Patriots in control?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (180)
sorted by:
Fuck DHS and all 3 letter agencies.
LETS GO BRANDON
You don’t think it’s more likely that somebody just reported the Tweet either directly to the agency or to Twitter, which referred it to LE?
I have no doubt that LEAs watch social media, but I doubt they require anything more complicated than community reporting to pick up a public tweet very clearly advocating violence against government facilities. Parsimony, and all.
Not sure why you're getting downvotes. This letter seems SUS, but the process you outline is exactly what happens sometimes. This is actually why people are against red flag gun laws. Maybe you have a bad day and need to vent. You're not going to actually do anything, you just need someone or something to vent to. Unfortunately someone sees it, reports you and suddenly you find yourself in a confiscation situation without due process.
Regardless of the motivations of the government using it, community reporting has always been a lynchpin of law enforcement. It’s super easy, costs nothing for the reporter, and basically utilizes the entire civilian population as an intelligence source.
As long as a civilian is convinced they’re stopping something bad from happening, they are a reliable security camera that requires nothing for LEAs to maintain, and works for all of them at once, for free.
Never required technology, but goodness did the internet make it so much easier.
Yep, I agree with you; I'm just saying we need to be careful when it comes to how citizen reporting is utilized. Ensuring there are proper checks and balances against improper confiscation of firearms, and making sure the system can't be abused, will ensure that more people will willingly be in favor of such a system. I remember growing up and seeing the Neighborhood Watch sign which was an iconic part of my childhood. Obviously if I was witnessing something strange, even I would want to send a notification to authorities. It just has to be respected by the government so there's not a further breach of trust, worse than there is currently.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m more liberal than anyone here when it comes to gun control stuff, and I also find red flag laws make me uneasy in many contexts. I am not against gun ownership in general, and believe in the right of people to defend themselves with guns, and do not like the idea of any right being taken away under loosey-goosey interpretations of what makes someone dangerous.
That being said, conservatives often point to mental health problems as the real culprit, not guns.
And down that path, we therefore logically see mental health professionals being the ones to flag people, and I know Q people tend not to trust psychologists for a number of reasons, including Q’s apparent warnings about therapists.
So if we can’t flag people with mental health issues because mental health professionals aren’t trustworthy diagnosticians, then I’m not really sure I know what the answer is supposed to be in keeping guns out of crazy people’s hands.
Yep, and to add to that point, every time there's a shooting and we find out that the FBI knew about all the "red flags" that were present but chose not to act -- heck, the Uvalde crisis is a perfect example of this -- we wonder just what the system is designed to do when the authorities did nothing when they could have. Of course, my theory will always be that they allow such events to happen on purpose, in order to push nefarious legislation aimed at curbing civil liberties.
There's a reason why the "always has been" meme is a thing. Governments allowing or grooming psychopaths to commit atrocities so they can prove a point about needing more government surveillance, intervention and restrictions in the name of "safety"? Color me shocked with my surprised Pikachu face!
My take on the "don't trust psychologists" statement is based off what I see currently from the industry, and how heavily it's been corrupted and politicized, especially pertaining to cultural issues such as transgenderism and other hot topics. Infiltration from the top-down means that we face an uphill battle. We must also look at the role that psychoactive medications like antidepressants, SSRIs, etc. play in committing crimes.
100% agree.
Don’t forget Nextdoor, too. Just got banned from that platform today.
Yeah, Nextdoor was heavy into censoring any plandemic wrong speak.
Lol. I got a 4 day suspension
Fuck the FCC!
The FCC won't let me be
They tried to shut me down on MTV
[These are the same picture]
): I graduated summa cum laude
Better than graduating sumtime cum lotta.
No, like they literally are verified ANTIFA.
If they weren't they'd already be in prison.
Exactly louder for the back row ,.Jan 6 patriots have been rotting for 2 years for less !
Even so, I'm not sure this is the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. We do have freedom of speech. I'm a bit bothered by this even though the recipient deserves it and is only experiencing the kind of government she's fighting for.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater should be legal. STARTING a fire in a crowded theater is only legal for leftists.
I get your sentiment. The reasoning being that inciting panic with a statement implying immediate danger in a crowd causes a stampede with causes death and injury. The person shouting it is responsible for those deaths. Inciting hurt feelings however, is not the same thing. The recipient in that case is responsible for reacting responsibly since there is no IMMEDIATE danger implied.
Exactly, it's not the words that are illegal, in that sense it's the 'call to action' that makes the difference, in that context the call to escape, which creates a hazard for the people trying to leave.
It wouldn't be a problem if there was a fire, in which case the call to action is justified.
At the end of the day its not the person who shouted fire that trampled the children and women on the way to the exit.
EXAXTLY. you are responsible- and so am I- for our actions, or reactions, to someone yelling "fire."
That shouting fire in a crowded theater argument is stupid and misleading. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is legal. Being protected from the consequences because muh First Amendment is not.
I’m curious as to why you believe that.
The reason that shouting fire is illegal is because people justifiably take extreme actions when they believe they’re in danger.
A person running from a fire might start breaking out a window or trample others in order to escape.
Imagine that you walk into a mall and shout, “he’s got a gun!” Then three CC civilians pull out guns and see each other, with guns.
You think the potential accidental violence resulting from this isn’t your fault? You have no responsibility for tricking people into an extreme action to defend their own life?
It is NOT illegal. Yes we get that weird have meaning, but ACTIONS have consequences. Nobody gets trampled by the words. Only by the feet of the reactionary who steps on someone's face/ribs. Are you admiring you can't control your reactions and are quick to join the stampeding mob?
Why that'd be like the president of the US calling all Muslims terrorists... would you really excuse all the other countries who bombed the middle east after 9/11 as just "justifiably take extreme actions" or are they all complicit in going along with an obvious ruse to ensure cheap oil and a continuity of their own power?
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" mantra came from an offhand analogy by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1919 Supreme Court decision, Schenck v. United States. That decision was overturned in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The Schenck decision also gave us the nebulous "clear and present danger" limit by the government on free speech/press/assembly which was replaced by the Brandenburg decision with "imminent lawless action." With the Brandenburg test, the government has to prove three elements: intent, imminence and likelihood.
It's definitely not the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I don't think it rises to the legal definition of incitement to riot either.
Is OP a leader that people look up to? How many people are going to go out and burn a government building down because of OP's tweet? If OP's tweet warrants such a threatening letter from DHS then why does Maxine Waters get a pass?
If MW's comments are allowed because she's a "Government Official" then does that mean it's acceptable for the Government to incite violence on a group of citizens?
People are more likely to follow Maxine Waters' call to violence than some random tweeter, because she is a "respected leader" so Waters needs to be even more careful about her words, but people have the responsibility to digest OP's words of anger, recognize them for what they are, and not do anything stupid, even though they may want to. On a side note, I wonder what OP would think if she found out many MAGA people are actually in agreement with her regarding her reaction to the letter?
That's what I wonder.
After all, they are into arson, so it is possibly not an idle threat.
So... could have been me and I'm pureblooded patriot.
Homeland security is a corrupt agency
I'm having problems accepting this as legitimate. I'm sorry, it just seems like something the Bee would write as satire.
Me too, especially since they reference a US 'statue' at the end.
...and no signature.
Good eye pede! It's a fake!!
I just scanned this girl's TL and this tweet isn't there. Also she's a nasty whore with an only fans account who constantly bemoans her lack of happiness & mental health while also telling everyone how great her new bf is. Trash.
It's stuff like this that gives me a hard time believing we're on a correctable course in this society.
It's also why I'm growing increasingly blackpilled on the prospect of finding a suitable, moral woman to bond with. Never used to worry about if a girl I was with was moonlighting as a prostitute. It sucks for me because I'm not the biggest social butterfly so whenever someone suggests I go do a group activity to find a potential dating opportunity, I immediately mentally recoil.
You've got to put yourself out there. Be your AUTHENTIC, HONEST SELF and you will attract same, faster than you can imagine. Don't just look for a hottie. Find a hottie and then find out if your compatible. THEN ask for her number. The good news? Based chicks are the hottest :)
Text is okay, a girl worth your time is already texting a couple other would-be suitors. Just don't be the one who's always texting boring shit like "hey, how's it going?
Yup, this is me exactly. Except my friend group already is married with children, so I'm in a crappy spot. Can't relate with normies anymore, was fired from my job so dating pool decreased to nothing. Not to mention living in a "blue" state means many ladies are jabbed. The cherry on top is, I'm almost at the end of my most viable mating age.
While it's probably too late for me, I've recently come to Christianity and joined a church. If God still has someone on my path, the best bet for an uncorrupted partner is going to be there.
If you're 30 or under, you've still got plenty of time. Once the TGA occurs, it's going to start a huge course correction on uncorrupting society.
Yeah bro, minus the job point (I held out and won), this is where I'm at. I live in the bluest of blue areas in WA state, and I don't get out much these days.
I used to hit the bars in my area for karaoke during pre-COVID times, but finding women in those environments always has been a not-great idea. The added threat of rampant STD's makes today's dating scene comparable to walking through a Cambodian minefield.
I continue praying to God, but I feel like he's already given me opportunities that I've either missed, or squandered. The problem is, I'm a blind-ass mofo when it comes to seeing the signs. Something will eventually come along, I know it... it's just about timing, I guess.
Plot twist: it's probably safer to have sex with a Cambodian prostitute IN a Cambodian minefield...
Your future wife is right now making posters for the Trump Rally she's going to. And that's where you'll meet her.
Absolutely
Go with a Filipina. They, generally, are still traditional in a lot of ways.
Plus, you won't be able to understand a word she says, even if it's supposed to be English. Bonus!
The article states it's since been deleted, which would make sense if the story is true.
kek. "trash"
True but then again it is the Gubment
Um yeah stuck out like an elephant tusk.
Lady Liberty doth protest.
This is the second version of this I've seen. No way it's real.
Regardless, it's being passed off as real.
https://jezebel.com/four-cops-showed-up-at-a-texas-womans-home-over-her-ang-1849135781
Archived link - https://archive.ph/CAaHq
And you trust that site for reporting the news?
Check out some of the headlines.
I don't trust any MSM site, especially Jezebel, for the news. Doesn't mean leftist morons don't, though.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/07/01/feds-show-up-at-home-of-north-texas-woman-who-posted-angry-tweets-after-roe-decision/
The agent has confirmed it.
This is why I use this site.
Half claim this is fake, but a fellow pede does the legwork and gets to the truth of the matter.
Pretty much any news that gets posted in here that isn't explicitly pro-Awakening enough, or anti-Awakening enough, is instantly labeled as false by most no matter how true it is, it's just a reaction everyone here has, it's sad, but it happens. Anything that looks too good to be true, or too bad to be true, needs a second glance.
If this is a fake, she has most likely committed a federal crime in creating the document
^Not sorry. 😉
I support free speech no matter how stupid that speech may be. The gov't needs to butt out.
Yes, free speech, but the comment referenced in that letter is clearly incitement.
Saying something like, "the roe v Wade decision is fucking bullshit and this country is headed to hell because of these dickheads" is drastically different than calling for the slaughter of people and burning of buildings because of your ideological differences.
"Trump and anyone who supports him is a Nazi. Slaughter them all!! Burn every government building down!!!"
Maybe people disagree and think we should be able to say this type of thing and not have any consequences? I'm interested to hear, honestly.
I believe people should be able to say what ever they want.
However, I also believe that if we are held to account for anything we say or do, they should be too. It has been one sided for a long time, so stuff like this would be just desserts. If they don't like it, they can get some perspective and realize that they were wrong to suppress speech they didn't agree with.
Yeah that line of thinking is what people use to justify marginalization.
"Well black people were treated like crap, now it's whitty's turn"
How about instead we embrace INDIVIDUAL responsibility and stop buying into tribalistic bullshit. They haven't been given a pass they are simply used and exploited by those in power. Just because the dictator agrees with you doesn't mean you should cheer on the boot.
This whole movement accepts a plan that causes or allows death and destruction to awaken people, but you can't handle when the other side is laughed at for getting a slap on the wrist?
This truly is the new peak of clown world.
They need to learn their lessons in order to understand that suppressing people is wrong. That's the only way they'll ever come to your defense when they kick your door down.
In my case, I don't think this should happen but I am in favor of them being held to the same accountability that we have been forced into having for our speech; I would suggest you get over it.
We need to be consistent. If we argue for removing censorship from public communications, it must apply for everyone, including the misguided fools on the other side. There is no threat expressed and so this should not be censored.
Incitement to violence, perhaps?
How long before "I dislike x" becomes "incitement of violence"
Incitement is already unprotected speech outside the scope of the first amendment and it has elements. (1) intended to produce imminent lawless action, and (2) likely to produce such action.
The "imminency" requirement is the most developed term in modern jurisprudence.
So let's say some glowie gets a bunch of white supremacists together at a rural ranch and says we should "take revenge on the government if they continue to suppress the white race", that's not incitement because of no imminence.
However, if the KKK got in front of a black rape suspect's home and they say "let's burn down his house!" then that's incitement.
To answer your question more directly, as long as courts view what a "reasonable" person would likely construe as calling to violence, then we're good. But you have a point long term if we lose a culture war, because societal standards about what is "likely to produce" such action can change
Maybe it was the "burn down every federal building right now and slaughter them all" part that seemed threatening, I dunno
Then you do an inquiry. You don't threaten someone for "unwelcome remarks" and tell them to cease and desist. Unless you can prove the threat, this is massive overstepping.
Continuum from frustration to hatred to aspiration to planning and action. This is way at the beginning side. Remember, people prove every day that they have a right to be stupid...sad but notillegal
Right, this is not illegal because it is not personal or focused on a small number of targets; and there is no credible data suggesting the actual ABILITY to carry out the act exists.
That would be a LOT of burning and slaughtering; a person would need an organization and tons of heavy equipment and fire accelerant chemicals, etc.
Also not judged as illegal because it is coming from the Left...
Yep! Freedom means standing up for those you disagree with. If this letter is real, then we need to stand in solidarity with the person being harassed by the government. Even though I don't agree with them, I support their right to speak it without fear or intimidation. This person needs to get a civil rights attorney and sue for harassment.
This.
Agreed. Even if this was real, it would be because democrats are tyrants and dont tolerate rebellion, even from antifa.
Tho some pedes above figured out this is probably fake.
I wonder if Kathy Griffin got this kind of wake up call when she took a picture holding President Trump’s head? I also wonder if Madonna got this wake up call when she said: "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House".
Exactly!
They forgot to say "in Minecraft."
I was about to comment the same thing, kek.
Patriots intimidating people are "patriots" I will stand against. This is blatant censorship.
They should be attacking anybody for free speech, but at least this is proof that they do come after the left. But not as often as the right.
Its proof that they decide what free speech is. Which they do not have the power to do.
^^^^this^^^^
Communists get a warning letter while Patriots get a no knock raid at 3am for far less.
I would frame this letter for how great it is.
My guess? Fake and gay. Why? Because I'm pretty sure it's STATUTE, not STATUE. but hey, everybody has typos. Also, to my untrained eye, the closing is at a different angle than the body but the paper is straight.
I don't think this proves anything at all about Patriots being in control.
Is DHS saying that posting on Twitter is the equivalent of contacting a government agency? Someone let Elon know for his defense!
Kind of happy to see the other side getting it. Look at what has happened to Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. If one of them or someone well-known in the Conservative community had posted threats, there might not have been a note. Instead, DHS would have shown up at 4am armed and banging on the door making as much noise as possible. Oh and CNN would just be there as if by magic.
Lefties better start cozying up to that Constitution.
What I find interesting is she gets a megaphone to whine about how her free speech is being stifled.
did anyone get a similar visit for threatening Thomas, and putting bounties out for service staff to report the location of the justices?
Apparently this is actually a “real” amplified, planted story.
https://jezebel.com/four-cops-showed-up-at-a-texas-womans-home-over-her-ang-1849135781
https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-visits-woman-over-her-tweet-about-roe-v-wade-reversal-1721236
I guess getting a dose of not having true Freedom of Speech. But then again, you cannot yell fire in a theater if there is not one.
Since it's allegedly a US statu(t)e... Are the SCOTUS protestors all getting warning letters, too? Just curious...
Send back a letter that just says:
“I sincerely apologize and retract those statements. They were the wrong choice of words. However, kindly go fuck yourself, Redcoat.
Thank you for your concern and addressing this matter.”
FBI came knocking on mine. Hi, Mike 👋
Whatever happened to "I disagree with your conclusions, but I uphold completely your right to state your opinion."? #GovernmentGoneWild
I think you should read 18 USCS 115. The way I read it, it states what can happen if someone should act on what you said. No one did, so this was a threat to shut you up. It is best that you have this examined by a real attorney.
I see, so leftists suddenly fear government overreach when it's directed at them. Who'da thought?
Real or not? Depends if they shot her dog or not.
Would have been hard not to reply
What if I just say "Fuck you goddamn pigs" and leave out the burning and slaughtering?
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to rationally take that as a credible threat. I couldn't possibly be expressing a real desire to have sexual intercourse with all of you, whom I don't even know, and many of whom are of the wrong gender or sexual preference.
And, if I said "Fuck you goddamn pigs," and then you took "Fuck you goddamn pigs" as a personal threat, that would mean you were admitting that you are in fact goddamn pigs. Which would certainly be an unwarranted insult...to actual livestock pigs.
So I assume it will be OK for me to reply "Fuck you goddamn pigs," then? I'm eagerly awaiting your goddamn reply.
Fuck you goddamn pigs,
Wednerd
Wow all the time, why?
Jealous incel?
In the future the democrats will redefine something like “coffee” as a hate word and all who says coffee will get a letter as this. I get it. This person is a lefty and needs to wake up. Well very few of them will ever. They are like those who harden their hearts. Yet they are craft with receding words. Just sayin
Agree with Mattie Daddy or not, this is a chilling suppression of free speech. Those government agencies and buildings have armed security. A few words on twitter are not going to seriously scare any of them. This is pure intimidation.
Well this is good, however the "harassing" part should be excluded as it is subjective language. Only "direct threats or incitements" something like that I could see, but not "harassment". That's just one step away from "hate", which is even MORE subjective and currently has the UK muzzled like dogs.
Freedom of Speech was intended to disallow the repression of expression of ideals/beliefs and opinions. It does not protect you from causing mayhem by alarming people over a non-existent threat that causes a panic. It does not protect you from inciting violence against another person or group of persons. It does not protect you from expressing threats of violence or intent of violence against others or even of yourself. No matter what people think about these expressions of violent threats, it WILL draw attention to you and MAY result in an investigation and possible arrest. Voicing this type of threat is an indication of an unstable mind or, at the very least a very immature mind. If you make these statements and have the ability to carry the threat out, you will be considered a possible threat. Regardless of what some may think that all government is bad, the government is simply a group of people. Many of the people working for the government are conservative and freedom loving and serve a specific purpose that does not entail the infringement of rights of our fellow citizens. If you were to make a statement about the attractiveness of my daughter or son and expressed the desire to sexually assault them, it would be very concerning to me, especially if you live in the same region. If you are one of those people that believe that all statements made by anyone should be completely protected, perhaps you should consider the scenario above. If that statement doesn't resonate with you, consider Islamic extremists expounding on the need to wage Jihad on private citizens within US borders. Explaining the most effective weapons and tactics to use and how to build them to disrupt and kill innocent civilians. If you think that the government should not investigate these statements to determine credibility or capability, then you are definitely more libertarian than I. I believe that people have the ability to say anything they want, but I also believe that there is accountability for actions, including speech.
and one more thing... If this letter is real, it is a further indication that our education system is failing.
Daaaannnnnggg
Patriots? I don't think so. If this was about January 6th they would have gotten a no knock warrant and had their door busted in at 4am. Instead, they get a friendly warning. Sounds more like they were protected than threatened in any way.
Source- https://jezebel.com/four-cops-showed-up-at-a-texas-womans-home-over-her-ang-1849135781
Archived link - https://archive.ph/CAaHq
I’d say this is an infringement of free speech… but they said a few things that are absolutely threats 🤣
What’s it like being silenced ya bum!?