Was Police Officer Derek Chauvin ever going to get an unbiased fair trial? Consider, what is a fair trial? ‘In the U.S., the right to a fair trial is secured by the Fourteenth Amendment as a fundamental liberty. A fair trial is a legal trial conducted according to the rules of common law. In a fair trial, the accused’s legal rights are safeguarded and respected. A fair trial hears before it condemns. The trial proceeds on inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. In a fair trial, jurors are to be entirely indifferent as to the parties at the outset. The necessary elements of a fair trial are an adequate hearing and an impartial tribunal, free from any interest, bias, or prejudice. A fair trial presupposes full justice within human limitations. [Box v. State, 74 Ark. App. 82, 88-89 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001)].’https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fair-trial/
When Fake President Biden, Out of the Swamp Waters and other Leftists spewed forth their vitirol hatred Pre-Trial was it ever going to be FAIR?
‘Everything about the Chauvin trial and the media coverage of it showcases the subversion and transformation of our justice system into one of a third-world banana republic.
We can’t have a justice system that is ruled by threats of violence, doxxing, and harassment from the domestic terrorists in the mainstream media, on the streets, and in the Democratic party.
That’s not how civilized societies function, it’s how third-world countries function. If you import the third-world, don’t be surprised when your country becomes the third-world.
If you are caught in the censored echo chambers of Big Tech platforms, chances are you missed most of the stories I’ve gathered below. If you are trapped inside the Big Media echo chambers, you’ve been spoon-fed what the oligarchs want you to see and hear about the trial.
That’s why I’ve taken the time to curate a collection of stories for you so you can save them and never forget how this all played out.
Half of the country lives in reality and the other half lives in a bubble world of fear and loathing handcrafted by the oligarch elites. One side plays by one set of rules, the other plays by no rules at all.
This is a serious problem and it’s not getting better anytime soon. Our nation needs prayer and we as individuals must cling to the hope, peace, and Biblical justice of the Holy Spirit.
“Conservative” courts and judges mean nothing if our justice system is ruled by a mob of domestic terrorists. The rule of law means nothing if there are one set of rules for half of the country and a different set of rules for the other. Nothing about what we are seeing unfold right now is “justice” in any sense of the word and it certainly is not “normal.”
Follow the science say those in authority, but whose science? Wear a mask and then don’t wear a mask! This stuff is scary!
‘Quoting from the results of a study carried out in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, Chuck Colson predicted the kind of C0V1D-19 lockdown authoritarianism that was birthed by Communist Chinese authorities and copycatted all around the world.
The Milgram ‘shock experiment’ was a study into “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.”
Milgram’s aim was to see how “easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.”
He designed the study to answer questions raised by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, and the defence’s justification that those on trial “were only following orders.” [i]
“I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”
Colson explained that up to 80% of those who participated in Milgram’s experiment were willing to “inflict painful electric shocks on another person if an authority figure told them to do so.” [ii]
In 2007, Santa Clara University’s, Jerry Burger ‘replicated the experiment, and Burger’s results were nearly identical with Milgram.’
This prompted New York Times’ Adam Cohen to conclude that “ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago.”
Colson, not surprised by the results said, “the two experiments are a huge cautionary tale of how people respond to authority.”
The studies, he said, show that “nothing changes about human nature; we really do blindly follow authority, and very few people challenge it.”
Colson wrote, “when there’s social chaos, people will choose order over liberty. It’s the reason why, if you give a prison guard or a government clerk a little power, they become abusive.”
The “only real barrier preventing people from inflicting pain is conscience,” which Colson explains is our God-given “internal moral bearings” (see Romans 2:15) that have to be nurtured into maturity.
The problem and its cause are, as the Milgram/Burger studies infer, a lack of Godly nurturing, which is the consequence of “the breakdown of the family and moral decay in American life.”
The abdication from nurturing our God-given internal moral bearings blinds us to tyranny and binds us to sinful participation in it.
People will obey a lawful authority without question because there’s no acknowledgement of God; no other authority or power higher than Government fiats and stuffy, bloated Bureaucratic rules.
This is God vs. Government-become-god territory.
Where unjust laws are obeyed because, as Colson argued, “people have lost the concept of a law beyond the law.”
Which, says Colson, leads to a rejection of civil liberties, because “given a choice between order and chaos, Americans will always choose order – even if it shuts down some of our freedoms.”
The act of civil disobedience, he said, also becomes a farce, because “in a morally relativistic era, there’s nothing that kicks in and tells us that something is wrong.”
A docile, conditioned polis simply can’t know what they’re protesting, or find reasons to justify why.
It was a dismal prediction. Now a C0V1D-19 reality.
Atheist, secular humanist Governments following their Communist Chinese counterparts turned neighbour against neighbour. The police were weaponised against the people they’re paid to protect, and fighting the virus became about denouncing people perceived to be lockdown “lawbreakers.”
The highest civic duty was the surrender of civil liberties, wearing a mask, not questioning the mandated medical advice from bureaucrats, applauding their disaster porn, and staying glued to the media’s daily “briefings.”
As Milgram, commenting on the outcome of his experiment noted: “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
To paraphrase Colson, the only sure-fire way to protect civil liberties, and live out just civil disobedience, is by ‘courageously asserting the law beyond the law’; disobeying unjust laws that are contrary to our internal moral bearings, informed as they are, by the self-revealing God of Grace, and His objective moral law.
Though it may seem like we are being “plunged into the abyss of hell,” Charles Spurgeon once said, “God does not leave us there alone.”
References: [i] McLeod, S. 2017. The Milgram Shock Experiment, Simply Psychology [ii] Colson, C. 2015. My Final Word, Zondervan (pp.58-59) [iii] Spurgeon, C. Not Left to Perish, Faith’s Checkbook March 3rd
The following links will take you to a couple of videos worth a watch by a conservative. The Left is out to destroy life as we once knew it. This means a change for both those conservatives who identify as born again Christians and those conservatives who do not.
‘They don’t want you to think critically, they don’t want you to read and now they are removing books they deem “hate speech”. How long until the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are ruled hate speech or terrorist manifestos?’
‘After some noise was made on social media about possible techniques deployed by the Coca-Cola company in regards to their sensitivity training for employees, Jessie Jane Duff, Paris Dennard and Newsmax TV’s John Bachman discuss. – via John Bachman Now, weekdays at 12PM ET on Newsmax TV’
Whether one lives in the USA or Australia politics is pretty much the same. The Left has taken ahold of most of the pollies and they seem to determined to continue the path of national destruction. Professor David Flint writes that ‘Pilate’s contemptuous dismissal of truth echoes down the ages. Those who, like Pilate, wash their hands while authoritarians try to gag anyone they insist must not speak, ignore what distinguishes civilisation from the evil alternatives.
The search for truth is dependent on freedom of speech. As Robert Menzies warned: ‘Today’s truth is frequently tomorrow’s error…. If truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate – the untrammelled clash of opinion – must go on’.
Menzies practised what he preached. When novice backbencher and subsequently Democrat leader Don Chipp decided to give notice that he would cross the floor over some government bill, Menzies replied, ‘If you feel that way, my boy, you must follow your conscience.’ This freedom is at the very heart of representative democracy. As Burke explained, we choose our representatives for their judgment. Any restriction is contrary to the ‘whole order and tenor of our constitution’.
Craig Kelly has been ordered not to repeat scientifically endorsed views on medicines or vaccinations, a Sydney TV host even ordering him to ‘be quiet’.
Following the US mainstream media, no longer adhering to the adage that ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred’, journalists will too often insert some adjective like ‘baseless’ about something which a responsible media once reported with curiosity and without condemnation, such as the fact that banned medicines may still enjoy reputable scientific support or that allegations of electoral fraud are supported by mountains of evidence. Such journalists will also readily dismiss comment by reference to some non-existent standard such as ‘the’ science.
Rather than limiting themselves to desk-based reporting, such journalists could visit a court room. There they would often see expert witnesses called by both sides.
They would come to understand that scientific truth is determined neither by majority nor even consensus, as demonstrated when Australian scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that some gastric ulcers can be caused by a virus, Helicobacter pylori.
In the case of Craig Kelly, where the mainstream media have smelt blood, the Prime Minister unwisely surrendered just as he did over the National Anthem. Unsurprisingly, Kelly’s pre-selection is now in issue. On that surely it is time that our normally manipulated preselections be replaced by primaries where registered Labor, Liberal, etc., supporters in the relevant electorate or state actually decide who their candidates shall be.
Probably the strongest reason why there is a bi-partisan move to replace Craig Kelly, as there was with Trump, is that he embarrasses the politicians and their elite allies over the litany of burdens they impose on the people for which they will never have to answer.
Central to this is their endorsement not only of the increasingly discredited theory of man-made global warming but also both the Paris solution and the claim that the successors to the assorted dictators, thugs and dissembling politicians will deliver on their promises decades hence. Independent research suggests that at best this will barely reduce the temperature in 2100, saving about 2 per cent GDP at a cost of between 16 to 32 per cent of GDP. I doubt whether most politicians believe all this. If they did, they would not have ‘carbon’ footprints many times those of ordinary people, unless of course they are outrageous hypocrites.
Why then have they, as Alan Jones and Terry McCrann warned years ago, signed a national suicide note? What they and other elites want is for Craig Kelly and a few colleagues to stop reminding Australians of this. But ordinary Australians are not stupid. Only ten per cent of airline travellers buy ‘carbon’ credits, probably those elites who don’t themselves pay for their tickets.
As with their refusal to harvest water, as with their immigration programme designed to satisfy the fiction that the GDP is rising while wages are stable or falling, as with an education programme delivering declining standards, the politicians are running our great country into the ground. Hence their determination to throw anyone who exposes this out of parliament.
Meanwhile in America, Speaker Pelosi followed the answer given by the high priests when Pilate invited them to explain their case, ‘If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee’. There was need neither for evidence nor due process. The voice of Pelosi was sufficient. The so-called Senate trial is undoubtedly unconstitutional for any one of several grounds most of which have been mentioned in prior columns.
One arises out of reliance on Trump’s free speech-protected assertion that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
On that Time magazine has now confirmed the existence of a ‘conspiracy’ among a ‘well-funded cabal’ of ‘powerful people’ working together behind the scenes to ‘influence perceptions’, ‘change rules and laws’, ‘steer media coverage’ and ‘control the flow of information’.
They even admit to using the eight months of violent looting, burning and torching by Black Lives Matter to advance their agenda.
The key moment on the day of the election was 11pm. Trump was winning with a solid lead in the battleground states. In a Zoom call at that time, cabal architect Mike Podhorzer calmed conspirators by ‘presenting data’ to show a Biden victory was in hand. As it was.
Voting was then suspended in battleground states on the ruse there was a drainage overflow in one polling station.
Counting soon secretly resumed in the absence of Republican scrutineers. And as anyone with the slightest experience knows, this was obviously done for one reason and one reason only – fraud.
Biden’s vote suddenly advanced exponentially, massively and as Patrick Basham has demonstrated here, implausibly.
Rather than answering the mountain of evidence Donald Trump’s lawyers subsequently assembled, its existence was denied by the mainstream media with social media punishing anyone who mentioned it. Despite that, Trump still strikes terror into the hearts of the elites. He and anyone considering following him must be silenced.‘https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/02/kellyleo/
Facebook has taken a back seat for me as far as social media is concerned. However, I do go to a few other’s Facebook pages just to see what they are saying. This morning I was going to Australian politician Craig Kelly’s Facebook when the image below appeared not allowing me to view his page. I don’t even remember posting this but was amused that Facebook has ‘Community Standards’ on the China virus and what I had put on in September last year was ‘misinformation’. So, Facebook know true INFORMATION and MISINFORMATION when it comes to the China virus!!! Well, thank you Facebook for letting me know as hopefully this information will be now published via this blog. PLEASSE SAHRE!
Facebook is a Leftist Marxist information stifling social media organization! As a conservative I am using Facebook and YouTube less and less due to their Marxist leanings! However, what is really scary is what will the next ten years bring? After a fraudulent 2020 election and the world seemingly asleep at the wheel what else can we expect? As Allum Bohari said in his November speech to Hillsdale College ‘…Big Tech doesn’t just mean control over online information. It means control over news. It means control over commerce. It means control over politics. And how are the corporate tech giants using their control? Judging by the three biggest moves they have made since I wrote my book—the censoring of the New York Post in October when it published its blockbuster stories on Biden family corruption, the censorship and eventual banning from the Web of President Trump, and the coordinated takedown of the upstart social media site Parler—it is obvious that Big Tech’s priority today is to support the political Left and the Washington establishment.’ He continued to say that ‘We know, for example, that Google reduced the visibility of Breitbart News links in search results by 99 percent in 2020 compared to the same period in 2016. We know that after Google introduced an update last summer, clicks on Breitbart News stories from Google searches for “Joe Biden” went to zero and stayed at zero through the election. This didn’t happen gradually, but in one fell swoop—as if Google flipped a switch. And this was discoverable through the use of Google’s own traffic analysis tools, so it isn’t as if Google cared that we knew about it.’
My blog is a SMALL cog in the scheme of things but I wonder how long my blog will be allowed any visitors AT ALL!
What exactly is hate speech? How inclusive is an inclusive environment? What is negative behavior in writing? Those are questions Wikipedia must have the answers to as ‘The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit behind the world’s biggest online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has announced a new code of content for Wikipedia that prohibits “hate speech” and “false” information on the site and also heavily promotes identity politics.
Under the new code of conduct, Wikipedia contributors are expected to “respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves” and this includes “the use of people’s preferred gender identity using distinct names or pronouns.”
“Our new universal code of conduct creates binding standards to elevate conduct on the Wikimedia projects, and empower our communities to address harassment and negative behavior across the Wikimedia movement. Through this effort, we can create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for contributors and readers, and a more representative source of knowledge for the world.”
In addition to encouraging contributors to use people’s preferred pronouns, gender identities, and more, the new policy also bans a range of “unacceptable” behaviors which include:
“Hounding” which is defined as “following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their otherwise satisfactory work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them.”
“Trolling” which is defined as “deliberately disrupting conversations or posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke.”
“Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language” which is defined as speech or language that is “aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs.”
Of course, all of these so-called unacceptable behaviors are based on the subjective interpretations of those enforcing the rules. Only the contributor can know the intent of their post. But if the enforcers decide that a contributor intended to act in bad-faith, disrupt, discourage, or humiliate via their posts, then they’ll face sanctions.
The code of conduct also has several new prohibitions on what the enforcers deem to be “biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content.” These prohibitions include a ban on “systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view.”
Ironically, this ban on so-called false information points to one of the biggest areas for which Wikipedia is often criticized. The platform prevents certain sources from being cited which often means that the remaining sources that can be cited will favor specific interpretations or points of views.
A cursory glance of the introductory paragraph on many Wikipedia pages will also show a clear favor towards interpreting the facts to support a specific point of view. For example, the introductory paragraph for Big Tech platforms often focuses on neutral factors such as the platform’s history, functionality, and founders while the introductory paragraph for alt-tech platforms usually focuses on criticism and negative media coverage.
While these new rules claim that they’ll stamp out biased, false, and inaccurate content, they’re based on the subjective interpretation of those enforcing the rules. And to date, those who have enforced the rules have allowed certain points of view to be selectively amplified for years via the introductory paragraphs on Wikipedia pages.’ https://reclaimthenet.org/wikipedia-new-code-of-conduct/
Diversity!? One would think that any organization, whether Christian or not, would desire to have the most qualified to run the organization! Well, qualifications don’t seem to be the only criteria.
‘A look at the 50 largest U.S. ministries in the MinistryWatch database shows that executive team leaders—chief executive officers, presidents, and the like—are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.
Of the 50 nonprofits, seven are led by minority males and five are led by females. Only two companies are led by black men—one is African American and the other African. Three are led by Asian men and two by Hispanic Americans. The largest Christian nonprofit based in the U.S., World Vision, is led by a minority male. None of the female CEOs are women of color.’ For the whole article go to https://ministrywatch.com/christian-nonprofit-ceos-mostly-white-mostly-male/