SimSez

🚨Peak Obama hypocrisy just hit different.🚨 Watching Barack Obama lecture President Trump about the “dangers” of weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents — with ZERO remorse for what his own side did — proves exactly what a colossal hypocrite he is. Here’s the actual record of lawfare they unleashed on Trump and Republicans: Obama laid the foundation: • Crossfire Hurricane: FBI launched a full counterintelligence op on the Trump campaign using the fake Steele dossier (Clinton-funded dirt). FISA abuse on Carter Page, spies in the campaign, illegal unmaskings. Obama was briefed. • IRS scandal: Conservative and Tea Party groups systematically targeted, harassed, and delayed for years while liberal ones got fast-tracked. Lois Lerner and the rest weaponized the tax code. Biden turned it into all-out war: • Four bogus indictments designed to bankrupt, gag, and jail Trump during the campaign — Manhattan hush-money zombie case, Georgia RICO election nonsense, Jack Smith’s two federal cases. • Coordinated raids, leaks, gag orders, and endless lawfare from DOJ, local Democrat prosecutors, and the White House. • Hunter Biden sweetheart treatment while Trump world got the full Gestapo. They tried to remove him from ballots, brand him a “convicted felon,” bankrupt him, and lock him up — all to rig the election. Then Obama has the nerve to lecture about “democracy” and “norms”? No apology. No sympathy for the victims. Just more gaslighting. This is why trust in institutions collapsed. Americans watched the Russia hoax, IRS abuse, two impeachments, and lawfare circus in real time — and they rejected it. Trump survived it all and won anyway. The American people saw through the weaponization of justice. Share this far and wide. The hypocrisy needs to be called out every single time. No more pretending. 🇺🇸 #ObamaHypocrisy #Lawfare #WeaponizedDOJ #TwoTieredJustice #TrumpWon #DeepStateExposed #AmericaFirst #HypocriteInChief

Pourquoi les intellectuels sont-ils si souvent socialistes ? Les intellectuels pourraient avoir un faible pour les théories qui ouvrent la porte à une forme d’ingénierie sociale, qui impliquent que les changements positifs doivent être impulsés par le haut, de manière verticale. Pourquoi ? Parce que si le progrès naît de la mise en place de la recette de la bonne société, alors les intellectuels sont les garants du bonheur de leurs concitoyens, investis d’une mission : orienter la société vers un avenir meilleur. En revanche, si le progrès advient surtout par le bas, par l’initiative spontanée d’individus, par la société civile, par le marché, alors les intellectuels doivent se limiter à un travail descriptif, et ne peuvent avoir d’influence significative, en tout cas pas d’influence positive significative. « L’idée de reconstruire entièrement la société, notait Hayek, séduit davantage l’intellectuel que les réflexions plus pragmatiques des tenants d’une amélioration graduelle de l’ordre établi. » Dans L’Opium des intellectuels, Raymond Aron raconte que si l’intelligentsia française, pendant la guerre froide, était plutôt hostile aux États-Unis, c’était justement parce que le pays avait enregistré d’immenses progrès grâce à l’entreprise individuelle de ses citoyens plutôt que par le biais d’une idée de génie (le communisme) appliquée à tous. [...] Thomas Sowell, lui, constate que les intellectuels ont tendance à étudier, décrire et s’enthousiasmer pour les périodes de l’Histoire où ont eu lieu des changements législatifs (nouveaux droits, acquis sociaux, etc.) dont ils imaginent pouvoir s’attribuer partiellement le mérite, mais semblent indifférents aux améliorations de la condition humaine, parfois plus significatives, imputables à la vitalité de la société civile (même lorsque ce sont précisément ces progrès qui rendent possibles les acquis sociaux des décennies suivantes). [...] Encore aujourd’hui, les sciences sociales ne se passionnent pas pour l’extraordinaire amélioration des conditions de vie en quelques décennies à Hong Kong, à Singapour, ou en Corée du Sud, permise par la réduction du poids de leurs gouvernements dans l’économie. Ce qui soulève une question : les intellectuels se disant attachés à la justice sociale ont-ils comme priorité l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux, ou bien l’affirmation de leur propre importance dans l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux ? « Ce qui préoccupe réellement les doctrinaires, écrivait Gustave Le Bon, ce n’est pas l’avènement du socialisme mais l’avènement des socialistes. » Dans la même veine, l’essayiste Vera Nikolski a montré que les intellectuels sous-estiment l’influence du progrès technique dans la libération de la femme (électroménager, pilule, avortement, augmentation générale de la productivité ayant dévalué l’importance de la force physique) et surestiment celle des idées égalitaristes. Il est aussi amusant de noter qu’au XIXe siècle, pendant que John Stuart Mill appelait les universités à former « des esprits capables d’améliorer et de régénérer la société », décrivant l’élite intellectuelle comme des « têtes pensantes », « en avance sur le reste de la société », « sans qui la vie humaine serait stagnante » , la révolution industrielle transformait radicalement la condition humaine. Elle était menée entre autres par Thomas Edison et Henry Ford, qui n’étaient presque pas allés à l’école, et par les frères Wright (inventeurs du premier avion), qui n’avaient pas le bac. [...] La discussion présente peut offrir une réponse à cette interrogation : comment expliquer la « tyranophilie » des intellectuels ? Pourquoi, tout au long du 20ème siècle, ont-ils affiché une telle complaisance pour les dictateurs de la pire espèce ? Réponse du philosophe Roger Scruton : « Les intellectuels sont naturellement séduits par l’idée d’une société planifiée, car ils pensent qu’ils en seront les responsables. » Selon l’anarchiste russe Bakounine, le but réel des intellectuels marxistes était l’instauration d’une « pédantocratie », c’est-à-dire un régime dans lequel les pédants (ici, les théoriciens marxistes) exerceraient les responsabilités. Le tort des démocraties libérales serait donc qu’étant libérales, elles « laissent une part à l’action spontanée de tous et de chacun, s’interdisent l’ambition de construire l’ordre social selon un plan et de soumettre l’avenir à leur volonté » (Aron). Si à l’inverse, le communisme a tant plu à l'intelligentsia, c’est peut-être car il s’agit, selon la formule de Jan Waclav Makhaïski, d’un « régime basé sur l’exploitation des ouvriers par les intellectuels ». Orwell, dès 1946, livrait la même analyse. Au Royaume-Uni, les intellectuels les plus favorables à Staline, écrivait-il, sont « en général des individus sans éclat, frustrés par le système […], avides de plus de pouvoir et de reconnaissance. Ces individus se tournent vers l’URSS et y voient, ou croient y voir, un système qui élimine la classe supérieure, maintient la classe ouvrière à sa place et accorde un pouvoir absolu aux gens comme eux. […] Leur désir inavoué : remplacer le socialisme égalitaire par une société hiérarchisée où l’intellectuel pourrait enfin s’emparer du fouet ». De retour d’un voyage à Cuba, Simone de Beauvoir, enthousiaste, a raconté la façon dont Sartre, elle-même et Fidel Castro ont arpenté l’île, notamment pour que ce dernier puisse « gronder » les paysans, leur « demander de faire mieux ». Un jour, ils sont passés devant des ouvriers qui construisaient un village. En un coup d’œil, Castro a discerné des défauts dans le projet architectural. Alors il « s’est jeté par terre de tout son long et il a dessiné sur le sable le plan d’un village ; on lui a apporté un bout de carton où il a recopié le plan. Les paysans l’ont acclamé : ils suivront ses indications. » Les ouvriers cubains, relate-t-elle avec ravissement, avaient « tout le temps la tête levée » pour voir si l’hélicoptère de Castro arrivait, avec l’espoir que celui-ci descende du ciel pour les éclairer de ses lumières. On ne peut donner plus belle métaphore de la verticalité. En lisant l’entretien où de Beauvoir dit toute son admiration pour la dictature cubaine, il est difficile de ne pas y déceler une forme de paternalisme intellectuel, une fascination romantique pour un modèle de société où une élite éclairée guide le petit peuple dans le droit chemin. Cela semblait d’ailleurs être l’un des fils directeurs de sa pensée politique. Quelques années plus tôt, elle se réjouissait que le régime maoïste, par son appareil de propagande, tienne le peuple « au courant des événements », « lui en explique le sens et les raisons » et « le forme politiquement ». Comme le notait Orwell, certains intellectuels ne voient pas « la révolution comme un mouvement des masses auxquelles ils souhaitent s’associer ; ils l’envisagent comme un ensemble de réformes que eux, savants, vont imposer aux autres, membres de l’ordre inférieur ».

Says the man who directed the creation of the Russia hoax 🔗odni.gov/index.php/news…

In 2016, the AG's office subpoenaed me and other top Fox News executives after it convened a Grand Jury and Federal fishing expedition against Fox. They went through our emails, flew me across the country, and interrogated us under oath. My legal fees alone were over $100,000. After a year, they quietly dropped it. No charges. No apologies.

@JasonJournoDC No surprise the CPUSA declined as the Democrats shifted left and adopted their planks.

💥NEW VDH: “I don’t even think it’s a Democratic Party. I don’t think we should even use that term anymore. It’s a Jacobin party … the 1992 and 1996 platforms under Clinton would be called racist and fascist! … This isn’t Democrats. This is something COMPLETELY different.”

BREAKING — AFL obtained new documents revealing Minnesota allowed THOUSANDS of voters to register under its “vouching” policy that allows people to register WITHOUT providing proof of residency, as long as a registered voter “vouches” for them. No proof. Just the honor system.

The DOJ's deadline to charge Fauci for lying under oath about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan is in 6 days. We can’t allow the statute of limitations to run out. He MUST be charged! Agree? RT.

Hilarious. The Michigan Democrat Convention is in disarray because they didn't use voter ID, and people voted who shouldn't. I mean, who would have guessed? w. statenews.com/article/2026/0…

@RichardGrenell California voters should take notes from Venezuela's opposition party, who in latest election tallied the result with enough independent rigour that they proved Maduro stole the election. CA Dems will steal this result in any way possible.

Carl Demaio deserves enormous credit for getting the voter ID initiative on the California ballot. He was relentless. He was focused for a very long time. We all must now support this initiative to pass voter ID in America’s largest state. This is an incredible moment for not just California, but for America. We need national money for this initiative. Changing California changes Washington, DC.

I urge you all to read this stack. It started in 2002, continued in 2027, and ended in 2021 open.substack.com/pub/allbetter/…

@AJMarquesMendes @sfliberty I think it does: young people, unmoored from religion, nation and shared civic pride, trained in nihilistic philosophy get attracted to a passionate, unified bloc no matter the actual content of the bloc's beliefs or actions. Belonging as wrapping for an Authoritarian project.

@sfliberty No sure if her analysis applies to the modern day bunch of leftists pro-pal? What do you think?

She escaped the Gestapo in 1933. Then she spent 18 years asking one question: What actually creates tyranny? Some would say ideology and propaganda. Others would point to a strongman seizing power. Her answer was something far more ordinary, and far more dangerous. 🧵

@sfliberty @threadreaderapp unroll

The truth is that lonely people don't evaluate political arguments on their merits, but on whether accepting them produces belonging. When a large enough portion of a population is atomized, the movement that offers the strongest sense of identity wins. Not the one with the best ideas, the most historically grounded arguments, or the most defensible policies. Arendt offered no political program. Her antidote? The reconstruction of voluntary bonds: real people, real places, real shared action in a common world.

I've said it from the beginning: lying to Congress is a felony. Destroying federal records is a felony. Advising others to destroy federal records is a felony. Fauci did all three. His adviser was just indicted. Fauci is next. The deadline to prosecute Fauci is May 11. The DOJ must act now. nypost.com/2026/04/28/us-…

While the Democratic Party is lying to the masses about the Supreme Court disenfranchising the Black vote, wealthy white liberal racists are funding that narrative. The largest conservative group in Chicago is bringing facts and solutions to help save our city. As you know, three of our members sued the Chicago Teachers Union. You would think local media would speak on it—especially when our First Amendment rights were violated for protesting the fact that our children are not proficient in reading and math, while being taught ideology that should not be in public schools from nursery through 12th grade. As we enter this third chapter, we need to be everywhere like the CTU. Even when CTU isn’t there, a sticker will be. CHICAGO FLIPS RED LLC has a goal of $100,000. We are on a mission to combat the lies and hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, give the younger generation the right to think for themselves, and make sure they have a safe place to come, ask questions, and register to vote. WE NEED ALL HANDS ON DECK.✨🌹🇺🇸 FlipsRed.com #ChicagoFlipsRed

Virginia Republicans tried to elect the first black female governor in the country last year. @vademocrats backed the wealthy white woman. @SenLouiseLucas backed the wealthy white woman. @SpeakerDonScott backed the wealthy white woman. @BarackObama backed the wealthy white woman. @NAACP backed the wealthy white woman. @VEA4Kids backed the wealthy white woman. Democrats treated a republican black woman like garbage because she was in the wrong party. So kindly spare us your ‘republicans don’t want black people to vote’ garbage.

@LeorSapir Agree. It's an example of the structural flaw in Progressivism: once you define radical change as your mode, no achievement is enough--you have to keep doubling down until your latest objectives start erasing earlier and more important gains.

This is a superb, must-read post. I will disagree with one point, however, which is not central to the thesis of the article but still very relevant. "The gender benders of the 1980s were doing something genuinely radical. They demonstrated that biological sex and gender presentation could be separated without requiring a claim about inner identity. Boy George did not claim to be a woman. Annie Lennox did not claim to be a man. The affirmative model collapses precisely this distinction, insisting that cross-sex presentation is evidence of cross-sex identity and that discomfort with gender norms is evidence of gender incongruence. The gender benders suggested something different and developmentally more liberating. They suggested that the norms themselves were the problem, not the person failing to fit them." The distinction being described here, even if possible in theory, seems to me very hard if not impossible to maintain in practice. I don't think it's an accident that Judith Butler, who helped lay the theoretical foundations for the erasure of sex, gained prominence in the context of 1980s gender bending culture. At some point, radical gender bending is bound to invite speculation followed by forthright criticism of the very idea that humans are sexually dimorphic and that sex is defined by the organization of the body toward production of one of two distinct gamete types. (Trans, in the contemporary sense, is the theoretically incongruent marriage of this idea to that of "gender identity," which evolves out of 1960s psychology.) That's not to suggest that deviation from traditional sex roles is bad or should be condemned. It can, of course, be liberating and, up to a point, good. And it must be tolerated in a society that values free expression. But the notion that a clear, bright line can be drawn and--crucially--enforced between David Bowie-like gender bending and what we've come to know as gender ideology is one I find unconvincing. The attitudes and institutions that permit the one will, with time, almost certainly compel the other.

@holland_tom It's a business maxim that 'Your standards = what you tolerate'. Applies to 'this is not who we are' as well. Yes, it is who we are. Unless we correctly identify and fix the problem.

It’s all too clear that a country in which Jews are attacked on the streets simply because they are Jewish, synagogues need to employ security, & anti-Semitic slogans & images are paraded through city centres or exhibited in art galleries is exactly what we’ve become.

@HotepJesus Socialism is Feudalism, complete with Lords and serfs. Only change is the Aristocrats are selected by the self-appointed elite for their loyalty to power and willingness to commit any atrocity on their behalf.

Socialism. Do you know what socialism REALLY is? It is the mechanism to bring about a despotic nation. It has two ranks. The socialist major, which consists of the controllers, and the socialist minor, which consists of the plebeians who are under the control of the socialist major. What the minor does not understand is that power aggregates at the top. The decision makers inside of the socialist major cabal will always enjoy a luxury that the minor will not, which means that inequality WILL persist, at extreme levels, in a socialist system. Maybe more than in a capitalist one. Another thing that the minor does not understand is that socialism is dependent on capitalism and socialists work for the capitalist major cabal. That's right. The socialist minor works for the benefit of the capitalist major. Because the capitalist major will always be impervious to socialist policies while those same policies crush their competition in the lower and middle class. To reiterate, the socialist minor is a tool to crush the downtrodden; they were supposed to assist. But what's worse than the socialist-minor? The BLACK socialist-minor. Physical slavery became antiquated so the cabal upgraded to a new form of slavery...Socialism. So, the black socialist minor is a tool to support the latest version of slavery. If socialism aggregates power at the top, and the government is mostly white, you cannot support socialism and fight white supremacy simultaneously. Socialist programs turn poor black populations into wards of the state. They become dependent on the milk from Lady Liberty's breast. Their ambition is stripped from them. But more devastating, their coalition is stripped from them. With government assistance taking care of the poor black population, there is less reason for the black population to organize for their benefit since the government feeds their poor. But if the black population fed themselves, they would be a unified unit. This is exactly what the socialist major does NOT want. Socialism is a parasite with two hosts. One is capitalism, and the other is the socialist minor. Without an oppressed class, there would be no argument for socialism, so in order for socialism to survive, there needs to be oppression. Now, ask yourself, "Who is incentivized to sustain oppression?" The socialist major is really a capitalist in sheep's clothing. They understand how socialism knocks over the ladder while people are trying to climb up. The socialist minor is kept ignorant, given just enough information to get the job done, but not enough to see how harmful their work is. All while the socialist major and capitalist major share the same penthouse suites. Now, I must commend the socialist minor for their intentions. Many of them mean well. They are simply misguided by their emotions and not rational. They are big in heart but small in mind.

@brad_polumbo @MikeNellis @WTSmith17 Fascism is whatever my political opposition is doing. Convenient and nihilistic.

.@MikeNellis: "I believe Donald Trump is a FASCIST!" @WTSmith17: "What is fascism?" @MikeNellis: "Abusing the federal government to go after your political opponents." @WTSmith17: "That's not fascism... I don't think you show what fascism is!" Watch more "Brad vs The World" on YouTube.

@MJTruthUltra The election fraud is crowdsourced. A system which can't prevent fraud, rarely prosecutes it and blocks analysis drives widespread malfeasance by default.

Gavin Newsom Is Suing to Block Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Security Order… now we know why. 🚨 Shakir Khan, a former Lodi city council member is heading to jail for stashing 40+ ballots at his home for the 2020 election. Investigators also found that he had registered 40+ ballots at his home and that he illegally registered 70+ voters using his own information. California elections are so rigged.. rumble.com/v79678o-califo…