Gay Trans Kamala Harris Rally Attendee Worried Trump Would Ban Abortion
A pair of young Americans who recently attended a Kamala Harris rally told Tenet Media’s Tayler Hanson they’re both terrified a second Donald Trump presidency would result in abortion “rights” being stripped across the country.
Asked why they’re voting for Harris, one of the duo said, “I don’t want to lose my rights. Like, I am a trans man and I’m gay and I have been pregnant and had an abortion before and I don’t want to lose that.”
“Why are you voting for Kamala Harris?”
— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) August 10, 2024
Harris Rally Attendee: “I don’t want to lose my rights. Like I am a trans man and I’m gay and I have been pregnant and had an abortion before and I don’t want to lose that.” pic.twitter.com/G2Cpk0IBrU
The “gay trans man” continued, “I’m afraid of not being able to be myself anymore because, from what I’ve heard, Trump’s America doesn’t want me to look like this…”
The other person chimed in, saying, “I’ve also been pregnant and had an abortion before. I was a minor and it would have been dangerous for me to carry a baby with personal reasons and everything…”
The delusional young Democrat then claimed people won’t be able to express themselves with piercings, dyed hair and tattoos if Trump is re-elected.
Liberals are purposely lying to America’s youth in order to scare them into voting for leftist political candidates as plenty of conservatives also have alternative outward appearances, and Republicans actually promote LESS government encroachment on citizens.
Switzerland Considers Increasing Cooperation With NATO
Experts commissioned by the Swiss president have reportedly suggested that the country should revise its neutrality policy The Blick news outlet reported on Sunday that the Swiss government could revise its security policy by intensifying military cooperation […]
The post Switzerland Considers Increasing Cooperation With NATO appeared first on The People’s Voice.
Ron Paul: Tyranny in the UK – Can it Happen Here?
As the UK descends into tyranny, where just re-Tweeting something the government doesn’t like can land a person a multi-year jail sentence, Americans are wondering, “can it happen here?” After all, we have the guarantees of the First Amendment.
But while we shake our heads at UK authorities jailing people for their social media posts this past week, we should not kid ourselves. The answer is that silencing dissent can happen here and it is happening here.
Here are just three recent examples of how the “deep state” or the permanent government is conspiring to restrict political dialogue in the United States.
First is the revelation that former US Representative and former US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has been placed under the bizarrely named “Quiet Skies” program. As reported by journalist Matt Taibbi based on revelations by TSA whistleblowers, this July Gabbard was flagged as a terror threat, and every time she travels her boarding pass is marked so that she is pulled aside for extensive screening. According to the whistleblowers, “Gabbard is unaware she has two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she boards.”
As Gabbard herself revealed recently on the Laura Ingraham show, “A few weeks ago, I had the audacity to tell the truth: that Kamala Harris would essentially be a mouthpiece and puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and National Security State. The next day, July 23, they retaliated. Sadly this is what we can expect from the ‘Harris” Administration.’”
Next we have the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump. It seems every day brings a new revelation that calls into question whether the massive failure to protect the Republican presidential candidate was just an “honest mistake.” We know from 1963 what can happen to presidents who cross the “deep state” and we know from Trump’s four years in office how “former” deep state officials can conspire to undermine the presidency with lies like “Russiagate.”
Finally we have the case of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Up until the Trump assassination attempt, the Biden/Harris Administration refused to provide the independent presidential candidate with Secret Service protection. RFK, Jr. has consistently and effectively criticized not only the current administration but the “deep state” itself while out on the campaign trail. Even though there were credible threats against him on the campaign trail the Biden/Harris administration refused to budge for months. Why? Did they want to silence him?
The US government learned an important – and dangerous – lesson from Covid: all you have to do to crush political dissent is to use the weight of the government to force the “private” sector to do the censoring for you. It is only a half-step away from forbidding us from expressing our thoughts on a virus to sending us to prison for expressing other thoughts the government does not like. And maybe worse.
There will be a reaction in the UK to the brutality of the Starmer regime. We can only hope for their – and our – sake that the reaction will be a newfound determination by the people that no government should have the authority to shut them up or jail them for their political views. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, “free speech, if you can keep it.”
This article first appeared at RonPaulInstitute.org.
Trump To Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Mar-a-Lago Raid
Former President Donald Trump is set to sue the DOJ for $100 million in damages over the 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida – arguing that it was done “clear intent to engage in political persecution.”
According to a memo obtained by Fox News, the lawsuit will claim “tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump.”
Trump and his legal team intend to sue the Justice Department for its conduct during the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022, amid the federal investigation into his alleged improper retention of classified records.
After the raid, Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed to investigate. Smith ultimately brought 37 felony counts against Trump, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Last month, US District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the DOJ’s case against Trump – ruling that Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded, citing the Appointments Clause in the constitution.
The notice to sue was filed by Trump attorney Daniel Epstein, and gives the DOJ 180 days from the date of receipt to respond and come to a resolution. If no agreement is made, Trump’s case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
“What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself – he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you,” Epstein told Fox Business’ Lydia Hu.
According to the filing, the “tortious acts against the president are rooted in intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process resulting from the August 8, 2022 raid of his and his family’s home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach Florida,” adding that decisions made by the DOJ and FBI in conducting the raid were “inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
Epstein further argues that decisions made by Attorney General Merrick Garland as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray were not based on “social, economic, and political policy,” but instead were in “clear dereliction of constitutional principles, inconsistent standards as applied to” Trump and a “clear intent to engage in political persecution – not to advance good law enforcement practices.”
“Garland and Wray should have never approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former U.S. presidents is to use non-enforcement means to obtain records of the United States,” wrote Epstein. “But notwithstanding the fact that the raid should have never occurred, Garland and Wray should have ensured their agents sought consent from President Trump, notified his lawyers, and sought cooperation.”
“Garland and Wray decided to stray from established protocol to injure President Trump,” the filing continues.
Epstein argued that the DOJ violated Florida law, intrusion upon seclusion, which is recognized as a form of invasion of privacy. Intrusion upon seclusion includes “an intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, into the private quarters of another person” and the intrusion “must occur in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.” -Fox News
“The FBI’s demonstrated activity was inconsistent with protocols used in routine searches of an investigative target’s premises,” the filing continues, adding that Trump “had a clear expectation of privacy at Mar-a-Lago. Worse, the FBI’s conduct in the raid – where established protocol was violated – constitutes a severe and unacceptable intrusion that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
The filing also argues that the DOJ and special counsel’s office “brought a lawless criminal indictment,” which constitutes “malicious prosecution.”
“As such, given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel’s appointment violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an improper appropriation, there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.”
Trump is also planning to sue for punitive damages.
“For these harms to President Trump, the respondents must pay punitive damages of $100 million,” Epstein wrote, adding that there was an “abuse of process,” and that the methods used against Trump were “unconstitutional and aimed at politically persecuting the former President, which led to extensive legal costs and negative consequences for him.”
In a statement to Fox Business, Epstein said: “You have clear evidence that the FBI failed to follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper purpose,” adding “f the government is able to say, well, we don’t like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motive–not a motive of justice–if someone doesn’t stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American.”
Swift Boat II: Electric Boogaloo
Tim Walz is cooked.
When you make being a military man and everything that implies—honour, discipline, bravery, self-sacrifice, love of country—a central part of who you are and your case for leadership at the highest levels of national life, you can’t really survive having your former battalion commander say you’re a sneaky self-serving little coward—not really. Chain of command takes precedence, and all that. And certainly in America, where the military, despite years of ill-meaning political assaults, remains a hugely respected institution and object of national pride.
Here’s what Tim Walz’s battalion commander, retired Lt. Col. John Kolb, had to say about the Minnesota Governor.
“I do not regret that Tim Walz retired early from the Minnesota Army National Guard, did not complete the Sergeants Major Academy, broke his enlistment contract or did not successfully complete any assignment as a Sergeant Major. Unwittingly, he got out of the way for better leadership”
Ouch.
But it gets worse.
“Thomas Behrends [Walz’s replacement] was the right leader at the right time. He sacrificed to answer the call, leaving his family, business and farming-partner brother to train, lead and care for soldiers. He earned the privilege of being called Command Sergeant Major. Like a great leader he ran toward and not away from the guns.”
Much worse:
“I have no opinion of Mr. Walz’s decision to leave service at the time he did,” Kolb continued. “It was his right to retire early. I also have no criticism of his service as an E7 and E8 in the MNARNG. By all accounts and on the record, he was a competent Chief of Firing Battery/Gunnery Sergeant and First Sergeant. I cannot say the same of his service sitting, frocked, in the CSM chair. He did not earn the rank or successfully complete any assignment as an E9. It is an affront to the Noncommissioned Officer Corps that he continues to glom onto the title. I can sit in the cockpit of an airplane, it does not make me a pilot. Similarly, when the demands of service and leadership at the highest level got real, he chose another path. #notmyCSM.”
… [That means I’m speechless, by the way.]
Kolb was referring, in particular, to Walz’s decision to retire from the Guard on the eve of his battalion’s deployment to Iraq, but be in no doubt: this isn’t about one egregious incident. This is about. Tim Walz the soldier. Tim Walz the leader. Tim Walz the man.
Less than a week after Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz as her running mate, his reputation lies in tatters. His elaborate construction of misrepresentations—and outright lies—about his 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard, built up over decades, has come crashing down. Blown to smithereens like an Afghan goatherd’s outhouse. Veterans, people who really knew, had been chipping away for decades, but it was only in the last week, when Walz emerged on the national stage as the next potential vice president, that the fragility of the structure finally became clear and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
Karl Marx famously said that history repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce. Well, I think we’ve skipped the tragedy and gone straight to farce. Let’s call this what it is. This is Swift Boat II: Electric Boogaloo.
The embarrassing sequel that goes straight to video. The one with a 100% negative score on Rotten Tomatoes.
“The Swift Boat playbook,” as it came to be known, was controversial when it was applied to John Kerry, who actually served in a real warzone—Vietnam—unlike Tim Walz. It’s still up for debate whether Kerry was guilty of any of the things he was accused of, but it’s clear that the damage to his reputation, deserved or otherwise, was a crucial factor in him losing the 2004 election to George W. Bush.
In the case of Tim Walz, by contrast, it seems the criticisms really are justified. We have footage of him misleading—at best—the family of a Gold Star veteran during a congressional hearing, in 2008. Walz insinuated that he had personally suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after being deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. But the truth was, Walz never went anywhere near Afghanistan—and only military personnel who actually went to Afghanistan or the skies above it were part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Tim Walz went to Italy, in a support role. Maybe he had a bad experiencing eating spaghetti with a spoon, but it’s hard to imagine how PTSD could have resulted from being thousands of miles from the warzone in question.
We have footage, too, of Walz telling an out-and-out lie about how he “stood one night in dark of night on tarmac at Bagram Air Base in Iraq and watched a military ramp ceremony,” by which he means the loading of a soldier’s body onto a plane for repatriation. Two problems. Bagram Air Base is in Afghanistan, and we know that Walz never deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Walz told that absolute stinker of a lie, so aromatic I can smell it here, on the other side of the Pond, just three years ago, at a 9/11 anniversary speech at the Minnesota State Capitol.
Has the man no shame?
This is as blatantly false as Hillary Clinton saying she touched down in Bosnia “under sniper fire.”
That silly claim, refuted with ease, didn’t destroy Hillary Clinton’s reputation—after all, what’s one more lie when you’re a Clinton?—but Hillary Clinton wasn’t actually in the military. It’s kind of understandable that a civilian might embroider their experience of arriving in a warzone, but saying you went somewhere you never did as a military man and witnessed a solemn ceremony you never witnessed—well, that’s unforgivable.
Critics, including other veterans like Trump’s running mate JD Vance have called it “stolen valor.” It is.
The mainstream media will try to avoid covering this as much as possible, as is their way. They’ll either pretend it didn’t happen or try to minimise it by roping in rent-a-gobs like Jesse Ventura to obfuscate and say that it doesn’t matter, because the US shouldn’t have been in Iraq anyway—where were those WMDs, George Bush?—so dodging a deployment as part of an illegal war doesn’t count as dereliction of duty, and did I tell you that Trump stole his entire political campaign from my governorship [I’m not bitter]…
But like I said at the beginning, I don’t think this is going to work, at least not if the Trump campaign keeps hammering it, which they should. Just keep saying it: Walz is a fraud and a liar and a man who has dishonoured his country. And there are plenty of other bad things you can say about Tampon Tim besides.
The real question, though, is this: Why are we spending so much time talking about the vice-presidential candidates?
Do you remember a presidential campaign where so much of the focus was on the VP picks and not the people who picked them?
If I didn’t know better, I’d say it seems like a deliberate ploy to draw attention away from the abysmal presidential candidate the Democrats are fielding. From the fact that Kamala Harris is incapable of speaking in public, that she has a terrible record and no policies, and that, until three weeks ago, nobody liked her at all. Those are all things you’d probably want to hide.
Tim Walz’s difficulties with the truth are a distraction plain and simple, as much as all the JD Vance “weird” talk is.
So let’s hope Tim disappears quickly, back to Minnesota, and then we can return to talking about what—and who—really matter in this presidential race.
Former House Speaker says Kamala Harris Not in Charge of her Campaign
Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said during an interview on the Cats Roundtable with John Catsimatidis that Democrat Presidential frontrunner Kamala Harris is not running her own campaign.
“You’re getting the Obamas shifting from running the White House to now running this campaign,” McCarthy said.
Regarding the Obama-connection, The Gateway Pundit reported on the family’s involvement in removing Joe Biden from the 2024 ticket.
On Sunday, Biden confirmed that he was pushed out by others.
NEW: President Joe Biden confirms he was pushed out of the race by top Democrats who apparently staged a coup on him.
“But what happened was a number of my Democratic colleagues in the house and Senate thought that I was gonna hurt them in the races.”
The statement coincides… pic.twitter.com/jyifuqG4KC— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 11, 2024
While Harris does not appear to be in charge of her campaign, Biden was obviously not in charge of his when he got removed, not by the voters, but by the political forces in control of him.
It was also reported that Harris’ VP picks were being vetted by former Attorney General and long-term anti-gun-guy Eric Holder.
Democrats have been working to brainwash America’s youth in schools on the subject of guns for decades
Eric Holder: “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way”pic.twitter.com/2j4J6Plmoy— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 2, 2019
The former Speaker rated the Harris / Walz ticket as the furthest left thing America has ever seen.
“This is by far, not just a liberal, this is the most liberal ticket in the history of American politics,” McCarthy said.
Infowars previously reported on the far left Walz’s many cases of stolen valor, anti-free speech statements and Black Lives Matter riot support.
Others have reported on Walz allowing babies born alive during abortions to die, initiation of a Covid snitch hotline and bribing teens to get the lethal Covid injections.