Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson and roommate Lance Twiggs
A relative of Lance Twiggs has confirmed he is in a romantic relationship with Tyler Robinson, and that he “harboured animosity” for conservatives and Christians.
Robinson is the 22-year-old accused of assassinating conservative icon Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.
It has been reported by multiple outlets that Robinson, who grew up in a conservative Utah family, lived with a transgender partner named Lance Twiggs at the time of the shooting.
The relative, who asked to remain anonymous, told Wisconsin Right Now that Twiggs is “full of evil and hatred.”
WRN reports:
The shaken relative, who almost broke down into tears at one point during the interview, asked not to be named. WRN tracked down the family member through datamining sites that showed the familial linkage to Twiggs.
The relative alleged that Lance Twiggs is “not mentally well at all.” Asked whether Lance was transgender and transitioning, the family member alleged, “This is true. I can’t be sure of when it started. I have suspicions it would have been about four years.”
The family member alleged to WRN that Robinson was Lance Twiggs’ boyfriend. “I knew he had a boyfriend. I never met him. None of us had.” The relative was not sure how long they were together.
Asked how the relative knew Robinson was allegedly Lance Twiggs’ boyfriend, the relative responded: “Lance disclosed that. Not to me directly. He wanted to have lunch with other family members to introduce his boyfriend.”
“I know the reason I had nothing to do with him is he (Lance Twiggs) is full of evil and hatred,” the family member alleged about Lance Twiggs. “While this is extremely shocking, I was afraid he might hurt someone,” they said, claiming this belief was based on “things he would say to family members.”
Despite numerous examples of Democrat-involved political violence in Washington over the past decade—2017 Trump inaugural riots, 2018 Kavanaugh protests, 2020 BLM/antifa riots, post-election confrontations with Trump supporters during “Stop the Steal” events in November and December 2020, and recent incidents tied to pro-Hamas demonstrations—the media now claims Republicans, not Democrats, will start tearing down major cities including the nation’s capital if Trump does not win the election.
Police across the country reportedly also are bracing for post-election violence. Why? Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan of course blames Trump. “[As] Trump once again promotes falsehoods about election fraud and denigrates election officials, law enforcement officers worry that the floodgates to violence are open,” Swan claims. Swan then used a few thousand more words to detail alleged threats to election workers and other incidents that solely targeted Democrats and Democratic jurisdictions in the post 2020-period.
So here is a little refresher about what went down following Trump’s shocking victory on November 8, 2016 when Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media exploded into a full-blown fit of rage:
The New York Timesdocumented days of protests spanning 52 cities following Trump’s election. Anti-Trump demonstrators blocked traffic in Miami, Portland, Las Vegas, and Madison, Wisconsin; protesters burned an American flag in front of the Georgia Capitol building.
Democrats in Los Angeles burned a pinata resembling the president-elect.
After three days of intense violence, Portland police declared a riot on November 10, 2016. Anti-Trump thugs attacked police, vandalized business, and set buildings on fire. The following day, the Portland police department announced the use of “pepper spray, rubber ball distraction devices, [and] rubber baton rounds” to halt the rioting.
More than 7,000 protesters took to the streets of Oakland, California on November 9. A local Oakland newspaper described the chaos: “Protesters hurled Molotov cocktails, rocks and fireworks at police. Some protesters set off fireworks. Others burned a Trump effigy, and someone set a pile of cardboard on fire in the middle of a downtown intersection. A group of protesters wearing clown and Guy Fawkes masks used bricks, their feet and a large stick to smash the glass windows of the Oakland Coin and Jewelry Exchange at 1725 Broadway. Other storefronts on that block were covered in graffiti as well. Multiple trash and cardboard fires were started in the middle of the street and a much larger fire was raging at the intersection of 17th Street and Broadway.” At least three Oakland police officers were injured that night.
Confrontations with police in Omaha, Nebraska resulted in the deployment of mob control munitions on November 10, 2016; at least two people were arrested for obstructing justice.
Protesters began shouting “kill the police” during an anti-Trump demonstration in Indianapolis on November 12, 2016. Some protesters threw rocks at police; at least seven protesters were arrested and two officers received minor injuries.
The propaganda campaign labeling Donald Trump as an aspiring dictator determined to use the military and national security apparatus against his political opponents is designed not to affect the upcoming election but rather to shape the post-election environment. It is the central piece of a narrative that, by characterizing Trump as a tyrant (indeed likening him to Hitler), establishes the conditions for violence — not just another attempt on Trump’s life, but political violence on a massive scale intended to destabilize the country.
As I write in my forthcoming book Disappearing the President, Democratic Party research and media reports show that many senior party officials and operatives are preparing for the possibility of a Trump victory. Accordingly, planning is focused on undermining the incoming president with enough violence to rock his administration. Prominent post-election scenarios forecast such widespread rioting that the newly elected president would be compelled to invoke the Insurrection Act. With some senior military officials refusing to follow Trump’s orders, according to the scenarios, the U.S. Armed Forces would split, leaving America on the edge of the abyss.
By vilifying Trump as a despotic madman who must be stopped before he can commence his reign of terror, the regime’s propaganda apparatus not only slanders Trump but also pre-emptively threatens the reputation, as well as the livelihood and perhaps the liberty, of current military personnel. The point is to push the military against Trump: When the time comes to act, will you stand for democracy or side with a tyrant who sees the military only as an instrument to advance his personal interests?
For instance, last week the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, quoted former Trump administration officials claiming that the Republican candidate is contemptuous of America’s armed forces and, according to Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, wishes he could command the same respect that Hitler commanded from his general officers.
This is not the first time that Trump has been compared to Hitler or that Kelly, a retired Marine general, turned on his former commander-in-chief. Kelly was the key source for a story published before the 2020 election, also in the Atlantic and also by Jeffrey Goldberg, that alleged Trump had called American WWII soldiers buried in French cemeteries “suckers and losers.”
The veracity of Kelly’s latest revelation that Trump admires Hitler must of course be judged against the fact that he waited five years to disclose it, even if it is unlikely to have much effect on the current election cycle. The military, and veterans of the Global War on Terror in particular, overwhelmingly support the candidate opposed to waging endless and strategically pointless foreign wars. Moreover, Trump has weathered far more damaging fabrications — like the false allegations that he had been compromised by Russian intelligence — that only galvanized support for him.
The purpose of the Hitler narrative is not to alter the electoral preferences of left-wing media audiences already solidly in the anti-Trump column, but rather to justify taking extreme measures against the Republican candidate and the America First movement and ensure that the bulk of the military sides with the anti-Trump plot. Thus, it is best understood in the context of recent accounts promising, or urging, violence after the November vote.
For example, last week the New York Times published a long interview with a scholar of fascism who declared that Trump is a fascist. The paper of record followed up with another long article by two Harvard professors calling for mass mobilization in the event of a Trump victory. The proposal suggests that private industry join civil society organizations to ostracize Trump and his supporters and engage in large public protests to provoke a crisis. Kamala Harris herself, commenting on Kelly’s allegations in the Atlantic story, claimed that her opponent “is a fascist” during a CNN town hall.
These stories are only the latest in an ongoing series of media reports warning of a Trump dictatorship. Beltway insider Robert Kagan was out of the gate early, writing even before Trump wrapped up the nomination that, without mounting resistance against the Republican candidate, America is “a few short steps, and a matter of months, away from the possibility of dictatorship.” A January story from NBC claimed that Trump was exploring ways to use the military to assassinate political rivals.
The propaganda meant to establish a predicate to employ violence to stop Trump has been reinforced at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
When Joe Biden was asked by a reporter if he was confident that there would be a peaceful transfer of power after the 2024 election, he answered, “If Trump wins, no I’m not confident at all.” Then, seemingly correcting himself, the president said, “I mean if Trump loses, I’m not confident at all. He means what he says, we don’t take him seriously. He means it, all the stuff about, ‘If we lose there will be a bloodbath.’”
Biden was referring to a comment Trump made in March about Chinese efforts to build auto manufacturing plants in Mexico. The export of those cars to America, Trump said, would result in a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry. Naturally, the Biden campaign used the figure of speech to accuse Trump of inciting “political violence.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) advertised a more specific scenario leading to violence when he promised that Congress will remove Trump by invoking Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits anyone “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office. “It’s going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified,” Raskin has said. “And then we need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions.”
But the most significant post-election scenarios were drafted by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama Pentagon official whose 2020 wargaming with the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) has been credited by the left-wing press for its “accuracy.”
Ahead of the last election, Brooks and TIP, according to the Guardian, “imagined the then far-fetched idea that Trump might refuse to concede defeat, and, by claiming widespread fraud in mail-in ballots, unleash dark forces culminating in violence. Every implausible detail of the simulations came to pass in the lead-up to the U.S. Capitol attack on 6 January 2021.”
That’s a fanciful way of obscuring the truth. TIP anticipated that Trump would contest the results because party operatives knew beforehand that election irregularities resulting from new voting procedures, like mass mail-in voting, designed to facilitate fraud would be glaringly obvious. Thus, because of Brooks’s past performance and her central role in a network comprising the media and current and former defense officials, her work is widely acknowledged as the Left’s roadmap for post-election contingency planning.
The left always claims the conservatives will do what they already are doing. Who had the riots in 2017? Who wore the stupid ass pink pussy caps? Who started, then blew the January 6 out of proportion (the FBI, or the left, they are the same).
One-hundred fifty-eight House Democrats voted Wednesday against a resolution put forward by South Carolina Republican Rep. Nancy Mace that would designate noncitizens convicted of sex offenses or domestic violence inadmissible to and deportable from the U.S.
Two-hundred fifteen Republicans voted in favor of the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, with no one in the party opposing it. Meanwhile, only 51 Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, with 158 voting against it. Mace, who introduced the resolution, told the Daily Caller that “158 Left-wing members of Congress just voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles and murderers of women and kids.”
Meanwhile, Democrats have been largely silent on their vote against the resolution. In May, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler explained his opposition to Mace’s resolution, saying the bill is “dangerous.”
What it should be, a month of kindness (but only to Muslims or something):
In the autumn of 623, during the month of Ramadan, a trade caravan was sent by the Quraysh people from Mecca to Syria. The caravan was led by Abu Sufyan, a leader of the Quraysh people and carried the investments of many of the Quraysh. On the way back from Syria the caravan reportedly consisted of 1,000 camels and 50,000 dinars worth of goods.
Muhammad and his followers made plans to attack the caravan. Abu Sufyan got wind of Muhammad’s intention and sent a messenger to Mecca for help. A relief column, said to have been 1,000 strong, then set out to protect the caravan.
In the battle that ensued, the battle of Badr, the Muslims were fueled by Muhammad’s promises of paradise. The Quraysh on the other hand were reluctant to kill their kin among the Muslims. The Muslims prevailed and slashed the Quraysh as they fled and managed to acquire booty and a number of hostages for ransom. Shortly after his victory over the Quraysh, Muhammad defeated the Qaynuqa, a Jewish tribe living in two fortresses in the southwest of the city of Medina and divided their wealth 4/5 to his followers and 1/5 to himself.
What it really is (a month of war against the world, starting with the Israeli’s):
The battle of Badr took place on Ramadan. Throughout history, Muslims have taken advantage of Ramadan to wage war against their enemies. Five historic Islamic battles were fought in the month of Ramadan: the Battle of Badr, the Conquest of Mecca, the Battle of Tabuk, the Battle of Amin Jalut, and the Battle of Hattin.
The Houthi terrorists of Yemen organized multiple rallies throughout the country Friday in support of their Red Sea terror campaign, reportedly attracting thousands of people in support of the Sunni jihadist terror group Hamas.
The rallies occurred on the last Friday before the anticipated start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, expected to begin on Sunday or Monday in various parts of the world. They also capped off a milestone week for the Houthis, who tallied the first sunken ship and first kills in their seemingly random bombings of commercial vessels navigating in and around the Red Sea.
Remember the great fear that their wouldn’t be peaceful transition of power in 2021? What happened, a peaceful transition of power.
What happened in 2017? That’s right, riots, weaponization of the DOJ, fake lawsuits, pink pussy hats and huge lie about January 6, the only peaceful demostration.
Lawmakers and others are ‘secretly’ plotting a military mutiny if Trump is elected
Mutiny is on the menu should Trump win again. That’s according to an allegedly “secret” plan, that’s being widely trumpeted on NBC News, for the military to refuse to follow orders from Trump. Part of this is pre-election posturing, but part of this is entirely consistent with the post-Obama military, up to and including the execrable Mark “White Rage” Milley.
Section 2, Article II of the United States Constitution is extremely clear that the President calls the shots when it comes to the military:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
There are no workarounds for this. There is no ambiguity. However, that isn’t stopping a cabal of lawmakers and others from trying to figure out how to stage a military coup should Trump be reelected:
…[B]racing for Trump’s potential return, a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs.
War and violence is chaos. That is a distraction from what they really are up to, no good. Vote them out.
Remember the pink pussy hats, the march on Washington, BLM destroying $2 billion in property, all liberals? January 6th was a liberal coup.
They said Trump wouldn’t allow for a peaceful transition of power, yet they are already planning violence and trying to stop the transition of power.
Ever since the 60’s it’s been the left stirring things up. It’s the left. They are like little children who badger others when they don’t get their way. They trash their room and blame others.
Delusions of Adequacy 
