5 Apr, 2022 10:47

Soviet-era’s last US envoy to Moscow comments on war atrocities accusations against Russia

Ambassador Jack Matlock has saidit is not wise to make a nuclear-armed equivalent of the US into a pariah state

Moral outrage over images of apparent war atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine is understandable, but the calls to turn Russia into a pariah state are ill-advised, a former US ambassador to the Soviet Union warned on Monday, during an appearance on CNN.

Jack Matlock held various positions during the height of the Cold War and was Washington’s representative to the USSR in the final years of the communist powerhouse. The veteran diplomat warned CNN audiences that the drive to further antagonize Russia, which prevails in the West, is ill-advised, especially since it’s driven by emotions rather than reason.

“I share many of these emotions, but to the idea that we can make a major nuclear weapon state a pariah, that by our actions we actually are destroying those elements in that society that could bring a positive change in the future. I think that is not wise,” he said.

Matlock was referring to the moral outrage that has been dominating the West’s coverage of the Ukrainian crisis since Kiev accused Russian troops of war crimes. The allegations focus on Bucha, a small town northwest of Kiev from which Russian troops withdrew last week. Days after the withdrawal, images of apparent atrocities targeting its civilian population started pouring in from Bucha.

Ukrainian officials claimed these were evidence that Moscow was pursuing genocide of the Ukrainian people. Russia has denied any responsibility for what appeared in the images and said that Kiev was manipulating public opinion with staged scenes of brutality.

The CNN segment, in which Matlock was one of the experts providing their opinion, put the blame for the civilian deaths squarely on Russia. “Of course, there is no one else who could have committed these atrocities,” an EU spokesperson quoted by the news network said. Host Ana Cabrera said images from Bucha were particularly horrific because the alleged crimes were committed not by “some rogue actor like the Taliban or a terror group like ISIS or al Qaeda,” but by a UN nation.

Matlock said that feeling outrage over what he called “horrors of war” was a normal human reaction, but suggested that the only way to end them was to negotiate a path towards deescalation.

“To think that the world would benefit from making Russia, a nuclear power equivalent to the United States, a pariah, I think, does not really represent our interests in the future. I fear a world of that sort,” he said.

Opposing his view was Brian Klaas, associate professor of global politics at University College of London, who argued that Russia has made a pariah of itself by committing war crimes in Ukraine. He believes that the killings of civilians in Bucha were “orchestrated” by senior Russian leadership.

“There’s no way that you could have such atrocities without at least the knowledge of senior officials in the Russian military,” he said, “There’s no way that you could have such atrocities without at least the knowledge of senior officials in the Russian military,” he said. He offered no explanation for why Russian officers would make a display of brutality, an action that would not appear to benefit Russia’s objectives.

Matlock said he was skeptical of the idea. “We do not know for sure exactly what happened with these apparent atrocities. And, certainly, we don’t know that they were ordered from Moscow,” he also pointed out.

The veteran diplomat reiterated his long-held position, that NATO’s expansion in Europe and the gradual rising oftensions between Western powers and Moscow, which escalated into a shooting war in Ukraine this year, were an avoidable mistake of US foreign policy.

Klaas dismissed the notion, stating that “the characterization that this is somehow our fault [was] wildly wrong.”

https://www.rt.com/russia/553319-ambassador-usssr-nuclear-pariah/

Luke Rosiak

@lukerosiak

NEW: A father is facing criminal charges for tweeting about a woke education activist's "grooming"

The complaint was filed the same week the Soros-backed prosecutor let off a violent abuser of an infant by saying it didn't have resources to try the case

The National School Board Association said the Patriot Act should be applied to parents, meaning traditional American civil liberties would not apply. Now we see criminal charges for a mean tweet.

The father, incidentally, is black. No concern about racist mass incarceration?

The law used is an obscure 1950s law making it illegal to question a woman's "chastity." To virtue-signal, Democrats find-and-replaced woman with person in 2020. Now an "equity activist" is using it against a black man who called him a groomer.

This is in Virginia, where another Soros-backed prosecutor with a platform of going easy on minor crimes made an exception for the father of a rape victim, for whom she wanted jail.

1:19 PM · Apr 5, 2022·Twitter We

The so-called groomer is part of a radical activist group that thinks it's racist to use a math test to determine who's good at math. He went to an online meeting of the school, where he does not have a child, and talked to a student about the importance of "equity."

1:21 PM · Apr 5, 2022·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1511389626338009091?s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

OAN officially removed

https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1511390436811755520?s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

Biden’s Media Lapdogs: If Everything Weren’t Horrible, Everything Would Be Awesome

BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL

APRIL 05, 2022

The corporate media are nothing more than a PR arm for Democrats, even if it means making nonsensical declarations.

Gas prices are at record highs, grocery bills are through the roof, and supply-chain disruptions are still leaving business shelves bare, but even amid the instability, some things never change: Democrats’ media lapdogs are still spinning the facts to a dizzying degree.

As an apt illustration, The Washington Post shared this article about Biden’s economy, from self-serious columnistJennifer Rubin, to Twitter on Monday with the following snippet: “If it weren’t for inflation, this president’s economic performance would be unmatched.”

You really can’t make this stuff up. America is in such dire straits under the leadership of barely coherent President Joe Biden that the only way left to defend him is to say, If it weren’t for everything being horrible, it would all be wonderful.

To help Biden’s media lapdogs out, here are a few more amazing things — or, you know, things that would be if the opposite were reality.

If It Weren’t for Gasoline Being $5 a Gallon, Gas Would Be So Affordable

Gas has jumped 100 percent since 2020, with the national average above $4.00 per gallon. In some areas of the country, it’s a couple of dollars more, with fuel just outside Death Valley in California topping the charts at nearly $9.00 per gallon.

If the Washington Post needs help framing stories on gas prices, they’re welcome to use this headline: “If Biden’s $5 Gasoline Were Less Expensive, It Would Be Cheaper.”

If It Weren’t for Short-Staffing, Businesses Would Be Fully Staffed

Even as Rubin pumps recent employment numbers, plenty of stores across the country are still displaying “temporary hours” signs, waitresses are apologizing for slow service because “we’re just so short-staffed,” and “we’re hiring” signs are ubiquitous.

The pseudo boost in jobs isn’t coming from some sort of economic boom; it’s a painfully slow recovery from government lockdowns that hasn’t even reached where we were before the pandemic. Furthermore, the “unemployment rate” tells you nothing of the multitudes of people who opted to exit the labor force altogether and therefore aren’t included in the figure. But as the media would tell you, “If It Weren’t For Short-Staffing, Businesses Would Have All The Staff They Need.”

If It Weren’t for Supply-Chain Lockdowns, We Could Get Necessary Goods

Essential items are still taking forever to make it to their destinations, thus the shipping delays and empty shelves. That’s one of the many reasons the Biden administration’s gas-price solution of just buying an electric car was so absurd (that and, of course, the price tag).

But supply-chain disruptions certainly aren’t the Biden administration’s fault, and they’re not really a problem anyway because — and again, corporate press, feel free to nab this headline — “If It Weren’t For Supply-Chain Issues, We Could Get Our Hands On All The Things We Need.”

If It Weren’t for the Humanitarian Crisis on the U.S. Border, Biden’s Policies Would Be Second to None

After Biden’s political posture prompted more than 2 million Border Patrol encounters with illegal aliens on the border in 2021 alone, what could go wrong with his administration’s plans to repeal Title 42, the Trump-era policy that sped up the return of illegal border-crossers during Covid-19?

Thanks to his policies, dangerous cartels are empowered at the expense of women and children, and desperate migrants are left vulnerable at the mercy of the elements and the deadly Rio Grande. Yet journalists have used their platforms to explain that the border crisis is a result of the president being so “moral,” so they would probably be interested in a headline like, “If They Weren’t Empowering Cartels To Rape Women, Biden’s Border Policies Would Be Top Notch.”

If It Weren’t for Biden Family Scandals, This President Would Be Scandal-Free…

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/bidens-media-lapdogs-if-everything-werent-horrible-everything-would-be-awesome/

New ‘Antilynching’ Federal Law Could Let Prosecutors Imprison You For A Crime You Never Committed

BY: LIAM COSGROVE

APRIL 05, 2022

Anons knew there was a reason for anti lynching law, now we know why.

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act may become a key piece in the arsenal for U.S. intelligence agencies’ war on free speech.

Touted as an overdue (if duplicative) law that no one could disagree with, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act signed by President Biden last week includes a subtle provision that could boost the Biden administration’s war on wrongthink.

Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the three who voted against the bill, expressed a handful of concerns, including that there are a limited number of constitutionally specified federal crimes, that lynching is already criminalized, and that “Adding enhanced penalties for ‘hate’ [on top of existing criminal punishments] tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech.”

He also highlighted another potential pitfall of the legislation: “The bill creates another federal crime of ‘conspiracy,’ which I’m concerned could be enforced overbroadly on people who are not perpetrators of a crime.” Here’s the section Massie is referring to:

Whoever conspires to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results from the offense, or if the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

The bill amends the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009, which defines and criminalizes hate crimes. The minimum qualification is an attempt “to cause bodily injury” due to the victim’s race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, religion, or disability.

Bodily injury can be defined as “physical pain” or “any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.” Sensibly, the 2009 law requires an attempt at violence to be made, which is a crime itself regardless of prejudiced motives. The new “antilynching” law takes this a step further by criminalizing “conspiracy” to commit certain hate crimes.

I’m sure someone will retort: conspiracy to commit a federal crime is already a federal crime. This is not a universally accepted interpretation of conspiracy law, nor does the law’s language or historical precedent justify such a broad interpretation — hence the ostensible necessity for the new antilynching law. Criminalized conspiracies are those plotting “against the United States” – like the Volkswagen executives who attempted to defraud the Environmental Protection Agency by faking emission results and, more recently, the leader of the Oath Keepers who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy for his part in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot.

So as of last Tuesday, it is illegal to simply “agree” to participate in an act if it falls under the categories highlighted above. One can imagine dark political humor venturing into these categories (a comment such as “I hate so-and-so so much I could kill him,” for example) being interpreted as “conspiring to lynch.”

The key issue here is that intent should not be the sole subject of a court case. The purpose of courts is for a neutral arbiter to determine whether someone’s rights were violated during an encounter between two parties. Conspiracy, if no action is taken in pursuit of it, involves only one party: the conspirators. Therefore, it alone constitutes no crime as it couldn’t have possibly violated someone else’s rights.

With this new law, the U.S. government has further expanded into the realm of policing thought crimes. Ominously, this law comes on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to broaden the “domestic terrorism” category and expand methods for identifying “threats.”

For those unaware, killings attributed to domestic extremists in 2020 and 2021 were each far lower than in the previous five years. Overall there were only 29 such killings in 2021. Despite this, we continue to hear fearmongering from those in power.

FBI Director Christopher Wray went before Congress last year to declare “The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing across the country for a number of years.” Attorney General Merrick Garland adopted a similar tone, warning “Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021, and in the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”

Read it the whole article anons

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/new-antilynching-federal-law-could-let-prosecutors-imprison-you-for-a-crime-you-never-committed/

Who else talked about “discovery”

Margot Cleveland@ProfMJCleveland

The discovery is going to be lit!

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1511329183200432129s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg's Election Meddling Group

Part 1 of 2

Last week, a Louisiana appellate court reinstated Attorney General Jeff Landry’s lawsuit challenging Mark Zuckerberg’s infiltration of the state election system with private “Zuck Bucks” that flooded the country during the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, originated in October 2020. That’s when Louisiana, through Landry, sought a court order declaring that “private contributions to local election officials and the election system in general are unlawful and contrary to Louisiana law.” Landry’s lawsuit followed attempts by the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life to dole out millions in targeted grants to election officials throughout the state.

By the time Landry sued, more than 20 officials throughout the state had appliedfor grants of nearly $8 million, but after the attorney general warned them the funds were illegal, most abandoned their efforts. Orleans and Calcasieu parishes, however, went on to accept more than $810,000 in funds for the 2020 election.

While Landry succeeded in limiting the impact of the Zuckbucks in Louisiana to two parishes, his efforts to prevent what he called “the corrosive influence of outside money on Louisiana election officials” initially failed when a state trial court dismissed his lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and its partner organizations.

In tossing the case, the trial judge held there was no legal basis to prevent “registrars of voters, clerks of court, or other local election officials from seeking and obtaining grant dollars to assist with the funding the necessary staff and equipment for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Louisiana’s constitution, specifically article 6, § 23.

That provision authorizes “political subdivisions” to “acquire property for any public purpose,” by among other things, “donation.” The trial court then reasoned that because “registrar of voters and clerks of court are ‘political subdivisions,’” “they are allowed to accept private donations,” including to run elections. Accordingly, the trial court tossed the state’s lawsuit and allowed the private funds to flow into the parish coffers.

Landry appealed the dismissal of the state’s challenge to the Zuckbuck scheme and last Wednesday the Louisiana appellate court reversed the lower court decision. In reversing the trial court and reinstating Landry’s lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the other defendant organizations that assisted in distributing the Zuckbucks, the Louisiana appellate court analyzed controlling precedent to determine whether the clerks of court and the registrar of voters are “political subdivisions” within the meaning of art. 6 § 23 of the Louisiana constitution.

They are not, the appellate court concluded. “Rather it is clear that they are constitutional officers created by the State pursuant to our constitution,” the appellate court continued, “and both officers have only the powers, duties, and responsibilities as granted to them by law.”

Because the clerks of court and registrar of voters to whom the Zuckbucks were to be distributed “are not creatures of local government,” they may not “acquire property” by “donation” under art. 6, § 23 of the state constitution, the court held. The Louisiana appellate court then reversed the dismissal of the case and returned it to the lower court for further proceedings on the state’s challenge to the private funding of elections.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/court-reinstates-louisiana-ags-lawsuit-against-zuckerbergs-election-meddling-group/

>>16017412

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg's Election Meddling Group

Part 2 of 2

In reversing the trial court decision, the appellate court did not declare the Zuckbuck funding of elections illegal but left that to the court below to decide. However, the appellate court’s decision highlighted that “the Louisiana Constitution provides that the secretary of state is the ‘chief election officer of the state,’” and that “he shall prepare and certify the ballots for all elections, promulgate all election returns, and administer the election laws, except those relating to voter registration and custody of voting machines.” The appellate court further stressed that “the secretary of state is also responsible for paying all election costs and expenses.”

This analysis supports Landry’s argument in the underlying lawsuit that because Louisiana’s election laws are “comprehensive and exclusive” and provide for the state “funding of elections and election costs” “the use of private money to fund elections in the State of Louisiana” is illegal. But that will be a question for the lower court to determine on remand.

First, though, there will be the discovery process, including depositions of the relevant players. Landry told The Federalist in a Monday interview that with the case reinstated he “looks forward now to proceeding with the normal process of discovery.”

Landry added that the situation today is much different than the one the state confronted when the lawsuit was originally filed. Since the election, there have been extremely troubling revelations about the approximately $350 million pumped into the election system by Zuckerberg’s organization, Landry noted.

While the attorney general spoke only generally about the problems, he noted two fundamental problems underlying the private funding of elections. First, money is flowing into the system “in the darkness of night,” Landry stressed. Second, the Zuckbucks were used to achieve a targeted disenfranchisement, with rural Louisianans treated less favorably than their fellow citizens living in populated areas.

Details from other states confirm Landry’s concerns. In Wisconsin, a retired election clerk in a large Wisconsin county explained how, behind closed doors, “political activists working for a group funded by Mark Zuckerberg money seized control of the November elections in Green Bay and other cities, sidelining career experts and making last-minute changes that may have violated state law.”

Similarly, in other states, Zuckbucks created “a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias,” according to analyses conducted after the election. Post-election analyses of the data likewise reveal the $350 million in funding disproportionately favored Democrat-heavy areas — so much so that it could have changed the outcome of the election.

Backlash against buying the election for Biden with Zuckbucks has prompted several states to pass laws expressly prohibiting the use of private funds for election purposes. As of March 2022, private funds are either restricted or banned in the running of elections in more than a dozen states. State legislatures in five additional states passed similar restrictions on outside funds, but those bills were vetoed by the governors — all of whom were Democrats.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards is one of the five Democrats to veto a legislative ban on the private funding of elections. But with last week’s appellate court decision reinstating Landry’s challenge to the use of private funds in elections, the state may nonetheless prevail in its attempt to keep outside money from interfering in future elections.

Before the case returns to the trial court, however, the Center for Tech and Civic Life may attempt to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Federalist contacted an attorney for the group, asking if an appeal would be forthcoming, but our request for comment went unanswered.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/court-reinstates-louisiana-ags-lawsuit-against-zuckerbergs-election-meddling-group/

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1511325775408275465?s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

From Seth Dillon if Babylon Bee

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1511325246967660547?s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

Anons said it, Ukraine was petering out, where to go, COVID, predictable!

https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1511162730803310593?s=20&t=EluaCgiQ6tcwoaeyOVPumg

>>16017631

I knew O would show up in WH soon, he’ll be there more often since they did this event

>>16017620

Kek, because Trump ordered it, and he is the one that will be using it soon

>>16017608

Thank you for posting this, the news is sick

>>16017603

Find the post and post please