• There was no insurrection and Donald Trump was not a participant.
    https://imgflip.com/i/8k1d03

    BTW #libtards, the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a democracy. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC, & have been since July 4th, 1776. Sorry most of you flunked U.S. History.

    As a matter of FACT President Trump called for a peaceful demonstration. Just because a few triggered, hateful democrats and Uniparty members (RINOS) called the demonstration an insurrection doesn't mean it was one.

    Patriots weren't the cause of destruction, the FBI and radical left-wing Antifa was. We all know it was a setup. There is PROOF of it, and the Capitol Police were co-conspirators in it.

    In the United States, insurrection against the authority of the federal government is a crime under 18 U.S. Code §2383, which provides that:

    Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    The next question is why some protestors who were not even present on January 6 were sentenced to 17 years in prison?

    Federal law also grants to the president of the United States the authority to employ the armed forces of the United States and nationalized state militias to put down an insurrection against a state government upon the request of the state’s legislature or governor (10 U.S. Code §251) and to suppress or prevent civil disturbances—“unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion[s]”—that, in the president’s judgment, have interfered or would interfere with the enforcement of federal laws in any state (§252) or have effectively deprived citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution (§253). These and other provisions of Chapter 13 of the U.S. Code, entitled “Insurrection,” originated in two pieces of legislation from the late 18th and early 19th centuries: an act of Congress (1795) that extended to the president Congress’s constitutional authority “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article I, §8) and the Insurrection Act (1807), which additionally authorized the president to deploy the armed forces of the United States in the same circumstances and for the same purpose. During the subsequent two centuries, the Insurrection Act was amended numerous times and invoked by presidents including Abraham Lincoln (to enable the use of federal troops to defeat the secession of Confederate states in the American Civil War), Dwight D. Eisenhower (to assist efforts to desegregate public schools in the South), and George H.W. Bush (to quell riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King). In 2020, in response to sometimes violent demonstrations against police brutality and anti-Black racism in several U.S. cities (see United States: The killing of George Floyd and nationwide racial injustice protests).

    Then President Donald J. Trump threatened to use his authority under the Insurrection Act to unleash deadly force against lawbreaking protesters.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics
    There was no insurrection and Donald Trump was not a participant. https://imgflip.com/i/8k1d03 BTW #libtards, the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a democracy. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC, & have been since July 4th, 1776. Sorry most of you flunked U.S. History. As a matter of FACT President Trump called for a peaceful demonstration. Just because a few triggered, hateful democrats and Uniparty members (RINOS) called the demonstration an insurrection doesn't mean it was one. Patriots weren't the cause of destruction, the FBI and radical left-wing Antifa was. We all know it was a setup. There is PROOF of it, and the Capitol Police were co-conspirators in it. In the United States, insurrection against the authority of the federal government is a crime under 18 U.S. Code §2383, which provides that: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. The next question is why some protestors who were not even present on January 6 were sentenced to 17 years in prison? Federal law also grants to the president of the United States the authority to employ the armed forces of the United States and nationalized state militias to put down an insurrection against a state government upon the request of the state’s legislature or governor (10 U.S. Code §251) and to suppress or prevent civil disturbances—“unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion[s]”—that, in the president’s judgment, have interfered or would interfere with the enforcement of federal laws in any state (§252) or have effectively deprived citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution (§253). These and other provisions of Chapter 13 of the U.S. Code, entitled “Insurrection,” originated in two pieces of legislation from the late 18th and early 19th centuries: an act of Congress (1795) that extended to the president Congress’s constitutional authority “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article I, §8) and the Insurrection Act (1807), which additionally authorized the president to deploy the armed forces of the United States in the same circumstances and for the same purpose. During the subsequent two centuries, the Insurrection Act was amended numerous times and invoked by presidents including Abraham Lincoln (to enable the use of federal troops to defeat the secession of Confederate states in the American Civil War), Dwight D. Eisenhower (to assist efforts to desegregate public schools in the South), and George H.W. Bush (to quell riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King). In 2020, in response to sometimes violent demonstrations against police brutality and anti-Black racism in several U.S. cities (see United States: The killing of George Floyd and nationwide racial injustice protests). Then President Donald J. Trump threatened to use his authority under the Insurrection Act to unleash deadly force against lawbreaking protesters. https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1445 Views
  • The New Confederacy as of January 25, 2024
    What amazes me is how so many people including conservatives have only one definition of the word confederacy, and the real definition has absolutely nothing to do with the American Confederate States of the Civil War. It's high time you idiots got an education!

    The definition of confederacy is: A group of people, countries, organizations, etc. joined together for a common purpose or by a common interest : league, alliance.
    https://imgflip.com/i/8dmcb1
    The New Confederacy as of January 25, 2024 What amazes me is how so many people including conservatives have only one definition of the word confederacy, and the real definition has absolutely nothing to do with the American Confederate States of the Civil War. It's high time you idiots got an education! The definition of confederacy is: A group of people, countries, organizations, etc. joined together for a common purpose or by a common interest : league, alliance. https://imgflip.com/i/8dmcb1
    Love
    Like
    5
    0 Comments 1 Shares 778 Views
  • NYT Writer: Americans Who Oppose Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Trump ‘Support the Confederates’ https://www.infowars.com/posts/nyt-writer-americans-who-oppose-colorado-supreme-court-decision-on-trump-support-the-confederates/
    NYT Writer: Americans Who Oppose Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Trump ‘Support the Confederates’ https://www.infowars.com/posts/nyt-writer-americans-who-oppose-colorado-supreme-court-decision-on-trump-support-the-confederates/
    WWW.INFOWARS.COM
    NYT Writer: Americans Who Oppose Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Trump ‘Support the Confederates’
    "They’re standing with the spirit of those Confederates rather than the Americans who came together after a long and brutal Civil War that was fought to keep the union together."
    0 Comments 0 Shares 885 Views
  • RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...Podcast ... If you missed last nights RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS broadcast where Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discussed 'Upsetting The Convention Apple Cart...Maybe'; 'Gospel Truth vs. Honest Truth'; Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vs. Donald Trump over "misleading ads"; defending an Arlington Cemetery Confederate statue; and ranking the least liked Congressional leaders...you can listen to it (and past shows) at your convenience at: https://rspradio1.com to go directly to our podcasts.
    RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...Podcast ... If you missed last nights RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS broadcast where Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discussed 'Upsetting The Convention Apple Cart...Maybe'; 'Gospel Truth vs. Honest Truth'; Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vs. Donald Trump over "misleading ads"; defending an Arlington Cemetery Confederate statue; and ranking the least liked Congressional leaders...you can listen to it (and past shows) at your convenience at: https://rspradio1.com to go directly to our podcasts.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3306 Views
  • RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE! ... Today, Tuesday, December 19th, from 7-8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Upsetting The Convention Apple Cart...Maybe'; 'Gospel Truth vs. Honest Truth'; Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vs. Donald Trump over "misleading ads"; and defending an Arlington Cemetery Confederate statue. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50 pm EST with show beginning at 7pm EST.
    RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE! ... Today, Tuesday, December 19th, from 7-8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Upsetting The Convention Apple Cart...Maybe'; 'Gospel Truth vs. Honest Truth'; Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vs. Donald Trump over "misleading ads"; and defending an Arlington Cemetery Confederate statue. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50 pm EST with show beginning at 7pm EST.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2853 Views
  • Judge BLOCKS Removal of Confederate Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery

    https://www.infowars.com/posts/judge-blocks-removal-of-confederate-reconciliation-monument-at-arlington-national-cemetery/
    Judge BLOCKS Removal of Confederate Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery https://www.infowars.com/posts/judge-blocks-removal-of-confederate-reconciliation-monument-at-arlington-national-cemetery/
    WWW.INFOWARS.COM
    Judge BLOCKS Removal of Confederate Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery
    Removal of the Reconciliation Monument is part of the left's effort to remove Confederate installations from military sites.
    Like
    Yay
    2
    0 Comments 1 Shares 756 Views
  • Pentagon & GOP At Odds Over Plan To Remove Confederate Peace Monument At Arlington National Cemetary

    https://www.infowars.com/posts/pentagon-gop-at-odds-over-plan-to-remove-confederate-peace-monument-at-arlington-national-cemetary/
    Pentagon & GOP At Odds Over Plan To Remove Confederate Peace Monument At Arlington National Cemetary https://www.infowars.com/posts/pentagon-gop-at-odds-over-plan-to-remove-confederate-peace-monument-at-arlington-national-cemetary/
    WWW.INFOWARS.COM
    Pentagon & GOP At Odds Over Plan To Remove Confederate Peace Monument At Arlington National Cemetary
    Statue erected as symbol of unified nation being removed by Communists Biden administration
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 1073 Views
  • September 22, 1862 – Motivated by his growing concern for the inhumanity of slavery as well as practical political concerns, President Abraham Lincoln changes the course of the war and American history by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Announced a week after the nominal Union victory at the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg), this measure did not technically free any slaves, but it redefined the Union’s war aim from reunification to the abolition of slavery. The proclamation announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. Lincoln used vacated congressional seats to determine the areas still in rebellion, as some parts of the South had already been recaptured and representatives returned to Congress under Union supervision. Since it freed slaves only in Rebel areas that were beyond Union occupation, the Emancipation Proclamation really freed no one. But the measure was still one of the most important acts in American history, as it meant slavery would end when those areas were recaptured. In addition, the proclamation effectively sabotaged Confederate attempts to secure recognition by foreign governments, especially Great Britain. When reunification was the goal of the North, foreigners could view the Confederates as freedom fighters being held against their will by the Union. But after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Southern cause was now viewed as the defense of slavery. The proclamation was a shrewd maneuver by Lincoln to brand the Confederate States as a slave nation and render foreign aid impossible. The measure was met by a good deal of opposition, because many Northerners were unwilling to fight for the freedom of blacks. But it spelled the death knell for slavery, and it had the effect on British opinion that Lincoln had desired. Antislavery Britain could no longer recognize the Confederacy, and Union sentiment swelled in Britain. With this measure, Lincoln effectively isolated the Confederacy and killed the institution that was the root of sectional differences.
    September 22, 1862 – Motivated by his growing concern for the inhumanity of slavery as well as practical political concerns, President Abraham Lincoln changes the course of the war and American history by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Announced a week after the nominal Union victory at the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg), this measure did not technically free any slaves, but it redefined the Union’s war aim from reunification to the abolition of slavery. The proclamation announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. Lincoln used vacated congressional seats to determine the areas still in rebellion, as some parts of the South had already been recaptured and representatives returned to Congress under Union supervision. Since it freed slaves only in Rebel areas that were beyond Union occupation, the Emancipation Proclamation really freed no one. But the measure was still one of the most important acts in American history, as it meant slavery would end when those areas were recaptured. In addition, the proclamation effectively sabotaged Confederate attempts to secure recognition by foreign governments, especially Great Britain. When reunification was the goal of the North, foreigners could view the Confederates as freedom fighters being held against their will by the Union. But after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Southern cause was now viewed as the defense of slavery. The proclamation was a shrewd maneuver by Lincoln to brand the Confederate States as a slave nation and render foreign aid impossible. The measure was met by a good deal of opposition, because many Northerners were unwilling to fight for the freedom of blacks. But it spelled the death knell for slavery, and it had the effect on British opinion that Lincoln had desired. Antislavery Britain could no longer recognize the Confederacy, and Union sentiment swelled in Britain. With this measure, Lincoln effectively isolated the Confederacy and killed the institution that was the root of sectional differences.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3712 Views
  • (admin) Corruption is deep in our hate filled partisan system!! Hatchet Man Jack Smith and an Obummer appointed Judge.
    Trump to be ARR£STED, Judge is sure Trump Might Flee If He Learned of Secret Order
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnGPjj-MIcY
    A federal judge has claimed that former President Donald Trump might flee if he learned of a secret warrant. Judge Beryl Howell, appointed under President Barack Obama, entered a non-disclosure order at the request of special counsel Jack Smith's team. The order prevented Twitter from alerting Trump about the warrant, forcing Twitter to provide extensive data from Trump's account to Smith's team. Twitter objected to the claims, arguing that there is no reason to believe that notification of the warrant would suddenly cause Trump or any potential confederates to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee prosecution. The government lawyers argued there was no evidence that confidential communications were among the data they sought, and that the government's compelling interest in keeping the warrant secret from Trump overrode any rights of Twitter
    (admin) Corruption is deep in our hate filled partisan system!! Hatchet Man Jack Smith and an Obummer appointed Judge. Trump to be ARR£STED, Judge is sure Trump Might Flee If He Learned of Secret Order https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnGPjj-MIcY A federal judge has claimed that former President Donald Trump might flee if he learned of a secret warrant. Judge Beryl Howell, appointed under President Barack Obama, entered a non-disclosure order at the request of special counsel Jack Smith's team. The order prevented Twitter from alerting Trump about the warrant, forcing Twitter to provide extensive data from Trump's account to Smith's team. Twitter objected to the claims, arguing that there is no reason to believe that notification of the warrant would suddenly cause Trump or any potential confederates to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee prosecution. The government lawyers argued there was no evidence that confidential communications were among the data they sought, and that the government's compelling interest in keeping the warrant secret from Trump overrode any rights of Twitter
    0 Comments 0 Shares 879 Views