Abortion rights? Biden Cartel Child Abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. Terrorism Weaponization of Government. WOKE

Outrageous: Biden’s Defense Department Labels Pro-Life Organizations “Terrorist Organizations!”

Views: 13

Liberal hate-mongers sink to new low.


The Biden regime’s Defense Department has taken an unprecedented step by categorizing pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Liberty’s Directorate of Emergency Services on Wednesday.

This deeply concerning slide from an anti-terrorism brief was first exposed by citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which has since circulated widely on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

The Biden regime’s Defense Department has taken an unprecedented step by categorizing pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Liberty’s Directorate of Emergency Services, formerly known as Fort Bragg, on Wednesday.

This deeply concerning slide from an anti-terrorism brief was first exposed by citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which has since circulated widely on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

Not only Biden’s Defense Department but Biden’s FBI has also singled out traditional Catholics with pro-life, pro-family views as potential domestic terrorists.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in April 2023, Chris Wray’s FBI was infiltrating Catholic parishes.

The FBI agents are engaging in outreach to Catholic leaders to spy on Americans practicing their Christian faith.

This was a shocking revelation. Americans already knew the FBI-DOJ was targeting traditional Catholics from earlier reporting. We also have evidence they are infiltrating Catholic parishes.

Full story here:


Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Crime Drugs Elections Government Overreach The Courts The Law Weaponization of Government.

The Surveillance State is Already Here: Are Cops Using Cell Simulators to Track Your Every Move?

Views: 11


StingRay? Hailstorm? HUH?

Simply put, these are spy devices used by various federal, state, and local agencies that turn your cell phone into a homing beacon, letting them listen to your incoming and outgoing phone calls and read your emails and texts. And it os so precise that it can track you down to the very room you are in if you’re carrying your cell phone. But the various agencies don’t like to talk about them. Hmm. Why? What could possibly go wrong?

The StingRay is an IMSI catcher with both passive (digital analyzer) and active (cell-site simulator) capabilities. When operating in active mode, the device mimics a wireless carrier cell tower to force all nearby mobile phones and other cellular data devices to connect to it. The newer “Hailstorm” device works similarly but can also eavesdrop on 4-G phones and devices.

A StingRay can be used to identify and track a phone or other compatible cellular data device even while the device is not engaged in a call or accessing data services!

What’s even scarier is that and cellphone use in the area of a StingRay device, is sucked up as well as the “target”. According to DOJ POLICY (not a law) any data obtained on innocent bystanders must be deleted in 60 days. SERIOUSLY? Once they get hands on your data they have it forever. If their claims were true, then how can the intelligence agencies be able to comb through millions of people’s data YEARS after it was intercepted? Oops!


Despite claims that your vote is anonymous — at least for in-person ballots — the fact is each ballot has a unique id number  (several in fact). And when you vote in person, your ballot’s serial number is recorded in the election official log book next to your name. Guess what, they can then go back and see who you voted for, all without you knowing. Whether it is actually being used this way is moot. The plain fact is that it CAN be used this way. Bring back the mechanical machines that only total votes. — TPR

Disrupting service AKA DENIAL OF SERVICE (isn’t that a crime?)

The FBI has claimed that when used to identify, locate, or track a cellular device, the StingRay does not collect communications content or forward it to the service provider. Instead, the device causes a disruption in service. Under this scenario, any attempt by the cellular device user to place a call or access data services will fail while the StingRay is conducting its surveillance. On August 21, 2018, Senator Ron Wyden noted that Harris Corporation confirmed that Stingrays disrupt the targeted phone’s communications. Additionally, he noted that “while the company claims its cell-site simulators include a feature that detects and permits the delivery of emergency calls to 9-1-1, its officials admitted to my office that this feature has not been independently tested as part of the Federal Communications Commission’s certification process, nor were they able to confirm this feature is capable of detecting and passing-through 9-1-1 emergency communications made by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speech disabled using Real-Time Text technology.”

In fact, it has already been used during mass demonstrations, so the protestors could not talk to each other. I leave the legality and constitutionality of such uses as an exercise for the student.


The FBI has claimed that when used to identify, locate, or track a cellular device, the StingRay does not collect communications content or forward it to the service provider.

Yeah, right!

There are no laws currently on the books at any level of government (*except UTAH) regulating the use of this equipment. Several court cases have determined that use of these machines constitutes Warrantless searches and as such their use violates the 4th amendment, but no case has made it to the SCOTUS yet..


Federal Agencies Known to Use Cell Site Simulators:

Still think you’re safe from unconstitutional searches and seizures?


Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Crime How sick is this? January 6 Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. Weaponization of Government.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Pelosi LIED about January 6!

Views: 34

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Pelosi LIED about January 6!

From June 10, 2024 article by Jim Holt of TGP


New footage was released on Monday from the House Oversight Committee of Nancy Pelosi taking responsibility for the January 6, 2021, protests and rioting at the US Capitol.

Despite what TGP and the oversight committee claim about the above clip, Pelosi does NOT admit to being responsible. She is making CYA statements. This is obvious from the context itself, where she talks about “transparency” and “accountability” and about how she wasn’t asked about the National Guard until the demonstrators had breached [the Capitol Building] in the middle of “the inaugural stuff.” She even states the Capital police “didn’t know” they couldn’t handle the crowds. What painfully obvious BS. — TPR

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser were both warned about the security situation prior to January 6th and both of them turned down National Guard troops at the US Capitol that day.

Pelosi and Mayor Muriel Bowser turned down thousands of National Guard troops at the Capitol on January 6 for political reasons.

Chris Wray’s FBI also refused to notify the Trump administration and his cabinet secretaries that they believed there could be violence like the mass protests at the Capitol that took place that day.

Nancy Pelosi also refused the National Guard at the US Capitol due to “politics,” but that is just her excuse. What did she know in advance?

Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund previously testified that he asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup. But they both turned him down.

Pelosi was not honest about their communications.

Chief Sund: … I spoke to Speaker Pelosi three times that evening. [And she went on national TV and said, I’d never spoken to her, but I spoke to her three times. Three times were – The first time was when I went over to brief Vice President Pence at the secure location, I had called House Sergeant Arms Irving, and told him I was going over to brief the Vice President. I was also going over to do a personal assessment of the Capitol. At that point, things were getting under control. Went over there, and briefed him on when we can get them back into chambers with Mr. Irving, being fully aware. He said he wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone at approximately 534, where I first briefed Speaker Pelosi. The second call was when I left that location. As I was walking away, I met up with Mr. Stinger, and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate when Jennifer Hemingway I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway handed me her cell phone, and it was Emily Barrett’s cell phone calling her, and it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line.

This was my second call with Speaker Pelosi questioning the information I’d given to Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers. I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chamber by 07:00 P.M., and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 06:25 p.m.. I was over at the Senate from the secure location I mean, from where the Senate had been sequestered. And on a cell phone, using Robert Caram’s cell phone, they dialed leadership, who was over off site at a secure location, and I briefed all of leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi.

Rep. Steil: So you didn’t have one call. You didn’t have two calls. You had three calls. So Speaker Pelosi’s comments that she didn’t speak to you are inaccurate?

Chief Sund: That is correct, sir.

— September 2023 excerpt of testimony before the House subcommittee on J6

John Solomon from Just The News released an explosive report in 2022 that revealed Capitol Police were first warned about possible violence at the January 6th protests TWO WEEKS before the planned rallies.

Pelosi, Mayor Bowser, and other government officials turned down the National Guard anyway. It’s as if they “hoped” for an “insurrection.”

Solomon says the DHS and District of Columbia were made aware of online threats of violence two weeks before the protests and rally.

Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots.

According to PJ Media – The U.S. Senate knew Nancy Pelosi had more to do with the U.S. Capitol breach on January 6, 2021, than anything President Trump did that day. Indeed, Nancy Pelosi could be crowned Queen of the Mob, since her actions led to the crashing of the perimeter fences, general dysfunction, and deaths of Trump supporters that day. Pelosi was more responsible for the marauding mob at the Capitol that day than anything President Trump did to “incite” his huge crowd of supporters.

And in April, DC National Guard whistleblowers testified that the Pentagon, under the direction of Mark Milley, refused to deploy the National Guard that day until after 5 PM.

Pelosi blocked the National Guard from protecting the Capitol that day – Mark Milley blocked the National Guard from deploying until after 5 PM.

It was ALWAYS the Pelosi insurrection. 

You can imagine what we have yet to learn about Pelosi and Milley’s actions that day that left the US Capitol open and unprotected! 

So when will Pelosi be charged as an accessory to murder before the fact of the deaths of Trump supporters on January 6?


Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Corruption Journalism. Lawfare New York The Courts The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

MORE LAWFARE! (They’ll be coming for others soon) Epoch Times CFO Arrested and Charged with $67 Million Money Laundering Scheme

Views: 19

MORE LAWFARE! (They’ll be coming for others soon) Epoch Times CFO Arrested and Charged with $67 Million Money Laundering Scheme

The charges against Guan “do not relate to the Media Company’s newsgathering activities,” the Bidem DOJ noted in a press release.

Prosecutors alleged the money laundering scheme benefited “a multinational media company headquartered in Manhattan, New York.” The Epoch Times is headquartered on West 28th Street in Manhattan.

The chief financial officer of conservative global news outlet The Epoch Times has been arrested and charged with leading a yearslong scheme to launder at least $67 million in illicit funds, federal prosecutors said Monday.

The scheme — which involved cryptocurrency, tens of thousands of prepaid debit cards, fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits and stolen personal information — fueled a massive increase in The Epoch Times’ reported annual revenue, prosecutors alleged.

Weidong “Bill” Guan, 61, is charged in U.S. District Court in lower Manhattan with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of bank fraud.

Guan was arrested Sunday morning, and pleaded not guilty on Monday afternoon before a federal magistrate judge in Manhattan, according to a court notice. He was released on a $3 million personal recognizance bond, and his travel is restricted to parts of New York and New Jersey, among other restrictions. [Guess they’re trying to look more ‘even-handed’ –TPR]

Guan “conspired with others to benefit himself, the media company, and its affiliates by laundering tens of millions of dollars in fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits and other crime proceeds,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement.

“When banks raised questions about the funds, Guan allegedly lied repeatedly and falsely claimed that the funds came from legitimate donations to the media company,” Williams said.

The Epoch Times is not mentioned by name in the indictment. But Guan is listed as Epoch Times’ chief financial officer on the nonprofit media company’s most recent tax return, filed in late 2023.

Prosecutors alleged the money laundering scheme benefited “a multinational media company headquartered in Manhattan, New York.” The Epoch Times is headquartered on West 28th Street in Manhattan.

Prosecutors allege the scheme by Guan and his co-conspirators caused the company’s revenue to jump from “approximately $15 million to approximately $62 million” between 2019 and 2020.

According to The Epoch Times’ publicly available IRS nonprofit tax returns, in 2019 the company reported program revenue of $15.5 million. The following year, The Epoch Times reported tax-exempt revenue of $62.7 million.

Guan, a resident of Secaucus, New Jersey, managed the Epoch Times’ “Make Money Online team,” which carried out the scheme to buy “crime proceeds” and transfer them to bank accounts linked to the media outlet, according to his indictment.

From 2020 to 2024, the team allegedly used a crypto platform to buy tens of millions of dollars in crime proceeds at discounted rates, of 70 to 80 cents on the dollar, in exchange for cryptocurrency. The crime proceeds, which came from sources including “fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits,” were loaded onto tens of thousands of prepaid debit cards, prosecutors alleged.

After purchasing the crime proceeds, participants allegedly used stolen personally identifiable information to open various types of accounts and transfer the proceeds into bank accounts linked with the media outlet and related entities.

Gotcha now!

They were often laundered again through other accounts, including Guan’s own personal bank and crypto accounts, according to prosecutors.

To hide the illegal nature of the proceeds, Guan and his co-conspirators allegedly lied to banks and other entities about their sources.

An attorney for Guan could not immediately be reached, but a case docket showed late Monday that Guan had been appointed a public defender.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to provide any additional comment on the indictment against Guan, which was filed in late May and unsealed Monday.

The bank fraud counts each carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, while the conspiracy holds a 20-year maximum prison sentence. The charges against Guan “do not relate to the Media Company’s newsgathering activities,” the Department of Justice noted in a press release.

NBC News and other outlets have reported on The Epoch Times’ affiliation with the Chinese religious group Falun Gong, which in recent years has supported former President Donald Trump as an ally in its opposition to the country’s ruling Chinese Communist Party.


Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Lawfare Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Warfare Weaponization of Government.

Some say Trump will purge DOJ and FBI. I say prosecute top brass in FBI and DOJ.

Views: 25

Some say Trump will purge DOJ and FBI. I say prosecute top brass in FBI and DOJ. We have seen weaponization of several government agencies and yes it goes back to the Obama years.

Now those same folks are upset that there just may be a payback. Former President Donald Trump will purge the administrative state by firing career bureaucrats from the DOJ and the FBI if he wins reelection.

The difference is that the Trump administration will use actual laws and not hide information from the public the way the Biden justice department has done.



Commentary Education Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Life Science Transgender Weaponization of Government. WOKE

Sex is binary. The XXY chromosome disorder appears in 1.72% of the MALE population –which makes it 0.86 of the total population. Your sex is binary.

Views: 29

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Males are accused of “Toxic Masculinity.” Of trying to control women via “the patriarchy.” And — whether white or not — enjoying their “White Privilege” to oppress others. But they should treat gold-digging, entitled little princesses like royalty and cater to their every whim.

Seriously, why would any self-respecting, sane woman want to “identify” as a man?

Oh, wait, that question answers itself.

Similarly, why would a self-respecting man want to “identify” as a woman? Is it because he’s a wimp who can’t succeed against other men?

It started when over-the-hill Bobby Riggs started challenging women tennis pros to best of 3 tennis matches. Billy Jean King, who was a bit over half his age at the time, shellacked the peacock 6-4, 6-3, 6-3.

Then we have “Renee” Richards (born Richard Raskind) who, after playing tennis for years, opted to mutilate hirself so “she” could play against women.

And let’s not forget “Lia” Thomas, who went from being ranked below the 400 mark as a MALE swimmer, suddenly vaulted to #1 as a WOMAN(!) swimmer. Sorry, at 6’4″ and packing a sausage between your legs, you are not female, and should not be competing against actual biological women.

If you want to diddle someone of your own sex, go ahead — in private. Dress how you want to, but don’t get upset if someone “mis-genders” you because you look like you’re cosplaying.

I do really wonder why all these crazy people are wandering around feeling entitled to insult and harass people who would happily mind their own business if these nut cases would just leave everyone else alone! Note that Karens/Kevins suffer from similar mental disorders of entitled-ness and delusions.

Seriously, who in their right mind would show signs saying “Queers for Hamas” when they would be killed on sight (if they were lucky) or tortured, killed, and paraded around like a hunting trophy while they spit the corpse (if not)—if actually living in Gaza.

Ah yes, the question again answers itself.

I have one rule in dealing with people: you respect me and my friends, and I’ll respect you. Disrespect me, and I’ll give you a chance to apologize; if you insist on continuing, there will be trouble.

Oh yes, that 1.72% with abnormal chromosomes? They are biologically male.

There are only two sexes/genders in reality. Get over it.


Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Debates Emotional abuse Government Overreach Hate Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse Terrorism Tony the Fauch Weaponization of Government.

The “Right Man” And The Fear Of Losing Face in Politics

Views: 21

The “Right Man” And The Fear Of Losing Face in Politics

RE: Biden, Pelosi, Jack Smith, Engoron, Letitia James, et al.

Biden joins an elite class.

These excerpts are from Colin Wilson‘s A Criminal History Of Mankind (1984).

Here Wilson discusses the interesting psychological concept of the “Right Man”, which might in other uses also be called the “Dominant Male” or the “Alpha Male”, though we are, of course, speaking here about the negative extremes in behaviour of this human type, not just ordinary dominance or leadership.

The “Right Men” can be domestic household tyrants terrorizing their families but they can be found in all fields of life: in business, politics, art, culture. Everyone must have encountered one: a dominating boss, school headmaster or teacher, army officer, father, son, boyfriend, bully.

Essential here is that the “Right Man” must always have his way and is afraid of losing face above all (“How dare you talk to me this way?”): anything that might be an indication of his infallibility or erroneous ways, something that he can never admit.

And if things don’t exactly go his way, he may scare people into submission by breaking into outbursts of rage or downright violence. He may demand absolute faithfulness from his woman but “play around” himself, since as a God-like “Right Man” this is his divine prerogative (he thinks). Colin Wilson also points out that there are “Right Women” too, so this is not exclusively male behaviour.

“The notion of ‘losing face’ suggests an interesting alternative line of thought. It is obviously connected, for example, with the cruelty of Himmler and Stalin when their absolute authority was questioned. They were both men with a touchy sense of self-esteem, so that their response to any suspected insult was vindictive rage. (Sound familiar? — TPR) Another characteristic of both men was a conviction they they were always right, and a total inability to admit that they might ever be wrong.”

“Himmlers and Stalins are, fortunately, rare; but the type is surprisingly common. The credit for recognising this goes to A.E. Van Vogt who is also the author of a number of brilliant psychological studies. Van Vogt’s concept of the ‘Right Man’ or ‘violent man’ is so important to the understanding of criminality that it deserves to be considered at length…”


“In 1954, Van Vogt began work on a war novel called The Violent Man, which was set in a Chinese prison camp. The commandant of the camp is one of those savagely authoritarian figures who would instantly, and without hesitation, order the execution of anyone who challenges his authority. Van Vogt was creating the type from observation of men like Hitler and Stalin. And, as he thought about the murderous behaviour of the commandant, he found himself wondering: ‘What could motivate a man like that?’ Why is it that some men believe that anyone who contradicts them is either dishonest or downright wicked? Do they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that they are gods who are incapable of being fallible? If so are, are they in some sense insane, like a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar?”

Looking around for examples, it struck Van Vogt that male authoritarian behaviour is far too commonplace to be regarded as insanity. […] [For example,] marriage seems to bring out the ‘authoritarian’ personality in many males, according to Van Vogt’s observation.”


“… ‘the violent man’ or the ‘Right Man’ […] is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem — to feel he is a ‘somebody’. He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face’, so will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong.”


“Equally interesting is the wild, insane jealousy. Most of us are subject to jealousy, since the notion that someone we care about prefers someone else is an assault on our amour propre. But the Right Man, whose self-esteem is like a constantly festering sore spot, fliers into a frenzy at the thought, and becomes capable of murder.”

“Van Vogt points out that the Right Man is an ‘idealist’ — that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be ‘adjusted’ later to fit his glorified picture of himself. In his mental world, women are delightful, adoring, faithful creatures who wait patiently for the right man — in both senses of the word — before they surrender their virginity. He is living in a world of adolescent fantasy. No doubt there was something gentle and submissive about the nurse that made her seem the ideal person to bolster his self-esteem, the permanent wife and mother who is waiting in a clean apron when he get back from a weekend with mistress…”

“Perhaps Van Vogt’s most intriguing insight into the Right Man was his discovery that he can be destroyed if ‘the worm turns’ — that is, if his wife or some dependant leaves him. Under such circumstances, he may beg and plead, promising to behave better in the future. If that fails, there may be alcoholism, drug addiction, even suicide. She has kicked out the foundations of his sandcastle. For when a Right Man finds a woman who seems submissive and admiring, it deepens his self-confidence, fills him with a sense of his own worth. (We can see the mechanism in operation with Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.) No matter how badly he treats her, he has to keep on believing that, in the last analysis, she recognises him as the most remarkable man she will ever meet. She is the guarantee of his ‘primacy’, his uniqueness; now it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks. He may desert her and his children; that only proves how ‘strong’ he is, how indifferent to the usual sentimentality. But if she deserts him, he has been pushed back to square one: the helpless child in a hostile universe. ‘Most violent men are failures’, says Van Vogt; so to desert them is to hand them over to their own worst suspicions about themselves. It is this recognition that leads Van Vogt to write: ‘Realise that most Right Men deserve some sympathy, for they are struggling with an unbelievable inner horror; however, if they give way to the impulse to hit or choke, they are losing the battle, are on the the way to the ultimate disaster… of their subjective universe of self-justification.”

“And what happens when the Right Man is not a failure, when his ‘uniqueness’ is acknowledged by the world? Oddly enough, it makes little or no difference. His problem is lack of emotional control and a deep-seated sense of inferiority; so success cannot reach the parts of the mind that are the root of the problem.”


“The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances.”

“Van Vogt makes the basic observation that the central characteristic of the Right Man is the ‘decision to be out of control, in some particular area’. We all have to learn self-control to deal with the real world and other people. But with some particular person — a mother, a wife, a child — we may decide that this effort is not necessary and allow ourselves to explode. But — and here we come to the very heart of the matter — this decision creates, so to speak, a permanent weakpoint in the boiler, the point at which it always bursts.”


“He feels he [is] justified in exploding, like an angry god. […] he feels he is inflicting just punishment.”

What is so interesting here is the way the Right Man’s violent emotion reinforces his sense of being justified, and his sense of justification increases his rage. He is locked into a kind of vicious spiral, and he cannot escape until he has spent his fury. […] The Right Man feels that his rage is a storm that has to be allowed to blow itself out, no matter what damage it causes. But this also means that he is the slave of an impulse he cannot control; his property, even the lives of those that he loves, are at the mercy of his emotions. This is part of the ‘unbelievable inner horror’ that Van Vogt talks about.”


“This is ‘magical thinking’ — allowing a desire or emotion to convince you of something your reason tells you to be untrue. […] Magical thinking provides a key to the Right Man.”

“What causes ‘right mannishness’? Van Vogt suggest that it is because the world has always been dominated by males.”


“But then, this explanation implies that there is no such thing as a Right Woman—in fact, Van Vogt says as much. This is untrue.” […] The central characteristic of the Right Woman is the same as that of the Right Man: that she is convinced that having her own way is a law of nature and that anyone who opposes this deserves the harshest possible treatment. It is the god (or goddess) syndrome.”


“… the one thing that becomes obvious in all cases of Right Men is that their attacks are not somehow inevitable’; some of their worst misdemeanours are carefully planned and calculated, and determinedly carried out. The Right Man does these things because he thinks they will help him to achieve his own way, which is what interests him.”

“And this in turn makes it plain that the Right Man problem is a problem of highly dominant people. Dominance is a subject of enormous interest to biologists and zoologists because the percentage of dominant animals — or human beings — seems to be amazingly constant. […] biological studies have confirmed [… that …] for some odd reason, precisely five per cent — one in twenty — of any animal group are dominant — have leadership qualities.”


“The ‘average’ member of the dominant five per cent sees no reason why he should not be rich and famous too. He experiences anger and frustration at his lack of ‘primacy’, and is willing to consider unorthodox methods of elbowing his way to the fore. This clearly explains a great deal about the rising levels of crime and violence in our society.”


“We can also see how large numbers of these dominant individuals develop into ‘Right Men’. In every school with five hundred pupils there are about twnety-five dominant ones struggling for primacy. Some of these have natural advantages: they are good athletes, good scholars, good debaters. (And there are, of course plenty of non-dominant pupils who are gifted enough to carry away some of the prizes.) Inevitably, a percentage of the dominant pupils have no particular talent or gift; some may be downright stupid. How is such a person to satisfy his urge to primacy? He will, inevitably, choose to express his dominance in any ways that are possible. If he has good looks or charm, he may be satisfied with the admiration of female pupils. If he has some specific talent which is not regarded as important by his schoolmasters — a good ear for music, a natural gift of observation, a vivid imagination — he may become a lonely ‘outsider’, living in his own private world. (Such individuals may develop into Schuberts, Darwins, Balzacs.) But it is just as likely that he will try to take short-cuts to prominence and become a bully, a cheat or a delinquent.”

“The main problem of these ungifted ‘outsiders’ is that they are bound to feel that the world has treated them unfairly. And the normal human reaction to a sense of unfairness is an upsurge of self-pity. Self-pity and the sense of injustice make them vulnerable and unstable. And we have only to observe such people to see that they are usually their own worst enemies. Their moods alternate between aggressiveness and sulkiness, both of which alienate those who might otherwise be glad to help them. If they possess some degree of charm or intelligence, they may succeed in making themselves acceptable to other people; but sooner or later the resentment and self-pity break through, and lead to mistrust and rejection.”

“The very essence of their problem is the question of self-discipline. Dominant human beings are more impatient than others, because they have more vital energy. Impatience leads them to look for short-cuts. […] Civilisation, as Freud pointed out, demands self-discipline on the part of its members. No one can be licenced to threaten people with carving knives.”


“When the Right Man explodes into violence, all the energy is wasted. Worse still, it destroys the banks of the canal. So in permitting himself free expression of his negative emotions he is indulging in a process of slow but sure self-erosion — the emotional counterpart of physical incontinence. Without proper ‘drainage’, his inner being turns into a kind of swamp or sewage farm. This is why most of the violent men of history, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, have ended up as psychotics. Without the power to control their negative emotions, they become incapable of any state of sustained well-being.”

See also:
Colin Wilson interview, August 2005


Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Weaponization of Government.

Biden joins a special group. Dictators who weaponized the government against their opponents.

Views: 15

Biden joins a special group. Dictators who weaponized the government against their opponents. One thing dictators have in common is the jailing of their opponents.

Most voters agree that Democrats are using the legal system to take out their political opponents — namely, former President Donald Trump — April’s Harvard-Harris survey found.

57 percent, believe Democrats are “engaged in using the legal system in biased ways to take out a political opponent,” compared to 43 percent who believe the various prosecutions of Trump are “fair and unrelated to politics.”


Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Free Speech Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

Garland claims he must protect Biden no matter what. Refuses to release Biden Audio.

Views: 11


Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Journalism. Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

Views: 24

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.

“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,” Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And you don’t have to show up?”

“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”

It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.

Republicans are demanding the two attorneys testify and say it’s crucial for their ongoing impeachment probe of the elder Biden. But the Justice Department argues that subpoenaing two rank-and-file, or “line,” attorneys to seek details about an ongoing investigation would be a violation of the separation of powers.

Reyes has been on the bench for just over a year. Rarely seeming to stop to catch her breath, she repeatedly dressed down DOJ attorney James Gilligan as he sought to explain the department’s position, scolding him at times for interrupting her before continuing a torrid tongue-lashing that DOJ rarely receives from the bench.

She delved into great detail about the nuances of House procedure — like the chamber’s rule against allowing executive branch lawyers to attend depositions — and even asked whether the Judiciary Committee had followed internal rules requiring that the ranking Democrat on the panel be notified of the subpoena to the DOJ attorneys before it was issued.

Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to answer substantive questions from Congress.

They just need to show up and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week … and twice on Sunday.”

Indeed, while Reyes was withering in her attacks on the DOJ’s position, she was similarly unflinching in her criticism of the House for its stance in the dispute — particularly its claim that line lawyers working on the Hunter Biden tax probe are not entitled to attorney-client privilege.

She also said she thought it absurd for the House to argue that privilege was waived because it was obscuring some crime or fraud within the executive branch.

“I don’t think you’re going to win that fight,” the judge told House Counsel Matthew Berry, saying at one point that she “can’t imagine” ruling for the House on that issue.

At bottom, Reyes said she viewed it as unlikely that the two DOJ attorneys would ultimately be required to answer anything of substance from Congress, but that the department’s effort to prevent them from showing up at all was a brazen affront.

“I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys … who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up,” the judge said.

Gilligan suggested that the employees subpoenaed in the dispute at issue are current employees, while Navarro and another Trump adviser who was convicted of similar charges, Steve Bannon, were no longer on the government’s payroll when their testimony was demanded.

The judge didn’t seem impressed with that distinction and downplayed the significance of a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present. “Last time I checked, the Office of Legal Counsel was not the court,” she said.

Reyes also sounded stunned when Gilligan refused to commit to instructing the two subpoenaed lawyers to show up if the House dropped its objection to allowing government counsel to sit in the room. “It would be a different situation,” Gilligan said. “I cannot answer that now. ”Are you kidding me?” the judge responded.

Reyes ultimately ordered the Justice Department to send lawyers to the Capitol next week to confer with Berry and attempt to hammer out a workable agreement. And she said that if the two sides did not work out a deal, she planned to require them to estimate the total cost to the taxpayers of continuing the legal fight, which past precedent suggests could drag out for years.

“I don’t think the taxpayers want to fund a grudge match between the executive and the legislative,” she said. “Bad cases make bad law. … This is a bad, bad case for both of you.”


Verified by MonsterInsights