IMG_0275.JPG

Anonymous G

Editor In Chief, Content Curator

 

One Rule for Us, Another for Them

One Rule for Us, Another for Them

Alternative To The Mainstream
Politics, Civil Unrest, Deep State

(GREGORY HOOD) Politico recently reported that the Supreme Court will probably overturn Roe v. Wade. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted that the leak was a “call to arms,” and for progressives, it meant protests, threats, and property destruction.

White advocates are divided on abortion. There are pro-lifers who may oppose it because some people think it is eugenic. A white advocate might defend abortion for the same reason. However, that doesn’t mean extreme leftists would think he was an ally. There will be no separate peace.

Antifa activists are not divided. “We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom,” reads one of the “Points of Unity” for the antifa “Torch Network.” A masked and menacing antifa “black bloc” joined a pro-choice rally in Seattle.

In Wisconsin, someone threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a pro-life group, Wisconsin Family Action. An activist also spray-painted the antifa slogan “All Cops Are Bastards” and “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.” A group called “Jane’s Revenge,” named for the pre-Roe group of abortionists called “Jane’s Collective,” claimed responsibility via a said the attack was a “warning” that there could be more extreme methods, and that “anti-choice establishments, fake clinics [meaning crisis pregnancy centers], and violent anti-choice groups” must be dismantled within 30 days. It says it is “not a declaration of war” because “war has been upon us for decades.”

Mr. Evans says he would be “very surprised if this was not a legitimate attack.” Police are still investigating. The group sounds so extreme it may be a hoax, but at least one verified Twitter user praised the attack before losing or deleting her account. Her publication’s Samuel Alito (the author of the Court’s draft opinion), Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Television host Joy Behrar said the protests would teach Justice Samuel Alito about “freedom of choice.” Mother Jones dismissed the “tone police” who suggest such tactics are immoral or ineffective. Many verified Twitter users promoted or defended protests, even though demonstrations at the homes of Supreme Court justices is a federal crime.

Activist Bree Newsome, best known for taking down a Confederate flag in South Carolina, noted that the Senate just voted to provide Supreme Court justices with more police protection. She said this proves harassment works.

One cartoonist, who seems to have something against white people, also endorsed it.

Hello, World!

He still has his account. The tweet is still up.

It’s fair to say the Biden Administration is implicitly backing these protests by not enforcing this federal law:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

“House GOP says protesting outside justices’ homes is illegal,” said The Hill in a headline. Republicans are “saying” that? The law says it.

If public pressure can change a judge or juror’s ruling, the courts are dead. John Adams, defending British troops after the “Boston Massacre,” said the legal system must be “deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamors of the populace.” It’s also important to protect jurors’ anonymity, something NBC seemingly tried to breach during Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial.

Senator Tom Cotton asked the Justice Department why it won’t enforce federal law. It’s a good question, given the DOJ’s worries about “domestic extremism.” A protest outside a private home is always an implied threat of “we know where you live.” During a pending court case, it means “side with us or else.” Chief Justice John Roberts is reportedly trying to broker a compromise to save Roe. Would the Court’s legitimacy survive an altered judgment after these protests? It would be an invitation to ever more aggressive tactics.

A Republican in charge doesn’t mean the laws are enforced. Organizers openly promoted the protest near Justice Alito’s house, which is in Virginia. This breaks Virginia state law, which prohibits demonstrations in front of anyone’s home for any reason, because a citizen has a right to “tranquility in his home.”

Police made no arrests, even with a Republican governor, Glenn Younkin.

If it still sounds unlikely that those in power support these protests, listen to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. On May 10, when asked about DOJ’s inactivity, she said:

So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date — and we certainly continue to encourage that — outside of judges’ homes. And that’s the President’s position. But the silence is pretty deafening about all of the other intimidation that we’ve seen to a number of people.

A reporter pointed out that this is a pending court case and referred to the federal law. The press secretary:

Well, but I think that intimidation and protests — and intimidation outside of the homes of school board members, the Michigan Secretary of State — you know, intimidation and threats against people seeking legal reproductive healthcare — and against our Capitol and American democracy also warrant some outrage. And we haven’t really seen that.

Still, not an answer.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he had no problem with the protests outside homes if they are “peaceful.” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed similar sentiments, with the latter saying that the law says “protesters should be able to get right in people’s faces.” The nicest thing to say about these public servants is that they are unfamiliar with federal law.

The double standard is obvious, both on Twitter and in the streets. It’s especially rich when those defending these tactics are the same people who want more restrictions on free speech or encourage violence against white advocates. Jared Taylor and American Renaissance can’t have Twitter accounts, verified or unverified, — they were allegedly “associated with a violent extremist group” — while others can call for assassination and arson.

The federal government won’t enforce its own laws, even to defend its own highest officials. A Republican-controlled state government won’t either. Pointing out double standards is tiresome but necessary. Americans must learn that the Constitution and the law won’t restrain leftists, either in government or on the streets. The sooner naïve whites recognize this, the better.

Most white advocates have known it for a long time. Recognizing subjugation is the first step to overcoming it.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)

Empire of Bioweapon Lies

Empire of Bioweapon Lies
Russia: Soros, Gates, Hunter Biden, EcoHealth funded Biolabs, Funneled $$$ to Democrats

Russia: Soros, Gates, Hunter Biden, EcoHealth funded Biolabs, Funneled $$$ to Democrats