In George Orwell’s book “1984,” people speak a constantly evolving language called “Newspeak,” though the completed version is not expected to be the sole means of communication until about 2050. It’s a language that changes to “meet the ideological needs” of the socialist government that controls all.
And this is happening to our own language in 2021.
In Orwell’s story, revised editions of Newspeak come out periodically, each one smaller than the last but still containing “many superfluous words and archaic formations which [are] due to be suppressed later.” Reshaping the language is a long process.
The goal of Newspeak is to make all modes of thought that are incompatible with the principles of English socialism impossible — “so much as thought is dependent on words.” As Orwell wrote:
“Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact meaning and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by ELIMINATING UNDESIRABLE WORDS [emphasis mine] and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and, so far as possible, of all secondary meanings whatsoever.”
“Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.”
I would add that even though our thoughts are not totally dependent on words, the communication of complex ideas certainly is. So anyone who is wordlessly thinking/feeling that there is something wrong with the way things are remains essentially “locked in” and can’t communicate this to anyone.
So, congratulations, Dictionary.com. Thanks to your willingness to eliminate problematic words from your lexicon, you win the Newspeak Prize for MOST WORTHLESS DICTIONARY of 2021. You win for your decision to eliminate the word “slave” from the language. Since you are a slave to woke-ness, we will never, ever turn to you for any information regarding language. Ever.
As reported by YAHOO LIFE: “As part of its ongoing efforts to feature language that is more inclusive and reflective of modern-day society, Dictionary.com will no longer include the word ‘slave’ as a noun identifying a person, instead using the adjective ‘enslaved’ or referencing the institution of slavery.”
You see, a word such as “slave” might make people in certain groups feel bad, so it will be struck from the language. Never mind that a word such as “racist” remains, even though it might be wrongly applied to members of another group and make THEM feel bad. That’s perfectly fine; because of their “whiteness,” those people deserve to feel bad, anyway. So use the word “racist” all you want, but the word “slave” has been tossed down the memory hole.
It should be noted that our English dictionary still isn’t shrinking quite as fast as the Newspeak dictionary, simply because new politically correct terminology has to go in. For example, the story about Dictionary.com’s abolition (ha) of the word “slave,” includes the following:
“The change is one of 7,600 updates the online resource has announced, which also include the addition of terms relevant to race, social justice and identity, such as ’BIPOC’ (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) and ‘Critical Race Theory.’ The latest updates — which also include capitalizing ‘Indigenous’ when referring to people, and adding entries for ‘racialization,’ ‘disenfranchisement’ and ‘overpolice’ — follow those announced last September. That round of revisions saw the capitalization of the word Black in reference to people, and the addition of terms relevant to mental health (specifically, suicide and addiction) and LGBTQ identity.”
Um, we’d like to point out that the above paragraph is already out of date, as “LGBTQ” has added at least a couple more letters and a “plus” sign, just to make sure every conceivable gender variation is specifically covered.
Also –- better sit down, snowflakes –- our use of the word “black” to describe a person will not be capitalized, just as the word “white” will not. We have read the rationale for capitalizing “black” and leaving “white” in all-lowercase and do not accept it. “African-American,” on the other hand, will be capitalized, as it refers to a geographical location that is capitalized. “European” will also be capitalized, for the same reason. That is how it will be according to the stylebook here at Huckabee.com, where we make the rules. And if we want to refer to a slave as a slave, we sure as heck will, whether it’s Samson or Miss Jane Pittman. Doing so is being honest, not disrespectful or “dehumanizing,” as if anyone could dehumanize Miss Jane Pittman.
Also, to the people at Dictionary.com: You’re proud of yourselves for this and say you’re ready for the backlash. I hope you think seriously about the reason for the backlash and don’t just dismiss it as (sigh) racism, because it isn’t. A dictionary is supposed to reflect how language is used, not dictate it, at least unless we’re all living in Oceania. Are we?
Even though these are “virtual” ceremonies this year, the school’s events “provide a more intimate setting for students and guests to gather, incorporate meaningful cultural traditions and celebrate the specific contributions and achievements of their communities,” they say.
It occurs to me that the word “racist” is being thrown around so much, maybe non-racists are finally overcoming their fear of being called one. Or that maybe they’ve figured out the best response isn’t a groveling apology but, “I know you are but what am I?”
Finally, Bill Maher offered a real wake-up call to the “woke” who are so obsessed with trivia about race and social justice –- like a few Dr. Seuss drawings that no one but them even thinks about –- that they’ll cause us to lose a very serious competition with China for world domination.
If that happens, “microaggressions” will be the last thing to be concerned about.
Americans are “a silly people,” Maher said during his monologue on Friday, referring to a line about the bickering Saudi tribes in the movie LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. China can build a dam, he said, while Americans fight over “what to rename it.” Just for that line, we should name our dam after Bill Maher, if it ever gets built. See the video (strong language warning) here.
As it currently stands, some Americans are proudly “woke,” but as a country we’re going broke, and ever more divided. Removing words from the dictionary? I think more people are realizing that we have to reject woke-ness and end the madness now.
The public testimonial of Sharon Osbourne last week was abject, if not hysterical. Osbourne, 68, described how she “panicked, felt blindsided, got defensive & allowed my fear & horror” to control her comments. Osbourne had supported Piers Morgan, who stated that he did not believe Meghan Markle. In a tense interview, Osbourne became highly defensive (and rather rude) after Sheryl Underwood asked whether she was defending racism in supporting a friend. Osbourne asked her co-host to explain where Morgan’s criticism was racist and said she felt she was being put into “the electric chair.” Then the power was turned on as the Internet lit up with calls for her firing. After immediate “reflection,” Osbourne repeatedly professed her “deep respect & love for the black community” in saying that she will “continue to learn, listen and do better” in the future. The important thing was that she hoped to have a future. Despite the apology, she is now under investigation by CBS and she has been declared “on hiatus” from the show.
The exchange between Osbourne and Underwood could have served a productive purpose in exploring the continuing difficulty in discussing race. That however is becoming increasingly rare, if not impossible. While many call for a national discussion of race, these controversies show how any frank discussion comes at considerable risk. I did not agree with Morgan’s comment in saying that everything Markle said was a lie and thought Osbourne reacted poorly to being asked about concerns over racism. Thus, I have no problem with the criticism of either Osbourne or Morgan. However, if we are going to have a discussion about race, it has to occur without the threat of being summarily cancelled.
A Harvard-Harris poll showed recently that 64 percent of Americans now view cancel culture as threatening basic freedoms. Yet, that view has not impacted the media or these campaigns. The public overwhelmingly sees the threat to free speech and oppose it. However, free speech requires some breathing space. These cancelling campaigns have only grown with the support of major corporations and the media.
The panic expressed by Osbourne is that she would join the ranks of the banished, a media version of the “desaparecidos” or “disappeared ones.” In today’s hair-triggered cancel culture, celebrities and media figures can be vanished in a single media cycle if tagged on the Internet as racist or reactionary. Such status can result in being banned from social media, boycotted from television, and barred from publications. An array of politicians, writers and professors have openly called for the blacklisting of those with opposing views to prevent others from hearing or reading their views.
The issue came up this week on CNN when host Don Lemon attacked Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) for his denouncing “woke supremacy” as analogous to white supremacy. Scott, who is black, was responding to MSNBC host Joy Reid dismissing his role as simply “to provide the patina of diversity.” It was an insulting racist trope that would have been widely denounced if it were not used against a black Republican or conservative. There is a legitimate objection to Scott’s analogy given the bloody history of white supremacy in the United States. However, Lemon’s attack deflected any need to address Reid’s own outrageous attack on Scott on the basis of his race. Again, there were valuable issues to discuss on both sides of the controversy with both the original insult and the analogy but no discussion actually occurred.
What was striking however was Lemon’s insistence that he had never seen “a woke supremacist denying anybody … a job or education.” If so, he has not looked very hard. Across the country, campaigns have sought to isolate and stigmatize anyone with opposing views. Professors effectively disappear. They are not invited to conference. Their publications are barred through effective blacklisting and they are unable to find alternative schools since administrators do not want to deal with any protests. They vanish.
Osbourne’s self-described panic attack is a common response to those forced to the edge of this abyss. Take Winston Marshall, the banjoist for the band Mumford & Sons. Marshall begged for forgiveness for his “blindspots” and offenses. He promised to enter a period of seclusion and introspection to consider how his actions could be “viewed as approvals of hateful, divisive behaviour.” His offense? He congratulated conservative journalist Andrew Ngo on his new book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy” and calling Ngo a “brave man.” Ngo was attacked and injured by Antifa supporters in covering protests. It is of course possible to criticize Antifa and still support racial and social reforms. Antifa is a movement based on pronounced anti-free speech principles. Even those of us who opposed efforts to declare Antifa a terrorist organization have denounced the movement for a long history of violence and speech intolerance.
The fear of being cancelled is palpable among professors and students. Many have watched in silence as their colleagues have been subjected to such campaigns with devastating impacts on their careers. Once tagged, professors find it difficult to secure new academic positions or publications. Recently, student governments have moved to impeach fellow student leaders and bar conservative groups. Few students or professors want to risk such public humiliation even if they can successfully fight sanctions or terminations. By cancelling or marginalizing one professor or student, these campaigns silence 1000 others who think “but for the grace of God go I.”
There are real issues of racism and other issues that warrant a national debate, but there seems little room for anything other than a diatribe. To even question a claim of racism or raise countervailing issues is done at great personal and professional risk in our current environment.
For free speech advocates, it is called the “chilling effect.” The Supreme Court in cases like Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) have ruled against not just the direct regulation of speech but acts that create “inhibitions” on speech. Today, many anti-free speech advocates emphasize that the First Amendment only applies to the government and thus they are free to pursue a wide array of private censorship and campaigns of harassment to silent opposing viewpoints. However, the First Amendment is not the only or exclusive measure of free speech.
Indeed, the line between public and private censorship is being rapidly erased as Democratic members pressure Big Tech and media companiesto censor conservative media while threatening possible retaliatory actions. One of the most vocal voices for censorship is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., NY) who has badgered Big Tech for greater speech controls. Blumenthal challenged CEOs that they appeared to be “backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded more “robust content modification” – the new euphemism for censorship.
Free speech is in a free fall in the United States from an unprecedented alliance of governmental, private, academic, and media sources. Those targeted may have as little as one news cycle to seek abject forgiveness before joining the ranks of the disappeared ones. The panic from figures like Osbourne and Marshall shows the reality of today’s digital “desaparecidos.”
Update 1918ET: Former President Trump has issued a response after the Washington Post admitted to publishing a report falsely accusing him of pressuring a Georgia official to ‘find the fraud,’ – a statement which was debunked by audio of the call, but not before it spread through left-wing MSM echo chambers like wildfire.
The Washington Post just issued a correction as to the contents of the incorrectly reported phone call I had with respect to voter fraud in the Great State of Georgia. While I appreciate the Washington Post’s correction, which immediately makes the Georgia Witch Hunt a non- story, the original story was a Hoax, right from the very beginning. I would further appreciate a strong investigation into Fulton County, Georgia, and the Stacey Abrams political machine strong investigation into Fulton County, Georgia, and the Stacey Abrams political machine which, I believe, would totally change the course of the presidential election in Georgia.
Fulton County has not been properly audited for vote or signature verification. They only looked at areas of the State where there most likely would be few problems, and even there they found large numbers of mistakes. We are seeking to find and reveal the large-scale election fraud which took place in Georgia. Many residents agree, and their anger caused them not to turn out and vote for two Republican Senators in the January election.
The Consent Decree signed between Raffensperger and Stacey Abrams was not approved by the Georgia State Legislature, and therefore should be deemed invalid, and the election result changed. Why the Governor and Raffensperger ever approved this Consent Decree is one of the great questions? We look forward to an answer.
You will notice that establishment media errors, omissions, mistakes, and outright lies always slant one way—against me and against Republicans. Meanwhile, stories that hurt Democrats or undermine their narratives are buried, ignored, or delayed until they can do the least harm— for example, after an election is over. Look no further than the negative coverage of the vaccine that preceded the election and the overdue celebration of the vaccine once the election had concluded. A strong democracy requires a fair and honest press. This latest media travesty underscores that legacy media outlets should be regarded as political entities — not journalistic enterprises. In any event, I thank the Washington Post for the correction. -Donald J. Trump
The Washington Post has issued a massive correction two months after lying ‘misquoting’ former President Donald Trump in a phone call with Frances Watson, chief investigator with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.
On January 9, the Post reported that Trump told Watson to “find the fraud” he claims happened during the 2020 US election, and that if she did, she’d be a “national hero.”
Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex? RESPONSE: Negative.Explanatory NoteIn some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”. On such paths, listening to the word of God, prayer, participation in ecclesial liturgical actions and the exercise of charity can play an important role in sustaining the commitment to read one’s own history and to adhere with freedom and responsibility to one’s baptismal call, because “God loves every person and the Church does the same”, rejecting all unjust discrimination.Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).Blessings belong to the category of thesacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”.Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”.The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith – and receive the teachings with sincere openness.The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God. At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”. For the above mentioned reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above.The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note.Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle. Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. Prefect✠ Giacomo Morandi Archbishop tit. of Cerveteri Secretary
Sandra Merritt continues legal fight against Planned Parenthood
You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!
Sandra Merritt was the undercover investigator working alongside David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, who in 2015 exposed the traffic of aborted babies’ body parts by Planned Parenthood. Since then, both have been locked in a protracted legal battle with the abortion giant, which sued them in 2016, arguing among other things that they illegally recorded and aired conversations with staff.
Disturbing details emerged during court testimony, including evidence that Planned Parenthood was delivering babies born alive from abortions and selling them as “intact fetuses” — a highly prized commodity — to bioresearch firms. An expert also testified that staff were allegedly cutting out the hearts of unborn children while still alive, without anesthesia.
In spite of evidence of criminal behavior, the trial court judge — compromised by personal connections to Planned Parenthood — sided with the abortion conglomerate, awarding it $16 million in damages.
Church Militant spoke with Merritt, who offered the following remarks:
This is an incredibly exciting time for all people who are concerned about faith, facts and our God-given rights written in the Constitution. More and more people are emboldened to speak up. Truth always finds a way to rise up and be heard — having witnessed the tyranny of polluted politicians who collude with Planned Parenthood, a $1.6 billion organization which profits from the harvesting and sale of babies’ livers, lungs, and brains; having read the lies printed by the mainstream media telling folks not to believe their eyes, ears and minds as they watched the videos showing Planned Parenthood medical directors haggle over what should be paid for those baby body parts.
Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris are attempting to punish truth-tellers by prosecuting those of us who would dare expose the horrors of abortion. They face all of us who need only stand up, speak up and refuse to be bullied into submission for merely telling the truth.
Liberty Counsel’s latest update on Merritt’s case is published in full below.
Liberty Counsel has filed the opening brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against Sandra Merritt for her undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of human baby body parts.
Throughout the six-week trial that began on Oct. 2, 2019, the court severely restricted the evidence, and at the end, gave instructions to the jury on how they should rule on critical issues. The jury decided in favor of the abortion giant on each count, including RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), and awarded more than $2 million in damages. The court subsequently awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $14 million in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total judgment of over $16 million.
In conjunction with three other groups of defendants, Sandra Merritt now brings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals numerous errors of the trial court, including: (1) the award to Planned Parenthood of millions of dollars in “damages” involving publication of Planned Parenthood’s own words, without any proof that the undercover videos were false or deceptive, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) the use of RICO to punish constitutionally protected undercover journalism intended to expose unethical and criminal wrongdoing; (3) the award to Planned Parenthood of “damages” involving legally recorded conversations without allowing the jury to hear those conversations, and without requiring Planned Parenthood to prove that the conversations recorded in public places were “confidential”; and (4) the failure of the district court judge to recuse himself from this case, despite the appearance of impropriety resulting from his connections to Planned Parenthood.
The case was heard by San Francisco’s U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III, who is the founder of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center that houses the Planned Parenthood of Northern California facility in its complex. In 2017, the defense requested that Orrick recuse himself from the case and he refused.
Merritt and colleague David Daleiden, the founder of Center for Medical Progress (CMP), produced videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trade in aborted baby body parts after a 30-month undercover operation. The videos showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs. In this trial, it was the jury’s job to assess whether the conversations recorded in the videos are “private” or “confidential” under applicable state law. However, at Planned Parenthood’s request, Judge Orrick refused to allow the defense to show the jury the exact videotaped conservations that reveal the conversations were done in public places and how Planned Parenthood provided baby body parts for sale. Judge Orrick blocked the jury from watching the recorded conversations on the undercover videos and told them they could not view this as a First Amendment case, where freedom of speech and the press could be considered as a defense.
Judge Orrick finally allowed Liberty Counsel, after being denied for four weeks, to show the video of the ABC News20/20 Report: Parts for Sale in court. Published in 2000, the video features Chris Wallace revealing that a “hidden camera investigation has found a thriving industry, in which aborted fetuses women donate to help medical research are being marketed for hundreds — even thousands of dollars.” The documentary reveals the so-called consent is filled with “legal mumbo jumbo” that the women sign without knowing their babies will be sold for research.https://www.youtube.com/embed/GWQuZMvcFA8Center for Medical Progress undercover footage of Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of “intact fetuses”
Admissions on the witness stand included the founder/president Linda Tracy and procurement manager Perrin Larton of Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR), a U.S. wholesaler of aborted baby body parts since 1989. ABR’s yearly revenues are about $1.1 to $1.5 million, all from harvesting and purchasing livers, lungs, and brains in abortion facilities and re-selling the body parts to taxpayer-funded research laboratories at enormous mark-up prices. Tracy stated under oath in her deposition for this trial that the conversation she had with Daleiden was not private or confidential. However, during the trial, she claimed it was. Tracy also tried to say that she didn’t discuss “pricing” of fetal tissue at National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) conference. Yet in her videotaped deposition played in court, Tracy indicated her conversations at NAF included pricing of baby body parts. She further testified in her deposition that at NAF she discussed ABR’s “Regulated Tissue Acquisition” harvesting, for which researchers pay $6,000 per procurement. Larton also testified that she does not recant any of the statements she made to Daleiden about babies falling out intact for organ harvesting, and that ABR could receive intact fetuses as frequently as every couple months. ABR’s yearly revenues are about $1.1 to $1.5 million, all from harvesting and purchasing livers, lungs and brains in abortion facilities.Tweet
Dr. Theresa Deisher, an expert in adult stem cell research who obtained her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University School of Medicine, testified about the perfusion technique using the Langendorff method that is meant to be used on animal hearts. Deisher said she must go to great lengths as a cardiovascular researcher to make sure that the mice she studies do not suffer needless pain. In fact she noted, she would face ethical charges and go to jail if she cut beating hearts out of mice without anesthesia. Deisher also testified how horrified she was upon reading various studies involving baby human hearts procured from StemExpress, which the evidence at the hearing showed were sourced from Planned Parenthood. She consulted with Daleiden before he and Merritt filmed the undercover videos and told them that the research methods discussed in these studies would have required fetal hearts. She knew those studies had to be conducted while the hearts were still beating when cut out, without anesthesia, from the aborted babies.
Before Deisher first took the stand, Deputy Attorney General Johnette Jauron tried to intimidate her from testifying by threatening to indict her as a “co-conspirator” because of the scientific advice she had provided Daleiden. Though Jauron had no legal basis for her action, Judge Christopher Hite told defense counsel that Deisher might need to consult a lawyer regarding her testimony, since the attorney general had raised the possibility of a prosecution against her. Deisher declined and proceeded with her powerful testimony.
Planned Parenthood called Dr. Thomas Moran to the stand, and he said he was very “anxious” when he learned that he was filmed in the undercover investigation because he feared he would be publicly outed as an abortion provider. Moran also testified under oath that he had never posted anything online about his abortion work, that he kept a low profile, and that he does not “draw attention” to his abortion work. On the basis of his “anxiety” of being outed, Planned Parenthood asked the jury to award it “damages.”
However, during cross examination by Liberty Counsel’s Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio Mihet, Moran’s manufactured story unraveled. Mihet confronted him with a public, online petition that Moran had signed, with his name as an abortion provider, pledging to be a “loud and clear advocate” for unlimited abortion rights. Mihet asked him if this was consistent with his low profile and not drawing attention. Moran’s first reaction was “Um, a teeny bit of embarrassment.” Mihet also pointed out that Moran is credited as a contributor to the online Early Abortion Training Workbook by the University of Southern California San Francisco’s Bixby Center. Moran said he was “proud” of his contribution and would not remove his name from the public document. When Mihet asked that the defendants “did nothing to out you as an abortion provider, correct?” He replied, “They outed several of my colleagues,” but not him.
Then Mihet confronted Moran that his earlier sworn testimony about keeping a low profile, avoiding attention, and never publishing anything about his abortion work, was untrue. “The one thing you were anxious our defendants would do… you voluntarily did yourself in open court,” said Mihet.
Moran’s response was: “Counselor, you got me.” Moran’s lie was revealed to the jury during cross-examination. They were scalping the babies and taking their scalps and grafting them on to immune-suppressed mice.Tweet
Another witness, Albin Rhomberg, told the court that pro-life sidewalk counselors first discovered that the abortion industry was trafficking baby body parts in the early 2000s, before the CMP’s undercover investigation began. Rhomberg said that the staff at the abortion facility would arrive in the morning followed later by the abortionists. Then in midmorning, a new group of people arrived carrying containers, sometimes with ice and other tools and equipment. A few hours later, a FedEx truck arrived at a regular time and departed with “special refrigerated gel-pack containers.”
Rhomberg explained, “There were these rumors that they were collecting the bodies [of aborted babies] for sale or for distribution in some way. In some cases, the people noticed that the parts went out before the mother went out. She would come — [at] times, come staggering out later, typically throwing up in the bushes and being helped out of the place, after the baby parts had already gone into the FedEx truck.”
After talking with the FedEx drivers and conducting online research, Rhomberg discovered that Advanced Bioscience Resources was purchasing the baby parts, and they were likely being resold to those conducting a study on baldness.
“They were scalping the babies and taking their scalps and grafting them on to immune-suppressed mice, and then using various pharmaceuticals on these humanized mice to test the effect upon preventing or, I suppose you might say, treating baldness,” said Rhomberg.
During the trial, Rhomberg was also questioned about an email he sent Daleiden the day after CMP released its first video on July 14, 2015, in which he calls the video “the Nucatola NUKE” and writes it had been viewed over 700,000 times. Rhomberg estimated that the original YouTube video has been viewed three million times. The video, which Judge Orrick has banned as evidence in the courtroom, shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola infamously discussing how she would “crush above” and “crush below” the baby’s thorax to obtain intact organs, and admitting she changes the position of the baby to breech to obtain an intact head.
Dr. Mary Gatter, former “medical director” of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles (PPLA), and Jon Dunn, CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties, were former business partners of the DaVinci companies that were shut down for illegally selling fetal organs and tissues from Planned Parenthood. Dr. Gatter described PPLA’s fetal tissue program with Novogenix Laboratories, acknowledging PPLA was “used to getting a set fee for each specimen” harvested. On cross examination, Gatter admitted that PPLA never complied with PPFA’s (Planned Parenthood Federation of America) national guidelines that affiliates engage an independent auditor to make sure fetal tissue payments were merely reimbursements and not illegal profit or valuable consideration. Gatter admitted that the undercover videos of her negotiating prices that Planned Parenthood would charge for baby body parts took place at a cocktail reception at an outdoor hotel pool, another reception in a hotel mezzanine, and at a restaurant, among other places of public accommodation. Gatter also admitted cocktail lounges, restaurants, and elevators are all public places, as recognized by PPFA-issued conference security guidelines.
Despite the judge banning the evidence in court, one of the videos shows Gatter stating “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiates prices for human livers, thymus, brains, hearts, lungs and other baby body parts during her conversation with Sandra Merritt at a public restaurant in Pasadena. She also stated that a “less crunchy technique” is used in the abortion process to get better human organs.
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Sandra Merritt is being targeted for exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal practice of harvesting and selling baby body parts. She was denied a fair trial and has been waiting a long time to be vindicated. The record of errors now before the Court of Appeals demands that the unjust result be set aside. Sandra did nothing wrong. She only revealed the truth.”
History has a way of repeating itself, and nations when they forget God have a nasty habit of imploding, America is in the midst of that right now. All these silly cancellations like children’s books and potato head dolls are just cover for the real prize, the actual target. What they really want to cancel is the biggest piece of hate literature in human history – the bible. The God of Abraham, whom this world hasn’t a clue of understanding, does things that by their standard are intolerable. Don’t believe me? Take a look and see for yourself.
What they really want to cancel is the biggest piece of hate literature in human history – the bible. The God of Abraham, whom this world hasn’t a clue of understanding, does things that by their standard are intolerable.
Have you been paying attention lately to everything going on? The liberal woke mob is on a rampage, they are cancelling everything and everyone that goes counter to their stated agenda. Drag Queen Story Hour is praised while Dr. Seuss is banned as ‘racist and subversive’ literature. Mt. Potato Head and Pepe Le Pew have got to go, yet mass murder and sexual assaulter Andrew Cuomo remains in power. If you haven’t figured it out by now, they are coming for your King James Authorized Version Holy Bible, too. Will you give it up?
“But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.” Mark 13:9 (KJB)
History has a way of repeating itself, and nations when they forget God have a nasty habit of imploding, America is in the midst of that right now. All these silly cancellations like children’s books and potato head dolls are just cover for the real prize, the actual target. What they really want to cancel is the biggest piece of hate literature in human history – the bible. The God of Abraham, whom this world hasn’t a clue of understanding, does things that by their standard are intolerable. Don’t believe me? Take a look and see for yourself.
GENOCIDE: God tells the Jews to wipe out all the nations in and around the land of Canaan in order to establish the nation of Israel. “For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.” Exodus 23:23 (KJB)
SLAVERY: God acknowledges slavery as a human condition, and gives guidelines for how Christian slaves should obey their masters. Nothing is said about abolishing it. “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”Ephesians 6:5-8 (KJB)
RACISM: By far-left liberal standards, God is absolutely a racist, and guess what? They’re right. If racism is defined by giving or withholding blessing based on race, then God is a racist because He prefers the Jews over every other race of people on earth. “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Deuteronomy 14:2 (KJB)
ONLY TWO GENDERS: The bible is crystal clear about the number of genders there are, and that would be two, man and woman. “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5:1,2 (KJB)
XENOPHOBIA: Xenophobia is defined as “dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries”, and the bible has that in spades. God says that the only nation that matters to Him is His nation of Israel. All the other nations are, in His sight, simply a drop in the bucket, amounting to nothing. “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.” Isaiah 40:15 (KJB)
THE LGBTQ+: The centerpiece of the radical Left is their alphabet soup of sexual and gender perversions, ‘President’ Joe Biden is already radically expanding federal protection for transgenders. God is dead-set against not only some of it, but all of it. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJB)
ABORTION: God does not see abortion has a ‘human right’ or as ‘health care’, He sees it as murder. In the Old Testament, people got rid of the children they no longer wanted by sacrificing them in the fire to Molech. “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.” Leviticus 20:2,3 (KJB)
CLIMATE CHANGE: The liberals engage in Gaia worship, praising the goddess spirit. Liberals seek to preserve it at all costs. But the bible says that God is going to set the whole thing on fire and burn it up at the Great White Throne Judgment. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” 2 Peter 3:10 (KJB)
Do you now see why the Liberals hate God and hate His book with every ounce of their being? Prepare yourself for the coming Christian persecution, the banning of the bible, the arrest of street preachers and the closing of churches. A pastor in Canada is in jail right now for preaching the truth. This is how we will go into the Pretribulation Rapture, so make up your mind that you will go up and out of here with the praise of God in your mouth.
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.” Psalm 149:6-9 (KJB)
A new article from the New York Times claims that instead of engaging with someone that challenges your worldview, you should “resist the lure of Rabbit Holes” and go to more authoritative sources such as Google and Wikipedia.
The New York Times appears to have declared war on traditional critical thinking, which they say “isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation”.
Sharing the insights of “a digital literacy expert” named Michael Caulfield, the article reads as follows:
“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”
In other words: Resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part, by reimagining media literacy for the internet hellscape we occupy.
What Does The New York Times Suggest We Do Instead?
Caulfield argues that the best way to learn about a source of information is to “leave it and look elsewhere”, by seeing how that source of information measures up to the existing status quo.
For further clarification, the New York Times’ “digital literacy expert” provides us with an example by investigating a post (which they do not offer any link to) made by Robert F Kennedy Jr on Instagram:
He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.
In short, the New York Times and their “expert” are telling us that instead of investigating the claims of someone that challenges the status quo and our understanding and perception of reality, we should instead avoid them and go directly to the authorities to tell us what to think.
Considering the Wall Street Journal’s detailed investigation and an academic study both uncovering Google’s deliberate manipulation of search results (for which they have also been fined) and reports of organizations like the Vatican, CIA and FBI editing Wikipedia entries, this advice needs to be viewed with the highest suspicion for obvious reasons.
This is the Exact Opposite of How We Establish the Truth
There is an expression that “rejecting something you know nothing about is the highest form of ignorance,” and that’s basically what the New York Times and their “digital literacy expert” are encouraging their followers to do. “Resist the lure of Rabbit Holes” and go to Google, where in just “15 seconds”, you can get the Truth from Wikipedia — It’s genuinely shocking to read this.
History is overwhelmed by examples that prove this method to be deeply flawed. Galileo Galilei, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, and countless others were attacked by the authorities for challenging the status quo. In fact, it could be argued that this has been a consistent theme throughout history and clearly represents that what the New York Times are encouraging us to do, is the exact opposite of establishing the Truth. No, it’s not a 15 second process, and no, you don’t mindlessly rely on the authorities to give you the Truth.
New York Times Has a Documented History of Spreading Dangerous Propaganda
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times has a well documented history of spreading dangerous propaganda and working with the authorities to uphold the status quo.
Correspondingly, in 2012 Glen Greenwald wrote an article on the “correspondence and collusion” between the CIA and the New York Times. In 2015, Professor Noam Chomsky wrote of how the news giant helped cover up war crimes for the U.S. government.
Frustrated Establishment Media No Longer Has a Monopoly on Information
Although this New York Time’s article is revolting, it’s also quite insightful as to how desperate some establishment media outlets have become in their efforts to control the narrative, which has grown more and more frivolous with the introduction of the internet where people such as myself can use verifiable evidence to expose how hypocritical and deceptive they are.
“Sometimes you just have to take a risk,” he said of the meeting. “There are some critics who say that the pope is not courageous, but reckless, that he is doing things against Catholic doctrine that are one step away from heresy,” he said. Throughout his papacy, conservatives have criticised his opening to the Muslim world, including the signing in 2019 of a joint document on inter-religious fraternity during a visit to Abu Dhabi. That visit was the first by a pope to the Arabian peninsula, home of Islam’s most sacred sites.
Pope Francis said on Monday that he decided to visit Iraq despite a rise in COVID-19 cases after much prayer and contemplation and suggested God would protect those who came to see him from the virus.
Pope Francis called Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani a ‘sage’, and that he was a ‘man of God’, and that all by itself should tell you everything you need to know about the Roman pope and his plans to launch the One World Religion of Chrislam on this world. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is not a ‘man of God’, he is someone that denies the deity of Jesus Christ and denies that He alone is the Saviour of the world. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani represents Antichrist, not God, and so does Pope Francis.
“I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” 1 John 2:21-23 (KJB)
Pope Francis has been called a heretic by conservative Catholics and rightly so, but even if he was in line with traditional Catholicism he would still be facing the fires of Hell as the Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus shed His blood to create on the cross. It is counterfeit Christianity, and not only that, it is the launching pad from which the One World Religion of Chrislam is springing from.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking theorized that the universe’s darkest gravitational behemoths, black holes, were not the pitch-black star swallowers astronomers imagined, but they spontaneously emitted light — a phenomenon now dubbed Hawking radiation.
The problem is, no astronomer has ever observed Hawking’s mysterious radiation, and because it is predicted to be very dim, they may never will. Which is why scientists today are creating their own black holes.Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology did just that. They created a black hole analog out of a few thousand atoms. They were trying to confirm two of Hawking’s most important predictions, that Hawking radiation arises from nothing and that it does not change in intensity over time, meaning it’s stationary.
“A black hole is supposed to radiate like a black body, which is essentially a warm object that emits a constant infrared radiation,” study co-author Jeff Steinhauer, an associate professor of physics at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, told Phys.org. “Hawking suggested that black holes are just like regular stars, which radiate a certain type of radiation all the time, constantly. That’s what we wanted to confirm in our study, and we did.”
The event horizon
The gravity of a black hole is so powerful that not even light can escape its grasp, once a photon, or light particle, crosses beyond its point-of-no-return, called the event horizon. To escape this boundary, a particle would have to break the laws of physics and travel faster than the speed of light.
Hawking showed that although nothing that crosses the event horizon can escape, black holes can still spontaneously emit light from the boundary, thanks to quantum mechanics and something called “virtual particles.”
As explained by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, even the complete vacuum of space is teeming with pairs of ‘virtual’ particles that pop in and out of existence. These fleeting particles with opposite energies usually annihilate each other almost immediately. But due to the extreme gravitational pull at an event horizon, Hawking suggested pairs of photons could be separated, with one particle getting absorbed by the black hole and the other escaping into space. The absorbed photon has negative energy and subtracts energy in the form of mass from the black hole, while the escaped photon becomes Hawking radiation. From this alone, given enough time (much longer than the age of the universe), a black hole could completely evaporate away.
“Hawking’s theory was revolutionary because he combined the physics of quantum field theory with general relativity,” Einstein’s theory that describes how matter warps space-time,Steinhauer told Live Science. “It’s still helping people to look for new laws of physics by studying the combination of these two theories in a physical example. People would like to verify this quantum radiation, but it’s very difficult with a real black hole because Hawking radiation is so weak compared to the background radiation of space.”
This problem inspired Steinhauer and his colleagues to create their own black hole — a safer and much smaller one than the real deal.
DIY black hole
The researchers’ lab-grown black hole was made of a flowing gas of approximately 8,000 rubidium atoms cooled to nearly absolute zero and held in place by a laser beam. They created a mysterious state of matter, known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC), which allows thousands of atoms to act together in unison as though they were a single atom.
Using a second laser beam, the team created a cliff of potential energy, which caused the gas to flow like water rushing down a waterfall, thereby creating an event horizon where one half of the gas was flowing faster than the speed of sound, the other half slower. In this experiment, the team was looking for pairs of phonons, or quantum sounds waves, instead of pairs of photons,spontaneously forming in the gas.
A phonon on the slower half could travel against the flow of gas, away from the cliff, while the phonon on the faster half became trapped by the speed of the supersonic flowing gas, Steinhauer explained. “It’s like trying to swim against a current that’s faster than you can swim. [That’s] just like being in a black hole, once you’re inside, it’s impossible to reach the horizon.”
Once they found these phonon pairs, the researchers had to confirm whether they were correlated and if the Hawking radiation remained constant over time (if it was stationary). That process was tricky because every time they took a picture of their black hole, it was destroyed by the heat created in the process. So the team repeated their experiment 97,000 times, taking more than 124 days of continuous measurements in order to find the correlations. In the end, their patience paid off.
“We showed that the Hawking radiation was stationary, meaning it didn’t change with time, which is exactly what Hawking predicted,” Steinhauer said.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the complaint filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell against former president Donald Trump. Swalwell just filed a complaint that could prove to be the vindication that Trump has long sought in the riot in the Capitol on January 6th.
Here is the column.
French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God. The answer to Donald Trump’s prayers may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). It is not because of Swalwell’s relationship with a Chinese agent or the bizarre defenses of him, including one Democrat insisting he deserved the Medal of Honor. It is because Swalwell’s lawsuit against the former president could offer Trump the ultimate vindication over his role in the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.
Swalwell’s 64-page complaint against Trump — along with son Donald Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — alleges nine counts for relief, from negligent emotional distress suffered by Swalwell to negligence in the “incitement to riot.” One might think this would be a lead-pipe cinch of a case. After all, an array of legal experts has insisted for months that this was clear criminal incitement, not an exercise of free speech. As a civil lawsuit, it should be even easier to win, since the standard of proof is lower for civil cases.
Yet, for more than four years, many of these same experts claimed a long list of “clear” crimes by Trump that were never prosecuted or used as a basis for impeachment. Likewise, despite similar claims of criminal incitement, roughly three months have passed without a criminal charge against Trump. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine insisted weeks ago that Trump’s alleged crime would be investigated. Yet any such prosecution likely would collapse at trial or on appeal, and people like Racine are not eager to prove Trump’s case.
Enter Swalwell, who has long exhibited a willingness to rush in where wiser Democrats fear to tread, with what may be his costliest misstep yet.
First, his lawsuit will force a court to determine if the defendants’ speeches were protected political speech. As if to guarantee failure, Swalwell picked the very tort — emotional distress — that was previously rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts distinguished our country from hateful figures like the Westboro group, noting that “as a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Second, Swalwell must show that Trump was the factual and legal cause of his claimed injuries. Swalwell and others have expressly argued that, if not for Trump, the riot would not have occurred. But a trial will allow the defense to offer “superseding intervening forces” on that question — acts of others that may have caused or contributed to the breaching of the Capitol. A court could rule that Trump was not the “but for” cause of the riot before even getting to any legal causation or constitutional questions.
Claims of blame would have been easier to make before the House refused to hold hearings on Trump’s impeachment, including weeks after its “snap impeachment.” Now, facts have emerged that implicate Congress itself in the failure to take adequate precautions against rioters, despite advance warnings. Former House officials claimed an FBI warning was sent only in an email, a day before the riot — but FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified that a warning of plans to storm the Capitol was sent on all of the channels created for sharing such intelligence. Moreover, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that he asked for National Guard support but was refused six times; one key official, Sund said, did not like “the optics” of troops guarding Congress. Delays at both the Capitol and the Pentagon allegedly left the Capitol woefully understaffed. And Trump has been quoted by former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller as warning him the day before the riot that “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000 (troops).”
There also is a growing problem with the riot’s time line. Swalwell’s complaint alleges a failure by Trump to act as violence unfolded. But as more information has been released, the time period has shrunk to a difference of minutes between the breach and Trump’s call for law and order. Trump ended his speech at 1:10 p.m. The first rioter entered the Capitol at 2:12 p.m. Eight minutes later, Trump had a heated call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who told him of the breach. Then at 2:26 p.m., Trump mistakenly called Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) instead of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Lee reportedly said Trump did not appear to realize the extent of the rioting. Finally, at 2:38 p.m., Trump called for his followers to be peaceful and to support police.That was roughly 30 minutes after the first protester entered the Capitol. Trump’s defense team will likely emphasize that the he not only told followers to go “peacefully” to the Capitol but made the call to obey law enforcement roughly 30 minutes after the first rioters entered the Capitol.
Many people think Trump should have spoken earlier. Indeed, I condemned his speech while he was giving it. Yet, various people took actions (or failed to take actions) that left the Capitol vulnerable. And, at trial, a comparison could be drawn to the violence around the White House during the previous summer: Fearing a breach of that complex, overwhelming force was used to create an expanded security perimeter — but the use of National Guard troops then was denounced by congressional Democrats, D.C.’s mayor, and the media.
Finally, Swalwell’s complaint accuses Trump of reckless rhetoric — but Swalwell could find himself on the witness stand having to answer for his own rhetoric. Those comments include his mocking of threats against Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Swalwell, who now claims severe emotional trauma from the Capitol riot, dismissively tweeted “Boo hoo hoo” when angry protesters surrounded Collins’s home in 2018.
Swalwell’s complaint is timed beautifully to collapse on appeal just before the 2024 election, giving Trump and Republicans the ultimate repudiation of prior Democratic claims. Voltaire also famously said that “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Luckily for Trump, Swalwell not only already exists, but he may be the very answer to Trump’s political prayers.