1,870 words
On September 15, Pam Bondi (who surprisingly graduated from the Stetson University College of Law in 1990 and passed the Florida bar exam on her first attempt) managed to make Chief Justice Ketanji Brown and even Reddit seem smart and conservative by comparison.
Bondi remarked: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.” When asked if she sees “more law enforcement going after these groups which are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action”, she replied: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. And that’s across the aisle.”
There are few things that are certain in law, but one thing that I am certain of is that if the US Supreme Court were to rule on a case involving Bondi’s stance, that the Court would smack it down in a tersely worded, 0-9 per curiam ruling. Perhaps even with a “full stop” at the end. And Pam Bondi seemingly knew Charlie Kirk as well as she knows Constitutional law. In May 2024, Kirk posted “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Let’s explore what cases the Supreme Court would draw upon if they were to explain their ruling to Pam Bondi like she’s a retarded toddler rather than just slap her out of the courtroom.
The seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) involved a Klan leader who was convicted for advocating “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism.” The Court struck down the law used to convict Brandenburg and held that speech is protected unless it is directed at inciting imminent lawless action, and is likely to produce such action. It’s common sense that you shouldn’t say or do certain things just because caselaw says you can. Caselaw is theory and not the factual reality of how courts behave. And what one says can be used as evidence of intent to violate various laws which have not been struck down. And legal rulings aren’t political strategy either. But the type of speech which Brandenburg protects, at least in theory, is much more extreme than what is commonly labeled as “hate speech.”
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that flag burning is expressive conduct and thus protected speech. The Court cited thirteen cases to support its explanation that “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
In Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen was charged with disturbing the peace with offensive conduct for wearing a jacket that said “F— THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR.” And not just anywhere, but in a courthouse. The Supreme Court rejected the Appellate Court’s reasoning that it was reasonably foreseeable that the message on Cohen’s jacket might provoke someone to violently attack him or force him to remove his jacket. The SCOTUS also explained that while saying the f-word directly to somebody might fall under the ambit of the fighting words, the f-word on the jacket was not directed at anybody in particular.
The Court also explained that:
The words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.
In other words, the government can’t “tone police” speech. Hate is a perfectly valid emotion and thus hate speech is constitutionally protected.
While “hate speech” was not a widespread term yet, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) is the case most on point because it essentially dealt with the concept absent the label. The district court had issued an injunction against the NSPA from doing anything that might “incite or promote hatred” of Jews or other groups. The town of Skokie, which was majority Jewish, tried to prevent an NSPA march by playing typical Jewish games such as requiring a $350,000 bond for a permit. The mayor claimed that there would be uncontrollable violence. (Ironically, he was threatening that his own people would riot. Look at what you made me do!) In true wignat fashion the Party planned on wearing swastika armbands and NSDAP inspired uniforms.
But despite Jews being de facto more equal than others, the Supreme Court still issued a per curiam slap down. If you can say it in real life in a Jewish town, and when Jews are de facto more equal than others, then you can certainly say it online.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) reaffirmed last century’s jurisprudence in an eight to one ruling. In that case the Westboro Baptist Church had picketed a military funeral with signs that said things like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The family of the deceased initially prevailed on a claim for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the Supreme Court held that Westboro’s speech was protected because it was of public concern rather than private concern. That it involved a private matter, even an emotionally charged one like a funeral, did not transmute it from a public concern into a private concern. It is also important that the Court declined to carve out an exception for groups that might be construed as uniquely vulnerable, like gays and mourners, because claiming that special snowflakes need special rights and privileges at the expense of everyone else’s rights is a hallmark of the reasoning used by proponents of “hate speech” laws.
I do not afford metaphysical sanctity to the Constitution or caselaw as some people unconsciously do, but I am loath to overturn such established, and more importantly useful, cases on a whim.
Pam Bondi either does not know that what she proposed yesterday was blatantly unconstitutional under established caselaw, or she thinks it is worthwhile and possible to convince the Supreme Court to overturn or substantially modify caselaw, or she thinks this is an issue worth using the nuclear option on and ignoring the Supreme Court, despite how she would face mass resistance from within her own party, or she is confusing hate speech with other legal concepts. I don’t know which possibility makes her more stupid.
The most likely option, based on her follow up commentary to Axios, is that she confused true, violent threats with hate speech. But true, violent threats are completely different from hate speech and are not constitutionally protected. Like Bondi, Donald Trump also seemed to confuse hate speech with other legal concepts, specifically defamation, when he told a reporter: “Probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.” and construed his settlement from a defamation suit against ABC as “for a form of hate speech.”
Words have meaning. Confusing well-established concepts like true threats and defamation with hate speech isn’t just sloppy. It’s dangerous because it normalizes a subversive concept.
There are good arguments for rejecting Marbury v. Madison, judicial review, and an independent judiciary. For example, the legislative branch pays their bills and the executive enforces their rulings with guns, so it is illogical for the legislative and executive branch to take orders from the judiciary. But due to long-standing tradition this route is a nuclear option which should only be used for something important and with mass public support, like ending birthright citizenship.
Thus, regardless of whether one approaches Pam Bondi’s comments on hate speech from a conservative, legalistic, and academic perspective or from a nationalist, realist, and political one, it’s incredibly stupid.
There is no need to overturn a mountain of established caselaw, and more importantly, white American values, when we already have all the tools to crush Antifa and the broader Left. It was never legal to commit murder and terrorism, to conspire to injure and harass right-wing rally goers, or to overthrow the government in a color revolution. This may come as a shock to some because it was de facto legal to do such things for years because of the Left’s militancy and the Right’s treason and cowardice. But it was never de jure legal. We have the laws. We just need to muster the will to enforce them.
If Pam Bondi cannot accomplish her duty using the ample tools she already has, it’s doubtful that she could accomplish it with hate speech laws. All she would accomplish is to gut the First Amendment, and thereby set a dangerous precedent that in the future is more likely to be used against the Right than the Left.
We don’t even need state power to accomplish certain aspects of crushing the Left. The Left wielded doxing to great effect for years. But by identifying Leftists who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk and reporting them to their employers, we have already in less than a week done more damage to them than they did to us over several years. And we are not even doxing them, because we are simply introducing their public statements to their employers, not listing their home address or other personal information.
President Trump said, “We have to be vicious, just like they are. It’s the only thing they understand.” I agree. In addition to being vicious, we also need to be smart. Pam Bondi might be loyal to Trump and Israel but she is neither smart nor vicious. She has no understanding of law or politics. She is as much as a diversity hire as Ketanji Brown or Kamala Harris.
First, Bondi bungled the release of the Epstein files. Now she has made a fool of herself with talking about hate speech. In addition to being inept at law and politics, it suggests that she is mindlessly regurgitating ideas she heard from other people, many of whom are apparently Leftist. One wonders what other dumb and subversive ideas she has bouncing around inside her nearly empty head.
In destroying Antifa, it is likely that we will face mass insubordination from the FBI. While this is an opportunity to abolish or aggressively reform them, such a task can not be handled by someone like Bondi. We need an Attorney General who is willing to take on antifa, their enablers in the FBI, and the criminal conspiracy known as the Democrat Party, possibly in the midst of something akin to Italy’s Years of Lead or Ireland’s Time of Troubles.
That Attorney General is not Pam Bondi. But since the prospect of Matt Gaetz becoming Attorney General inspired so much backlash from the right kind of people, he would be an excellent replacement.
The murder of Charlie Kirk has unified the Right and given Trump enormous political capital and momentum to crush the radical Left. I can’t think of a quicker way to divide the Right and destroy this opportunity than to attack the First Amendment.
34 comments
One thing that goes unmentioned in this analysis is that Bondi also made a specific and clear link between hate speech and antisemitism, and when she said “and that’s across the aisle” she was very likely making reference to rising anti-Israel sentiment amongst the American right. They are going to use Kirk’s killing to speed up antisemitism laws and come down even harder on violators. Watch out…
I agree. Her words were childish. She sounded more like Merrick Garland. Ann Coulter was very much correct when she called Bondi the most troubling of all of Trump’s cabinet selections.
OK, let’s keep things in perspective, because some hyperbole does not serve the cause well.
Ketanji Brown is a far-left buffoon. She is not conservative, and she is not smart. Reddit does not come close to being conservative or smart either. Let’s not go off the deep end when starting to validly criticize Bondi.
I am opposed to Bondi’s “hate speech” comments and attempts to “target” or “go after” someone who supposedly utters “hate speech.” And I was disturbed by Bondi’s handling of the Epstein information. I agree that Bondi was a Diversity hire, and that we need an attorney general who will be gung-ho about destroying Antifa and other revolutionary groups. I also share your concerns about the “sloppy” thinking and speaking which has been on display recently. This needs to be called out.
But, for perspective, let’s always remember that the Justice Department under Biden was targeting and going after traditional Catholics, and innocent parents who were opposed to leftist school boards. Biden’s Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA were weaponized against innocent, conservative American political opponents of the Democrats. To suggest that Bondi’s Justice Department is somehow worse is outrageous. Bondi needs to be seriously called to account, but we also should pay attention to the positive that is being accomplished. Patel of the FBI just announced some significant successes against violent crime, sex trafficking and radical networks since Trump took office. Let’s encourage things to keep going in that direction. And, as you did in part here, let’s make valid criticisms of serious problems in the agencies that continue.
Many conservative and “right-wing” commenters on X have recently pushed back against Bondi. This, I believe, will have an effect, if it is done in a forceful and reasonable way.
Blasphemy is unlawful in six US states, in Canada, and in Israel, and maybe elsewhere, as well it should be. Free speech is not limitless. Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, for example, is actionable, just as blasphemy is in numerous jurisdictions.
But that is not what this Bondi bimbo is talking about. She needs a trip to the wood shed before she is summarily dismissed from the office for which she is supremely unqualified. Shame on her and shame on Trump.
Okay, I’ll bite. Some states like Oklahoma might have vestigial blasphemy laws but I am not aware of any juristictions who have seriously enforced any such thing since the Constitution with its Bill of Rights became the supreme law of the land over two centuries ago.
At best we might get some kind or farce or playacting such as from the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee (LINK).
A blashphemy test would simply fail any legal challenge on 1st Amendment grounds.
For one thing you would have to define what is the one-true religion. Would it be the Christianity of the Pope, as practiced by President Kennedy who strongly believed in the separation of Church and State? The Mormons? The Jews?
This is exactly why Holocaust Denial Laws would fail outright under the 1st Amendment.
The reason that it might be illegal to “yell fire in a crowded theater” is because it would likely be harmful and therefore malicious.
It would be rather like telling a blind man that the cross walk indicator light says it is now safe to walk and the beeper is just broken, when that information is false and it is in fact not yet safe to walk ─ assuming that you are ever safe in a crosswalk because junkies often run red lights (as I have experienced first hand).
Another legal test, Zenger (1734) predates the Constitution and establishes that Truth is a defense against Libel. This is another reason that Holocaust Denial or Hate Laws would fail on 1st Amendment grounds in the United States.
In order to preserve these rights, we might have to rally to protect them. I am not talking about deifying the Constitution or waving plastic Betsy Ross flags here, but we simply have to be Vigilant and very proactive with Lawfare or we will soon find ourselves ruled by the Ministry of Truth.
After Charlottesville, this should be one of the first unmitigated priorities of a broader White advocacy movement.
🙂
…Chief Justice Ketanji Brown….
Great article! Brown is an associate justice by the way. I have noticed that Brown keeps popping up, as being especially dumb–even for a black. I wonder if the rest of the Supreme Court can request that Trump replace her—something along the lines of a vote of “no confidence?” 🙃
Another bad precedent to set?
I have noticed repeatedly that women generally have very little sense of freedom of speech. Women are conformists and have a highly developed sense of hierarchy. Women instinctively dislike it when men they consider to be lower in the hierarchy speak out too much against men higher up. This is especially true of younger, fertile women. Some women, for various reasons, become advocates of freedom of speech, but rarely consistently—rather, only for their own side, which is not currently in power.
Of course. “Typical” women instinctively support the dominant side, even if they do not participate in its power. Women prefer peace and quiet, not revolution. Too much verbal “disagreement” irritates women. They don’t like it when men argue—they prefer to see the dominant man decide everything and silence the weaker ones. This does not change the fact that women like a lot of talking, but they see it more as singing the same song together. Disagreeing voices spoil the song.
On the other hand, some women may perceive a “rebel” as dominant. This is especially true when the status quo is shaken and it seems realistic that the rebels will prevail. Some women also like “rebellious” behavior if it is exhibited by an obviously attractive man. Disrespect for the status quo (including various prohibitions) can be perceived by women as dominance by those who are coming to power. These are situations in which women briefly become advocates of freedom of expression. However, women never side with losers. The idea that even losers are allowed to speak their minds is typically a male idea.
This was a very good essay. Bondi is SO subversive, + either dumb, or malevolent (I lack the interest to discern which.)
[OK – It looks like she HAS recanted her promise to prosecute “hate” speech in an interview with Axios.]
I’ve always been a die-hard free speech advocate. In the 80s, I watched Tipper Gore place warning labels on very mainstream, but sexually risqué, rock & early rap albums, while I listened to ‘Guilty of Being White’ over the airwaves, being broadcast by a local university radio station. I knew there were many important racial issues to discuss, which nobody ‘in authority’ was willing to discuss honestly and openly.
I am one of those folks that does not think people should be fired for speaking their mind, & saying rude things (such as they’re happy ____ is dead) when they are off the clock, or online. And it seems most Whites, are unique in the ability to discuss various highly-charged topics, and still have the self-discipline/long term thinking to decline immediately acting impulsively in bad & regrettable ways.
Regulating ‘hatey’ speech is bad enough. Attempting to regulate someone’s unspoken thoughts/emotions with ‘hate’-crimes accusations is next-level, control-freak tyranny. It matters not, if a alien is feeling gleeful or hateful (or nostalgic) when he stabs me.
I was in a historic movie theater watching Silence of the Lambs with my husband when the movie came out. The audience was all White, and that evening, a smoldering electrical smell spread throughout the theater. Eventually, ~30 mins later, an actual fire started up in the projector room. Folks just quietly got up & walked out the exit. I guess nobody wanted to cause a panic or chaos, by “yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” The White crowd was quiet and conscientious — only whispers here & there of “smoke?!”
Unfortunately, just like with lawfare, Jews have worked to abuse our White Gentile, universally-cherished, value of Freedom of Speech. And they decided to get prostitution legalized by arguing paid sex acts were legal, so long as a camera was rolling. That way, the porno movie was “free expression” art and the prostitute was simply a paid actress.
History tells us, over & over: After all dissident speech is gone, weapons are removed, and large populations are killed.
That’s interesting. There’s been a lot of rhetoric on the left celebrating and asking for the deaths of right wing figures, which they seem to have resorted to in a dearth of rational arguments. I noticed it from dirt bag left types right around the shooting of Ashley Babbitt. Later, before Trump was reelected, there was a lot of people associating Trump‘s name indirectly, but in the same sentence, with the word “assassination”. And a lot of the liberal woman around me would announce loudly,” I wish trump would just die.” It seems like it was something prevalent on the left, and I feel this is what led to the assassination attempts against Trump. Im not sure where it falls with respect to the first amendment. But it seems like the sorts from whom this rhetoric is always originating are constantly pecking at the first amendment in someway.
I enjoyed learning some of the legal nomenclature that everyone ought to know.
Unrelatedly, because there was nowhere else on the site to comment about Kirk today, I thought to share this. The LA Times published this feature today about how White Supremacists were co-opting the Huntington Beach memorial.
they somehow neglect inclusion of any photographic evidence to their premise perhaps because it’s generally impossible to disprove something didn’t happen https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-17/la-me-charlie-kirk-huntington-beach-white-hate
Yeah, in this context, “White Man Fight” is maladroit messaging.
Something better could gently play upon race somehow, exploiting the reality that the mainstream media is actively trying to cover up Negro street crime, and that Democrats are being soft on criminals because o’ dey colluh an’ sheeet.
🙂
Trump’s comments on defamation were hardly a legal opinion and mainly amounts to trolling the opposition press, which he is very good at.
I agree that Bondi misspoke ─ confusing incitements to imminent violence with Hate Speech, the latter of which is indeed protected by the 1st Amendment. Hate Speech is not merely something that you (or AntiFa) don’t like.
Of course, there are some gray areas regarding “threats” of violence, but that is a distinction not worth the difference. AntiFa truly believes that actual violence vaguely in the name of Progress is on the right side of history ─ and they need to be made to pay a severe price for that delusion.
The problem with the Left in general is that they literally go batshït crazy when they sense a populist groundswell for ideas that they don’t like ─ and they feel that they are justified in violence in that “freedom of speech has consequences.”
Of course it does. If I say hello to you on the Light Rail and smile, you might wave and smile back at me. That is a consequence.
And if I say FU muhfuggah, you might frown and flip me the bird. That is a consequence.
But you don’t have the right to cut my throat if you think that I said Nïgger.
The Leftist minions think that they are facilitating a better and more just world somehow. That is the root of the AntiFa thinking of the furry freak that murdered Charlie Kirk. That shïthead assassin needs to face the music as promised by the Utah Governor and the President. Let’s not lose track of the message.
The way to go after and to crush AntiFa is to track their “violent incitement” rhetoric ─ where there’s smoke, there’s fire ─ and then go after the target-rich environment of their actual violence and mischief, with the full authority and weight of the State, as hard as possible.
Trump seems game to do it and we need to hold him to that standard.
The first step is to hold the tiller true and to make sure that Luigi Mangione, and Tyler Robinson, and all the scumbags like them, are sentenced to death (assuming convictions, of course) and see that these sentences are carried out in reasonable timeframes.
Ditto with the Negro street crimes that the mainstream media has shamelessly tried to cover up ─ the murder of Iryna Zarutska on the Light Rail, and the murder of Julie Schnuelle, the retired Auburn University veterinary professor who was stabbed to death by another melanated guess-who whilst walking her dog in the park.
The fact that Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are starting to pay off should not be sniffed away easily. One would be amazed at how the Left is seething, and that is a vulnerability and a great opportunity that we can leverage.
This is not a meaningless fight but a meaty bone to sink teeth into.
🙂
Scott, you made a terrific comment here.
There are so many things happening now, as you so well described, that we need to focus on, and appreciate. I think that some DR people are losing perspective, and are neglecting the positive developments of the last 10 years or so. We need to encourage those developments. We’ve been losing our people, and our country, but there has been a strong fight by a lot of decent, regular people out there, who might not read DR websites. It’s still going on strongly. And the terrible murder of Charlie Kirk, who was much more perceptive than some people realize, sheds a lot of light. It shows how the Left continues to get more bonkers, aggressive and violent, but also how more people are waking up to the threats.
And regarding Charlie Kirk, people here should watch his interview with Tucker Carlson a few weeks ago. Kirk was very, very impressive. He used the term “Great Replacement” while clearly describing what is happening with mass migration. He described how the Left weaponizes Christianity against Christians. He also spoke very profoundly and clearly about other issues. Highly recommended to anyone here.
Kirk was very, very impressive. He used the term “Great Replacement” while clearly describing what is happening with mass migration. He described how the Left weaponizes Christianity against Christians. He also spoke very profoundly and clearly about other issues. Highly recommended to anyone here.
Andrew Anglin says that Charlie was not sincere when making the above and similar statements:
The short story there is that Charlie had a history of making contradictory statements in order to create sound bites to appeal to people with differing opinions. There was obviously no way for him to operate a youth organization without addressing the Gaza situation in some way, but for every clip you see of him saying something about Epstein being Mossad or Israel going too far, you can find a clip, from the same timeframe, of him saying starvation in Gaza is a hoax, that all the hospitals are bases of Kuh-Hamas, and that “God gave this land to the Jewish people.” He did a similar thing with immigration: you can find clips of him saying “great replacement” around the same time as he is promoting unlimited H-1B visas. People try to frame it as “he was a young man who was progressing and changing his thinking,” but I’ve gone through much of it and concluded that he was deliberately saying different things in order to confuse people about his agenda via TikTok clips.
And there is more if you go to his article on unz. I don’t know what to think, except that Anglin’s claims are not completely outside the range of possibility. I would want proof, though, about the timing of Kirk’s contradictory statements.
I edited the following for (hopefully) greater clarification–
Stronza, I’ve seen video snippets of Charlie saying boatloads of civic normie stuff, such as: America is just “an idea” (implying it could be easily recreated anywhere with any folks at all) to “There’s no DNA differences between Blacks & Whites.” (So we’re just one big human race, huh Charlie?)
I think, please hold on to your hat here, that *Andrew Anglin* is being nice & fairly generous in the above quotation where he says Charlie is saying different things to different audiences & generating discussions. Yes, confusion is the birthplace of all learning, but Charlie himself was not consistent in his (fact-based?) opinions. He said what he was allowed to. And he was permitted to talk a tiny bit about Israeli genocidal terror in Gaza, but couldn’t touch deliberate tactics Jews are using against Whites in first world countries. He was a parrot of antisemitism-is-not-free-speech. He’d practically scream for mercy (insisting Israel is America’s friend) whenever anyone brought up the U.S.S. Liberty.
Just like every civic nationalist, he had good points, & he had weak points. I watch the coronation of Charlie with a fair degree of concern. Lot’s of anti-Constitutional stuff will be allowed ‘in his name’, not just because of a Judeo control-freak power-grab from our govt, but also because of lovely & sincere, SAHMs like the one who made the yt video shared here at C-C, who say that when they thought all was lost, they looked back, saw just 1 set of footprints in the sand, & realized that Charlie had been carrying them the whole time.
After I read your comment, I read Anglin’s piece. Like you said, he didn’t provide actual proof of Kirk being contradictory around the same time. Anglin also didn’t pay enough attention to how Kirk recently refused to accept a large amount of money in exchange for stopping his criticisms of Israel. And Kirk explained in a recent video with Megyn Kelly why he was upset about attempts by Jews to intimidate him into falling more in line.
Kirk did change some of his views over time, like many of us. That’s different than being someone who says opposing things to different audiences around the same time. Kirk knew his public utterances would always be scrutinized, and yet he frequently made public, pro-white statements. Considering his position, I’d say that was pretty good.
The first problem is the atty general named Pam Bondi. Anyone named Pam Bondi should be a movie star, a cheer leader or a stripper….not the Attorney General of a major power.
FCC pressured ABC to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air. They’re going after our enemies, let it roll.
Don’t overthink the Bondi thing.
Kimmel ist kaputt!
Watching them sauté in their own tears is glorious.
🙂
Seeing “highlights” of his monologues, I always thought it incredible that Kimmel’s boss would make him unnecessarily inject propaganda where it was obviously very awkward & artificially-placed.
Well, it turns out, he has quite an intimate relationship his Boss. Per UK Daily Mail, his current wife, Molly McNearney, a TDS victim herself, was head writer of Jimmy Kimmel Live! from 2008–2023.
“https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/politics/antifa-terrorist-designation-trump”
In Charlie Kirk fashion:
Boom.
Trump declares Antifa a terrorist organization.
Easy enough to claim you are (in effect) banning antifa (mostly white people, it would seem). If the following definition of antifa is correct, I don’t see how that can be accomplished.
Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals.
When the US govt bans BLM as terrorists, then I’ll yell “Bingo!” Because BLM is a distinct organized entity.
They literally have their own banking debit-cards that say “Antifa” & feature the trademark communist flag symbol on them. I shared a snapshot of it in a previous comment.
So I guess that antifa is Antifa, a genuine organization rather than a loosely associated lot specializing in looting, arson and plundering. Tks for that info. I didn’t see your photo of it. So, if this is a debit card, that means the banks are in on it. With the commie symbol yet. SMH.
A trenchant analysis, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Bondi reminds me of countless mediocre corporate executives I’ve met over the years who simply mouth platitudes and talking points, and have little substance underneath.
This may come as a shock to some because it was de facto legal to do such things for years because of the Left’s militancy and the Right’s treason and cowardice. But it was never de jure legal. We have the laws. We just need to muster the will to enforce them.
Amen, although that probably comes as a shock to most normie Whites. Your point about FBI insubordination resulting from a concerted attack on antifa is troubling. It highlights how dangerous the situation has become and how we need to strike now while the anvil is hot.
One dissent from an otherwise excellent essay, it is this construction: “vulnerable, like gays and mourners, because claiming that special snowflakes need special rights and privileges at the expense of everyone else’s rights”.
I don’t think that ourselves and our customs and traditions should disparage “mourners” as “special snowflakes” in the same category as “gays” (add your own categories to add to the point). Mourning is an a ancient ritual, which exists in various manifestations everywhere and at all times. “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have breath, and thou no life at all?”
Proclaiming at the graveside of a fallen soldier that his death is pleasing to God after his mourners have departed is protected expressive conduct (pacifist/antiwar variety). Doing it while the mourners are present has no purpose other than offense, and were it MY brother or MY son would clearly constitute fighting words.
The Court was wrong in Snyder v. Phelps, as part of a trend to widening of “Civil Rights Protests” (which were illegal, and were forceful BECAUSE the protesters were punished) to include all sorts of non-speech expressive conduct.
It is rare for David Zsutty to be wrong, and Blondi obviously has to go (although it is probably the case that any effective AG candidate would be unconfirmable with the present correlation of forces), but in the particular context of “mourners-snowflakes-expressive conduct” I think he is wrong and I hope he would, upon reflection, agree.
Well said, Doctor X ! Categorizing mourners as valid free-speech targets equivalent to mentally-ill sexual deviants ( lgbtxyz individuals) is not “who we are” (to borrow from the Magic Negro President). Extra points fof the “Blondi” — I almost missed that!
Bondi is hot! I could see her “working the pole” at a strip club to pay her way through college. Her stage name was probably “Bambi!” 🙃
I tuned in this week too see that odious, progressively unfunny bill maher who had ratface nosey ben shapiro on and it was too much after a platitudinous five minutes of the usual leftist blarney that I had to shut it off. However, in the Victory Begins at Home days, the guy used to actually be funny. When referencing Arizona State University, “When girls say I’m stripping to pay my way through college, that’s the college!”
Great article!
Pam Bondi is the best we can get for Attorney General. She is well qualified, with many years of experience as a prosecutor. She is loyal to America and to Trump. She has the required aggressive personality to combat Antifa, organized crime, and the rest of the Democratic Party.
Her only fault is her subservience to the Jews. That’s a big fault. She is not unique here, however. Nearly everyone in DC is a willing tool of the Jews. Most US politicians are on the AIPAC payroll, for a start.
As for Matt Gaetz, he’s a total loser. He has demonstrated very poor judgement his entire undistinguished career. For example, he helped to get rid of Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker, only to replace him with Mike Johnson. That weakened the GOP in the House, and benefited the Democrats. He is also vulnerable to charges of molesting teenage girls. That’s bad optics, after Trump’s coverup of the Epstein files.
Does Bondi have a portrait of herself in her attic which is gradually turning into a buxom, gold-bedecked crone? Her preternaturally youthful beauty has been carefully chosen to seduce America into accepting the Jewish speech agenda.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.