The conflict between rival imperialist powers for control of global markets and resources demands trade war and militarism abroad and austerity, authoritarianism, and class war at home. Combatting the agents of this capitalist perspective such as Starmer and his allies, therefore, demands far more than trench warfare to maintain a left rump within the Labour Party. It means building a new leadership, the SEP, to take forward a revolutionary struggle against capitalism and for socialism.

Read the original post:

McCarthyite witch-hunt over alleged anti-Semitism explodes in British Labour Party - WSWS

Howie Carr: Alt-left media still cling to their Big (Russia) Lie – Boston Herald

When are The New York Times and the Washington Post going to give back their 2018 Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of a hoax the Trump-Russian collusion which never occurred?

With every Friday-night document dump, it becomes more indisputable that this whole thing Russiagate, Spygate, Obamagate, whatever you want to call it was a complete fraud, a failed slow-motion coup detat against the president of the United States.

And yet the alt-left media still cling to their Big Lie, and the august awards that they gave one another for reporting Very Fake News. Their defense is they were just reporting what their sources told them. How were they to know it was utter nonsense?

Its the old George Costanza defense: Its not a lie if you believe it.

And boy, did all these Democrat operatives with press passes want to believe it. As the old-timers in the city room used to say, some stories are just too good to check out.

Heres the citation on the comrades Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting:

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nations understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign.

Only one problem: There were no connections, at least between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

So in the end, this whole thing was a monstrous scam, the biggest political and journalistic scandal in American history.

The Russians, however, were deeply involved with the Hillary Clinton campaign, through the so-called Steele dossier, which was bought and paid for by the Democrats, through two cutouts, a Deep State law firm and a Democrat dirty-tricks opposition research firm.

The latest egg-in-the-face for the elite media came, as it almost always does, on a Friday night. The Republicans in the Senate released a bunch of FBI documents from the witch hunt, one of which dealt with this Pulitzer Prize-worthy February 2017 effort from the Times:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that (Trump and his crew) had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.

Uh, actually, no. There was no such evidence, none whatsoever.

Everyone has known for years that this NYT bombshell, along with so many others across the alt-left media since 2016, was pure BS.

The crooked Comey said so under oath, the inspector general debunked it, as did the sainted special counsel Mueller.

But this time the Senate also declassified the notes of Peter Strzok, the rabid Trump-hating FBI paper-shuffler who has since been fired for breathtaking corruption.

Even Strzok dumped on the Times story: We are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.

Remember, this was a guy who told his mistress that Hillary Clinton should win 100,000,000-to-nothing, that he could smell Trump supporters and that he had an insurance policy to stop Trump from becoming president.

Even Strzok knew the Times had lost its collective mind.

The Times, as it always does when busted for Very Fake News, had a spokesman issue this pro formal statement: We stand by our story.

Just as the Times stood by Walter Duranty, another Pulitzer Prize winner, a stooge of Stalin who reported that there was no famine in Ukraine, as millions died. Just as the Times stood by Herbert L. Matthews, who slobberingly reported that Fidel Castro was not a Communist, even as he turned Cuba into a Caribbean gulag.

The Times defense and that of the Post, CNN, NBC, ABC and all the rest is that they were just reporting what their sources told them.

Okay, lets use that logic, that you can feel free to print whatever your sources tell you. Your anonymous sources, which is even better, because if you have to, you can just plain make it up, like the columnists at the Globe.

Once theyve unmoored themselves from reporting the facts, whats to stop them from next deciding that theyre going to prove, say, Sasquatch lives, or that theyre going to finally locate Ponce de Leons Fountain of Youth?

The Rosetta Stone of the collusion hoax is the Steele dossier, compiled by a clownish Maxwell Smart-like spy who just lost a defamation case in the UK brought by two Russians he put into his bogus report.

Somebodys gotta go to prison for this. It was a conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. The FBI obstructed justice by using documents that they knew were made-up Hillary oppo research. Everyone knew it was crap, and yet they kept shoveling it, for three years, lying under oath.

Will the Deep States media accomplices give their Pulitzer Prizes back? Nah.

Sasquatch will be above the fold on the front page before these hacks admit that they tried to frame the president of the United States.

Read the original:

Howie Carr: Alt-left media still cling to their Big (Russia) Lie - Boston Herald

What Is Alt-Left? Here’s What You Really Need to Know

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump launched a passionate defense of white supremacists who attended a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, arguing that there was blame to be found on both sides.

Trump, who made the remarks during a press conference that at times became hostile, attempted to shift some of the blame to what he called the alt-left. For many people, it was the first time theyd heard the phrase usedat least from someone of Trumps stature.

What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, the alt-right? Trump asked. Let me ask you this: What about the fact they came chargingthat they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.

The idea of trying to create an alt-left to compare to the much-criticized alt-right likely makes sense from Trumps apparent perspective. It creates an equal foil to share the blame of the shocking violence in Charlottesville. But is there really such a thing as the alt-left?

Theres no such thing as the alt-left. To understand why, you first need to understandthe extremist movement within the Republican party.

The idea of the alt-right is largely credited to Richard Spencer, a white nationalist. The so-called alt-right became a force in the Republican Party and overwhelmingly supported Trump in his quest to be president. The term alt-right took hold in the late 2000s, shortly after President Barack Obama took office.

Heres what theSouthern Poverty Law Center, which has extensively tracked the movement over the years, defines the alt-right as:

The Alt-Right is a loose set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that white identity is under attack through policies prioritizing multiculturalism, political correctness and social justice, and must be preserved, usually through white-identified online communities and physical ethno-states.

The group found its identity on the internet and was cultivated websites such as neo-Nazi outlet the Daily Stormer and Breitbart News, the website formerly run by Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

READ MORE:

There is no equivalent organized movement on the left that espouses extremist views comparable to those held by members of the alt-right. Instead, the idea of the alt-left is frequently used by far-right Fox News pundit Sean Hannity to describe more radical liberals and Trump opponents.

Also, unlike the alt-right, alt-left wasnt coined by members of the movement, but rather, its used as an insult against people who oppose far-right ideologies.

Oren Segal, the director of the Anti-Defamation Leagues Center on Extremism, told CNN that the idea of an alt-left is a made-up term.

While there are radical members of the left, the idea of an alt-left is incorrectly conflated with the antifa (anti-fascist) movementmembers of which have been seen at protests at Trumps inauguration and other events.

Antifa, which sits on the extreme far-left of the political spectrum, is a decentralized network of people from varying degrees of political leanings. Their goal is to oppose what they see as fascist elements in society, including the alt-right. Antifa activists have at times engaged in violence, which has made them a villain in the eyes of some right-leaning groups and a thorn in the heel of many Democrats, who do not want to be associated with their more provocative methods and do not appreciate the black cloud the group puts over otherwise peaceful protests.

Antifa does not hold cohesive political views beyond opposing fascism, which makes it far different from the alt-rights pro-white, bigoted platform.

Essentially, Trump is trying to create a foil for the alt-rightwhere many of his most vehement supporters have planted their flag.

By trying to create the idea of a just-as-radical side on the left, it lends credence to his argument that there is blame on both sides for the violence that erupted in Charlottesville. Also, its an easy way to charge up supporters.

On Tuesday night,Hannity backed up Trumps statements during his press conference by continuing to push the alt-left narrative,implying that the counterprotesters in Charlottesville were part of the alt-left.

The people that provoked this, yeah Ill agree, they were white supremacists, they are the ones who are most responsible, Hannity said. This brings out a morally justifiable anger in peoplepeople who are that ignorant. But it does not give these alt-left protesters, doesnt give people of good conscious even, the right to attack them, punch them, hit them, et cetera.

READ MORE:

Yes. The term has begun spreading among those who have spoken out in support of Trump or the alt-right. Here are some examples:

Given how powerful the term is in creating a false equivalency between the alt-right and fringe extremists on the far left, you can expect to hear much more about the alt-left in the future. Just remember: It doesnt really exist.

*First Published: Aug 16, 2017, 4:22 pm

Andrew Wyrich is the deputy tech editor at the Daily Dot. Andrew has written for USA Today, NorthJersey.com, and other newspapers and websites. His work has been recognized by the Society of the Silurians, Investigative Reporters & Editors (IRE), and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).

Originally posted here:

What Is Alt-Left? Here's What You Really Need to Know

What Is the ‘Alt-Left’? For Starters, Not a Thing | WIRED

Hours after a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, organized by white nationalists, turned deadly, President Donald Trump blamed "many sides" for the violence that transpired. Three days later, at an impromptu press conference at Trump Tower, the president doubled down on this message, condemning groups "on both sides" of the fighting. What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right? the president said.

Many people know the phrase alt-right, a term coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer to describe the white nationalist movement. But "alt-left" is a term that's recently floated around in various corners of the internet. It gained some popularity earlier this year, when violent riots erupted in Berkeley, California, during protests over an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley.

White nationalist David Duke defined the term after President Trump referenced it Tuesday.

Fox News' Sean Hannity and InfoWars' Paul Joseph Watson have also offered their own definitions.

Ultimately, the intent seems to be to frame alt-left as the opposite of alt-right and create a false equivalence between groups on the far ends of the right and left. But here's the thing: No left-wing group has ever called itself the alt-left. And the groups smeared by the alt-left label don't include anything like the heinousness of overt white supremacism that has increasingly defined the alt-right.

Originally posted here:

What Is the 'Alt-Left'? For Starters, Not a Thing | WIRED

Why the Alt-Left Is a Problem, Too | Vanity Fair

Internet clickbait promotes mental tooth decay, squirting syntheticcontroversy out of a can of Reddi-wip, but an article by Eileen Jones on January 9 went out of its way to swirl it on extra thick. HeadlinedAGAINST MERYL STREEP, the indictment declared, Meryl Streepsspeechifying at the Golden Globes was the worst thing to happen sinceTrumps election. Hoo-kay. If Donald Trump speaks Jerkish, accordingto retired novelist Philip Roth, Joness broadside was written inSnarkish: That I should live to see the day when Meryl Streepsspeechifying at a Hollywood awards show is admired as solemnly anddiscussed as fervently as Lincolns second inaugural address is apersonal nightmare. Lectured by Streep! And about how her and all herHollywood pals, decked out in everything that costs the earth andsparkles in the spotlight, are among the true victims of Donald TrumpsAmerican authoritarianism! Streeps chastising of Trump in heracceptance speech at the Golden Globes was derided as a sniffy displayof royal hauteur, as if her ladyship had gotten her blue sash in atwist. The way she condemned the performance of Donald Trump when hemocked disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, as if Trumpwere up for a rival Golden Globes Award and had disgraced the ScreenActors Guild, was truly righteous, wasnt it? Shes so classy, isntshe?

Such derision of liberal Hollywood pietiesJones ripped Streep forbeing the sweetheart of Hillary Clintons faux-feminist pantsuitnation is familiar gargle from right-wing hucksters such as radiohost Laura Ingraham, the author of Shut Up & Sing: How Elites fromHollywood, Politics, and the Media Are Subverting America. But heresthe twist: Eileen Jones is no righty coveting a rotation spot in the FoxNews greenroom. She teaches film at Berkeleyand you know what itslike at Berkeley, radical fervor springing from every hairfollicleand her Streep denunciation was published in Jacobin, whichbills itself as a leading voice of the American left, offeringsocialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.Disillusionment with Obamas presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton,disgust with identity politics, and a craving for a climacticreckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created akinship between the alt-right and an alt-left. Theyre not kissincousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.

The alt-right receives the meatiest share of attention in the media, asit should. Its powerful, vicious, steeped in neo-Nazi ideology,nativist white supremacy, mens-rights misogyny, and Ayn Rand capitalistbermensch mythos, and it heralds a conquering hero in the White Housein President Donald J. Trump, while the former executive chairman of thevenereally right-wing Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, functions as despotwhisperer, trickling Iago-ish poison into Trumps receptive skull. Thealt-left cant match that for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach,but its dude-bros and purity progressives exert a powerfulreality-distortion field online and foster factionalism on the lib-left.Its outlets include not only Jacobin but also the Intercept, one ofwhose co-founders is the inexhaustible Glenn Greenwald, lawyer, author,journalist, and crucial conduit for Edward Snowdens stolen N.S.A. datato The Guardian; Web sites such as Truthdig, Consortiumnews, and NakedCapitalism; and anomalous apostates such as Mickey Kaus, a formercontributor to liberal percolators of ideas and opinions such asWashington Monthly, the New Republic, Harpers, and Slate, who migratedsideways and down to the right-wing Daily Caller, did a temporary hitchas a columnist for the Breitbart bughouse in 2016, and serves as atweeting defender of Trumps proposed wall. Other busy beavers onTwitter include Michael Tracey, Freddie deBoer, Mark Ames, ConnorKilpatrick (a Jacobin contributor), Jeremy Scahill (journalist andIntercept co-founder), and similar fun guys. A Tumblr site devoted toTrumpian Leftism captures the intellectual flavor of theirtemperaments. One of the alt-lefts political darlings is Tulsi Gabbard,a progressive congresswoman from Hawaii who met with thenpresident-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower and was rumored to be underconsideration for a Cabinet position, and its quixotic preacher-man andnoble leper is Cornel West, once an orator at every social-justiceconvocation who got so uncoiled by his rancorous contempt for Obama andcast adrift into the hazy fringes of the alt-leftsee Michael EricDysons definitive autopsy, The Ghost of Cornel West, the NewRepublic, April 19, 2015that in 2016 he supported the Green Partycandidacy of Jill Stein, that stellar mind.

VIDEO: Steve Bannon, the Shadow President

It was Jill Stein who said Hillary might be the greater evil in a Trumpmatchup (Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage,get us into more wars), a sentiment shared by actress Susan Sarandon,who told an interviewer she believed that Clinton was more dangerousthan Trump because she was more hawkish and better able to ram heragenda through Congress. In words I suspect Sarandon wishes she couldreel back, she discounted the threat level posed by a Trump presidency:Seriously, I am not worried about a wall being built . . . . He isnot going to get rid of every Muslim in this country. She speculatedon another occasion that a Trump win might hasten the revolution. Thelefts romance with revolution has always been a reality-blinder, thisthermodynamic belief that things need to get bad beyond the breakingpoint so that people will take the vape pens out of their mouths, riseup, and storm the Bastille. But the history of non-democracies andauthoritarian personality cults shows that things can stay bad and getworse for a long time, leaving unhealable wounds. Maos China, forexample. Putins tubercular Russia.

See the original post here:

Why the Alt-Left Is a Problem, Too | Vanity Fair

Netflix launches shuffle button that plays a random show for viewers who dont know what to watch – The Sun

NETFLIX has surprised some users with a 'shuffle' button that chooses something to watch for indecisive viewers.

Testing for this feature actually began last year and now it seems more users have been given a chance to try it.

Netflix told the New York Post that this surprise rollout was just a second round of testing for the feature.

Like with all tested features, we don't yet know if the 'Random Play' button will be considered popular and successful enough to be rolled out to all forms of Netflix.

Reports suggest the shuffle button is now showing up for both TV shows and films.

Previously, it was only said to be appearing as a 'Random Episode' button when users were already watching a TV series.

1

This feature would be very useful for fans of any TV series they've watched multiple times and want to watch again.

Or it could be used if you just want Netflix on in the background whilst you're doing other things.

It may even stop arguments about what film you should watch.

At the moment, the button is appearing for some Netflix users on Samsung and Fire TVs.

However, it's not said to be featured on Apple TV or via Amazon Firestick.

Netflix fans have taken to Twitter to applaud the feature and a lot of people who don't have it seem to wish they did.

Use Netflix on a computer or laptop? Try these useful shortcuts

Here are some handy keyboard shortcuts...

EXPENSIVE NITE INParents' anguish as Fortnite addict son spends $20,000 savings on Twitch

OUT OF THIS WORLDMind-blowing Nasa footage shows clearest EVER view of Mars surface

SEXY LEXYAmazon's Alexa getting users hot under the collar during lonely lockdown nights

I-SIGHTiPhone Photo Awards winners are so incredible they put your snaps to shame

BURNER PHONEHackers can now make phone chargers destroy your phone or set it on FIRE

CAR-AZY! Jaguar creates 'contactless screen' that knows where you'd press BEFORE you do it

In other news, Twitter has just experienced its largest and most dramatic hack.

Snapchat is testing anew explore featurethat could make it a lot more similar to TikTok.

And, WhatsApp users are beingwarned about modified versionsof the app that could leave them vulnerable to hackers.

How often do you watch Netflix? Let us know in the comments...

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

Read more from the original source:

Netflix launches shuffle button that plays a random show for viewers who dont know what to watch - The Sun

The Shot Heard Roundand Round and Roundthe World – The Dispatch

Howdy,

Like most Americans, I spent a lot of Fourth of July weekend taking pictures of my moms cats. But I did find the time to tweet.

One tweet in particular got a lot of attention:

Many of the responses were quite depressing. I have no serious problem with people saying I was being simplistic or glibits Twitter after all. Thats like complaining my diorama of the Battle of Waterloo using guinea pigs in period garb didnt capture all of the facets and nuance of the conflict: correct on the merits but a bit shabby given the limits of the medium.

Many Canadians and Brits of a certain stripe smugly claimed that they have all sorts of rights, too. So why make a big deal about the founding? Others pointed out that the American Revolution had more to do with taxation than inalienable rights, which has a much relevance to me as the pedantic noting that my guinea pigs aren't carrying the standard .70 caliber smoothbore flintlocks of the period.

But the complaints that bothered me the most were those that scoffed at the idea we should feel any gratitude toward the founding.

That said, Adam Gurri of Liberal Currents asks a fair question:

He is right. Which is why I wrote an entire book (now out in paperback!) dedicated to this very task.

So let me start with what I mean by gratitude: I mean gratitude.

We protect what we are grateful for. We are less inclined to do so for things for which we are ungrateful, or even resentful of. Of course, you can hate the founding and even America and still cherish the Bill of Rights. But you can see how such hatred, if given free rein, could lead you in the opposite direction. At the very minimum, championing ingratitude toward the founding cuts off one important source of support for the fruit of the founding.

In other areas of life, I dont think my claim would be very controversial. If you had good parents who worked hard to provide for you and teach you right from wrong, your gratitude for their sacrifices would be one of the benchmarks of how you define good character and decent decision making. Again, its not the only one. Right conduct can be deduced from other principles. But the fear that you are betraying something at the heart of what your parents expected of you is an important restraint on bad behavior.

If you worked your way up through a business or institution and became its leader, your sense of gratitude for what it has done for you and others would be one of the guideposts for managing it with integrity and aiming to pass it on in good order when you retire. Gratitude creates a sense of obligation. Ingratitude breeds a spiteful spirit and indifference. Im not a Christian, but I find it difficult to imagine a good Christian who would be ungrateful or indifferent to Jesuss death on the cross. The sacrifices of martyrs, not just for Christianity, but for any faith or righteous cause fortifies our sense of commitment to that cause. Sure, guilt plays a role, but guilt is often simply the word for knowing youre not living up to your obligations.

I suspect that if I wrote that no one should have a sense of gratitude for Martin Luther King Jr.s sacrifices, many of the same people would denounce me from the opposite direction.

Now, Im not arguing that one should feel personal gratitude to the founders who risked a traitors death when they signed the Declaration, the final words of which were, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. I have no problem with that argument, but I dont spend my days thinking, What Would John Adams Do?

My point is that we should feel grateful for the founding, because it was a massive advance for all of humanity.

The shot heard round the world.

I understand that race is the most important issueeven the only issuefor a lot of people today. But it wasnt then. The 1619 Project people can claim the American Revolution was intended to protect slavery all they like, it wont make it true. Similarly, people can dust off their Charles Beard and claim that the founders were nothing more than taxophobic landowners uninterested in real human liberty until theyre blue in the face.

But its worth remembering what people at the time thought of the American Revolution. In response to the Declaration, Austrian Empress Maria Theresa conveyed to George III her hearty desire to see the restoration of obedience and tranquility in every quarter of his dominions. Her son Joseph, a nominal co-ruler, told the British ambassador, "The cause in which England is engaged ... is the cause of all sovereigns who have a joint interest in the maintenance of due subordination ... in all the surrounding monarchies."

As Henry Fairlie recounted in The New Republic more than 30 years ago, the revolt in America horrified the despots of Europe: The rulers feared that their subjects would see the American action not as a rebellion against a rightful monarch in his own territoriesthere had been plenty of rebellions against European sovereignsbut as the proclamation of a revolutionary doctrine of universal application, as the Declaration indeed announced it to be. A. P. Bernstorff, the Danish foreign minister wrote to a friend, The public here is extremely occupied with the rebels [in America], not because they know the cause, but because the mania of independence in reality has infected all the spirits, and the poison has spread imperceptibly from the works of the philosophes all the way out to the village schools. I am grateful for the American founding. I am grateful for the Declaration of Independence. I am thankful that I was born in this country. I am grateful for the founders and their revolutionaryin every sensebreak with the past.

Fairlie quotes at length from newspapers and letters across the continent, demonstrating how the American cause was seen as one of universal appeal and a sharp break from the arbitrary rule of even enlightened despots. In England, public sentiment was obviously mixed, but many saw how the colonists were in fact fighting for the best traditions of English liberty (which is why Edmund Burke was always sympathetic to their cause). When the news of the Boston Tea Party reached England, Fairlie writes, the London Packet called such resistance lawful and even honorable against tyrannic measures. After Lexington and Concord the London Evening Post said that the prevailing toast in every company of true Englishmen is, 'Victory to the Americans, and re-establishment to the British Constitution.

All of the smug Twitter gadflies boasting that England and Canada have their liberties, no thanks to the American founders, have no idea that the American cause inspired Englishmen and their loyal colonists in Canada to recommit to those very liberties. As one Danish historian observed, the Declaration of Independence had a decisive impact on the course of events leading to the attainment in 1849 of Denmark's first democratic constitution.

The American founding did something profoundly radical. For thousands of years, every nation had some notion of heredity status, royalty, nobility, aristocracy. The Founders did away with that. By all means, we can condemn their decision not to carry that democratic logic all the way and end the institution of slavery. But cant we also be grateful for the enormous stride they took in the right direction?

Similarly, the Founders took the best parts of Englands traditions of liberty and codified them. They took mere cultural norms of liberty that previously had been in open conflict with other cultural norms of tyranny and said, These are our principles. They refined them, elevated them, and turned them into rights for all the world to emulate. Again, they fell short on the issue of slavery. As I keep saying, the choice the Founders faced at the Constitutional Convention wasnt between a Constitution without slavery or one with it, but a choice between a workable Constitution or no Constitution at all.

And it was the principles in that document, as well as the Declaration, that gave moral and intellectual force to the cause of abolition. Thats why Martin Luther King Jr. invoked the Declaration as a promissory note that was long overdue.

I am grateful to the Founders for that gift. I suspect King was as well, because it gave him the best ammunition possible to persuade white Americans that they were falling short on their own highest ideals. After all, if white Americans were as dedicated to white supremacy as so many radicals claim, they would not care about those ideals. True believers in white supremacy, whether were talking about Hitler or the idiot poltroons of the alt-right, recognize this fact better than the radicals of the new alt-left, which is why they disparage constitutionalists as paper worshippers, vellum supremacists, and parchment fetishists.

The founders are guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to slaverynot all of them, but enough of them. But that hypocrisy is a gift we should be grateful for. You can only be a hypocrite if you have ideals. If you believe in nothing other than your self-interest, its very difficult to be a hypocrite. But if you have ideals, noble and revolutionary ideals, its very easy to be a hypocrite because ideals are hard to live up to. But thats the great benefit of hypocrisy, it highlights where you are falling short. It would be nice if the Founders had been angels, but they were the first to concede they werent, which is why they set up a constitutional order designed to protect against the worst aspects of human nature. That constitutional order, and the principles that inform it, is the greatest weapon for justice and progress toward a more perfect union you could reasonably ask for in the 18th century. And it isor at least should bethe best tool for those grateful for our liberties and eager to live in a just society.

And despite its flaws, real or perceived, I think we should all be grateful for it.

Photograph of the Howard Chandler Christy painting The Signing of the Constitution of the United States, with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by GraphicaArtis/Getty Images.

Read this article:

The Shot Heard Roundand Round and Roundthe World - The Dispatch

The Rising Blood Tide of The Alt-Left & the Real Threat of Antifa – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The Rising Blood Tide of The Alt-Left & the Real Threat of Antifa

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Antifa violence is spreading across the country like a plague as politicians call for the defunding dismantling of police forces across the nation while doing nothing to control the choas.

Facebook is banning meme pages because they are concerned about people wearing Hawaiian shirts at a peaceful pro-Second Amendment rally in Virginia during VCDLs annual Lobby Day. Meanwhile, the terrorist group known as Antifa operates out in the open on social media platforms to recruit and cause havoc in big cities and small towns everywhere.

Under the guise of supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, Antifa has co-opted the death of George Floyd and taken to the streets to push their anarcho-communist agenda. They have burned down businesses, vandalized monuments, including those celebrating emancipation and an all-black civil war regiment, and looted stores.

In Seattle, Antifa, along with the John Brown Gun Club, took over six blocks and a park and deemed it Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). Under the leadership of local warlord and sound cloud rapper Raz Simone, the group changed the name to Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). The Seattle police retreated from their precinct under the direction of the ultra-liberal Mayor Jenny Durkan.

The communist enclave in Seattle, filled with people who dont believe in walls, started setting up border checkpoints and blocked off streets. The all cops are bastards advocates set up their own police force, who almost immediately started shaking down local businesses for money and beating people. One of the leaders of this socialist paradise went as far as demanding white people give people of color $10 each.

The leaders set up segregated areas of CHAZ returning to the failed Democratic policies of the 60s that real civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King marched to end. Instead of being a crime-free zone, it became a rape zone. Anarchist Robert James allegedly raped a deaf woman in his tent. The leaders of CHAZ turned a blind eye to the sexual assault. Police had to wait until he left CHAZ to arrest him for the rape.

That wasnt the only crime in CHAZ. Police arrested former city council candidate Isaiah Willoughby for arson. He allegedly tried to burn down the police precinct headquarters. Oh, and the killings.

When patriots attend a rally like Lobby Day in Virginia, they come heavily armed. I am not going to dispute that fact, but these gun owners are also incredibly peaceful. Antifa in CHAZ seems to have a habit of shooting at each other. On June 20th, 2020, someone shot and killed a 19-year-old man within the socialist paradise. On the same day, someone murdered a 30-year-old African American man only a block away. Protestors locked arms to block police from responding to the two shootings.

These incidents werent the only shooting in CHAZ. Only one day later, someone shot a 17-year-old injuring him. Then a couple of days later, a shooter injured a couple of other people. On June 30th, two African American teens aged 16 and 14 were joyriding. CHAZ security opened fire on the vehicle, killing one teen and landing the other child in intensive care. Calls to Raz inquiring if his security force had body cams went unanswered.

Like every other experiment in socialism, CHAZ/CHOP failed. It would be easy just to dismiss the violence that happened in the occupied area as merely a Seattle thing, but unfortunately, it isnt limited to the Pacific Northwest. Antifa is a scourge to freedom and liberty, and their violence extends coast to coast.

Antifa violence even reached into sleepy Utah. Black Bloc member Jesse Keller Taggart was so incensed by an SUV driver trying to turn during a protest he opened fire on the car hitting the driver. The driver was able to get away, and doctors later treated him for a gunshot wound at a local hospital. Taggart would go on to use his gun to threaten another driver later in the same day. Police would eventually arrest Taggart for attempted murder along with a laundry list of other charges. Police arrested another Antifa follower for obstruction of justice for trying to help Taggart cover up his gun crimes.

One of Antifas favorite tools in their revolutionary bag of tricks is the Molotov cocktail. I could go on and on about Antifa violence with these improvised incendiary devices like the three self-professed Antifa women who threw a Molotov cocktail at a police car New York. I could talk about Antifa throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police station in Las Vegas, or I could speak about Antifa throwing a Molotov cocktail at police in Milwaukee, but I think the point is clear.

They are the violent ones, but the people who can successfully pass a background check and like to post memes on social media are the ones big media is targeting. The left controls the media with their cancel culture and boycotts. Media companies are terrified of being targeted by these far-left wing bullies, so they dont report on left-wing violence because they are afraid of being called racist. That is why news outlets sites brave enough to post an opinion piece like AmmoLand News need our support.

It is time to awaken the sleeping giant of the American patriots and fight back against the rising tide of the alt-left. Consequences be damned.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at http://www.crumpy.com.

See more here:

The Rising Blood Tide of The Alt-Left & the Real Threat of Antifa - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News


12345...10...