I am not sure what is worse, the freedom for the short-sighted and uninformed people to share opinions or those that are intentional and content with what they "feel" they think they know.
There is so much information going around right now and most of it when it starts is emotional just trying to sort the facts from what are not. The sad part is when people make claims that can be easily disputed that do more to harm freedom in the country than to preserve it.
Take for example this article. I couldn't even find a place to rebut it or even contact the writer to set the record straight so I will share my perspective here and yes, even out of fairness post their link here to hold me accountable
The article for the "Public" news service (as if you need to even ask what side of the political spectrum they would be on) began by stating that "supporters of Trump broke windows and breached the capitol" and went further to say, these protests were reminiscent of protests last summer." They went on to mention that these supporters shattered the glass door and that even some were armed "Anti-government" like Ammon Bundy.
This issue has many different moving parts so it would be difficult to stay on task because so much is intertwined in what is said and this source isn't unique in any way because they parrot the same leftist narrative that MSM does.
I was reminded by a friend of a quote from Will Rogers that pretty well sums up this post:
"Ignorance lies not in what we don't know; but in that we know that ain't so."
Let's break it down, shall we? Most rational people in a free society believe there must be not only elements of truth but a way to combat the lies. In today's society, it appears that rather that absolute truth, truth no longer exists so all they have are opinions and you know what those are worth especially when founded on feelings. Additionally when pointing fingers at people attempting to label them for crimes, evidence must also be present and the ability for the one labeled for the crime to have their day in court. No evidence, no crime, no court, no criminal, period.
The article states Trump supporters broke windows at the capitol. Does this news service have evidence that it was trump supporters? No. Is there evidence of windows being broken, yes. So who did it at this point remains to be known for sure, at least at this point in my article and videos are coming out that will reveal who actually did it so to say Trump Supporters did it is a distortion of the truth.
Next, the article says these protesters breached the capitol. Since people like us believe words have meanings, lets us look at the definition: "the act or a result of breaking; break or rupture. an infraction or violation, as of a law, trust, faith, or promise. a gap made in a wall, fortification, line of soldiers, etc.; rift; fissure."
So, did the trump Protesters breach the capitol? Not according to the definition because there is no evidence they broke anything whether it be glass or the law because not only has the issue with the glass not been determined but in the case of the law, this cannot be possible because protesters were let in by the police! That's right, there is indeed video! As a matter of logic and law and if law enforcement's job is to enforce the law, if the police allowed them in, there must not have been a law to enforce. If there was, the writer of the article should be condemning law enforcement, not Trump supporters and wouldn't that be more their speed anyway since the left is the entity that calls for "defunding the police?"
Moving on, The writer claims the Anti-Government, armed protesters "shattered the glass door"...even some were armed "Anti-government" like Ammon Bundy."
First of all, there is not, to my knowledge, any evidence that these protesters "shattered the glass door" Furthermore, the door, to my recollection was not glass, it contained a window and the glass didn't shatter, it broke. But the issue of glass breaking no matter what she thinks is really irrelevant, it is whether property damage occurred intentionally or by accident.
She points out the glass breakage as if it is an act of sedition but fails to realize sedition is an intentional act, not an accidental one because all crimes must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with the intent to commit the act or "Actus Reus." The other part is the "mens rea" or the mind to commit the act and we leave that square on the shoulders of the leftist agitators.
Next, we experience ad nauseum, the classic "sandwich smear" and same old dog returning to its vomit, the worn out "Armed and anti-government" and to strengthen the smear, they include "Ammon Bundy." I'll bet they are proud of such smears. The sad part is that if people had any critical thinking skills and we could contain an out of control communist media none of it would stick, even about Ammon Bundy.
Constitutionalists, are not "Anti-government" per se, they are anti-corrupt or anti-boundless power government so unless Evans is admitting they are corrupt, her premise is false. What I will say instead is that her ideology is "anti-government." Why? Because they are the one's that hate and want to defund cops, support those that loot, and damage property and act above the law. Remember, they are the one's that want to intentionally collapse the system, bring the revolution that brings violence that, in itself is against the law or lawless.
Until the Constitution that was written to secure our rights that limits government to "few and defined" powers" is replaced, it is our duty to act within that law...the Supreme law of the land and the Constitution is supreme to any statute.
This is America and this is Idaho and we don't even need a gun permit in this state so using the words armed are intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory. Next, these protesters are not anti-government they are anti corruption and anti-abuse. Does the left really want to point that finger when they themselves riot over what they see as corruption and abuse themselves? The problem is that they don't even understand the consequences of their actions.
As for Anti-government or even Ammon Bundy, does anyone that uses his name know anything about the issues that transpired? Has the left ever bothered to consider why he fought? In that instance it is the same thing that the left complains about!...Police or in his case government abuse! Oh! The hypocrisy of these people! And they have the audacity to call these protesters anti-government while they burn down buildings and damage property and they even openly admit they do?
How absolutely dystopic and what an absolute double standard! But you know, I don't think they are even intelligent enough to see it for themselves?
The article continues "The Executive Director of the progressive group United Vision for Idaho, Adrienne Evans said the U.S. Capitol attack and the Boise protests are related." "Not on the same scale, of course, but very similar in tactic," said Evans. "And that's the point, right, is to instill fear by evoking violence and issuing threats."
First of all, her group is not a "progressive group" it is a Socialist/communist group. A common "tactic" they use is to use soft arbitrary language to appeal to the ignorant that don't bother asking the definition of words. Second the fact that she says that "tactics" are similar is ironic because in my view, free people don't use "tactics" we utilize a lawful process afforded to us under the U.S Constitution. "Tactics" however are exactly what the communists socialist use that are actually on full display by reading a multitude of literature by the revolutionaries themselves that even define their actions as tactics.
Tactic is defined as: "relating to or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end." So, knowing this, which garners a military end? You need to remember that a free people lawfully fight for freedom, the revolutionaries focus on the premise of "order through chaos" that focus solely on the revolution to collapse the current form of government while ushering in another by any means possible which is why they openly advocate violence then blame "the right" for the very thing they themselves advocate. The article continues: "Evans said she's led peaceful protests in Washington, DC, and was baffled by the police response this week. She noted there is a high level of security on Capitol Hill, and she's still trying to wrap her head around how this happened so easily."
I too am baffled by a few things this week. What baffled me is that the people entered the capitol after being let in by capitol police! Evans and I are on the same page when she spoke about police presence and the actions of the police against Trump supporters that she admits didn't get the same treatment BLM and ANTIFA received even after knowing what they do to property. To me it seemed to me unequal treatment, to her I'm sure she used that to somehow convey that we are unruly enough to need more of a police presence. Where was police when they were burning down buildings? Evans goes on: "So, it really begs the question of, is it democracy for everyone?" asked Evans. "Is it accessibility for everyone? Or are there special rights and leniencies that are given to some groups because of where police align?"
I would like to let Evans know that America was never founded to be a democracy, we were founded as a republic. What baffles me is that when using the word she doesn't realize that what she advocates for is the epitome of inequality because it forces majority or what I call mob rule. Maybe if she understood the difference we could find a way to better dialogue with one another. Republics, like ours were to preserve equality that help the rights of both the majority and the minority to be respected and any deviation is not a party problem it is a human nature problem.
She should know that Democracies are instituted and I argue contrived by a controlling class to enslave the populace, "they are short lived and violent in their deaths" as our Founders had stated. So advocating for democracy and speaking about peace are really the antithesis of one another and an inconsistency in her world view. It even slipped her mind that democracy can't possibly be for everyone because the very definition is the majority, which means in itself more than the minority which means there will always be two warring factions. As for special rights, she should look directly at her statement regarding equal treatment between trump supporters and BLM that she admits in her own words! Let's see, broken glass vs burning buildings and in "progressive cities" the governments encourage them to express themselves on one hand while trump supporters that entered the capitol are arrested. I think one could see the evidence of unequal treatment. Evans said "elected leaders, especially Republicans who have backed Trump, need to make a stand." I wish I could tell her that the fight we face today isn't between Democrat and Republican, it is a global elitist system controlling both, that control the people.
Evans says: "You must break with this president and stand on the side of democracy," "You must put country before party so that we can come together and heal as a nation, rebuild and re-envision what we can be when we work together."
I say, when there are only two choices in a political candidate and one clearly has criminal evidence against him including ties to the CCP and corruption with evidence and one only has allegations but manages to piss off all of the right people, The Global Elitists, the choice is pretty clear that breaking away is not an option. Evans and I do agree that country before party should be the focus, that the nation should heal but the nation does not need to be rebuilt or "re-envisioned." It needs the truth.
If these people understood enough about our republic as it was intended not as it is right now, and they care about people and freedom, they would be working with us to restore the nation under that system, not advocating for an alternate form of government that has historically failed that ends up in some form of oligarchical dictatorship!
The left's views and the rights differ completely. The left believe that rights come from the government, they look to the government for solutions and believe in increased dependence upon government. This is advocating for weakness and totalitarian control which is why they are collectivists, because they view the individual as weak like gangs.
The right believes rights come from God and that governments were instituted to secure those rights, not tell us what they are or turn them into privilege's, The right looks to each other for solutions, individuals and businesses. The right also believes in individual liberty not collective mob rule. We believe in less government, more responsibility and with God's help a better world. The right doesn't need government, we are bound by the Americanist Principle of Christian Forbearance. They are seemingly not bound by anything.
The only way that Boise rally's mirror DC is that the God fearing America loving people are angry and tired of the lies and abuse. The other similarity is that the left uses agent provocateur's and every other opportunity to use the communist controlled media to blame it on us. I will say that if the lies and abuse continue it won't just be here in Boise or there in D.C, it will be in every statehouse across the country! Oops! it already is.
What occurred at the capitol was a Rally in support of Trump, it was not a murderous riot.
The fight is Good vs. Evil, freedom vs. tyranny and globalism vs. national sovereignty, not against democrat and republican and the quicker we can realize this, the quicker we can heal. If Evans really wants to do her part and help heal the nation, she should be as willing to dialogue as I am. I am available any time.
Comments