I know, you are sick and tired of everyone flippantly throwing around the word ‘Nazi.’ So am I. The frivolous use of the word as a catch-all slur for anyone liberals disagree with is annoying. However, real neo-Nazis do exist. A lot of them are in Ukraine.
Point of clarification since people are inevitably going to take this out of context.
Ukraine is not a Nazi country. Most of the country is very tolerant. In the east, however, there are Nazis. Not as many as Putin would have you believe, but they are there and they have committed war crimes against the people Putin is claiming to protect.
Interesting that the Russians are alleging the Ukrainians are Nazis and now the Western media is declaring Russian allies as Nazis. Zhoga is called a neo-Nazi in dozens of Western media outlets after he was killed. No one provides any actual evidence of this.
For the record, Zhoga has been accused of and appears to have admitted to war crimes. He’s no peach. But is he a neo-Nazi?
I can’t find anything about Zhoga or the Sparta Battalion (who DM refers to as a ‘mob’) being Nazis. I have found a LOT about them accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis and fighting against those Nazis murdering their people.
In fact, even in the Daily Mail’s article accusing Zhoga of being a neo-Nazi, they printed that the announcement of his death accused the Ukrainians of being Nazis.
Sparta fights for the DPR. Denis Pushilin is the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). He announced the death of Zhoga on his Telegram.
He was mortally wounded while ensuring the exit of civilians from this settlement. Scouts “Sparta” covered the evacuation of civilians, mostly women and children. The Nazis opened fire on them…
The Nazis in this announcement are the Ukrainian forces. The head of the DPR said Zhoga was killed protecting civilians from the Nazis who opened fire on the civilians.
The Daily Mail published that nearly halfway down their article after they accused Sparta of being neo-Nazis. Daily Mail either missed it, as did everyone else repeating the claim, or they are intentionally lying to you.
It gets worse …
Look at this screengrab from just a few minutes before I wrote this article.
That’s the Wikipedia page on the Sparta Battalion. There is no reference to them being neo-Nazis in the entire article. Zero results for ‘neo’ for ‘Nazi’ and for ‘white.’ No one has considered Sparta Battalion to be neo-Nazi before now when it suits the Western powers that be to push that narrative.
Now, look at this from the search results for that exact same Wikipedia article:
The search results for that Wikipedia page claim Sparta are neo-Nazis but the actual article doesn’t … yet.
Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”
“If only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” he said.
“There’s a global enforcement of a certain point of view on issues like COVID,” he insisted.
The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion is widely recognized as neo-Nazis. The US government attempted to ban any funding of them with Ukrainian aid packages. A ban that was removed for … reasons.
The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion and the DPR Sparta Battalion are enemies. Are the neo-Nazi groups fighting each other? Why does Sparta constantly refer to their enemies as Nazis in a derogatory way?
It seems that Sparta Battalion and their former leader Vladimir Zhoga are not actually neo-Nazis but are, in fact, in a war against actual neo-Nazi units.
Sidebar: The AZOV Battalion used to be a privately funded gang that was funded by rich oligarchs but was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard by former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko praised AZOV as:
“These are our best warriors,” he said at an awards ceremony in 2014. “Our best volunteers.”
Remember that story? The mayor of Konotop appealed to the city and asked if they wanted to fight or surrender. They chose to fight. I even covered it on my show. A harrowing story of bravery, right? What I didn’t know is that the mayor being lionized by the West is a for-real neo-Nazi.
His name is Artem Semenikhin. He’s the mayor of Konotop in the North East of Ukraine.
According to reports, Semenikhin drives around in a car bearing the number 14/88, a numerological reference to the phrases “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and “Heil Hitler”; replaced the picture of President Petro Poroshenko in his office with a portrait of Ukrainian national leader and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera; and refused to fly the city’s official flag at the opening meeting of the city council because he objected to the star of David emblazoned on it. The flag also features a Muslim crescent and a cross.
Now, when I covered the story of Konotop’s ‘surrender or die’ predicament, I didn’t know who Semenikhin was. I could forgive PBS for the same except they tipped their hand.
You see, behind Semenikhin in the PBS story is a painting of Stepan Bandera. Bandera was a Ukrainian politician and Nazi sympathizer during WWII. PBS knew that and that’s why they blurred the painting out.
Here’s the picture blurred on the wall of Stepan Bandera:
When Russian troops came into the office of the mayor of Konotop, Ukraine, he escorted them out and made sure they drove away.
I suppose you could say PBS didn’t do this intentionally and it was just a standard blur filter that streamers use all the time, but I’d find that claim dubious, at best.
Just so we are clear … Western media seems to have falsely accused a pro-Russian commander and his whole unit of being neo-Nazis when they are actively engaged in hostilities with a confirmed neo-Nazi unit while PBS knowingly put neo-Nazi on their programming and hid a painting of a well-known Nazi ally hanging on his wall while they did it.
Good thing the West has banned all Russian media outlets so their narrative doesn’t get challenged like with so many fake Ukrainian stories exposed so far in the conflict.
For years now, I have repeatedly made the case that many politicians who quote or cite the U.S. Constitution have never actually taken the time to read the document. This is in spite of the fact that any U.S. citizen can obtain a free copy from their congressional representative through a simple visit to his/her office. You’d think that an elected official who distributes this document might at some point actually pick it up and see what all the fuss is about.
Over the past several elections, many politicians have tried to corner the market as the ‘Constitution guy’ in order to secure votes. Unfortunately, they’re just as ignorant of the wording in the US Constitution as the next guy. They always get caught misquoting it, or providing their own interpretation of what the founding fathers were ‘really’ thinking.
My biggest issue comes from the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and is known as the “Reserved Powers” amendment. Why? Because it reserves powers, of course. Many listeners have asked me over the years why Congress gets away with their unconstitutional power grabs when the Tenth Amendment clarifies their limited authority quite well. I always have the same answer. Members of the US Congress believe THEY are “the people.”
Congressional representatives have determined that the Tenth Amendment’s “or to the people” provision is actually talking about THEM. The people elected them, so they are the people’s representatives. Therefore, they are the people.
The more I talk about this issue, the more examples surface to prove my point.
See I Told You So
KXNT’s Ciara Turns attended the recent health care town hall held by Dina Titus (D-NV) and got to speak with Rep. Titus for a few minutes. During their conversation, Ciara asked Titus what part of the US Constitution granted the federal government the authority to intrude on the private sector as it is doing with health care reform. The response: “The Tenth Amendment.”
Here’s the video of that exchange:
See, I told you so.
Titus said that the Tenth Amendment “allows anything not prohibited in the first nine amendments to be done by states or by government.” That is a direct quote from video taken at the public event.
Titus then went on to say that the US Constitution was a document that was “written to be flexible over time.” After which she went on to argue against freedom of speech by citing the example of yelling fire in a theater and some other nonsense. Those darn strict constructionists!
Looks like the whole ‘living, breathing document’ theory is alive and well in Nevada politics. Titus completely ignores the way in which our constitution is actually designed to be flexible – and it is. The flexibility exists in that a constitutional amendment to the Constitution can be proposed, and then ratified – not in the ability to reinterpret the words written by our founding fathers. To amend the document requires a ¾ approval from state legislatures, or the approval of a constitutional convention. So: it is flexible, but only after tremendous effort.
Rep. Titus believes that the Tenth Amendment grants the federal government the authority to address health care the way it is doing. She is misguided, and this is evident in her inability to cite the meaning of the Tenth Amendment correctly in her discussion with Ciara. (Wasn’t she a political science professor?)
For the record, the Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Notice it says that authority reverts back to the states, or “to the people” … not to government. Nor does the Tenth Amendment apply only to the first nine amendments, as Titus seemed to indicate. This is where my statement that Congressmen believe they are the people is relevant. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip when she said government instead of people.
Two’s Company
Today, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) stated that the US Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ clause granted the government the authority to require American citizens to buy health insurance.
Funny … the General Welfare clause is not in the Tenth Amendment. Someone should tell Dina Titus. It would seem these two Democrats can’t agree on what part of the US Constitution grants them the authority to impose mandated health insurance. In other words, they are grasping at straws. Let’s hope they prick their fingers on a needle instead.
Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes. It does not allow for Congress to mandate the purchasing of any item, good, or service. You can read it here.
Now what did the Tenth Amendment teach us earlier about authority not granted to the federal government by the Constitution? It is supposed to revert to the states, or to the people. And, just like Titus: Hoyer believes he is the people.
Three’s Not A Crowd, It’s The Forming Of A Pack
In my last interview with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), which got national attention, I brought up the fact that Congress was passing unconstitutional bills. He was perplexed and asked which were unconstitutional. I began bringing up the retroactive legislation Congress was enacting in dealing with the AIG bonuses. Again, he was perplexed and asked how those were unconstitutional.
Now, before I go further, we have to understand that he is the Majority Leader in the US Senate. He’s the highest ranking official in the more prominent of the two houses of our federal legislature. Shouldn’t he be able to understand these issues? It is, after all, his job.
I answered Reid’s question by stating that Congress had violated the Ex Post Facto clauses. To which he responded that, no, they didn’t. Here we go again. Another member of our US Congress who doesn’t understand basic constitutional law. I’d give you a big “SURPISE!” here, but somehow a “ho-hum” feels more appropriate.
Ex Post Facto laws are governed by two clauses in the US Constitution: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. These clauses forbid Congress from passing retroactive legislation. Which is exactly what Congress was doing at the time I interviewed Reid, soon after he went on tirade about how evil AIG was for those bonuses. And before I asked him about this issue.
In 1798, in the case of Calder v Bull (3 US 386), the US Supreme Court ruled:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
The Pandemic Is Upon Us
In recent years the constitutional ignorance, or bemoaning – take your pick – from elected officials has become much more common and mainstream.
I’m reminded of Pittsburgh Councilwoman, Tonya Payne, who last November gave a statement about an unconstitutional bill just passed by the Pittsburgh City Council requiring a citizen to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours or face a fine. She said:
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? This is what’s right to do.”
Damn that pesky piece of parchment!
While my citations here are just a few recent examples and center on Democratic officials, this problem is in no way unique to Democrats. Republicans are ‘almost‘ just as guilty.
When you ask a conservative to name a Republican who respects and adheres to the Constitution, you will likely get Newt Gingrich’s name. But I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs for years to beware of this man. He is a fraud. Finally, some are starting to heed my warnings. My good friend Mark Levin is among them.
Gingrich defended William Jefferson (D-LA) when the FBI raided his congressional office. Jefferson is the guy who hid his bribe money in his freezer, took over rescue equipment after Hurricane Katrina so he could rescue his personal belongings, and was still promoted by Pelosi.
Gingrich said the FBI raid violated the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. Gingrich would argue repeatedly on TV and radio that the FBI has no right to raid any congressional office … no matter the crime being investigated, simply because they were a part of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution disagrees with him, and so did the US Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the search did not in fact violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court also had previously ruled that such a search is not unconstitutional, but Newt apparently couldn’t care less about either.
The Speech and Debate clause is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, and it reads as follows:
“Sec. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Jefferson was being investigated for a felony, and was eventually convicted.
In the case of Williamson v. United States (1908) the Supreme Court wrote:
“It is not asserted that it has ever been finally settled by this court that the constitutional privilege does not prohibit the arrest and punishment of a member of Congress for the commission of any criminal offense. The contention must rest, therefore, upon the assumption that the text of the Constitution so plainly excludes all criminal prosecutions from the privilege which that instrument accords a congressman as to cause the contrary assertion to be frivolous.”
Until the American people begin to hold their politicians accountable for their meandering ways, we are doomed to live out Lord Christopher Monckton’s eulogy for the United States. Lord Monckton was speaking about the UN Climate Change Treaty on Oct. 14, 2009 when he said:
“Thank you America. You WERE the beacon of freedom for the world. It is a privilege to merely stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free.”
