an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump and a follower and promoter of many well-known radical conservative activists as well as leaders of the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, according to her social media profiles.
...social media postings offered some insight into possible motivations.
Using the handle CommonAshSense, Babbitt’s Twitter account was almost singularly focused on radical conservative topics and conspiracy theories. Among other fringe beliefs, she tweeted about pizzagate, a viral disinformation campaign that falsely alleged a child abuse ring was being operated by Democrats from a Washington pizza restaurant.
The day before the rally, she tweeted, "Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”
The Storm is a reference to a QAnon fantasy in which Trump will supposedly punish Democrats and Hollywood elite for their supposed misdeeds.
On forums and platforms like Parler, where followers fled after being banned on Twitter and Facebook, QAnon followers claimed Babbitt’s death was faked and had been engineered as a “false flag” by the so-called Deep State. Unquote?
Social media profiles connected to Ashli Babbitt were almost singularly focused on radical conservative topics and conspiracy theories.www.nbcnews.com
this individual who supporters claim her death was faked?
Hammer6, not sure of your point of the smattering of disconnected dates coupled with various and varying subject matter all without a cite for any reference.1607 - 1775 = 168
1777 - 1861 = 84
1861 - 2021 = 160
fled for religious liberty and founded the first colony in 1607
many things led up to the 1776 declaration of independence, but the fighting began when the second continental congress created an army to overtake Boston
(started at 1777 because that's when the Articles of Confederation were written)
southern states tried to rise up against the United States over slavery - history shows Senators being expelled for challenging the Electoral College, which many say indicates Lincoln did not fairly win the 1861 election. (some say he only got 40% of the vote and didn't have enough electoral votes to win but changes were made) Those expelled senators joined together to form the confederate states. They tried but failed.
if this math means anything, we are 8 years away from another physical fight for some sort of liberty.
Depending on the speed with which they move "Plugs" out of the way, do you really think the people will wait 8 years to put a stop to this insanity? I suspect it will happen in less than 4 years, possibly in just over two years, depending on how the mid-terms go.If this math means anything, we are 8 years away from another physical fight for some sort of liberty.
That's up to subjective interpretation.Depending on the speed with which they move "Plugs" out of the way, do you really think the people will wait 8 years to put a stop to this insanity? I suspect it will happen in less than 4 years, possibly in just over two years, depending on how the mid-terms go.
again as mentioned regarding your previous post here...without any type of a cite whatsoever.That's up to subjective interpretation.
As is my subjective opinion on the dates mentioned prior. It's just kinda coincidental that this freedom/liberty thing is coming up again with similarities you can find in the Declaration, and in the similarities you can find surrounding the 1861 POTUS election.
false advertising pure and simple...i thought "protect and serve" was something made up and the SCOTUS has said they have no duty to do that?
"truth be told, your commentary regarding the southern states raising up against slavery is completely incorrect as the initial succession was precipitated strictly over state rights and commerce trade injustices. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all."Hammer6, not sure of your point of the smattering of disconnected dates coupled with various and varying subject matter all without a cite for any reference.
truth be told, your commentary regarding the southern states raising up against slavery is completely incorrect as the initial succession was precipitated strictly over state rights and commerce trade injustices. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address 🇺🇸 I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. ⋆ The Constitution • Constitution.comAbraham Lincoln First Inaugural Addressconstitution.com
only after the second year of the conflict where public opinion waned did Lincoln push an anti-slavery agenda...which continued to falter in the judgement of public opinion - both north and south!
so hammer6, your post regarding "insurrection" where you lead off about a post regarding viewing a deceased individual who was trespassing on/inside federal property is relative to the cost of tea in china...how?
Well, IIRC, the war didn't start before secession, it started afterward, and was a primary cause. Lincoln considered preservation of the union his primary responsibility, and declared he had no right to interfere with any state's standing on slavery (check his 1st inaugural address). The reasons for secession are laid out (by the seceding stats) in my earlier reference. You do realize that most academic scholars identify slavery as the central cause of the war. Just 'cuz Lincoln didn't say it was doesn't make it irrelevant. Slavery (as noted in the various states secession documents), made cotton very profitable because of the low (or free) labor cost.2a4all, et al.,
Cite provided previously showing Lincoln succinctly stated numerous times, the war was caused by tariff taxes...
The institution of slavery was not the cause of the war. The tariff, a tax on imported goods, was the sole cause of the war. Northern manufacturers, who had gained political control in northern states, wanted the government to lay heavy taxes on foreign commerce to "protect" their domestic business. The South, however, was dependent on foreign commerce for its prosperity and wanted low tariffs. Political and business leaders on both sides realized that further argument was useless, that the tariff rate depended on the balance of power in Congress between the northern and southern states. Unquote
further, per http://civilwarcause.com/evidence.html
There was an enormous amount of money at stake. The country could either have northern manufacturing prosperity under a protective tariff regime or it could have southern agricultural prosperity due to high export prices of cotton, tobacco and rice under a free-trade regime.
High tariffs devastated southern agricultural revenues. Tariff funds spent for internal improvements caused multiplied losses in southern income. Unquote.
finally, if interested, it was a black plantation owner Johnson, who went to the courts to get his negro slave back and the courts ruled the other plantation owner, Parker, had to return "the property" back to to the black plantation owner! 1655 Johnson v. Parker
the Republican president, Lincoln flatly states it is not about slavery, therefore, one must believe, since he initiated said conflict, that must be the truth of the matter and not the emotionalized perception in the future!