* Index for This Website

Mark Zuckerberg

* Fraud & the 2020 Presidential Election

Tim Cook

* The Cancel Culture

<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/26/squad-sends-impeachment-warning-no-accountability-would-set-a-dangerous-precedent/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Following the news of impeachment managers transferring the article of impeachment to the Senate</a>, radical &#8220;Squad&#8221; member Rep. <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/rashida-tlaib/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rashida Tlaib</a> tweeted on Monday that failure to hold former President Trump accountable, via impeachment and conviction, for the January 6 Capitol protest would set a “dangerous precedent.”
House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment to the Senate on Monday evening, which charges the former president with “incitement of insurrection” for the Capitol protest that occurred as members of Congress gathered to certify the electoral votes on January 6. The formal trial is not expected to begin until the week of February 8.
Far-left members of the “Squad,” who have blamed Trump and a handful of GOP lawmakers for the chaos at the Capitol, called for holding them accountable as the trial draws closer.
“Nobody is above the law, no matter the person or the timing. Failure to hold those who would incite terror on others to overthrow an election process that has worked for over 230 yrs would set a dangerous precedent,” Tlaib remarked.
Fact check: Trump did not incite violence. He called for peaceful protest, but that means nothing to leftists like Tlaib who refuse accountability for openly inciting <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Black Lives Matter</a> rioting and <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/antifa/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Antifa</a> anarchy throughout 2020.

Tlaib on Impeachment: No Accountability Would ‘Set a Dangerous Precedent’

<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/26/susan-rice-trumpets-equity-policies-under-joe-biden-fight-systemic-racism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> At a White House press briefing on Tuesday</a>, domestic policy adviser <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/susan-rice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Susan Rice</a> praised President <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/joe-biden/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a>’s attempt to fight so-called &#8220;systemic racism&#8221; through “equity” policies advanced by the administration.
“For too many American families, systemic racism and inequality in our economy, laws, and institutions still put the American dream far out of reach,” Rice claimed falsely. She noted that Biden would sign multiple executive orders to expose and correct racial disparities.
“We’ve hit the ground running to embed equity through the administration,” she said, pointing out that Biden had signed executive orders to “redress systemic racism where it exists and to advance equity where we aren’t doing enough.”
“Advancing equity is everybody’s job,” she said, citing “long-standing inequities” in the country such as the gap between black and white home ownership. She pointed to Biden’s plan to sign a memorandum ordering the Department of Housing and Urban Development to “mitigate racial bias in housing” and to “affirmatively advance our nation’s fair housing laws.” He also intends to order the Department of Justice not to renew contracts with private prisons, because they purportedly “profiteer off of federal prisoners,” Rice added.
&#8220;Racial equity” is not &#8220;racial equality.&#8221; The former means equality of outcome, not of opportunity; therefore &#8220;equity&#8221; requires the transfer of wealth and opportunity from whites to non-whites. It is fundamentally unfair and racist, requiring present discrimination to resolve (real or imagined) past discrimination. As for &#8220;systemic racism,&#8221; it does not exist, but maintaining that it does enables anti-colonialist race-mongers like Rice to advance their anti-Western agenda in the name of &#8220;equity.&#8221;

Rice Touts Biden ‘Equity’ Policies to Fight ‘Systemic Racism’

<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/26/watch-eric-holder-urges-democrats-to-pack-the-supreme-court-brookings/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Addressing a virtual seminar on Monday hosted by the Brookings Institution</a>, former corrupt ideologue and race-mongering Attorney General <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/eric-holder/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Eric Holder</a> urged Democrats to pack the Supreme Court in response to what he called a crisis of “legitimacy” brought about by the appointment of a conservative majority.
Packing the Court means adding seats to the Supreme Court, then using a Senate majority to fill the vacancies with Progressives.
Holder began his presentation with what he called “three realities.” First, he said, “Democrats and progressives, are, and have been, uncomfortable with the acquisition and the use of power.” Republicans and conservatives, he said, were not. This is a mind-boggling degree of projection on his part: Democrats are in fact consumed by an absolute lust for power, acquiring it by any means necessary.
Second, he said, the Supreme Court and other courts had been “political bodies.” Yes, because the Left has politicized the Court.
And third, he said, the Supreme Court had largely upheld the status quo in its decisions, “sometimes in a way that is inimical to our founding ideals.” On the contrary, Holder and the Left don&#8217;t care about our founding ideals, which frustrate the Left&#8217;s ideological agenda. It is the Court that has been inimical to our founding ideals by being politically activist.
The recent appointments by the Trump administration, Holder claimed, had “sowed doubt” about judicial independence. (Really? Then why did the Supreme Court reject the Trump administration&#8217;s election challenge?) Therefore, Holder said, “I believe it would be totally appropriate to add additional seats to the Supreme Court, in response to what has transpired over the past few years.”
He believes it would be totally appropriate because he wants the Left to control the Judiciary in addition to the Executive and Legislative branches of government &#8212; because the Left craves absolute power.

Holder Urges Democrats to Pack the Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/01/25/schumer-we-can-expand-district-circuit-courts-to-balance-out-gop-judges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In an interview Monday on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show</a>, Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/charles-schumer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chuck Schumer</a> said that one way Democrats can make up for the large number of judges that were confirmed by the Senate Republican majority would be for Democrats to add seats at the district and circuit court levels.
Host/propagandist <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/rachel-maddow/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rachel Maddow</a> asked, “For decades, there will be — essentially, the judiciary will be stacked with conservatives. How do you try to make up some of that ground?”
Schumer first responded that Democrats can fill judicial vacancies with 51 votes. Then he added, “Second, traditionally, we have increased the number in the lower and circuit courts. I have in the city of Buffalo a huge — they don’t have enough judges. There’s this long line before you can get to court. Because they don’t have enough. So, we could expand those, relative –”
Maddow interjected to ask if Schumer was referring to both district and circuit courts; he responded that he was. Of course he was, because the Democrats won&#8217;t be satisfied until they hold the reins of power not only politically but judicially.

Schumer: We Can ‘Expand’ District, Circuit Courts to Balance out GOP Judges

<div class="entry-content">
Sen. <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/kyrsten-sinema/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kyrsten Sinema</a> <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/01/25/kyrsten-sinema-declares-opposition-to-eliminating-senate-filibuster/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told the Washington Post, through her office</a>, that she was opposed to her fellow Progressives&#8217; efforts to eliminate the filibuster in the United States Senate.
“Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster,” a spokesperson told the Post.
The filibuster, which requires three-fifths of the chamber—usually 60 votes—to end debate on a piece of legislation, has become a point of contention between Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/charles-schumer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chuck Schumer</a> and his Republican counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republicans are requesting that any agreement on how to organize the newly elected chamber includes a provision protecting the filibuster. Schumer has refused to commit to such a deal.
Progressives like Sen. <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/elizabeth-warren/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elizabeth Warren</a> have argued that swift action on liberal priorities, including immigration reform and expanded access to abortion, cannot move forward while the filibuster is in place.
Sinema had argued her position in an October 2019 interview with Politico. “They will not get my vote on [nuking the filibuster],” she said. “In fact, whether I’m in the majority or the minority I would always vote to reinstate the protections for the minority. … It is the right thing for the country.”
Sinema’s reaffirmation of that position on Monday means that Senate Democrats likely will not have enough votes to abolish the filibuster. Her pronouncement comes only days after the Biden White House also signaled its opposition to any attempt to discard the filibuster.
</div>

Sinema Declares Opposition to Eliminating Senate Filibuster

<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/25/jen-psaki-struggles-to-explain-why-joe-bidens-south-africa-travel-ban-isnt-xenophobic-like-trump-china-travel-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In Monday&#8217;s White House press conference</a>, Press Secretary <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/jen-psaki/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jen Psaki</a> struggled to explain why President Joe Biden’s travel ban on South Africa was not “xenophobic” — which is how then-candidate Biden described President Trump’s ban on China last year.
When Biden&#8217;s smear was pointed out to Psaki and she was asked what words she would you use to describe the South Africa ban, Psaki replied, &#8220;I don’t think that’s quite a fair articulation. The president has been clear that he felt the &#8216;Muslim ban&#8217; was xenophobic.&#8221;
Fact check: there was no &#8220;Muslim ban.&#8221; There was a travel moratorium on a handful of countries, most of them from Muslim majority countries, all of them hotbeds of international terrorism. At least 85% of the world&#8217;s Muslims were not affected. But it served the Democrats well to mislabel it as Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Muslim ban.&#8221;
&#8220;He overturned the &#8216;Muslim ban,'&#8221; Psaki continued her non-answer. &#8220;He also, though, has supported — and he himself, even before, or we did, I should say, even before he was inaugurated, steps, travel restrictions, in order to keep the American people safe to ensure that we are getting the pandemic under control. That’s been part of his policy. But he was critical of the former president for having a policy that was not more comprehensive than travel restrictions. And he conveyed at the time, and more recently, the importance of having a multifaceted approach … not just travel restrictions.&#8221;
In other words, our travel ban isn&#8217;t xenophobic because we&#8217;re Democrats, and only Republicans can be xenophobic.

Discover The Networks

An Online Database of the left and its Agendas

Individuals

Organizations

Featured Profiles