The Four Color Media Monitor

"Well, they're correct that not everyone perceived as "weak" is truly innocent or deserves our backing in every way. The Soviet-communist autocrat Josef Stalin was only about 5'4 in height, and he was responsible for some of the worst policies and aggression in Eurasian history."

Don't forget Vladimir Lenin. He's barely taller than Stalin by one inch, and he helped set up a lot of those policies and even aggressions you referenced. In fact, going by Gary Paul Morson's article, he arguably was even MORE severe than Stalin in some respects.

And yeah, that's been a problem. I heard a lot of people compare the VC to David and us to Goliath, even using that as the basis for the Rebel Alliance. That's one reason I'm not too fond of the David vs. Goliath storyline right now, since it's too prone to be abused by the left via an extremely shallow take on the whole thing. If Nixon's book "No More Vietnams" is to be believed, George Lucas and his movie Return of the Jedi even resulted in America as a whole being left too terrified to project our strength, even to defend out allies. While I'm not sure that was Hanna and Barbera's intent with Tom and Jerry (unlike with George Lucas, where it most certainly was the intent), considering their later interest in the Smurfs cartoons (and apparently actually having then-Communist controlled Czechoslovakia animate a few episodes of Tom and Jerry, the ones most infamous for having more jarring realistic violence during the 1960s), it wouldn't be a surprise if they did go along with commie propaganda later on. Ironically, if we go by (admittedly leftist-run) TVTropes, people are actually more likely to sympathize with Tom right now, mostly because with the exception of maybe a couple of episodes, Tom generally ended up being an actual victim of Jerry harrassing him for little to no reason at all rather than actually deserving any comeuppance on his part, based on the Unintentionally [Un]Sympathetic trope pages.

Come to think of it, we have a very similar problem with "true beauty comes from within" messages such as those from Beauty and the Beast. By itself, the message isn't too bad, as there are some people who, while outwardly looking particularly good, are pretty terrible people deep down, and the inverse has people who look awful yet have better angels, and often times actually have their inner natures match up with their outer appearances. Unfortunately, there's a trope out there called "Beauty is Bad" that stuff like Beauty and the Beast and Shrek pushes that, as the name implies, generally claims that anyone who is beautiful on the outside is automatically ugly on the inside, while by contrast anyone hideous on the outside is automatically beautiful on the inside, have us sympathize with the physically ugly, and fall for them. This also is pretty dang damaging by itself especially when there are indeed people who are just as ugly on the outside as on the inside. Case in point, Jean-Paul Sartre. Girls fell in love with the guy, completely ignored his physical deformities. Let me put it this way, even ignoring his politics (which infamously included being responsible for Che Guevara's moniker of being "the most complete human being of the century"), Sartre was physically like Beauty and the Beast, yet his treatment of girls was more like Bluebeard stories. Just read this if you don't believe me: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html Maybe we should have an article on this particular subject. Not just with Beauty and the Beast, but also the Shrek series (which is arguably even worse).

Oh yeah, and here's the Morris article I alluded to: https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink Lenin's policies there... let's just say that if Grand Moff Tarkin tried to propose his Tarkin Doctrine to Lenin, the guy would have him at best sent to a Gulag if not executed on the spot solely because Tarkin implied in the description that they should have some restraint of the use of force rather than using maximum force as a default, not made Grand Moff.

You don't want to teach kids to side with bullies and aggressors.

Generally, kids are short weak people surrounded by older, bigger, stronger people telling them what to do, and disciplining them if they don't behave accordingly. Of course they are going to identify with the little guy! They are the little guy.

"You don't want to teach kids to side with bullies and aggressors.

Generally, kids are short weak people surrounded by older, bigger, stronger people telling them what to do, and disciplining them if they don't behave accordingly. Of course they are going to identify with the little guy! They are the little guy."

So are you saying kids should side with Penguin over, say, Batman? He's short and at the very least physically weak, so using your argument, Batman's a bigger and stronger person, and thus you ought to root against him, even though Penguin is closer to being an aggressor overall. If anything, you're proving his point on WHY this message, while not a bad one in and of itself, is being taught horribly (Stalin and Lenin were also technically little guys as well, yet last I checked, they're closer in overall demeanor to the older, bigger, stronger people telling people what to do, leading to mass deaths throughout the 20th century. In fact, they arguably make even the worst of those guys seem laid back by comparison). In fact, by promoting Lenin and to a lesser degree Stalin (they've fortunately kept their distance with the latter thanks to Khrushchev's secret speech) in the school system, they if anything ARE essentially teaching kids to side with bullies and aggressors just because they physically resemble the little guy, which is even WORSE. And BTW, a similar problem exists with the message "true beauty comes from within." The girls who fell in love with Sartre were obviously adhering to that exact message by ignoring his deformities, and let me put it this way, it actually would have been a lot better off for them if they ignored that message with him, since he was ugly inside and out.

Batman would have it all over Penguin in a boxing ring, but that is not what their stories are about. It is more a game of wits, and they seem evenly matched.

I don't think anyone empathizes with Lenin or Stalin because of their lack of stature. Stalin was a commanding bullying presence who dominated others. A few inches in height, one way or another, is not the kind of thing we are talking about here. One adult might be a bit taller than another, but a mouse is smaller than a cat's paw. And, to be honest, you would be hard pressed to find any school system in the West that promotes Stalin, or even Lenin, to schoolchildren.

Sartre was no underwear model, but he was not hideous either; some women were attracted to him because of his personality and intellectual gifts and the fact that he was a prestigious intellectual. It is similar to Donald Trump as an old man; he didn't reach woman because they sympathized with his obesity and ugliness and saw it as an indicia of inner beauty, but because in his case he was rich and aggressive.

"Batman would have it all over Penguin in a boxing ring, but that is not what their stories are about. It is more a game of wits, and they seem evenly matched."

They've also gotten into actual physical fights at times, with Penguin even coming across as being like Yoda at times regarding battling ability (think The Batman for example).

"I don't think anyone empathizes with Lenin or Stalin because of their lack of stature. Stalin was a commanding bullying presence who dominated others. A few inches in height, one way or another, is not the kind of thing we are talking about here. One adult might be a bit taller than another, but a mouse is smaller than a cat's paw. And, to be honest, you would be hard pressed to find any school system in the West that promotes Stalin, or even Lenin, to schoolchildren."

Our children are being indoctrinated into SJW crap and being dispatched to do BLM, ANTIFA, and all of that shebang, even trying to kill police. That sounds like our teachers, or educators as they love to call themselves, promote Lenin. Just read this if you don't believe me: https://fcpp.org/2019/04/27/commissars-in-our-universities/ Heck, this as well: https://fiddleheadfocus.com/2019/06/11/news/community/acadia/new-book-details-marxist-leninists-in-acadia/ And for the record, Che Guevara was much of the same, and they're OBVIOUSLY promoting him. And there's a little thing called "metaphors", and that American Thinker article he's citing makes it clear. And socialists certainly have more fondness for Lenin than Stalin. In fact, whenever the two are brought up together, the socialists often call Lenin "the good dictator" while Stalin was "the bad dictator."

"Sartre was no underwear model, but he was not hideous either; some women were attracted to him because of his personality and intellectual gifts and the fact that he was a prestigious intellectual. It is similar to Donald Trump as an old man; he didn't reach woman because they sympathized with his obesity and ugliness and saw it as an indicia of inner beauty, but because in his case he was rich and aggressive."

Actually, Sartre WAS extremely ugly. He even admitted it himself (heck, he literally discovered his true status as ugly when he got a haircut. Turns out his dear mom deliberately avoided cutting his hair in order to obscure his deformities, which he learned the hard way when she wept). Read Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals, particularly Sartre's chapter, if you don't believe me. There's also these articles:

*http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-phenomenology-of-ugly/

https://beautiesoverbeasts.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/famous-comely-people-from-history/

*https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html

And the girls fell for him, completely ignoring the whole physical deformities bit (adhered to the moral of not going by appearances, which if they didn't adhere to it, they'd be more like the triplets from Disney's Beauty and the Beast where they were attracted to Gaston purely because he was handsome in appearance, or even how Bulma fell for General Blue initially purely because of his handsome appearance until she discovered he's not interested in any girls, let alone her). Guess how that moral turned out for them. Actually, you don't even need to guess, DailyMail and The Intellectuals BOTH make it obvious what happened as a direct result.

You are jumping around a bit; trying to back up your comment about indoctrinating school kids, for example, by saying that university students are taught about Lenin. University student's ain't school kids; it is not the same thing at all. And no teacher is getting his students to go out and kill cops - that is verging on, or well past, the hysterical.

If you look at actual photos of Sartre, he is no beauty, but neither is he disformed or disfigured. The sources you cite confirm that women were attracted to his mind and wit and intellectual stature.

"You are jumping around a bit; trying to back up your comment about indoctrinating school kids, for example, by saying that university students are taught about Lenin. University student's ain't school kids; it is not the same thing at all. And no teacher is getting his students to go out and kill cops - that is verging on, or well past, the hysterical."

It's more than just universities, though. Even K-12 is pushing Marxist-Leninist principles either overtly or subtly. And I'd know, I sat through it. Heck, this source makes it blatant and even gives pretty convincing evidence to it:

https://communistdeception.com/usa/

Also this:

https://confronttheleft.blogspot.com/p/indoctrination-k-college.html

And let's not forget one of the leaders of BLM outright said the leadership was composed of Trained Marxists, ie, Marxist-Leninists.

"If you look at actual photos of Sartre, he is no beauty, but neither is he disformed or disfigured. The sources you cite confirm that women were attracted to his mind and wit and intellectual stature."

First of all, it's "deformed", not "disformed". Second of all, I HAVE in fact looked at photos of Sartre, and yes, he actually IS deformed/disfigured. He has extremely bad teeth, and a squint that is comparable to King K. Rool or Gruntilda Winkybunion. And that's exactly my point, they clearly ignored his physical appearance (ie, the entire freaking point behind "true beauty comes from within" morals), and they STILL got burned as a result, as both Paul Johnson and that dailymail article made VERY clear. To put it another way, the girls ended up like Snow White in the climax to her movie, where she got swayed by that hideous peddler (her stepmom in disguise), at least to some extent, and nearly got KILLED as a result. Well, okay, most didn't quite go that far (save one who actually committed suicide afterwards), but it still was a very bad end for them.

You are kind of retreating a bit from your statements, no? You have gone from saying that teachers are teaching school kids to revere Stalin and kill cops to saying that kids are being taught that racism is bad and equality and diversity are nice. Still things you disagree with, maybe, but definitely very different things.

I would not equate squinting and bad teeth with deformity and disfigurement, but I guess you are more discriminatory on the basis of looks than I am.

"You are kind of retreating a bit from your statements, no? You have gone from saying that teachers are teaching school kids to revere Stalin and kill cops to saying that kids are being taught that racism is bad and equality and diversity are nice. Still things you disagree with, maybe, but definitely very different things."

First of all, I also mentioned Lenin in there. Second of all, I never retreated in the slightest, and if anything, those two sources I posted showed how they were directly connected. You can also look them up at Discover the Networks Education section as well. Third of all, I never said racism was bad, just the BLM promotion was bad, as well as la Raza. The fact that YOU seem to think it's good says more about you than it does me.

"I would not equate squinting and bad teeth with deformity and disfigurement, but I guess you are more discriminatory on the basis of looks than I am."

Tell that to the Evil Queen's witch form, Palpatine, and Gruntilda, who had at least one of the two if not both, and were explicitly stated to be hideous and ugly.

Don't be so teethist! Anna Paquin and Sporty Spice managed to look great despite their terrible teeth, and Clint Eastwood's squint is practically trademarked.

I did take a look at the two sources you posted. The Confront the Left one, aside from looking like a real crank site, doesn't say anything about teaching kids to kill cops; it says school kids during the Obama years were taught to celebrate the President, which is downright patriotic, and that some professors in universities are Marxists. The Communist Deception site, which looks a bit less like a blackmail note, is very histrionic, but all it says of any substance about education is that schoolkids are being taught about racism in the US. Which is a hard topic to avoid in teaching American history.

"Don't be so teethist! Anna Paquin and Sporty Spice managed to look great despite their terrible teeth, and Clint Eastwood's squint is practically trademarked."

I can't comment on Anna Paquin or Sporty Spice since I've never even heard of them up until now. As far as Clint Eastwood, there's a big difference between narrowed cowboy squints, the kind of stuff you see in cowboy movies, and the kind of squint Sartre had, which is more comparable with, say, Gruntilda from Banjo Kazooie. The former is at least done with BOTH eyes, while Sartre's was done with only one eye.

"I did take a look at the two sources you posted. The Confront the Left one, aside from looking like a real crank site, doesn't say anything about teaching kids to kill cops; it says school kids during the Obama years were taught to celebrate the President, which is downright patriotic, and that some professors in universities are Marxists. The Communist Deception site, which looks a bit less like a blackmail note, is very histrionic, but all it says of any substance about education is that schoolkids are being taught about racism in the US. Which is a hard topic to avoid in teaching American history."

Oh, believe me, I've got MUCH more evidence to dish out compared to that: https://hannity.com/media-room/must-see-enraged-mother-tells-school-board-youre-teaching-our-children-to-murder-police-officers/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/435182-attack-crt-desantis/ Also, worshipping Obama is far from being patriotic, especially not when Obama is a huge anti-American Marxist, and most of the guys worshipping him also worship Che Guevara, who BTW was anti-American enough to nearly try to nuke the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, AND tried to blow up the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Besides, patriotism entails obeying the will of the Constitution, NOT to the actual leader in charge. If the president of the united states, for example, encourages the Taliban, or the Soviets, to kill and invade America, would we be patriotic by worshipping said President even with that knowledge? Heck no! And there's a big difference between merely teaching that racism occurred in America, and teaching that America is an irredeemably racist country to gin up a Marxist revolution. If you fail to see the difference, that only speaks about you to be honest, not good in any way I should add. Heck, Obama himself also pushed anti-cop rhetoric that Diane West made clear was taken directly from the same rhetoric that Vladimir Lenin pushed: http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3365/Lenin-Crush-Smash-the-Police.aspx

Links to the rants of other people are not evidence. At best, they show that a few other people share your opinion. But I am glad you wrote that "patriotism entails obeying the will of the Constitution, NOT to the actual leader in charge." If more Republicans thought like that, the country would be in a much better place.

"Links to the rants of other people are not evidence. At best, they show that a few other people share your opinion. But I am glad you wrote that "patriotism entails obeying the will of the Constitution, NOT to the actual leader in charge." If more Republicans thought like that, the country would be in a much better place."

No, idiot, the country would be in a much better place if Biden wasn't in office. He's destroyed the country in just a year.

The country still seems to be puttering along fine. Thing is, though, you have to look beyond the immediate. The republicans will be back in power in 7 or 11 years, and the democrats back again after that. As long as both sides respect the fundamentals of the country, like democracy and the constitution and the rule of law, things will be fine in the long run. Trump did not, he thought they were just fuddy duddy obstacles to his clinging to power against the will of the people, and that was why he was dangerous.

"The country still seems to be puttering along fine. Thing is, though, you have to look beyond the immediate. The republicans will be back in power in 7 or 11 years, and the democrats back again after that. As long as both sides respect the fundamentals of the country, like democracy and the constitution and the rule of law, things will be fine in the long run. Trump did not, he thought they were just fuddy duddy obstacles to his clinging to power against the will of the people, and that was why he was dangerous."

LOL. High gas prices, inflation, war with Ukraine.. all of that has happened under Biden, not Trump. You're delusional if you think things are "fine."

And people like Trump. The majority believe, as he does, that Democrats used COVID to rig the election in their favor. He wasn't the dictator clowns like you think he is. If you think he's dangerous, well, again, you're delusional.

Inflation and war in the Ukraine are international problems that the whole world has to deal with. They are not Biden things. Do you think the West could have mounted any strong sanctions against Russia under Trump, with his hostility to NATO and his softness on Russia, his isolationism, the way he alienated most western leaders and countries, and his past comments about Ukraine?

Trump was not a dictator, although he would have liked to have been. I thought he was a clown; it is obvious in retrospect that he was far more dangerous than that.

Inflation and war in the Ukraine are international problems that the whole world has to deal with. They are not Biden things. Do you think the West could have mounted any strong sanctions against Russia under Trump, with his hostility to NATO and his softness on Russia, his isolationism, the way he alienated most western leaders and countries, and his past comments about Ukraine?"

"Yeah, they are Biden things. Gas was routinely under $3.00 when Trump was in office. High gas prices and inflation are a direct result of his policies, such as canceling the Keystone Pipeline. When gas goes up, everything goes up. Liberals like you don't understand that.

Trump was tougher on Russia than Biden has been. He was not, contrary to liberal delusion, a Russian puppet. Putin waited for a weak leader such as Biden to take office before he invaded Ukraine.

And I don't give a damn if NATO feels Trump alienated them or not. NATO is an outdated relic of the Cold War. It should've been dismantled as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.

"Trump was not a dictator, although he would have liked to have been. I thought he was a clown; it is obvious in retrospect that he was far more dangerous than that."

LOL. What planet are you on? He wasn't remotely dangerous, nor did he want to be a dictator. You're living in fantasy land.

High gas prices are an international problem; basically, the cost of sanctioning the Russian invasion.

What did Trump do that was tough on Russia? GIven Russia's expansionism, it is no less dangerous than the Soviet Union, and NATO is just as necessary.

Trump wasn't remotely dangerous and did not want to be a dictator? I guess you missed the aftermath of the last election and the events of J6.

"What did Trump do that was tough on Russia?"

This ought to answer your question:

https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2020/07/25/trump-continues-to-be-exceedingly-tough-on-russia-n2572999

And if you aren't willing to click the link, I'll provide the bullet list:

* Imposed sanctions on Russian companies and Russian entities, blocking at least $3 billion worth of deals from going into Russian coffers.

* Placed harsh economic restrictions on a group of Russian oligarchs which effectively puts more pressure on Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has illegally amassed enormous wealth – exceeding $25 billion – in the last two decades, but he can't hold all that wealth in his own name, so he appointed oligarch cronies to be his trustees. Putting his oligarchs on sanctions hurts Putin big time.

* Levied considerable financial sanctions and travel restrictions on 50-plus individuals who have been accused of human-rights abuses and corruption under both the Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Act.

* Criticized NATO allies for not spending enough on defense (and was accused by the lamestream media of encouraging Russia to test alliance resolve). NATO allies, however, have taken steps to pay more, and NATO appears stronger than before, which is decidedly not the outcome Putin wanted.

* Authorized the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in the wake of nerve agent attack on British soil, allegedly at the hands of the Kremlin.

* Approved the export of lethal weapons, including American-made Javelin antitank missiles, to help Ukraine shore up its eastern defenses against separatists backed by Moscow. More defense cooperation with Ukraine, as well as weapons sales are on the near horizon.

* Killed more than 200 Russian soldiers in Syria – U.S. troops are present as in Syria as much to limit Russian and Iranian influence on the country’s future as to fight the remnants of the Islamic State.

* Facilitated U.S. sales of more coal to energy-strapped Ukraine, while weakening Russia's hold on oil exports.

* Ramped up militarily to pressure the Russian Federation as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Defense Secretary work to strengthen alliances and military cooperation with Baltic states that share borders with Russia.

* Offered a proposal to Poland to host a permanent contingent of U.S. troops, in the way that Germany and Italy have done since World War II, to help secure Poland’s 180-mile long border with Russia.

* Discussed with Ukraine’s president the enhancement of cooperation in security and defense sectors, and the importance of keeping tight sanctions on Russia – to Putin a most unwelcome development.

* Pressured Germany over its status as the largest buyer of Russian natural gas, and as a huge buyer of Russia coal and mineral oil.

* Sanctioned four Russian entities and seven individuals in response to a 2018 attempt to interfere in U.S. midterm elections, including Russian financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy loyalist nicknamed "Putin's chef" who has his mitts in many pies.

* Suspended its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty because Russia was not complying with it.

And that's just the shortlist. If you still don't believe it, Brookings Institute more than backs up the claim, citing that Trump enacted at least 50 tough sanctions on Russia as early as his first four months in office: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia

"High gas prices are an international problem; basically, the cost of sanctioning the Russian invasion."

The gas prices occurred WELL before the Russian invasion was even newsworthy. In fact, it happened during 2021, and I'd know, I had to constantly fill two cars and they were BOTH very expensive, costing 40 bucks just to fully refill the car, and that's at the cheapest gas station available. This was definitely not merely an international issue.

You are being very self-deceptive. The sanctions on Russia were pushed by Congress, and Trump delayed imposing them. It was not his desire or push to set them up. His attempts to blackmail Ukraine for domestic political purposes by withholding military aid are well known, and what got him impeached the first time. Trump mostly left Russia a free hand in Syria, and withdrew troops from the region on Turkey's request without any real discussion with his military people.

"High gas prices are an international problem; basically, the cost of sanctioning the Russian invasion."

LOL! They began the moment Biden took office, when he canceled domestic oil production. God, you're an idiot.


"What did Trump do that was tough on Russia? GIven Russia's expansionism, it is no less dangerous than the Soviet Union, and NATO is just as necessary."

See the article Eotness posted. It debunked your nonsense pretty well.

"Trump wasn't remotely dangerous and did not want to be a dictator? I guess you missed the aftermath of the last election and the events of J6."

LOL! If Biden were disputing the results of the election, you'd be in his corner for sure. There were lots of irregularities during the last election that lends credence to the belief that it was rigged.

As for January 6th, that was a nothingburger. It wasn't a coup, because not a single weapon was recovered. And only one person died, Ashli Babbitt, and she was killed by a rabid, incompetent cop who has a history of leaving his gun in bathrooms.

"His attempts to blackmail Ukraine for domestic political purposes by withholding military aid are well known, and what got him impeached the first time. Trump mostly left Russia a free hand in Syria, and withdrew troops from the region on Turkey's request without any real discussion with his military people."

LOL. It was Biden, not Trump, who blackmailed Ukraine. What's it like living in fantasy land, Anonymous?

Actually, the local Washington police found a gun on one of the J6 protesters who was leaving the site and charged him with weapons possession; others have been charged with gun possession since then, based on admissions and video evidence and emails and text messages. They recovered lots of other weapons - tasers and stun guns, bear spray, brass knuckles, knives, clubs and bludgeons, not to mention zip ties for taking prisoners.

Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky to get dirt on Biden and his son. The evidence is pretty clear on that one.

"Actually, the local Washington police found a gun on one of the J6 protesters who was leaving the site and charged him with weapons possession; others have been charged with gun possession since then, based on admissions and video evidence and emails and text messages. They recovered lots of other weapons - tasers and stun guns, bear spray, brass knuckles, knives, clubs and bludgeons, not to mention zip ties for taking prisoners."

No, there wasn't. The media exaggerated everything that happened that day to make it sound like it was on par with 9/11, when in reality, it was nothing of the sort. I see you've drunk the Koolaid about that day, but that's not surprising considering your hatred of Trump.

"Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky to get dirt on Biden and his son. The evidence is pretty clear on that one."

No, it isn't. You're making things up.

The far right spin machine has oscillated on how to excuse J6, until even the most loyal of the Trump sheeple don't know what to think. They have gone from saying the insurrectionists were all really Antifa in disguise to saying that they are wrongfully accused martyrs just playing tourist in the people's house. But you don't need to look at the media. The charges and the evidence for laying them are all public documents and the weapons charges are a matter of public record, available to all unfiltered by the MSM.

Trump is a transactional kind of guy. He tries to pressure everyone and uses leverage readily. He withheld aid to Ukraine while insisting zelensky get dirt on Biden. I would call that blackmail.

"The far right spin machine has oscillated on how to excuse J6, until even the most loyal of the Trump sheeple don't know what to think. They have gone from saying the insurrectionists were all really Antifa in disguise to saying that they are wrongfully accused martyrs just playing tourist in the people's house. But you don't need to look at the media. The charges and the evidence for laying them are all public documents and the weapons charges are a matter of public record, available to all unfiltered by the MSM."

LOL. You're delusional. There is no "far right spin machine." If you paid attention, the whole thing was orchestrated by the FBI in an attempt to help Democrats demonize Trump supporters. Only one person died that day, and that was Ashli Babbitt, who died after being shot by an incompetent cop.

Lay off the CNN.