Why Aren’t Joe Biden And Stacey Abrams Protesting The World Series?

If state-based voter integrity laws are truly worse than racial segregation, it hardly makes sense for critics to stay silent as the World Series is hosted in Georgia and Texas.

by William Trachman for The Federalist

This year, both Georgia and Texas passed new voter integrity laws. The laws made voting more uniform and predictable for voters and had the additional benefit of reducing the potential for voter fraud. Critics contended that the laws were politically motivated. President Biden went further: he suggested that the laws were even worse than historical racial segregation in the deep South, commonly referred to as Jim Crow.

Other Democrats and leaders of global corporations also struck back, even convincing Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred to take away the All-Star game from Atlanta. Biden unequivocally supported moving the game out of Georgia. The move sadly cost businesses in Atlanta millions of dollars in revenue. For Major League Baseball, though, that price wasn’t too high to pay in order to make their point.

But welcome to October baseball! Now that the Houston Astros and the Atlanta Braves are playing in the World Series, the nation’s eyes once again will turn to both Texas and Georgia, which will host the best-of-seven series. In a normal world, watching the World Series would be as American as apple pie. And all of that missing revenue from the All-Star game should come roaring back to Atlanta. But don’t expect any apologies from President Biden. Or former Georgia state legislator Stacey Abrams. I doubt you’ll hear from them at all.

How did we even get here? Well, for both Georgia and Texas, enacting the voter integrity laws was no small feat. Before Georgia passed its reforms in March, there was significant drama about the proposed laws.

Corporations based in Atlanta, like Delta, Coca-Cola, and ViacomCBS, publicly opposed the bill. A large virtual meeting was attended by more than 100 corporate CEOs, some of whom were coincidentally in Georgia for the Masters golf tournament, which carried on as usual.

Abrams, who does not acknowledge the voters’ choices in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race, seemed even to encourage a Georgia boycott in the press. However, the publication that printed her initial comments — USA Today — later allowed Abrams to edit her published piece, so as to downplay the idea that a boycott was appropriate.

Similarly, in Texas, Democrat state legislators fled the state to try to stop the state’s voting bill; the method temporarily succeeded by depriving the legislature of a quorum. The legislators instead fled to Washington, D.C., by private jet to lobby for the passage of sweeping federalization of voting laws — embodied in a bill commonly referred to as H.R.1 — which would have required every Democratic senator to vote to end the filibuster. They failed.

Indeed, even before the Texas Democrats’ lobbying efforts could truly get off the ground, at least six of the legislators who came to Washington, D.C., ended up contracting COVID-19. They were also mocked for asking the public to send care packages to their glitzy D.C. hotel, and for soliciting donations for salsa, hairspray, travel toiletries, and other items. Two Texas Democrats even left D.C. in order to vacation in Portugal. Eventually, though, enough Texas Democrats returned home, such that the legislature had a quorum, and Texas could pass its voter integrity reforms.

Now that the World Series is coming back to Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp has already taken a victory lap. In a tweet on October 23, 2021, he lambasted Abrams and Major League Baseball while celebrating the home team’s accomplishments and cheering them on for the Series.

Presumably, Texas will also be celebrating when the Astros host their share of games for the Series. But we have yet to hear from Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, who was roundly booed last year at the World Series, even before he played his part in any of these controversies.

And where does that leave President Biden and all the other critics of Georgia and Texas? If the state-based voter integrity laws are truly worse than racial segregation — “Jim Eagle,” as Biden suggested — it hardly makes sense for critics to stay silent as these teams host the World Series. Why should a boycott stop at the All-Star game, for instance, if the dire warnings of voter suppression and racial discrimination were accurate?

The question is whether Biden, Abrams, and Manfred have the courage of their convictions. Why didn’t they call for the World Series to be moved to a location outside of either Georgia or Texas? Why hasn’t Manfred boycotted the games? Instead, he’s been attending them in person. The answer, of course, is that they knew all along that their dire warnings were mere partisan rhetoric.

Thankfully, the silence of the politicians and corporations will mean that the rest of us can just enjoy the October classic. So play ball!

X22, Stew Peters Show, and more-Oct 30

Enjoying the weekend? Here's tonight's news:

 

Biden Targets Everyday Americans for Partisan Gain

If the Justice Department and DHS have money to spend on surveilling school board protests, they are clearly overfunded.

by Kyle Shideler for American Greatness

When the history books are written the most significant hallmark of the Biden Administration will be its blatant, unapologetic use of the intelligence and federal law enforcement apparatus to target its political opponents. The decision to label as violent extremists regular Americans engaged in the political process, justifying the use of federal police power emanates from the very top, with Biden himself. 

On October 26, while campaigning on behalf of Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe, Biden alluded to McAuliffe’s opponent, Glenn Youngkin, saying, “Extremism has come in many forms. It can come in the rage of a mob driven to assault the Capitol. It can come in a smile and a fleece vest,” a reference to Youngkin’s preferred campaign outfit.

Biden’s decision to label Youngkin an extremist isn’t just a backhanded insult. It’s related to the Biden Department of Justice’s decision to target parent protestors at school board meetings as potential “domestic terrorists” following a letter sent by the National School Boards Association (NSBA). The NSBA apparently coordinated the letter with the Justice Department in order to justify federal intervention. The NSBA later walked back the claim, following criticism from multiple affiliated state school board associations and the revelation that one of the media examples the NSBA provided in its letter referred to a father whose daughter was raped in a school girls’ bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt.

Northern Virginia’s Loudoun County has been ground zero for contentious protests between parents and the school board over the use of critical race theory in the curriculum as well as the presence of sexually explicit materials in school libraries and transgender policies. The debate has been front and center of rival campaign rhetoric between Youngkin and McAuliffe. 

Despite the NSBA’s decision to back away from its description of school parents as “akin to domestic terrorists,” Attorney General Merrick Garland reiterated Biden’s sentiments, even as Republican House and Senate members used hearing opportunities this week to complain about the Justice Department’s heavy-handed approach. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called on Garland to “resign in disgrace.”

Garland continued to defend the use of the Justice Department’s National Security Division to target school board protests claiming it was only focused on issues of violence. Meanwhile, a local parent published on social media pictures of DHS federal protective service vehicles and other unmarked law enforcement vehicles parked outside an entirely peaceful Loudoun County school board protest. 

Garland may have a personal interest in targeting school board protests. It was recently revealed that Garland’s son-in-law is the president of Panorama Education. According to the Washington Examiner,  Panorama is known for “trainings on systemic oppression, white supremacy, unconscious bias, and intersectionality—all under the rubric of ‘Social-Emotional Learning.’”

Biden’s remarks during the Virginia campaign make clear that the Justice Department’s use of federal law enforcement to chill protected speech—at the very time when the growing outcry by school parents has become a sore spot for McAuliffe—isn’t based on any genuine threat, but instead a cynical willingness to target political opponents under the rubric of “extremism.” 

These actions aren’t confined to a few bad Justice Department actors but are clearly at the behest of the White House, for nakedly partisan purposes.

The willingness of the Biden Administration and elements of the federal bureaucracy to redirect intelligence resources to target domestic opponents, and task law enforcement to surveil and investigate those engaged in protected political speech for purely partisan reasons, is creating a critical weakness in the country’s homeland security. 

Federal law enforcement and intelligence capability are not endless, and redirecting agents to watch over upset mothers and fathers at a school board meeting results in taking resources away from genuine threats. The Biden Administration is more interested in painting political opponents as terrorists than defending Americans from the potential renaissance of global jihad in the wake of Biden’s incompetent Afghanistan evacuation. And the administration has certainly shown no interest in controlling the southern border against the vicious drug and human trafficking cartels that flood the country with lethal fentanyl.

Cotton is right that Garland should resign in disgrace, but he won’t. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have promised an investigation into the NSBA and its collusion with the Justice Department. While this is worthwhile, it is hardly sufficient. The primary issue is not how the NSBA colluded with the Justice Department to target parents, but that it is doing so at the behest of the president, and for partisan reasons.

Republicans in the Senate should block any Biden Justice Department and DHS nominees who will not publicly denounce this authoritarian behavior. If Biden is going to use these federal agencies to target his political opponents, why should Congress give him the appointees to do it?

As to Biden and Garland, U.S. Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) has already called for Biden and DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to be impeached for their willful refusal to uphold the law on our southern border. 

This latest outrage justifies adding additional charges to the impeachment document and adding Garland to the list under a Republican-held Congress. But even if Biden and his political appointees are held to account, the federal bureaucracy itself must be penalized for indulging in this unconstitutional overreach.

Congress should use the power of the purse to punish the Justice Department, DHS, and other elements of national power that have allowed themselves to be used for ideological thought control. If the Justice Department and DHS have money to spend on surveilling school board protests, they are clearly overfunded. A Republican-held Congress in 2022 should consider cutting their budgets until they squeal for mercy and agree to use their remaining funds for genuine security priorities.

Finally, local law enforcement, especially county sheriffs, should refuse to cooperate with federal investigations designed to chill the free-speech rights of citizens. It is a local, not a federal matter, to keep order at a county school board meeting, and local law enforcement should zealously defend their jurisdictions from federal overreach, going so far as to refuse to participate in joint task forces if they are used to target protesting parents.

A Desperate Terry McAuliffe Campaign Deploys Dirty Tricks to Stir Racial Animosity in Virigina Governors Race

If you’ve been following politics for a while, you know the status of Virginia to both the RNC and DNC clubs.  If not, GO DEEP HERE.   Virginia is where club insiders play politics; and yes, that includes using old campaign tactics familiar in the era of Clinton -vs- Bush.

The establishment clubs of both political wings of the UniParty use their backyard of Virginia to express their political influence.  Yesterday, supporters of the Terry McAuliffe campaign deployed an old school trick from the well worn pages of politics, by sending campaign operatives to stir up a racial angle:

The McAuliffe supporters are trying to bring back the Charlottesville White Nationalist narrative by having operatives hold tiki torches and claim to be ‘White Nationalist’ supporters of his opponent Glenn Youngkin at a campaign stop.   This is a stupid and transparent political gimmick.  Unfortunately, for McAuliffe these campaign tricks are so old and worn out even the former architect of them, Karl Rove, now rolls his eyes.

However, on the positive side, this does indicate a certain amount of desperation from the supporters of Terry McAuliffe.  If they were not worried about losing the election, these desperate Hail Marys would not be taking place.   One Twitter Account has already identified some of the stupid activists [SEE HERE]

Having people pretend to be racist and support the opponent is really desperate.  Even the operatives don’t look like they are having any fun.  Can you imagine being given this assignment?  It might look good on paper, but in the current era it’s just silly when deployed.   This effort is so Clinton -v- Bush era it’s ridiculous.

McAuliffe would have been better off if he just paid the FBI to help him.  Of course, the campaign denies their involvement:

Even the DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw watching from a distance can spot the nonsense: “That’s the weakness of communists. They abhor meritocracy and only hire/promote ppl for ideological conformity, not intelligence or creativity. So they think stunts like this are smart for their campaigns. And the media helps them by playing along.“

As we have shared, Virginia is where the establishment political clubs deploy, organize and play against each other; which is exactly why CTH warns about not getting too invested in this race.  Virginia is an insiders game and does not reflect the status of grassroots political effort at any level.

BUSTED: Multiple Participants in White Supremacist 

Smear Against Glenn Youngkin Allegedly Identified

Bonchie reporting for RedState

Yesterday, RedState reported on a disgusting, false smear that took place against Republican Glenn Youngkin as he rallied in Charlottesville, VA. A group of people stood in front of his bus, some with Trump hats on, posing with tiki-torches and pretending to be racist supporters of Youngkin. The scene was meant to be a call-back to the “Unite the Right” rally some years ago which caused such a political firestorm.

In what appeared to be a coordinated hit, media figures and members of the Terry McAuliffe campaign immediately spread the picture as proof that white supremacists support the Youngkin campaign. Yet, it was obvious the picture presented the opposite.

As I noted, you could zoom in and see that one of the men was black, which would be odd if these were actually white supremacists. Another appeared to be a woman. The entire ordeal was too perfect, as well. The “reporter” who spread the picture claims to have heard them say: “We are all in for Glenn.” Within minutes, McAuliffe’s spokeswoman was on social media saying the picture disqualified Youngkin from the race.

Now, we are beginning to learn who the participants in the stunt appear to be. I must stress that the identifications being made are alleged and not fully confirmed. Still, their political affiliations appear to make things fairly certain, and past that, both have locked their Twitter accounts.

Colleen Wachenfeld and Camden Layton both list in their bios that they work for Virginia Democrats, which is the official Democrat Party organization in the state. Given that, it’s probable that the other people in the picture are also paid operatives, not just by some third-party group like The Lincoln Project, but by an organization that directly coordinates with Terry McAuliffe.

As I speculated in my initial write-up, the speed with which members of the McAuliffe campaign latched onto this was too suspicious. It seems likely this was coordinated, with McAuliffe’s staff knowing this would take place. If that’s true, this will go down as one of the most dishonest, despicable political hitjobs in modern history.

It would have been one thing had McAuliffe’s campaign just admitted the picture was meant to be ironic. Instead, they ran with the idea that these were actually Youngkin supporters and that he was actually disqualified from the race over it. That’s a level of falsehood that even the most contentious campaigns rarely delve into. Usually, candidates try to live in gray areas with wiggle room, even when they tell falsehoods. In this case, McAuliffe’s surrogates went full bore with an obvious lie and don’t even appear to be walking it back.

While I doubt this kind of stupidity moves the needle in a state that cares much more about important issues, it does show just how desperate the McAuliffe campaign is. A campaign that thinks they are winning does not do stuff like this because the chance of it backfiring is too high. They pulled the trigger anyway, though, and that says their internals must be dire.

What Undermined Biden’s Popularity?

What Undermined Biden's Popularity?

Hoover Institute Analysis 

On June 1, Joe Biden’s job approval rating was 53.3% in the RealClearPolitics polling average, with a net approval of plus-11.3. In modern politics, plus-11.3 net approval is impressive. Donald Trump never posted a number that high, and Barack Obama only did so at the very beginning and end of his two terms in office. Unfortunately for Biden, the initial good feelings that marked his first few months have long since disappeared, and as of Oct. 28, his net approval had descended to minus-9.7 percentage points. That 21-point drop has turned Biden into a drag on his party’s midterm ambitions instead of the touted asset some had initially pictured.

Amid a summer and early fall full of depressing news, it’s no surprise that Biden’s approval plummeted. The more interesting question is why it fell so far so fast. Which event pushed Biden below water? Was it the rise of the coronavirus delta variant just as Americans were starting to return to life unmasked? Or was it the chaotic exit from Afghanistan, which left 13 Americans dead in a devastating terrorist attack and saw the Taliban reassert control over the country with shocking speed?

Our assessment of RealClearPolitics averages and YouGov/Economist polling is that it was both.

Although Biden’s approval was already falling, the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan accelerated the decline.

Afghanistan began to dominate the news on Aug. 13, 2021. To be sure, major news organizations reported on the Taliban’s march across the country in the preceding weeks, but it was only as the Taliban closed in on Kabul that the story took top billing. From Aug. 13 through Aug. 23, the New York Times featured Afghanistan as its top story every day. The rise of the delta variant seems to have already taken a significant toll on Biden to that point, with about half his decline in approval occurring before Aug. 13. On June 9, Biden stood at 54% approval and 41.1% disapproval in the RCP average, giving him a net rating of plus-12.9. By Aug. 12 — the day before Afghanistan took over the new cycle — his net approval had dropped 8.7 percentage points to plus-4.2.

During that same window, Biden’s approval rating on COVID-19 declined among independent voters and Republicans. YouGov/Economist polling found that among registered voters on May 29, 87% of Democrats, 19% of Republicans, and 46% of independents approved of Biden’s COVID-19 handling, leaving his net pandemic approval at 53% (almost identical to his overall approval). Approximately 86% of those who approved of Biden’s COVID-19 performance also approved of him overall.

By Aug. 14, Biden’s overall coronavirus approval dropped to 48%, with Republicans falling to 9% and independents dipping down to 40%. However, Biden’s approval remained high (89%) among those who still approved of his COVID-19 performance. This consistency suggests that Biden’s deflated pre-Afghanistan approval ratings stem primarily from those who changed their opinion of his pandemic performance. Those who continued to approve of his COVID-19 handling still approved of the job he was doing overall; the number of people in that camp had simply gone down.

While the rise of delta ate into Biden’s cushion, Afghanistan ultimately tipped him into negative territory. Between Aug. 13 and Aug. 23, Biden dropped from plus-4.2 to minus-2.3 in net approval according to the RCP average. Americans were never overwhelmingly confident in Biden’s ability to manage an international crisis, but Afghanistan quickly eroded what confidence there had been.

When he was riding high in June, registered voters were almost perfectly split on Biden’s ability to manage an international crisis — 44% reported confidence, while 43% reported being uneasy (according to the June 5 YouGov/Economist poll). Those numbers shifted to 37% and 49% by the Aug. 28, with Biden’s net Afghanistan approval a similar minus-13. In the month since, his foreign policy approval has remained below 40%, as has confidence in his ability to manage an international crisis.

Two months after the messy Afghanistan withdrawal, Biden’s approval has continued to drop. In the RCP average, he has slipped from minus-4 net approval on Oct. 1 to minus-9.7 net approval on Oct. 28. Much of that slide can be attributed to independents, who have soured even further on Biden’s pandemic handling. The 40% COVID-19 approval rating he received from the group on Aug. 14 has since fallen to 35%, which is same number of independents who approve of Biden’s overall performance. Meanwhile, overall confidence in his ability to handle an international crisis has held steady at 37%.

Some progressives have suggested that on top of Afghanistan and COVID-19, Biden’s woes stem from insufficiently left-leaning administration policies, costing him liberal and non-white voters. But the polling data doesn’t show anything of the kind. Biden’s approval rating among liberal Democrats was 90% as of Oct. 16, virtually identical to his May 29 rating of 92%. Meanwhile, among black liberals polled in the Oct. 16 survey, 78% approved of Biden, as did 79% of Hispanic liberals. Those numbers represent decreases from the 88% of black liberals who approved of Biden on May 29 and the 83% of Hispanic liberals who did the same.

At the same time, Biden’s numbers dropped significantly more among black and Hispanic moderates/conservatives. Among the former group, Biden’s approval plummeted from 80% to 59%, while the decrease was from 51% to 41% among the latter. Put another way, Biden did lose  ground among liberal blacks and Hispanics, but his losses among non-liberal members of those communities were more substantial.

Most troubling for Biden and the Democrats is the drop in independent approval.

In the 2016 presidential race, post-election YouGov and national exit polls showed that Donald Trump carried independents on his way to winning the Oval Office. In contrast, the 2018 post-election YouGov and national exit polls showed that independents broke for Democratic congressional candidates, giving Democrats control in the House of Representatives. A similar performance among independents handed the Democratic ticket the presidential election in 2020. With Biden deeply underwater among independents, Democrats have reason to fear next year’s midterm elections.

With his congressional agenda shrinking and stalled, Biden faces a difficult road to rehabilitating his public support. Fortunately for him, American voters have relatively short memories, and a full year separates us from the 2022 midterms. While the outlook for those elections currently is dim for Democrats, Biden will still have opportunities to improve his party’s prospects.

Brett Parker is a JD/PhD student at Stanford University.

David Brady is a professor of political science at Stanford University and the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Will the Glasgow Climate Change Summit Be a Superspreader Event?

Will the Glasgow Climate Change Summit Be a Superspreader Event?

Ellie Gardey for The American Spectator

Over 30,000 official attendees are set to descend on Glasgow for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will take place from October 31 to November 12. Up to 100,000 protesters could also make their way to the Scottish city for the summit. That has prompted some muted fears that the event could become a superspreader of COVID-19.

Scotland’s health minister, Humza Yousaf, acknowledged the possibility, telling the BBC, “There is absolutely a risk of COVID cases rising thereafter.” Yet, he said that the event would go on because “the climate emergency itself is the biggest public health emergency and crisis that we face globally.”

The event is set to take place indoors, away from the chilly Scottish weather. Attendees are not required to be vaccinated, though they will be required to wear a mask and test negative for the virus daily before entering the conference’s “blue zone.” 

Home testing kits have been shown to have a false negative rate of around 15 percent, which could mean that people infected with COVID-19 could enter into the indoor space filled with world leaders and other government officials. 

In addition, masses of protesters, who will not be allowed inside the event, will not be subject to the same daily testing protocols. 

This summer’s Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, which takes place largely outdoors and typically draws around 500,000 people, garnered dozens of headlines which predicted pandemic doom would result from the event. 

“Sturgis motorcycle rally sparks fears of super spreader event,” said one headline from CBS News. “Another Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, another potential super-spreader of COVID-19,” said another headline from the Duluth News Tribune.

While the same concerns have largely been absent regarding the Glasgow summit, Devi Sridhar, a professor of global health at the University of Edinburgh, tweeted her belief that the event will cause “an increase in cases” which will “put stress on limited health services.” 

Some have noted that many delegates have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. Quamrul Chowdhury, a climate negotiator from Bangladesh, told the Washington Post: “A lot of delegations have yet to be fully vaccinated. Maybe they have gotten one jab, but not two. The delays were a challenge.”

The effectiveness of some vaccines has also waned over time. A study published in the Lancet this month found that the effectiveness of Pfizer’s vaccine fell to 47 percent six months after receiving the shot. Other studies have found that the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing severe illness remains strong over time. 

‘Domestic Terrorism’ and the Bad Faith of the Democrats

‘Domestic Terrorism’ and the Bad Faith of the Democrats

Tucker Carlson knows full well what Jan. 6 has really been about.

Scott McKay for The American Spectator 

This weekend, Tucker Carlson has a documentary scheduled for releaseon what really happened Jan. 6. The political world has a pretty good idea what’ll be in it, and they’re not happy.

One thing which is fairly clear about Carlson is he doesn’t accept the approved narratives of the corporate media and the Washington elite. That Carlson grew up in those circles and knows how they work makes it especially infuriating to them that he is so disdainful of the things they tell themselves and the world at large.

And what they’ve told us about the Jan. 6 protests was identifiable from the beginning as a dangerous, destructive, and self-serving lie. Based on its trailer, Carlson’s documentary is almost assuredly going to make that case, and probably convincingly.

You don’t have to be a Q supporter or a Lin Wood/Sidney Powell aficionado to get this. The actions of the ruling class in Washington and their allies in corporate media and Big Tech telegraphed it far and wide. Anybody could see the video of the Jan. 6 protests and recognize them as “mostly peaceful,” particularly by the standards applied to the deadly rioting and looting which washed over our cities last summer.

Was Jan. 6 deadly? Yes, it was. How deadly? It’s a lie to say, as the media has time and again, that five people died as a result of the “riot.” Only one death of unnatural causes happened at the Capitol that day; that came when Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot an unarmed Air Force veteran named Ashli Babbit when she attempted to climb through a broken window leading into a corridor on the House side of the building.

Our corporate media continues to push this lie despite the patent clarity of the facts of the case, and that lie has been used as the justification for the continued imprisonment of some of the people who entered the Capitol during that protest.

Some of the people, I should emphasize. The ringleaders, or at least two of the most prominent of their number, haven’t been stashed away in solitary confinement with neither bail nor trial.

One of them is a man named Stewart Rhodes, who runs the “far-right,” “anti-government” organization The Oathkeepers. Another is an Oathkeepers member named Ray Epps. Both of them are almost certainly FBI informants and/or operatives, so much so that on video from the Jan. 6 protests and the night before, as Epps is exhorting his fellow protesters to storm the Capitol he’s opposed and derided with chants of “Fed! Fed! Fed!” from the crowd.

Epps spent several months on the FBI’s most wanted list surrounding the One Six event. Then for some reason he fell off it. Just disappeared, free and clear. And to public knowledge he was never hauled into jail. Rhodes at least was questioned and his phone confiscated, but after a short time he and his device were set free.

Given the FBI’s long history of brewing up “domestic terror” plots in order to entrap the disaffected, be they would-be jihadists or “right-wing” soreheads like the unwitting dupes in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case, none of this falls away from type. Both Revolver News and independent journalist Julie Kelly at American Greatness have done very detailed, excellent reporting on the subject; in a sane country both would be set to receive Pulitzer Prizes for their work.

Carlson’s documentary is certain to at least raise the possibility that the “riot” on Jan. 6 was, at least in part, a false flag operation meant to justify a spirit of emergency in order to dissipate timely investigation of the irregularities surrounding the 2020 presidential election.

This is by no means a conspiratorialist contention. In fact, it fits completely with the facts subsequent to Jan. 6.

It fits with the decision by Nancy Pelosi to bring in former National Guard general and environmentalist kook (and Toyota Land Cruiser enthusiast, as it turns out, making him one of America’s most identifiable ruling-class hypocrites) Russel Honore to oversee the transformation of the U.S. Capitol into a military fortress complete with armed guards and razor wire. Washington didn’t see that kind of militarization when General Lee and his army were mere miles away, and for no discernible justification other than the need to sell the lie.

It fits with the decision by Amazon Web Services, owned by the same company as the regime propaganda organ the Washington Post and helmed by a man named Andy Jassy (now anointed as the successor to Jeff Bezos atop the Amazon empire), to cancel the conservative social media platform Parler. Parler had exploded from five million users to twenty million in the two months between the election and Jan. 6 and was threatening to break Big Tech’s hold on the social media market, but blame for Jan. 6 was put forth as a justification for AWS to terminate its hosting. This despite evidence that Facebook and Twitter were used far more in organizing the protests than Parler.

And it fits with the subsequent actions of Attorney General Merrick Garland in demonizing and threatening Americans with views differing from our woke ruling class. Most prominent among those actions was this month’s obnoxious and thuggish memorandum sent throughout the Justice Department to review options for cracking down on irate parents at local school board meetings. School board meetings across the country have become more and more chaotic as the public increasingly rejectstransgenderism, critical race theory, and COVID hysteria pushed by the public education establishment, and Garland, clearly shilling for the Biden White House, is engaging in suppression of that dissent.

Suppression of dissent is the defining feature of left-wing politics in America. Given the lengths it has gone to in the political, economic, cultural, academic, and corporate spheres over the past several months — if not years — why would anyone believe the corrupting of a protest over its own election irregularities is beyond the will and capability of the Left?

This column has spent much time in the past few months discussing the need to move beyond conservatism toward something I’m calling revivalism, one of the definitions of which is “conservatism on offense.”

One of the key differences between conservatism and revivalism can be found in the relative approaches to the One Six debacle.

Here’s the “conservative” approach. We bring you soon-to-be-ex-congresswoman Liz Cheney…

At the most charitable, what we can say is the Cheney/conservative interpretation fails to recognize the bad faith of the Left and continues, despite all obvious evidence, to see the Democrats as simply people with whom they disagree politically.

Revivalists take a far more realistic view. Revivalists recognize, as Cheney fails or refuses to, that there is a recognizable pattern to the actions at hand. It’s based in the history of totalitarian regimes of other countries, regimes the Left has admired for decades. And it’s anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and anti-American.

Tucker Carlson’s documentary will be a window into that pattern as applied to Jan. 6. It will recognize the bad faith and bad actions of the Democrats’ current regime. And it will make them scream.

It’s already made Liz Cheney scream. She’s their Useful Idiot, and she just called for Carlson to be discredited and deplatformed, just like the Biden cabal has been trying to do to regular Americans for the last several months if not longer.

We’re allowed to ask questions about what really happened on Jan. 6. We’re allowed to recognize how pervasively we’re being lied to. And we’re allowed to raise hell about it, and seek redress.

If we aren’t, we don’t live in a constitutional republic. If we aren’t, that republic is dead. And the current ruling class doesn’t get to dictate what comes next.

The Obscured Truth About Trump's Truth Social Media Platform

 Op by Sunlit7

Among the media frenzy of stock purchases for the new Truth Social platform of former president Donald Trump it was lost on MAGA supporters to realize that Truth Social financial backings undermines one of the major underpinnings of the MAGA movement, that being, basically, made in China.

From a WeWork office in Miami, an obscure financier by the name of Patrick Orlando has become an unlikely power behind what is, for a meme-stock minute, the ultimate MAGA stock: the nascent media company of former President Donald J. Trump.

Orlando’s firm is set to be the money behind Trump Media and Technology Group, the former president’s attempt to fight back against Big Tech. Trump says he plans to start with a social network called Truth Social but has broader ambitions to create a conglomerate -- with news, streaming and technology businesses to compete with CNN and Disney+.

Yes that's right, MAGA supporters buying stock for a still yet nascent media company, built off the funding of a company located in China, in coordination with a partnership with investment bankers from Shanghai, run through a shell corporation from the Cayman Islands into a small WeWork office in Miami a meme stocked minute couldn't even begin to describe the irony. That Patrick Orlando's office is located in Wuhan pushes the whole thing right over the edge.

Patrick Orlando, chief executive officer of Yunhong International, a SPAC incorporated in the Cayman Islands and whose office are in Wuhan China most recently has embraced what's known as blank check companies.

Yunhong International, formerly China Yunhong Holdings, LTD

19/F Decheng Center 124

Zhongbei Road

Wuhan, Hub 430000 China

Patrick Orlando is the chief executive officer of Digital World Acquisition Corporation who has acted as the special purpose acquisition company's (SPAC) public face. Abraham Cinta, Sergio Camarero, Carlos Lopex, Jesus Emilo Hoyos Quintero are managing partners of Arc Group Ltd, a Shanghai based investment bank listed in a regulatory filing as a financial advisor to Digital World Acquisition Corporation, a shell company merging with former president Trump's venture.

The US based WeWork office of Digital World Acquisition Corporation is at

785 W 7th street

Miami, Florida 33130

Digital World Acquisition Corporation, unlike most SPAC's it doesn't have PIPE investors or private investment in public equity, they buttress SPAC mergers by helping enable a deal to go through even when early investors decide to redeem their shares. Shares sold drove Trump Media and Technology Group's stock up 73% giving a valuation of 6.3 billion to the company. Trump and other Trump Media and Technology Group shareholders will initially own 69% of the combined company after the merger with the SPAC showed a regulatory filing this week. Their ownership could reach 77% if the company's stock meets certain price milestones.

Arc Group members Abraham Cinta, Sergio Camarero, Carlos Lopez, and Jesus Emilo Hoyos Quintero have found themselves in trouble with regulators in the past:

A review of regulatory filings shows that while ARC has been actively involved in the creation of SPACs, especially over the past two years, its executives ran into trouble with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2017. The regulator sued to block the initial public offerings of three companies where the four men had leading roles, accusing them of misrepresenting their connections, misstating the nature and scope of their businesses and failing to cooperate with regulators. 

( https://news.yahoo.com/trump-media-deal-partner-advisers-095140095.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall)

Reuters could not determine what Trump or his company, Trump Media & Technology Group, knew of the ARC Group bankers' involvement in Digital World or their past troubles with regulators.

Trump Media & Technology Group and Digital World did not respond to requests for comment. Orlando, who has worked on at least three other special purpose acquisition companies with ARC, also did not respond to requests for comment.

Stop orders, such as the one against the ARC executives, are extremely rare; only five have been issued by the SEC since the case against the ARC executives four years ago.

The situation has further been besmudged by a report that Donald Trump's SPAC merger may have violated securities laws according to a recent report by the Insider. 

Former President Donald Trump and the founder of the SPAC that is merging with his new media company may have discussed the deal in March 2021, The New York Times reported.
Such a discussion could potentially have broken laws governing when SPACs can enter conversations with potential partners, the publication added.

On October 21, Trump announced plans for Trump Media and Technology Group, a company with a yet-to-launch social-media site. He said it would go public via a merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC.

Digital World had gone public in September. The news that Trump would be involved with the company sent its stock into the stratosphere. But the rally was short-lived, with the stock slipping early this week before trading mostly sideways into the weekend.

The timing of the first conversations between Trump and Patrick Orlando, the SPAC's chief executive and chairman, are of interest. This is because of securities laws that prohibit conversations between SPACs and merger partners before public listings, the Times reported on Friday.

Digital World was incorporated in December 2020, and said in its May IPO prospectus that it hadn't been in "substantive" discussions with any merger targets.

"We have not selected any specific business combination target and we have not, nor has anyone on our behalf, engaged in any substantive discussions, directly or indirectly, with any business combination target with respect to an initial business combination with us," the company wrote in the S-1 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company said it planned to target "technology-focused companies" in the Americas.

( https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-spac-digital-world-spac-securities-law-2021-10)

The complete sheer, utter irony of it all.