“Seven more members of a North Texas Antifa cell allegedly involved in a terrorist ambush shooting on an ICE facility have been federally indicted on charges that include providing material support for terrorism, using an explosive, rioting and multiple counts of attempted murder. This follows the first two in the cell who were indicted last month in the historic case. This case is the first time in U.S. history that Antifa members have been federally indicted on terrorism charges.
The DOJ in the Northern District of Texas explicitly calls them members of a “North Texas Antifa Cell,” breaking with the DOJ tradition of avoiding naming Antifa.
They face a minimum of ten years in federal prison, up to 50 years, or even life imprisonment for some of the suspects.The nine Antifa members federally indicted so far:
Savanna Batten
Zachary Evetts
Cameron Arnold (a Trantifa named “Autumn Hill”)
Bradford Morris (a Trantifa named “Meagan Morris”)
“Chris Murphy: “I don’t think anybody with ambition right now should be planning on running for president in 2028 because we might not have a free and fair election in 2028. We all have to be in the business of saving our democracy right now.”
Antifa simply means anti-fascist. To fight against antifa implies you are pro fascist, not necessarily so but the implication is there.
To argue a group is a terrorist cell — you have to prove a lot of things; conspiracy, planning, political aims, etc. It would be much easier to use the criminal code. The DOJ/FBI is trying to prove its rhetoric and will be interesting to see how they argue for these charges. RICO would be easier but won’t satisfy their ideological needs.
People have been calling Trump a Hitler like figure for at least a decade. It’s not news. 20 000 pages of Epstein emails have been released; that’s news. There’s no way some minor NAACP figure is going to distract from the emails.
Add the break up between Greene and Trump, that’s news.
Or the fact Trump’s signature is the same on several pardons. Fairly relevant since he admitted he didn’t know who Changpeng Zhao was despite pardoning him. The auto pen is the Trump admin not the Biden admin?? That’s news
I was always under the impression that a US emergency room could not turn away a person seeking aid. Full treatment, prevention or diagnosis doesn’t have to be provided but emergency care does. This is the impression family and friends have left with me. From what I’ve been told, it’s easier for the non-insured to get care in a US emergency room than in Canada. Without your health card, things get difficult.
NJ, sure, lets provide basic food, shelter, and health care as a basic human right. Not only do people have the right to live (food, shelter, health) but people have the responsibility to provide it. To not provide is immoral and unethical. If that makes me a communists, socialist or whatever, not a problem. Its not the ideology or name that’s important but the fact we recognise humanity has a responsibility and a right.
HRW – You could be right about emergency care. I’m not really sure, and am thankful that I have not been in the position to have to find out one way or the other.
As for providing food, shelter, etc., many of my more conservative fellow Christians believe that that kind of help is what we believers and churches should be helping with, not the government. (It can sound uncaring to mention the latter part without the former part.) There are many, many ministries, both small and large, that help with those matters.
As for me, I support a particular ministry here in my little town that provides a lot of helps for the needy in the community, but I have also come to believe that the government also has at least some responsibility to help as well.
HRW, people don’t have a “right” even to basic necessities provided by other people. Or on the other side, humans have an obligation to provide for their own needs (if they can) and those of their families, but not the obligation to provide for those of other people. People who have extra should (voluntarily) provide for those who need help and can’t (that’s the key word) take care of those needs themselves. But the idea that people have the right to have their basic needs taken care of other people, even if they are capable of taking care of them themselves, is preposterous. I have no obligation to provide for someone who chooses not to work–by the same standard, that same person has the obligation to provide for me, and where does that leave us?
Actually, it is biblical to not provide for those who can work. We even have to be careful in our gifts to our children and grandchildren to not discourage them from finding their own jobs and ways to provide for themselves and others.
Life is complicated. People are complicated. There are ways for governments to help. There are ways for individuals to care for ‘neighbors.’ There are tons of ways to be misunderstood.
Frankly, it is easy to give away other people’s money through the government and feel holier than thou.
I live in a state that supposedly gave over 2 billion dollars to help others and that really lined the pockets of those holier than thous who were ‘helping.’ That is one of the dangers of government that is too big for us to even know where our money is really going.
In fact, some of that money goes to politics to fund policies that hurt the average citizen, but that is a whole different story.
“Let me lay out the sunny saga of Napa Valley College’s solar field—a green fantasy that was supposed to be a model for the nation, and ended up as a million-dollar weed patch. This is the kind of story that only seems shocking if you weren’t paying attention to how the solar “revolution” actually works: splashy ribbon cuttings, loud political speeches, wild promises…and then, about a decade later, the sound of crickets and the sight of public money quietly composting.”
Work then has to be supportive. If we are going to tie assistance to ability or disability, work must pay. The living wage in my city is $23/hr but the minimum wage is $17.60. I’m sure the situation is similar elsewhere in North America. If we support a position that demands that people work, then it should pay enough. There’s no reason why Walmart and Macdonald’s employees have to collect SNAP to survive. Work too often does not provide
Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that success or at least the ability to support oneself is often a result of biology/genetics/neurology triggered by the environment. In that case, why do we punish people for a lack of success if very little of it is free will.
Work in the modern economy has its origins in the late 18th century. In medieval Europe not only did families take care of each other so did the community. The village did in fact raise the child or at least feed, clothe and house. It took a century of gov’t intervention, manufactures, ideology, etc to change the “work” culture from a village “commune” style to an hourly worker at the textile mill. This is a new development. And one that may or can change. We don’t have to follow the modern capitalist approach to work and subsistence.
There’s a lot of speculation of the future of work with the ongoing automation and AI. Even now, some economists claim about half the jobs in the economy are bullshit jobs meant to keep people occupied and paid. In response, we could eliminate this work and simply pay people a universal basic income. And before people claim that’s a socialist pipe dream; Milton Friedman, the neoliberal godfather, proposed a negative income tax scheme that would accomplish something similar.
We produce enough food to feed the world, there’s enough empty homes in the US to shelter the homeless, and fast fashion produces so much clothing that old clothing forms massive hills in Africa that nobody needs. We have a distribution problem not a work problem. With a universal basic income, people can be fed, clothed and sheltered and why is that a problem.
Wandering Views 
Remember kids, it’s just an idea…..
That tries to murder law enforcement officers.
https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1989576013932605666?t=nhiQpg3QmLPhmsFQN9ziMA&s=19
“Seven more members of a North Texas Antifa cell allegedly involved in a terrorist ambush shooting on an ICE facility have been federally indicted on charges that include providing material support for terrorism, using an explosive, rioting and multiple counts of attempted murder. This follows the first two in the cell who were indicted last month in the historic case. This case is the first time in U.S. history that Antifa members have been federally indicted on terrorism charges.
The DOJ in the Northern District of Texas explicitly calls them members of a “North Texas Antifa Cell,” breaking with the DOJ tradition of avoiding naming Antifa.
They face a minimum of ten years in federal prison, up to 50 years, or even life imprisonment for some of the suspects.The nine Antifa members federally indicted so far:
Savanna Batten
Zachary Evetts
Cameron Arnold (a Trantifa named “Autumn Hill”)
Bradford Morris (a Trantifa named “Meagan Morris”)
Maricela Rueda
Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada
Benjamin Song
Elizabeth SotoInes Soto”
LikeLiked by 2 people
These people are deeply disturbed.
https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/1989701223688081760?t=O2OiuW3Pm32pSV2AMffhbg&s=19
“Not a SINGLE mainstream news outlet covered the fact that the SITTING PRESIDENT of the NAACP in Charlotte NC said that President Trump:
“Believes Hitler was the greatest man on earth. Whose whole vision is to be like Hitler and create 1940s Germany…”
Not. A. Single. One.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
We’re ruled by unserious idiots elected by the clueless.
https://x.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1989386295588819150?t=FO-qkRuyncx0d1IMymqc7w&s=19
“Chris Murphy: “I don’t think anybody with ambition right now should be planning on running for president in 2028 because we might not have a free and fair election in 2028. We all have to be in the business of saving our democracy right now.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Antifa simply means anti-fascist. To fight against antifa implies you are pro fascist, not necessarily so but the implication is there.
To argue a group is a terrorist cell — you have to prove a lot of things; conspiracy, planning, political aims, etc. It would be much easier to use the criminal code. The DOJ/FBI is trying to prove its rhetoric and will be interesting to see how they argue for these charges. RICO would be easier but won’t satisfy their ideological needs.
People have been calling Trump a Hitler like figure for at least a decade. It’s not news. 20 000 pages of Epstein emails have been released; that’s news. There’s no way some minor NAACP figure is going to distract from the emails.
Add the break up between Greene and Trump, that’s news.
Or the fact Trump’s signature is the same on several pardons. Fairly relevant since he admitted he didn’t know who Changpeng Zhao was despite pardoning him. The auto pen is the Trump admin not the Biden admin?? That’s news
hrw
LikeLike
Kizzie and NJ — from yesterday
I was always under the impression that a US emergency room could not turn away a person seeking aid. Full treatment, prevention or diagnosis doesn’t have to be provided but emergency care does. This is the impression family and friends have left with me. From what I’ve been told, it’s easier for the non-insured to get care in a US emergency room than in Canada. Without your health card, things get difficult.
NJ, sure, lets provide basic food, shelter, and health care as a basic human right. Not only do people have the right to live (food, shelter, health) but people have the responsibility to provide it. To not provide is immoral and unethical. If that makes me a communists, socialist or whatever, not a problem. Its not the ideology or name that’s important but the fact we recognise humanity has a responsibility and a right.
hrw
LikeLiked by 1 person
HRW – You could be right about emergency care. I’m not really sure, and am thankful that I have not been in the position to have to find out one way or the other.
As for providing food, shelter, etc., many of my more conservative fellow Christians believe that that kind of help is what we believers and churches should be helping with, not the government. (It can sound uncaring to mention the latter part without the former part.) There are many, many ministries, both small and large, that help with those matters.
As for me, I support a particular ministry here in my little town that provides a lot of helps for the needy in the community, but I have also come to believe that the government also has at least some responsibility to help as well.
LikeLike
HRW, people don’t have a “right” even to basic necessities provided by other people. Or on the other side, humans have an obligation to provide for their own needs (if they can) and those of their families, but not the obligation to provide for those of other people. People who have extra should (voluntarily) provide for those who need help and can’t (that’s the key word) take care of those needs themselves. But the idea that people have the right to have their basic needs taken care of other people, even if they are capable of taking care of them themselves, is preposterous. I have no obligation to provide for someone who chooses not to work–by the same standard, that same person has the obligation to provide for me, and where does that leave us?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Actually, it is biblical to not provide for those who can work. We even have to be careful in our gifts to our children and grandchildren to not discourage them from finding their own jobs and ways to provide for themselves and others.
Life is complicated. People are complicated. There are ways for governments to help. There are ways for individuals to care for ‘neighbors.’ There are tons of ways to be misunderstood.
Frankly, it is easy to give away other people’s money through the government and feel holier than thou.
I live in a state that supposedly gave over 2 billion dollars to help others and that really lined the pockets of those holier than thous who were ‘helping.’ That is one of the dangers of government that is too big for us to even know where our money is really going.
In fact, some of that money goes to politics to fund policies that hurt the average citizen, but that is a whole different story.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said ladies….
LikeLike
Well I’m shocked…..
https://x.com/SteveGuest/status/1990054120410034232?t=HUafXEtkt1Sup1CIJy7V-w&s=19
“Let me lay out the sunny saga of Napa Valley College’s solar field—a green fantasy that was supposed to be a model for the nation, and ended up as a million-dollar weed patch. This is the kind of story that only seems shocking if you weren’t paying attention to how the solar “revolution” actually works: splashy ribbon cuttings, loud political speeches, wild promises…and then, about a decade later, the sound of crickets and the sight of public money quietly composting.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Work then has to be supportive. If we are going to tie assistance to ability or disability, work must pay. The living wage in my city is $23/hr but the minimum wage is $17.60. I’m sure the situation is similar elsewhere in North America. If we support a position that demands that people work, then it should pay enough. There’s no reason why Walmart and Macdonald’s employees have to collect SNAP to survive. Work too often does not provide
Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that success or at least the ability to support oneself is often a result of biology/genetics/neurology triggered by the environment. In that case, why do we punish people for a lack of success if very little of it is free will.
Work in the modern economy has its origins in the late 18th century. In medieval Europe not only did families take care of each other so did the community. The village did in fact raise the child or at least feed, clothe and house. It took a century of gov’t intervention, manufactures, ideology, etc to change the “work” culture from a village “commune” style to an hourly worker at the textile mill. This is a new development. And one that may or can change. We don’t have to follow the modern capitalist approach to work and subsistence.
There’s a lot of speculation of the future of work with the ongoing automation and AI. Even now, some economists claim about half the jobs in the economy are bullshit jobs meant to keep people occupied and paid. In response, we could eliminate this work and simply pay people a universal basic income. And before people claim that’s a socialist pipe dream; Milton Friedman, the neoliberal godfather, proposed a negative income tax scheme that would accomplish something similar.
We produce enough food to feed the world, there’s enough empty homes in the US to shelter the homeless, and fast fashion produces so much clothing that old clothing forms massive hills in Africa that nobody needs. We have a distribution problem not a work problem. With a universal basic income, people can be fed, clothed and sheltered and why is that a problem.
hrw
LikeLike