Ray Epps is a Democrat agent provocateur

#J6, dems, J6-Demsurrection, L2, ,

Ray Epps is likely a Democrat agent provocateur, not an FBI agent or asset. 

The evidence:

  1. Ray Epps’ actions went far beyond what an FBI agent or asset would be allowed to do. See below.
  2. Ray Epps was placed on the FBI’s WANTED list on January 8 and scrubbed from it only after he was officially identified by the New York Times, on June 30, 2021. This strongly suggests that the FBI did not initially know of him.
  3. The absence of known connections between Ray Epps and the FBI, a year after his identity was established, also suggests that he is not a fed.
  4. MSM coming to the defense of Ray Epps in a glowing article (“Ray Epps has suffered enormously in the past 10 months as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him…” — NYT, July 13, 2022) is highly suspicious. 

Continue reading Ray Epps is a Democrat agent provocateur →

J6 Timeline of Police Actions

#J6, 18 USC Ch. 115, dems, J6-Demsurrection, L2, , ,

2023-03-13 update: the number of MPD is increased to 1000, in as stated in the book of Chief Sund; that bolsters the argument.

2022-09-20 update to the timeline: added that the USCP started firing chemical munition into the crowd at 1306. 07-14 update to the timeline: added Ray Epp at 1250. 07-13 update to the timeline: added that FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich dispatched a FBI tactical teams to the Capitol at 1420.

Almost a year and a half of heavy-handed, one-sided, Democrat investigations into the Jan 6 events have not turned up any evidence of significant planning or preparation of violence by Trump supporters. It is therefore time to look at the situation from another perspective.

Only Democrats stood to gain from a violent disruption of the J6 joint session of congress. This session was the only way for Trump supporters to present the evidence of fraud and debate the electoral slates in question, and the only path that could have resulted in Trump’s victory.

The Capitol police (USCP) and the DC police (MPD) were  ultimately under the command of Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser, respectively. Here is a summary of the security activities of these Dems-commanded forces: Continue reading J6 Timeline of Police Actions →

Big Tech took part in J6 Democrat Coup

#J6, Big Tech, dems, J6-Demsurrection, L1, , ,

Only the Dems were interested in violent disruption of the January 6 joint session of the Congress. This post analyzes the mass deplatforming of President Trump by Big Tech on that day.

Twitter and the rest of Big Tech were on the side of the Dems. Contrary to the Dems’ narrative, Trump’s Jan 6 tweets called his followers for peace and calm. Continue reading Big Tech took part in J6 Democrat Coup →

Big Tech Suppresses Kids Health Damage Info

google, healthcare, L1, OII, tech against kids, ,

Google has been funding selected news outlets since at least 2013. This was done to garner their support for Google’s massive theft of third party content from almost all websites. Facebook later joined Google in further funding mostly the same news outlets. This money also buys the media’s positive coverage of Big Tech and protection from non-leftist criticism.

The Guardian, one of Google’s top beneficiaries,  used to periodically publish articles to suppress any inquiry into the damaging mental health effects Big Tech‘s products have on children. Continue reading Big Tech Suppresses Kids Health Damage Info →

Big Tech platforms run on Users Private Property – First Amendment Protects Users

anti-social media, Big Tech, BT legal, L1, ,

The First Amendment protects citizen’s speech , not the Big Tech platforms who interfere with that speech. Contrary to what they claim, the platforms run on their user’s private property.

Re: NetChoice v. Paxton

● The Platforms cannot Claim First Amendment Protection for Their Conduct on Consumers’ Property, including Consumers’ Content and Private Information

● The Platforms are Consumer Services Providers, not Speakers

● Physical Access to Consumers’ Speech is NOT Permission to Editorialize

● The Platforms’ Terms of Service are Invalid

● The Platforms are NOT Even “Like Media”

● The Platforms are NOT Authorized to Access Consumers’ Computers for Editorializing

● The Platforms’ Apps are Physically Installed on Consumers’ Smartphones

● The Platforms are NOT Granted Copyright License for Editorializing

● The Platforms are contractors for the Texas government, which has multiple accounts with them. Texas has the right and obligation to protect its residents, interacting with these accounts, against discrimination by the platforms.

SCOTUS-Platforms-v-Texas–Argument2  contains a more complete argument.

Originally published on 2022-06-02. Updated on 2022-06-08.