Rep. Van Drew receives threatening phone call for backing GOP
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., said he is reviewing his legal options after his office revealed a threatening voicemail by Ocean City Sentinel guest columnist John McCall in the wake of his votes not to accept Arizona and Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes.
Van Drew said "I believe" he will press charges against McCall and said he would confer with his attorneys about a possible lawsuit.
The Republican told "Sunday Morning Futures" that even though the threat was shocking to him and his wife, he said it "doesn't worry me."
Ocean City Sentinel editor and publisher David Nahan released an apology in their March 17 edition. Addressing Van Drew, he said, "Because you felt threatened and felt your wife was threatened, I am sorry. There are no two ways about that. I blame that on my judgment."
Nahan described McCall as an unpaid "private citizen who wrote in letters to the editor and other opinions to the newspaper's commentary section."
"If he was a paid employee, he would have been fired for making the call," Nahan told Fox News on Sunday.
"He will not be allowed to submit anything else to the newspaper for publication and I have changed our policy on letters to the editor and guest opinions so nothing like that appears again," Nahan said, adding that he seeking to apologize to Van Drew directly.
Van Drew became the first Democrat in 10 years to join the Republican Party when he made the swap nearly a year ago.
The congressman said McCall also threatened to sexually harass his wife in a column.
"You can do anything that you want to me," he said. "You can say what you want, you can disagree with me, you can threaten my life but I will not tolerate that for my family, my wife, my children, my grandchildren. And that's where the line is drawn in the South Jersey sand."
"This cannot be the new norm for America, for America journalism," he said. "It is just intolerable."
A senior adviser confirmed President Trump is gearing up for his return to social media, but in a big way.
That’s according to Jason Miller, who said President Trump will be
back online in two to three months with a new online platform.
“This is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social
media,” Miller said. “It’s going to completely redefine the game, and
everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly
President Trump does, but it will be his own platform.”
This came after social media giants, including Twitter and Facebook,
banned the 45th President from their platforms amid widespread
censorship of conservative voices.
Miller went on to say the new platform will attract “tens of millions” of users.
Who’s
really running the show? Just imagine the following scenario: President
Joe spends an evening – actually, more like an afternoon -- watching
old classic films, one of which, perhaps, is a Cold War-era action movie
about a Russian invasion. When not dozing off he thoroughly enjoys the
film. He has his early-bird supper and shuffles off to bed. Later that
night, about 3:00 am, Joe wakes up and locks himself in the bathroom
with the nuclear football.
Jill
suddenly wakes up and tries to check on Joe, but the bathroom door is
locked. While she calls his name and tries to get him to open the door,
Joe is busy typing in the nuclear codes he has scrawled on the palm of
his hand. In his confusion, he blends reality with fiction and believes
the movie was real life.
By
the time Jill gets a Secret Service agent to help break down the door,
old Joe has already started the launch sequences to annihilate Russia,
and North Korea for good measure. Once entered, these codes can’t be
canceled. Russia and North Korea are alerted to the strike and launch
retaliatory nuclear missiles. World War Three has started or perhaps the
end of the world as we know it.
Don’t
think this could happen? Some Democrats are not so sure. Why else do
they want to wrestle these codes away from this senile old man? They
didn’t even try this with their nemesis, President Trump, but they’re
doing it for their own man. They know the reality of his condition. He’s
a danger to everyone, even the world. Shame on all those who put him in
this position, including wife Jill and former boss Obama.
These
two of all people should have known Joe was not capable of fulfilling
the duties of this office. But their greed and lust for power and, in
Jill’s case, status, drove them to ignore that obvious and nuclear
disaster could be the result or any number of other terrible things
damaging to the world or country.
All
evidence points to Obama pulling the strings behind the curtain. In a
circumstance such as the one played out above, though, even Obama can’t
predict what a man in mental decline might do. It’s apparent that Joe
won’t be in office much longer judging by his recent gaffs and
infrequent appearances, but it only takes one time for something like
this to happen. Is tomorrow that day?
I
believe the idea to take the codes from Joe and give them to a
committee will also benefit control over his successor, Harris. Obama
and his time don’t trust her with the codes, and they won’t trust any
who follow her either. However, one knows a committee rarely agrees on
anything so, by the time the codes would actually be entered, it
probably would be too late for response or surprise.
The
more likely setting would be for Obama to have the football again, even
if the Democrat operatives put out smoke and mirrors about a team
making the decision to launch. Because in truth, what we actually have
is a behind-the-scenes dictatorship and that dictator is Barrack Hussein
Obama. Joe is just a cover, using his phony affable charm and
well-practiced wide smile to gain office for the sham by hook or crook
and slip Obama’s real choice of Harris through the back door.
I’m
reminded of a children’s fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans
Christian Andersen, written in 1837. In it, all the vain Emperor’s
supporters admire his alleged new clothing while the rest of the
populace (like certain female Secret Service agents poolside) see only a
naked old man. In truth, his supporters see the same but they are
pretending otherwise. For the moment, anyway.
Joe
is what is called in the business world a hatchet man, someone who is
brought in to do unpopular things, change procedures, fire people, cut
salaries and, when his task is done, he is usually fired himself. Joe’s
good at it because this nasty-by-nature man has no empathy for the
thousands he puts out of work.
Soon
Joe’s time will be up, the Executive Orders all filed, and the leftist
congressional crap signed on the dotted line. He'll then be moved out to
pasture. He may not even be aware it happened and might believe he’s
still the man.
The
only opposition to his removal will be from Jill and the rest of the
Biden family that is used to the money train Joe engineered over the
years. They know, as Hillary Clinton has discovered, that once the power
and influence are gone, so is the money tree.
So,
when Joe is removed and Harris is elevated, who will be the vice
president? Schumer, Pelosi, Sanders, Michelle Obama? How about Adam
Schiff or Gretchen Whitmer, maybe Newsom? Is your stomach churning yet?
What if they reach across the aisle “in the spirit of unity” and get a
“Republican” like Romney or Collins? How about Kasich? Does that make
you feel better?
It’s
quite frightening how much damage has been done in just a few months.
What horrors await us in the next few years? We are flooded with people
across the southern border, bringing all manner of problems with them,
the least of which is COVID, all at this old man’s invitation. They even
get a Tee Shirt.
We
are now the second-class citizens who are not supposed to exist in our
country, with no hope, only devastating change on the horizon. We remain
for the most part under lockdown, unemployed, without insurance or
welfare. Is this what the Obama/Biden campaign slogan of “hope and
change” really meant?
However,
the new people (read: population) are greeted with everything under the
sun, even a free ticket to wherever they care to go, much to the
chagrin of the Greyhound Bus Lines CEO. No COVID passport needed (not
even a test); no ID needed to vote or seek medical treatment; food and
lodging and, of course, money are provided, all on the taxpayer’s dime.
What
a paradise, the USA! Who wouldn’t come to such a place? The land of the
freebie? It’s similar to what happened centuries ago, when marauders
would reach a distant shore and the locals thought they were gods of
some sort, usually to their ultimate demise.
Another
slice of the American pie gobbled up is when a business hires a
replacement (usually a foreigner on an HB visa working for less money)
for your job and you are instructed to train him before you are let go.
And make no mistake about it, you are being let go. Our country and our
population are being replaced through this leftist osmosis right before
our very eyes. But don’t worry: Joe is Building Back Better.
The mainstream media’s anti-White racism is escalating
As
Obama’s national profile began to rise in 2007, the media characterized
anyone who supported him as “racist.” When Trump’s national profile
began to rise in 2015, the media characterized him as a White
supremacist and indicated that his followers must be too. As of January
7, 2021, though, that suggestion was deemed too mild. This year, every
White person, unless he or she makes complete obeisance to the racist
“anti-racism” movement, is presumptively a “White supremacist.” Because
“White supremacists” are, by definition evil, this media mania is
potentially painting a target on the back of every White person in
America.
Lest
you think I’m exaggerating about the escalating use of the claims about
White supremacy, I used Bing’s date search feature to track the term’s
increasing prevalence during the same time period (January 1 through
March 21) in
2016, which was the last year of Obama’s presidency;
2019, which was the last year before the world went crazy;
2020, which was the beginning of the election year; and
2021, which marks the left’s efforts to silence all opposition.
Just watch the numbers climb:
[To view this, click on the link to this article---sorry, but I'm not techie enough to transpose it.]
In
2019, there was a 178% increase in references to White supremacy over
references in 2016 over the same two-and-a-half-month period.
From 2019 to 2020, there was another 236% increase.
The
real escalation happened when comparing the first two-and-a-half months
of 2020 to that same time period in 2021. This time, there was a 588%
increase in the use of the phrase “White supremacy.”
Overall,
the phrase’s use escalated a staggering 6,360% in just five years. To
make sense of that, you must imagine that Nazis are marching down every
American street.
But
of course, we know that’s not true. What’s really accelerated is the
amount of racial invective directed against Whites, with the preferred
phrase for the so-called “anti-racists” to be…you guessed it: White
supremacist.
What’s
driving the trend is a race-obsessed mainstream media. Here’s another
short video with just a sample of the top news stories from Google on
March 21 when using the phrase “White supremacy”:
[To view this, click on the link to this article---sorry, but I'm not techie enough to transpose it.]
And
this is where I’m going to bow out of writing and hand you over to a
Paul Joseph Watson video on the subject. As always, he throws in a few
swear words but he drills down into the important facts – and the really
important fact is that the media is pushing a very dangerous narrative.
The
media’s racial obsession is a way to maintain the Democrats’ political
power, by silencing the opposition, and to drive ratings. Eventually,
though, the real-world consequences are going to be disastrous.
If
our children are consistently told that Whites are not just racist, but
akin to the KKK or even Nazis, the means that waging war against them
is within the pale of moral behavior. I am deeply concerned that the
media will incite someone – or a group of someones – to take up arms in
the imaginary war against “White supremacists” and start targeting
people based upon their skin color.
Joe Biden has yet to deliver the customary first-year address to the joint session of Congress, but on March 25, the Delaware Democrat is scheduled to hold his first press conference. According to CBS News, Biden will face questions on the situation (please, don’t call it a “crisis”) at the southern border, the possibility of an infrastructure package, vaccines, and more.
Embattled Americans might think of other questions Joe Biden so far has failed to field. Here are a few examples of questions the obsequious White House press corps could ask, but won’t.
▸Why did you take so long to hold this press conference?
▸You recently announced that you would not speak out on the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, and Taiwan because the People’s Republic of China operates under different norms. Could you please outline these different norms in more detail?
▸During the 2020 campaign, you said the Chinese are “not bad folks” and “not competition for us.” Has Chinese president Xi Jinping ever done anything with which you disagreed?
▸As vice president, you said in 2014 that those who enter the United States illegally are “already Americans.” What does that say to legal immigrants and natural-born citizens?
▸During the 2020 campaign, you hailed the most extensive system of voter fraud in American history. What did you mean by that?
▸During the 2020 campaign, you told African Americans “you ain’t black” if they didn’t support you. How should African Americans who voted for President Trump understand that statement?
▸During the 2020 campaign, you said poor kids were just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Could you please explain that in further detail?
▸During the 2020 campaign, you said we choose this truth over facts. What, exactly, did you mean by that?
▸As vice president, in early 2017 you were one of many Obama Administration officials who requested to unmask General Michael Flynn, which revealed his identity in intelligence reports. Why did you make that request?
▸Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says you were on the wrong side of every major foreign policy issue for the past 40 years. Can you address those issues in detail?
▸Why haven’t you delivered an address to a joint session of Congress, as every president since Woodrow Wilson has done?
▸You have failed to remember the names of Senator Mitt Romney, the “senator who was a Mormon,” you said, and your own Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, “the guy who runs that outfit,” you said. What do you say to Americans who worry you are operating under diminished capacity?
▸What do you say to those who claim you are only a puppet of the far-Left?
▸Do you still plan to serve only one term?
▸Where is Hunter?
And so on. Watch how a sycophantic press corps treats Biden, and recall how many times President Trump took questions from hostile reporters in real-time. See if you can spot any difference, both in the press conference and what is now going on in America.
Oppressed
societies do not automatically rebel. Perhaps contrary to intuition,
oppressed populations have a tendency to keep their heads down. Despite
their misery, they continue their increasingly dismal lives, until
something shocks them into action.
The
United States did not automatically rebel against the tyranny of King
George. As the Declaration of Independence tells us, "all experience
has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable[.]" And suffer the colonists did, for many years,
complaining and protesting. The Boston Massacre occurred in 1770, and
the Tea Party in 1773, but not until 1776 did the rebellion finally
break out.
If we are so predisposed to long suffering, then why do rebellions occur?
Rebellions
occur when three internal conditions are met, along with at least one
external factor, for a total of four elements. I will list them here,
not necessarily in order of importance.
There
must be a leader, a population of followers, and a defining
moment. These are the three internal factors. There must also be an
external factor. In the American Revolution, that was the king of
France, whose navy tipped the scales at Yorktown, where the British
finally surrendered.
The
leader must have a number of qualities, including charisma, competence,
and courage. When the general public recognizes these qualities, they
will follow that leader to the gates of Hell, but only when the other
conditions are met.
The
second factor, the followers, are already motivated before the leader
appears. The Declaration of Independence describes these
motivations. The description includes, "a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, [which] evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute despotism ... a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute tyranny over these states."
The
third condition is the defining moment, a triggering event, that
provides the spark, the incitement, whereby a very large portion of the
aggrieved population becomes abruptly motivated to overcome its fears,
and to take the grave risk that is inherent in all rebellions against an
ensconced power structure. There must be a "shot heard round the
world," a point of no return.
In
the United States of 2021, we have met the first two conditions but not
the third. We have potential leaders, most notably President
Trump. We have the long-suffering population, angry and motivated. We
have not, however, had that one defining moment of final and
irreversible decision to launch a rebellion. Even the violent incident
in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was not enough.
The
fourth condition, an external one, might well involve communist
China. Whereas Biden and his family view China as their cash cow, other
factions, even some within the Dark State, recognize it as the
dangerous and existential enemy it is. If China invades Taiwan, or cuts
off access to the South China seaways, or is found to be sabotaging our
infrastructure through non-military acts of war (such as hacking the
power grid to shut it down), certain sectors of the establishment may
very well find their hand forced and respond with a military
counterattack, despite any and all objections from the White House.
While
another American Revolution does not seem likely at the present, the
four factors leading to one either already exist or are in the
making. History repeats itself, yes, but always with a twist.
As RedState has covered (see here and here), Kristi Noem is in a bit of hot water with Republican voters over a decision to not sign a recently passed state ban on biological men competing in women’s sports. Noem sent the bill back with suggestions that some are alleging water the bill down too much. There’s also worry that the South Dakota governor is bending the knee to corporate interests that have levied threats behind the scenes.
This story has really broken out over the last day, and I’m seeing a lot of disapproval, including from people who I would have formerly considered Noem fans. The big question now is whether she’s sunk her 2024 chances before the campaign even started?
Another detail about this that doesn’t cut in Noem’s favor is that Amazon may be playing a factor. The local press has reported that there are worries that the tech giant could pull their support for a facility in Sioux Falls. If that turns out to be the case, Republicans are not going to take too kindly to bending the knee to Jeff Bezo’s ultra-woke corporation.
There are a lot of variables to consider here. I understand that Noem has to do what’s best for her state. Part of that is protecting investment in South Dakota’s economy, including attracting outfits like Amazon and the NCAA. Yet, I think when push comes to shove, there have to be lines drawn in the sand, and Noem must realize that.
There is nothing that turns Republican voters off more than politicians bending the knee to woke interests in a feeble attempt to garner favor. It’s not that logical reasons don’t exist for what Noem did here, but if standing up and stopping boys from dominating women’s sports isn’t worthy of a fight, then what is? Social issues matter to the GOP base, and once you betray that base, there’s no success to be had in the future.
In the grand scheme of things, this individual bill may not be that big of an issue. Rather, it’s the perception being put out here by Noem that is going to haunt her. If she can’t be counted on for this, can she be counted on for other priorities when the going gets tough? That’s the question a lot of Republican voters will be asking going forward, and it’s why her chances have likely taken a hit.
As to my personal opinion of whether Noem is done after this, I suspect it’s too early to count her out completely. There’s a lot of time left before the 2024 race truly starts, she’s a charismatic individual, and I do believe she’s still got an inside track to a vice-presidential nod. One mistake shouldn’t define her, as I do think she’s done a lot of good things. Yet, I believe this latest flub has put more distance between her and Ron DeSantis, with the latter being far more likely to gain the nomination. In other words, my reaction is mixed.
Of course, everything changes if Donald Trump decides to enter the fray anyway.
The New York Times
has been struggling to understand the geopolitical divide in America –
that is, Republicans in the South and Midwest, Democrats in the
Northeast and the West Coast. Despite all the factors it examines, it
ignores one factor that is of overwhelming importance in most people’s
lives and that is the nature of their jobs; namely, whether they are
adding value to a product and have independent responsibilities.
In its “close-up picture” of America’s “partisan segregation,” three of the Times employees
dive into the geographical segregation of people by political
preference. At the end of a long article, they conclude that they have
no real conclusion. Despite examining all the usual leftist
classifications -- race, education, income, and availability of public
services – they cannot figure out why Republicans tend to live in some
areas and Democrats live in another. They think that people deliberately
self-segregate along political lines.
The Times
team may have overlooked something simple. People may not locate in
particular areas because of any political preference. They may choose
their political preference based on how and where they live.
This
separation is most obvious in the political differences between urban
and rural voters. It’s undisputed that the less populated areas are more
Republican and cities are more Democrat. Some of it may be explained by
differences in income, wealth, education, or race, but something more
subtle and complex may be at play.
People
outside of cities must plan their lives based on different factors than
urban dwellers. Every day begins by examining the logistics of life for
the day. Is the car going to start? Will it need gas? How long to drop
off the kids at school and then get to get to the store or work? How far
is the commute to work and when must I leave to negotiate traffic? It
is a highly variable life with little government intervention.
In
urban areas, which are more dependent on public transportation for both
parents and children, the choices are more limited. People choose to
live where the services they want and the places to which they travel
are readily available. It is a defined existence with much of it
controlled by government services.
The
more rural the setting, the more independent are the lives of those
living there. People who need liberty to make their lives function will
vote to keep this liberty. City people live with a more vertical
decision process that sees them dependent on government-provided
services and will vote to maintain this.
The
nature of work in the two regions also creates different levels of
independence. Most manufacturing has moved to rural and suburban
settings. The people in manufacturing lean conservative even though
unions are Democrat strongholds.
This
may be because people in manufacturing understand a horizontal process
flow. Their jobs depend on someone else providing material and the work
they do will be processed by people after them. They are a part of a
process, and they see themselves as independent entities in this flow.
People
who work in government or services, however, have a vertical workflow.
Things are handed down for them to do and they push them back up when
completed. These are tasks, not flow.
The
value added is also different. In manufacturing, agriculture, and
mining, every worker can see his labor add value. What he does takes
materials of lower value and changes them into something of higher
value. This increase in value is the source of the money that creates
that paycheck.
For
most of these people, value comes from their job and the community
around them, not from the government. They know that their lives depend
on their own efforts and the freely chosen efforts of others. That is
the essence of liberty and, therefore, Republicanism. That’s reflected
in rural and suburban votes. People who want independence and liberty
will not necessarily choose to live in a place because of that, but they
will avoid places that take it away. When they find that place, they
will vote to keep it that way.
A
lot of urban work has no obvious increase in the value of something. It
is just time spent. There is a mental difference in being paid for
value-added and time consumed.
People
in the cities understand that their lives have less variability and
they depend on government services to keep things moving. They process
ideas and paperwork, with their existence dependent on the things
outside of their control. They tend to vote for the politics that
support that existence and will vote to maintain the government support
that sustains them.
Contrary to the Times
team’s assumption, people may not choose where they live because of
their politics. They just might choose their politics because of where
and how they have chosen to live.
As Tulsi Gabbard criticizes former Congressional colleagues for ignoring the ongoing US dirty war and sanctions on Syria, a look at the comments of Joe Biden and top aides show that they have admitted to the same underlying, horrific facts. Gabbard only stands apart — and is even vilified — for being willing to call it out.
While Joe Biden has faced some mild Congressional pushback for bombing the Iraq-Syria border, Tulsi Gabbard says her former colleagues are ignoring the larger issue: the ongoing US dirty war on Syria. After a decade of proxy warfare that empowered Al Qaeda and ISIS, the US is now occupying one-third of Syria and imposing crippling sanctions that are crushing Syria’s economy and preventing reconstruction.
While Gabbard has been vilified for her stance on Syria, many top White House officials — including Joe Biden himself — have already acknowledged the same facts that she has called out. Aaron Maté plays clips of Biden and some of his most senior aides admitting to the horrific realities of the US dirty war on Syria, and argues that Gabbard only stands apart in being wiling to criticize it.
Featuring clips from: Tulsi Gabbard, former Democratic Congressmember; President Joe Biden; Brett McGurk, National Security Council coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa; Martin Dempsey, former Joint Chiefs chairman; Rob Malley, Special Envoy for Iran; John Kerry, Special Envoy for Climate & former Secretary of State; former President Donald Trump; Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur on Sanctions; Dana Stroul, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East; Vice President Kamala Harris.
We covered the problem of the military going after Tucker Carlson and marching on Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‘s office, clearly involving themselves in political things that they shouldn’t be getting involved in, taking an unprecedented side.
But it’s far worse than that. “Woke” politics has far infiltrated the military. So much so that they’re now at the stage of going after members’ political opinions.
Our friends over at PJ Media had an exclusive written by “Ted Mahan” (not his real name), a member of the Navy who has about twenty years of service, which described the “stand down order” the Navy employed as they tried to preach against and root out “extremism.”
The training we received this month was rushed through in the wake of the Washington, D.C., riot. The course, which was given in a PowerPoint deck, included a slide defining “extremism.” One would expect a broad, catch-all phrase that makes it clear that any radical activity undermining our nation or promoting criminal activity would not be tolerable.
But that would be wrong. Extremism was narrowly defined as “supremacist” beliefs only. That’s it. Nothing else. Nothing about anarchism, nothing about any group that might be found on the left. Everyone in the room – of every race, incidentally – had a collective hush as the chilling effect of this clearly biased definition dawned on our team. As one person on our team put it, “Why does the DoD only care about one kind of extremism? Why do they refuse to talk about antifa? Why is it extremist to attack a Capitol police officer, but not extremist to attack a Portland police officer?” [….]
Nor was there any mention of antifa, which explicitly and often openly promotes violent activities. It seems odd that in 2020, when we saw 1,000 riots with varying levels of violence, our training would be centered on the one riot connected to the right and ignore the 999 connected to the left.
The Daily Press ran a piece that basically confirmed this “training,” as well as the fact that it was “worrying” the Pentagon that the military members were viewing the “Capitol riots, racial protests equally.”
“This is coming from every echelon that we’re talking to,” said Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Ramón Colón-López. “Some people may think that, ‘all right, so the events of 6 January happened. How come you’re not looking at the situation that was going on in Seattle prior to that?’”
Sounds like an excellent question. So, what is the military telling service members in response, in their “training” on the matter?
According to Colón-López, they had “very very tough conversations with people because sometimes they’re emotional on the subject” to make sure that “military members understand the difference between Seattle and Washington, D.C.”
“We cannot confuse a First Amendment grievance because of social injustice organization and some of the criminals that latched on to go ahead and loot, destroy and commit other crimes. There’s two clear, distinct groups right there,” Colón-López said, referring to the difference between peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters and looters who disrupted some of those events.
The looting has been used by some television commentators to convince viewers that the protests were equivalent to the Capitol attacks and that message has left a mark on some of the younger forces, Colón-López said. [….]
Sometimes the younger troops take what they see on TV as, “OK so that’s what this means,” Colón-López said. “We have to educate them, no, that’s not what that meant.”
That’s incredibly concerning. Can we say ‘political indoctrination’? In addition to clearly having no idea what they are talking about and no idea what the BLM and Antifa are all about. Hundreds of violent riots across the country connected to BLM and Antifa, billions in damage, more than 20 murdered, hundreds injured, including hundreds of cops.
Versus one, three-hour riot where the people who died were the Trump supporters – 3 from medical emergencies, 1 shot by the Capitol Police and Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose cause of death is unclear. There is a big difference. One appears to be a continuing ongoing threat against the government and the social order, but has the protection of the Democrats versus a one-day event condemned by everyone.
