New York Times: It's not worth printing if it doesn't insult Trump

The New York Times apparently never lets a story go to waste without inclusion of an anti-Trump remark. Accordingly, in the midst of Sarah Lyall's September 14 article that, in the print edition, carried this headline — "Finding Comfort (and Forgiveness) in the Fullness of Time" — on the apparent rapprochement of the people of the United Kingdom with the royal family since the death of Princess Di — these words would propagandize the reader (or reassure the NYT base): "a violent mob nearly derailed the peaceful transfer of power in Washington in 2021[.]"  Of course, this example of "fake news" in action does tend to support the Stalinist narrative that what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was "an insurrection," an "attempted coup."

Julie Kelly, writing in American Greatness, is more to the point — referring to the January 6 event as a "disturbance."

Reading Lyall's insertion of disinformation in her rapprochement-with-the-royals article, it occurred to me: is this propagandist not familiar with the heavy-handed arrests of Trump aides by FBI partisan-agents, as, for example, happened to Peter Navarro last June?  Mr. Navarro was handcuffed, denied food and water, and denied his right to call his attorney.  Behold the true threat to democracy in the USA: the Democrat perpetrators of political repression.

What was Peter Navarro charged with?  Two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress.  (Did Pelosi demand such harsh treatment of this former Trump adviser?) 

Further, what of the judicially overturned misconduct of zealous Democrat prosecutors as occurred just about nine years ago — October 3, 2013, when Wisconsin conservatives endured a pre-dawn raid that included sheriffs' cars with bright lights focused on targeted homes and cops standing watch over the besieged families, denied the right to call their attorneys?  This is what the self-anointed Democrats do — not us MAGA folk.

Fortunately, the assault on democracy in Wisconsin was tried before the late federal judge Rudolph T. Randa, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Judge Randa (1940–2016) referred, only in passing, to the secret-police tactics of the Wisconsin (Democrat) officials.  For present purpose, citation of portions of Judge Randa's opinion should educate the public how the Democrat party is the real threat to democracy in America.  Judge Randa granted the plaintiffs, Eric O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, their motion for a preliminary injunction to protect them from further "John Doe" investigation — in effect barring the Wisconsin prosecutors from continuing to harass the plaintiffs for partisan purposes.

Right off the bat, Judge Randa signaled how he would decide, stating: "Defendants seek to criminalize the plaintiffs' speech under Wisconsin's campaign finance laws."  Today, it is not paranoid to comprehend that Biden's administration, with the midterm elections less than two months away, seeks to criminalize the political speech of Republican Party officials and voters, with the added twist of the wheel: criminalizing Citizen Trump's continuation in politics.

Judge Randa's opinion noted, further, that also on October 3, 2013, subpoenas were issued to Club for Growth officers and members, demanding Club records pursuant to a Secrecy Order.  (Did the Department of Justice, in recently sending subpoenas to some 60 Trump aides, take instruction from the abusive treatment by Wisconsin rabid politicos of conservatives in the Badger State nine years ago?)

What most bothered the Wisconsin "John Doe" prosecutors?  Judge Randa's opinion indicates that they were enraged, most of all, that the Wisconsin conservatives intended "'to thwart attempts to recall Senate and Gubernatorial candidates."  (This was at the time Wisconsin Democrats wanted to oust Gov. Scott Walker by recall vote.)

Judge Randa incisively noted that laws to regulate First Amendment rights of free speech carry the danger that such legislation "may conceal self-interest."  How is that "self-interest" made manifest?  By throttling political opposition, I infer.  The judge's opinion pointed out that Plaintiff O'Keefe, consequent to the John Doe investigation, the issuance of subpoenas, and the taint of the partisan probe, found himself in the political wilderness (just where the partisan prosecutors no doubt wanted him).

Judge Randa's opinion, granting plaintiffs their request for a preliminary injunction against the Wisconsin prosecutors, ended with these words: "applying strict scrutiny to this case, plaintiffs have shown ... that their First Amendment rights are being infringed by the defendant's action."  But, this observer asks, where do the Wisconsin conservatives go to regain their political strength?

Nine years after the political persecution of conservatives in Wisconsin, this president has made clear that he intends to destroy the conservative movement by means of the base lie that we pose a threat to democracy in America.  Fortunately, the Wisconsin conservatives had a principled judge committed to honoring to the fullest the terms of the Constitution.  But these days, where Republicans in Congress apparently lack Judge Rudolph Randa's commitment to the Constitution, who will protect the country from Biden, Garland, and the rest of the foes of our Republic?

Republicans in Congress, wake up.  Our democracy — our two-party system — is at stake.

Image via Pxhere.

If you experience technical problems, please write to