The Democrats’ January 6 clown show was worse than even I expected. Their hysterical, pearl-clutching, lie-filled response to the events on January 6th, what Democrats are clearly hoping will be their transformative Reichstag moment, is unseemly, phony to its core, and purely and solely political.
We know this because there was no outrage over the leftist rioters who attempted to stop the peaceful transition of power during President Trump’s inauguration. Not only did anti-Trump leftists riot, attack and injure police, set cars and buildings on fire, but they were later rewarded for this attempt to “subvert Democracy” to the tune of $1.6 million in taxpayer money.
Do you know how many Congressional Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) wailed about our “democracy” on the brink? Do you know how many of these inauguration rioters were hunted down by the FBI, arrested, beaten and mistreated, and held as political prisoners for over a year? Do you know how many of them were harboring blueprints of the Capitol building . . . or wait, that was an unconstructed, still boxed, Lego set not a “model” used for terroristic purposes or whatever random lunacy the FBI preened at that time. If you said zero, you’re right on all counts.
And honestly, I think this clear two levels of justice—one for “righteous” protesters, including those who burned, looted, and murdered their way through Democrat-run cities in 2020, and one for J6 “terrorists”—is the reason that Democrats will never amass anything close to majority support for their January 6th witch hunt.
No matter how many deep state darlings like Liz let’s find a country to bomb Cheney they find to bleat about . . . whatever it is she bleats, they will never have the people’s support for treating what happened on January 6 as if it were Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Civil War all rolled into one. I mean, really, that’s just crazy—and visibly desperate—hyperbolic verbal vomit.
This failure to convince the American people of their stance is due, in no small part, to their failure to condemn and pursue the criminals guilty of the far worse violence that took place in an attempt to thwart President Trump’s inauguration. Or to condemn and pursue with criminal charges the thousands of local, state, and federal crimes committed by antifa and BLM.
Nor did they condemn the multi-day May, 2020 assault on the White House that left at least 60 Secret Service agents wounded and forced President Trump to be whisked away to a bunker for his personal safety.
The 1619 Project, which originated in the New York Times, is the most outrageous fraud on this nation in 100 years. It is nothing more than a race hustler’s post-modernist rewrite of American history, explicitly intended to stir racial resentment in this nation for political ends. That is evil.
II. Wilentz honestly challenges the 1619 Project’s accuracy.
According to Wilentz, the 1619 Project promotes “a narrow, highly ideological view of the American past, according to which white supremacy has been the nation’s core principle and chief mission ever since its founding.” He explains more in a recent article, The 1619 Project and Living in Truth:
III. Wilentz destroys his article’s integrity with his obsessive need to lob entirely false and dishonest attacks against conservatives who have made the same arguments he is making.
IV. As a general matter, Wilentz is either fatally naïve, completely blind, or dishonestly partisan when it comes to the left’s role in creating an intellectual mindset supporting and promoting the utterly fallacious, but very damaging, 1619 Project.
V. The Times’s response to the five historians’ letter is a perfect distillation of the historic dishonesty and modern political activism behind the 1619 Project and American leftism in general.
VI. In the end, when given a choice between wisdom and blind partisanship—the red pill or the blue—Wilentz chose the blue pill and the consolation of aligning himself with a political movement that exists to destroy America — and which ironically enough, also means destroying much of Wilentz’s life’s work.
Not “drinking bleach”.
CNN’s Don Lemon Rails Against Misinformation About Covid – By Omitting Key Part of Trump Quote. “However, the clip was selectively shortened to exclude the full quote, which showed that Trump, contrary to popular misconception, did not tell people to inject themselves with bleach in response to Covid.”
Continue reading “How the vote fraud worked”
Jay Valentine: Meet the Technology That’s Uncovering 2020’s Voter Fraud … After the 2020 election results stopped in the middle of night and vote trajectories magically changed when they fired up again, thousands of people, just like you, didn’t buy it.
It seems the Left cares about borders after all, depending on the border and who crossed it.
Consider Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial and how the continuing progressive slanders about white supremacism and murder always include the unspeakable fact that he crossed the state line with a rifle.
Rittenhouse didn’t cross the state line with a rifle. And if he had, it wouldn’t have been illegal.
Now consider that last week, ten FBI agents with a battering ram showed up before dawn to handcuff the underwear-clad Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and search his house and cell phone, after having done the same to his fellow journalists. The pretext was a search for Ashley Biden’s diary, but the FBI already knew O’Keefe didn’t have it or have anything to do with its disappearance. Besides, since when does a petty-larceny case local police would manage with a stolen-property report rate a federal investigation?
Just before the Project Veritas operation, Attorney General Merrick Garland sicced his FBI on uppity parents who dared to question the hive-mind wisdom of school boards. In what has now been exposed as the product of collusion between the White House and the progressive National School Boards Association, the NSBA sent a letter to Biden claiming the nationwide upsurge in angry parents showing up at school-board meetings made the parents domestic terrorists, requiring an aggressive Security State to stop them.
All this makes it no surprise that an obstreperous Rep. Jerry Nadler would immediately claim the Rittenhouse verdict “justifies federal review by DOJ.” This wasn’t just Jerry being spontaneous. The Biden administration always intended to use the DOJ to destroy Rittenhouse on the slimmest pretext if the mob didn’t get its way. Between a brave American jury and a raging mob, the jury cannot be allowed to win. And we can never forget that, like the Pinkertons’ unblinking eye, the Left never sleeps.
We have prosecutors who won’t prosecute the ‘wrong’ people for their crimes and prosecutors hell-bent on prosecuting the ‘right’ people for what they symbolize.
There is a flip side to the way progressives have perverted the concept of prosecuting crime. It is, in its way, just as insidious as the now-familiar delirium that non-prosecution is the best prosecution.
The flip side is equally the fallout of politicizing state police power. It flows naturally from the conceit that the point of prosecution is to run interference for the Left’s favored groups while penalizing those who oppose progressives. It has only disdain for the quaint idea that we prosecute for the purpose of upholding the rule of law, so society as a whole can flourish.
The flip side is this: When today’s cutting-edge prosecutors do deign to prosecute, the target is ideas, not acts. The objective is not to neutralize those who prey on society, but to frame their acts as part of a morality play: the progressives cast as the guardians of “our values,” and the criminals drawing out contempt more for what motivates them — or, at least, what progressives say motivates them — than for any evil they have done.
This is exemplified by the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution.
The fact that Rittenhouse, then 17 years old, shot and killed people was not decisive in making his prosecution a national story. More people are routinely shot in Chicago than were shot in Kenosha on that fateful night. And, though not as sedulously suppressed as news of black-on-black violence is, white-on-white violence is usually far too humdrum for the media-Democrat complex to take much notice.
Source: Prosecution and Prejudice
For quite a while I’ve been featuring videos with attorney Robert Barnes, and especially the ones about the Rittenhouse case. He’s not only thorough, he’s also lively and interesting. In addition, it turns out that he’s been about 97% correct in describing the case and in making predictions.
The second is a post-verdict wrap-up. It sheds a lot of light on the jury deliberations and why they took so long:
This correspondent has reported extensively on the Kyle Rittenhouse incident and trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, for AmmoLand, with over two dozen articles in the last 14 months.
Repeatedly, the prosecutor, ADA Binger, informed the court the firearms charge was based on what the prosecution believed the law had to be, rather than on what the law was. It is a microcosm of the left. Decisions are made on what the left believes reality *should be* rather than what reality *is*.
The firearms charge was important to lend the air of illegality to what was obviously legal and ethical self defense.
The case should never have been brought. The performance of the prosecutors during the trial confirmed the prosecution was done for political purposes rather than to bring justice.
The job of a prosecutor is to pursue justice. It is not to obtain successful prosecutions.
The decision not to charge is every bit as important as the decision to charge a suspect.
Six charges were brought against Kyle Rittenhouse less than 48 hours after the self defense shootings occurred. Wisconsin does not require indictments by a grand jury. Charges are commonly brought exclusively by prosecutors.
Kyle Rittenhouse tried to turn himself in to the police within minutes of the events. He had successfully turned himself in to police about an hour after the events. This was characterized in the media as “being arrested” or “being taken into custody” rather than the factual “turning himself in to police”.
A seventh charge, of violating curfew, was added to the first six charges, in late December, 2020, months after the events in August. The prosecutors botched this late, attempted pile-on. It was later determined no lawful order about the curfew had been entered on August 25.
The next strategy was to hold Kyle in jail with exorbitantly high bail, in order to prevent a good defense, to push him to accept a plea bargain. It is a common, and despicable, prosecution tactic.
In a self defense case where the defendant turned himself in quickly, where voluminous evidence of self defense existed, Kyle should have been released on signature bond, or, at most a few thousand dollars bail. Kyle’s bail was set at $2 million. This is more evidence of a political persecution, instead of a criminal prosecution.
(Scott Johnson) The Clinton presidential campaign’s fabrication of the Russia hoax is the dirtiest trick in American political history. Beginning with Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS and the Perkins Coie law firm, it enlisted co-conspirators in the Obama Department of Justice, the FBI, and the mainstream media.
Matt Taibbi took up the complicity of the mainstream media at his TK News site in “The Russiagate Whitewash Era Begins.” The column is mostly behind his subscription paywall, but Taibbi has now made the column available in the form of a YouTube video and podcast read by Jared Moore. I have posted the video below.
By my lights, however, what we have in the hugely influential stories Maté focuses on is complicity with perpetrators rather than lapses in professional standards. That is the case that Lee Smith argues in his Tablet column “Here Comes the Limited Hangout.” Subhead: “America’s Nixonian press corps takes a page from the Watergate playbook to try and cover up its active role in the criminal Russiagate hoax.”
Why won’t the prestige press come clean on its role in the Russia hoax? Crisis management consultant sketches out the deterrents in his Wall Street Journal column “The media stonewalls on the Steele dossier.” Dezenhall frames the basic problem this way, in terms of incentives…
J. Peder Zane’s RealClearPolitics column makes the case “Why the Russiagate Scandal Outranks the Rest.” This I believe:
Michaael Isikoff and David Corn were key media conduits for the Russia hoax fabrications wrought and disseminated by Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Perkins Coie law firm, and the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the 2016 election. Isikoff and Corn expanded their reporting into the 2018 bestseller Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.
All in all, given the active participation of officials in the upper reaches of the Obama administration, including the FBI, the hoax must be counted the dirtiest trick in American political history. With the perspective afforded by the indictment of Igor Danchenko, Paul Sperry looks back in the RCP column “Journalist-Authors Isikoff, Corn Also Fell For Danchenko’s Mythical Dossier Source.” What did Corn and Isikoff have to say when Sperry came calling? “Neither Corn nor Isikoff responded to requests for comment….Their publisher, Twelve, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, did not reply to emails seeking comment.” Highly recommended.
NOTE: The column follows up on Sperry’s November 10 column “Danchenko Indictment: How Dossier Non-Source Sergei Millian Was Framed.”
There seems to be a deeply felt need to feel superior to someone. The coronapocalypse gives people someone to feel superior to — the great un-vaxxed.
(Don Boudreaux) I was prompted to write the note below – which I’ll send to managers of theaters, museums, concert halls, and other public venues – after attending an event at Strathmore, which requires proof of vaccination and the wearing of masks. To open the event, Strathmore’s (unmasked!) director, smiling broadly on stage, declared that “It’s wonderful to be here among the vaccinated!” I wanted to retch, for to my ears it’s as if he’d said “It’s wonderful to be here among the clean and away from the filthy untouchables.”
December 12, 2021
Manager of [Name of venue]
Sir or Madam:
To enter your premises, each of your patrons is required by you both to show proof of vaccination against Covid-19 and at all times to wear a mask.
What’s the point of these requirements?
Vaccination is effective at preventing the vaccinated from suffering serious consequences from Covid. (And children naturally are at virtually no risk from Covid.) Therefore, those of your patrons who choose not to be vaccinated personally bear the costs of their choice without imposing any costs on those of your patrons who choose to be vaccinated. So your requirement of vaccination is pointless.
This conclusion would stand even if we were sure that vaccination appreciably lowers, or even eliminates, the likelihood of vaccinated persons spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus to other persons. But in fact we have no such assurance. Many prominent public-health researchers read the evidence as showing that being vaccinated against Covid does not prevent the vaccinated – at least not for any significant length of time – from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and spreading this virus to others. Even CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admits about the vaccines, after the emergence of the Delta variant, that “what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
Requiring proof of vaccination would thus be pointless even if it were the case that recovery from Covid provided no natural immunity. But in fact the evidence is powerful that recovery from Covid provides significant natural immunity. Because nearly 50 million Americans have tested positive for Covid and recovered – and even apart from the considerations mentioned above – requiring all patrons to show proof of vaccination is, to put it mildly, excessive.
Similar questions apply to masks. Because vaccination is effective at protecting the vaccinated, why do you require each of your patrons to wear a mask? Again, those of your patrons who choose not to wear a mask – just like your patrons who choose not to be vaccinated – impose costs only on themselves and not on those of your patrons who choose differently.
I urge you, in the name of liberal civilization and the open society, to stop mindlessly giving credence to pronouncements from the likes of Anthony Fauci and other government officials who have a personal stake in stoking Covid hysteria for as long as they can. Please let your patrons enjoy what you have to offer without being accosted by pointless Covid restrictions or required to participate in dystopian hygiene theater.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics