Smart move, following his instincts. President Trump was scheduled to deliver press remarks on January 6th, earlier today he cancelled them.
Given the continued effort by the DC political establishment, the intelligence branch, corrupt officials, Lawfare aides and the media stenographers writ large, to exploit the J6 events for mid-term political interests, it makes sense to allow them to suck their own oxygen.
WH Occupant Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and likely a host of more credible Sesame Street costumed characters, are all scheduled to deliver a performance in DC to commemorate the solemn anniversary of the most cataclysmic threat to our nation’s Republic in the history of mankind.
Adam Kinzinger and both Liz Cheneys, including the one with the eye patch, will likely be in attendance for the grand pantomime.
I am not, of course, talking about the obvious contours of the crisis. A dangerous virus is getting people sick and killing them. Some of them were my friends and relatives, so the danger is not theoretical, but it isn’t exactly Biblical, either. I’ve lived through earthquakes, floods, fires and financial disasters that render COVID a tad less dramatic by comparison than some folks insist on making it.
If we wrapped all of our personal death stories up under one bow—if, years ago, my diabetic uncle ice-creaming himself to death or a former customer’s final surrender to lung cancer were diagnosed as a single, society-wide plague—I don’t think this yearly march of death would be nearly as dramatic as the time I had to yell to my wife, “get the kids to higher ground! There’s a flood coming.”
I’m not arguing for public health policy on the basis of my own drama-queen standards. I’m just saying our reaction to COVID requires more than drama to make any sense. We need real tragedy. We need buildings reduced to rubble, emaciated walking-cadavers looking for food, body bags piling up on the corner, to warrant the sort of hysteria we have yielded to over the last two years.
I understand a nation mobilizing when Jihadists fly airplanes into the country’s financial nerve center, but I clearly don’t understand zoom classes for children who have statistically ZERO chance of getting sick, much less dying.
What I truly don’t understand is just this: why do they think they can lie to us so shamelessly? What are they really hiding?
The Origins
To begin with, why would any sane Western scientist—theoretically devoted to Western ideals—allow a dangerous virus to be genetically modified in a Communist laboratory? In what universe would making a bat virus more transmissible to human beings be considered a good thing? Who could possibly argue that U.S taxpayers should actually fund such insanity? If you want to understand my “I don’t know” dilemma, it starts here, because my impulse is to respond: “wait, you’re joking right?” The closest thing I’ve seen to an answer on this front runs as follows: a lot of very bad actors are developing bio-weapons. We need to understand them better than our enemies. We need to develop them so that we can learn how to fight them. Ok. But, then, see, you lose me when you follow that up with: so we’re paying totalitarian Communists to do the research.
That doesn’t add up. There is something you’re not telling me.
Forget for a moment, the utter insanity of trusting containment of the virus to the very people who helped create it; what on earth justifies the cratering of economies, the closing of schools, the locking-down of entire regions, to fight a virus that will kill 0.18 percent of the population–and that largely limited to the elderly and those with multiple comorbidities?
Throughout the course of recorded history, quarantines have been limited to the visibly sick, not the healthy. In an agrarian economy, this would be something like hoping the sick could be fed by keeping all the healthy farm hands locked up in the village. Eventually, the crops don’t get harvested. Are you actually asking me to believe you didn’t know the supply chain would be broken?
You can’t expect me to believe you’re that stupid. There is something you’re not telling me.
The Needle
All needles are good, right? We need a needle, don’t we? After all, our colonial ancestors fought smallpox with vaccination, and who wouldn’t be grateful for Jonas Salk ending polio? I’m with you there. But, what is this I hear about these needles not really being vaccinations and not really being tested? Vaccination involves using an attenuated (weakened) form of the disease itself, but this is a brand new genetic technology that hasn’t any long-term trial, right? Vaccination for smallpox, after all, had folk-medicine roots going back centuries, and smallpox had a 25 percent or greater fatality rate. You are comparing a tested cure for a very dire sickness to a completely untested technology against a relatively minor one, right? That doesn’t sound like comparing apples and oranges. It sounds like comparing apples and smoke. You’re playing with the language. You’re lying to me and you think I won’t notice, right?
And then there’s this shifting standard. First, you said the vaccine would put an end to the virus. Then you said, there would be “breakthrough” infections. Then you said you could get the disease but it would be milder and less likely to cause death, but that it would stop the spread, and then you said, well, okay, it doesn’t stop the spread, and now you may need a third shot and a fourth and, well, who knows how many? When was the last time someone said they had just taken their 12th smallpox booster and their 25th polio shot?
In recent weeks, some studies indicate that triple vaccination might actually increase your chances of becoming symptomatic. Just what kind of a “vaccine” is this? It appears to be doing more harm than good.
The vaccine actually appears to be dangerous, so there is something you’re not telling me.
The Rise of Bald Fascism
I run an apple orchard open to the public. For decades, health-aware mothers have asked me what sort of chemicals we use to help the crop along and if any of our fruit is genetically modified. Although we try to go organic where we can, sometimes we use Imidan to control codling moths, because even health-aware mothers don’t like seeing half a worm in their apple. Those very same mothers—the Meryl Streep types, the kind of person who would happily deprive a farmer of his business with accusations of false toxicity—want to know how many of our workers have taken a “vaccine” with no long-term testing that is the product of genetic engineering. Those very same mothers want young farmworkers to risk myocarditis (a death-dealing cardiac condition) so as to make sure their apple-picking experience is safe.
How did Monsanto become mother’s enemy and Pfizer her sworn defender? What are you doing to their heads?
There is something you’re not telling me.
The Answers
Yes, I’ve been told to follow the money. I’ve been told that hospitals make more money off all things COVID. I’ve been told that Big Pharma has made a fortune from this crisis, that when you create a disaster you can make a fortune responding to it, but it seems to me that in order for that to be true, somewhere, within the board room a conversation something like the following would have to take place:
Jack: We’re talking about the biggest revenue stream in our history, perhaps all of history.
Lloyd: But no long-term testing?
Jack: Blessed be immunity!
Lloyd: Right, right. But you know as well as I do, with a new technology you get some pretty ugly surprises. You want to live with kids crippled for life, brain-bleeds . . .
Jack: To save most of humanity from a ventilator?
Lloyd: Jack. This is your old friend Lloyd here. The Third World is beating this virus with sunshine and ivermectin. Save the Christ complex for the news conference.
Jack: You have something against making a living? Against science?
Lloyd: You really aren’t going to blink, are you? You’re really going to tell the parents of vaccine-injured kids our juice had nothing to do with it?
Jack: That’s the plan.
It seems to me that health care discussions of this sort would require such levels of bald avarice and/or self-deception that it’s difficult to imagine them taking place. Evil rarely advances in the name of evil itself. The far more plausible conversation between “Jack” and “Lloyd” would involve them conferring sainthood on each other—teary-eyed and choked up—for saving humanity.
Likewise, I believe it is entirely plausible for the hospital management class to do two things at once: follow a mindless federal COVID protocol that promotes a lingering, expensive death (as it shores up the hospital’s bottom line) and believe, simultaneously, they are only “following the science.”
Dr. Pierre Kory writing at The Federalist scolds a federal standard that ignores medicines that actually work, in favor of treatments that effectively kill patients. It’s possible for highly skilled, impeccably credentialed people to look at a solution that works with their own eyes, and then deny the miracle if it isn’t institutionally fashionable. There are Pharisees in every generation.
We like to think of doctors and public health experts as brilliant people, and many of them are, but this crisis should be making something clear: academics are not always critical thinkers. Years ago, a friend confessed to me that he was changing his doctoral course of study to another discipline entirely. He admitted he didn’t possess the creativity necessary to actually expand the realm of human knowledge. He would be better off reading charts, accepting the consensus, and enforcing the rules. We need folks who are honest about their limitations, but we need thinkers too, and the mere functionaries should allow the real thinkers to have an argument.
The Great Silence
I’m fighting a cancel-culture battle myself, so I’m intimately aware of how earnest the enemies of discussion really are. Dr. Robert Malone, an inventor of mRNA technology, and a self-admitted victim of vaccine injury (he suffered extreme hypertension after taking the second dose of the Moderna vaccine), has been on a crusade to let the world know that his own technology is not ready for prime time. He warns people, solemnly, not to give it to their children. He also offers a powerful remonstrance against the BBC’s “trusted news initiative,” and it’s on this front, in conclusion, I continue to offer up my confusion.
Why, I ask the policy elites, in the middle of a pandemic would you restrain the world’s most gifted thinkers from offering a remonstrance? Science is not about consensus. It’s about critique. Don’t you need people checking your numbers? Weren’t you the ones who came up with the notion of “peer review?”
What Are You Hiding from Us?
I continue to believe there is some great, ominous truth we are not being told, or else this deception wouldn’t have been global in its dimension. I have no idea which people actually dress up in black robes and bow to the owl in the Grove, but I fear some version of that cabal believe they have been given a dark stewardship that overrides our God-given liberty, our history, and the fondest hopes we have for our future.
Why else would they lie to you shamelessly and then demand your worshipful obedience?
It seems to me the best way to make sure they never succeed remains pretty simple: Tell them to go to hell.
A bombshell report just published in Newsweek details an in-depth, secret operation conducted by the Justice Department before and during January 6. Contrary to the lamentations of FBI Director Christopher Wray that he wished his agency had had better resources to prevent the Capitol breach, hundreds of elite forces under Wray’s authority were on stand-by days just before the protest, and even on the ground as it happened.
The “shadowy commandos” stationed at Quantico, home of the FBI Academy, on January 2, 2021 included the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team and SWAT teams.
“On the morning of January 6, most of these forces staged closer to downtown Washington, particularly after intelligence was received indicating a possible threat to FBI headquarters building or the FBI’s Washington Field Office,” Newsweek investigative reporter William M. Arkin wrote. “FBI tactical teams arrived on Capitol Hill early in the day to assist in the collection of evidence at sites—including the Republican and Democrat party national headquarters—where explosive devices were found. FBI SWAT teams and snipers were deployed to secure nearby congressional office buildings. Other FBI agents provided selective security around the U.S. Capitol and protection to congressional members and staff.”
An FBI tactical team, according to the report, entered the building immediately after protesters did, which was shortly after 2 p.m.
To the casual reader, news that the nation’s top law enforcement agency prepared ahead of time to combat possible violence on January 6 is reassuring. But to anyone who has closely followed the hyperpartisan activity of the FBI over the past several years, the article reads more like a confession, confirming deep suspicions that the FBI played an instrumental role in prompting the events of that day rather than act as a legitimate police force helping to keep lawmakers and American citizens safe.
Those suspicions are not without merit. In September, the New York Times confirmed that at least two FBI informants had infiltrated the Proud Boys, an alleged “militia group” that breached the Capitol that day. Defense attorneys disclose in court documents that FBI agents were in the crowd.
The Justice Department’s scandal-ridden prosecution of several men charged with conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020 continues to reveal disturbing details of how the FBI concocted the plot and managed every aspect until the end. More than a dozen informants and undercover agents executed the scheme—one FBI asset per defendant. Prosecutors continue to tie the kidnapping plot and January 6 together, a legal strategy that could backfire big-time for federal prosecutors.
And, more importantly, several agitators on January 6 including Ray Epps and Stewart Rhodes, who is “Person 1” in the multi-defendant conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, still have not been charged; neither have dozens of protesters photographed wearing neon orange hats and electrical tape that day.
So as the nation approaches the one-year anniversary of what Democrats and the Biden regime insist was an attack as grave as 9/11, the top unanswered question is—what did the FBI do and when did it do it?
At least one Republican congressman has already confronted Attorney General Merrick Garland about the FBI’s involvement on January 6.
Playing a recording of Epps on the night of January 5 and on two other occasions on January 6 when he implored people to go “into the Capitol,” U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Garland what he knew about his department’s participation in the Capitol protest. “Can you tell us without talking about particular videos how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 6? Whether they agitated to go into the Capitol? And if any of them did?”
Garland, citing privacy concerns about an ongoing investigation, refused to answer.
But Republicans have a duty to insist on getting the answers. The FBI is a corrupt body that has lost the trust of many Americans, including Republicans who’ve historically supported the bureau. If the FBI infiltrated political groups months ahead of the protest, orchestrated travel plans, and instigated criminal behavior as the FBI apparently did in the Whitmer plot, the American people deserve to know.
More questions demand answers, including:
Why does the government continue to conceal 14,000 hours of surveillance video taken inside and outside the Capitol building on January 6? If the “attack” was indeed an act of domestic terror, as Wray concluded, the public should see every minute of the footage. Instead, the Justice Department continues to petition the court to keep every clip under a protective order with limited access even to defendants and their attorneys.
Who planted the alleged pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on the evening of January 5? That scare prompted the first set of evacuations right as Trump finished his speech at the Ellipse the next day. Considering the excessive powers the FBI has used to hunt down Capitol trespassers, including geofence warrants to collect cell phone data of everyone in the city that day, it’s inexplicable that the perpetrator has not been caught and charged—unless, of course, the perpetrator was a fed.
Who gave the orders to D.C. and Capitol police to assault protesters with explosive devices such as flashbangs, pepper balls, rubber bullets, and chemical spray? The unwarranted attacks led to most of the confrontations between police and protesters, resulting in more than 100 charges of assaulting police officers against Capitol protesters. At the same time, the government is concealing the names of officers involved in the alleged attacks, contending they are crime victims and require privacy.
Who are the officers who beat, punched, stomped, and maced women inside the lower west terrace tunnel that afternoon? One of the women, Victoria White, faces numerous criminal charges but her brutal attackers have not been identified or charged. In any other case of police brutality, the names of the officers would be released almost immediately. But once again, the rules are different for January 6.
Where is the report on the internal investigation into Michael Byrd, the Capitol cop who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt and who remains on the force to this day?
Who are the officers who let hundreds of people into the building that afternoon?
Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser reject offers for thousands of National Guard soldiers to assist with security on January 6?
Where is the full autopsy report on Rosanne Boyland, one of two women who died on January 6? The D.C. coroner claimed she died of an accidental drug overdose but video and eyewitness accounts support a more sinister culprit: that police contributed to—if not caused—her death at the age of 34. Capitol police officers Aquilino Gonell and Harry Dunn testified that they handled her body before she was officially pronounced dead that evening around 6:00 p.m. What did they do?
Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, Republicans in Washington have shown no appetite for exposing the truth about January 6. Republican senators have remained completely silent except to go along with the “armed insurrection” narrative and only a handful of Republican House members have called out the Justice Department’s abusive investigation and political prison.
Democrats have the upper hand for now. If Republicans take over Congress next year, they must demand a full investigation under a new January 6 select committee. If the Capitol protest was, as it increasingly appears, an inside job, the American people are entitled to know the truth.
The Greek historian Polybius begins his history of the Punic Wars by explaining that Rome “from the beginning” was driven by a single purpose (prothesis). This was nothing less than the extension of Roman domination over much of the world. In a similar way, the Democratic Party seems motivated by a single aim, which, as far as I can tell, is the establishment of a one-party dictatorship. The current (in name only) chief executive, as well as Democratic congressmen, have become expendable in advancing this clearly defined goal. Indeed, Democratic politicians even seem willing in some cases to sacrifice their careers to assist their party’s drive for power.
For example, keeping the southern border open for the benefit of illegals, who can eventually be turned into Democratic voters, is negatively impacting Biden’s poll numbers. His approval rating on this issue sank by July to 33 percent. But the Democratic president has held to this course despite the lack of popular approval. Americans are also souring on Build Back Better because of its likely inflationary effects. But this bill does have the advantages of bestowing on illegals $8.2 billion in gifts. Once these illegals are made into citizens (courtesy of the Democratic Party), they can then help keep Biden’s party perpetually in office. Needless to say, BBB’s passage will hurt Democratic congressmen trying to get reelected in red states. But that may be a small price to pay for expanding the party’s base.
Another Democratic fixation, federalizing elections so that voter identification can be eliminated while vote harvesting is perpetuated, does not elicit support from most Americans. To make matters worse, the Democrats are trying to pass HR 1 while the popularity of the president and vice president continues to plummet. But the electoral benefits that will accrue to the party in the long term by holding elections without state control, particularly in red states, may outweigh its sinking short-term popularity. Vice President Harris desperately asserted in an interview on December 26 that other Western countries view American democracy as defective because we keep people from voting. What Harris meant by “voters’ rights inaction” is that Republicans still insist on voter identification, which is a long-standing rule almost everywhere else in the Western world.
Another generally unpopular Democratic plan is eliminating the Senate filibuster, an effort against which two relatively moderate Democratic Senators, from West Virginia and Arizona, remain standing in opposition. If the filibuster can be removed, then Democrats might pass HR1 and go on to grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The availability of these predictably Democratic states would permit Democrats to hold a permanent majority in the Senate. Moreover, since Schumer’s sheep almost always vote as a bloc, Democrats should be able to pass and implement what they want, with the approval of their media cheering gallery and the overwhelmingly Democratic federal bureaucracy.
Professor John Kenneth White of the Catholic University of America Law School seems actually annoyed that Democrats are doing so little to take forever control of the government. They should be thinking more boldly. Apparently, the Electoral College must also go, as a remnant of a less enlightened past:
It won’t be enough merely to reform the filibuster, add more justices to the Supreme Court, change presidents or surrender presidential powers to Congress. A document written in 1787 is inadequate for the 21st century. The Electoral College is poised to create more misfires, with popular vote winners not becoming president, as has happened twice already this century. Territorial expansion has resulted in 16 percent of the U.S. population controlling half the seats in the U.S. Senate.
Another aspect of this plan for a Democratic takeover is focusing on the “tumult” of the Trump years in contrast to the tranquility of the Biden presidency. In response to a question on Fox News about what she valued about the current administration, Susan Page of USA Today stressed how important for Americans ending the “tumult” of the Republican administration has been. In addition, Page has written about her distaste for the “tumult” of the Trump years. Please note that Page’s decidedly leftist paper did everything imaginable to feed the anti-Trump frenzy that supposedly went away last January. From pushing narratives about the Trump-Russian collusion to playing up the “insurrection” on January 6, USA Today worked persistently to besmirch the Trump Administration. The same treatment will no doubt be meted out to other “right wing” presidents our media elites decide to bring down. These news experts will help make sure that the Democrats dominate national politics until the end times—and possibly beyond.
If Democrats can get their way legislatively within the next few months, they may do better than expected in November. But it should be possible for them, even without legislative successes, to muddle through a bad year. If the administration and media can go on whipping up pandemic hysteria, they may cite this to justify vote harvesting and other electoral tricks. After all, their party is trying to protect us against disease as well as white supremacists.
Amid the misdeeds and malpractice in the media, they also saw a loss of influence as a result. Journalism took a step back.
If you are one who appreciates metaphors there was a telling real-life visual in D.C. this year. The Newseum, a curated warehouse of journalism history – which closed at the end of 2019 – had its facade removed from the building, a tall engraved wall of the 1st Amendment. Sure, it serves as a shorthand object lesson, but for many in the press, they seemed to take it as a marching order.
In just one of the many odd practices this year, many journalists saw fit to actually attack the institution that is the foundation of their profession. It used to be that the 1-A was seen as the bedrock of the press and something defended at all costs. Not anymore. Beginning with Donald Trump being blocked from Twitter — while the Taliban is permitted to tweet away — throughout the year we saw journalists cheering the quieting of sources and lobbying to have others taken down, blocked, or silenced. Justifications were made, repeatedly, to have individuals called inciteful or outlets as dangerous and thus in need of being muzzled.
It was the deepest of ironies to see the folks at CNN bemoaning that China was clamping down on pro-democracy news outlets in Hong Kong. It was said to have “a chilling effect on the press” to see multiple news sources being forced to shutter. That these very same voices were calling to see conservative news outlets Fox News, One America News, and Newsmax taken down from cable and satellite providers was NOT considered chilling. It was an amazing dose of oblivious hypocrisy.
The basis of this call to censor has been the overhyped January 6 riot at the Capitol, something they are giddy to celebrate this week in its one-year anniversary. For a full year, the media have been harping on this event, using it to impugn Republicans, Donald Trump, conservatives, and any media figures who do not appropriately express a high level of outrage. Blame was leveled, baseless accusations hurled, and that was used as justification to call for the silencing of “threats,” “dangerous rhetoric,” “inciteful language,” or “lies and misinformation.”
While these sound like perfectly valid reasons, what exposes the danger in this is just who is the source to declare what qualifies under those labels. Consider this reality: The outlets looking to silence others over lies and misinformation are not only repeatedly dispensing their own prevarications, they are basing it on their own lies about the January 6 riot.
We have all heard throughout the year how that day’s activities were an insurrection and the people involved were staging a coup. This alone defies the common practice seen in the media for years of assumed innocence, awaiting a court sentencing. No longer do journalists use “accused” or “alleged” when referring to the Capitol participants – they are firmly declared “insurrectionists,” and this is allowed to not only stand as a final assessment, it is then used to leverage further actions on others. They are deemed guilty of insurrection, and anyone or any outlet that does not condemn them as such is an accessory to treason.
Here is the malignant aspect of this reaction: not only have journalists dispatched awaiting a verdict before branding those arrested, but they also do so without any of them even being held for such a charge. There is in the region of 700 people arrested over that riot from one year ago, and not a single one of them has been charged with insurrection or treasonous behavior. Add to this that the FBI announced they have found no evidence of organization, and that barely any people have been brought up on weapons charges, and the claim of a staged coup is completely farcical.
According to the press, however, they are all guilty of insurrection. So they are delivering false summations on the event in order to charge others with false information, to justify their being silenced. This has been the case all year. On a variety of topics. Whether it has been COVID, vaccines, spending bills, the border crisis, Critical Race Theory, the economy – lies and misinformation are said to be among our biggest threats. The game is fully exposed once we turn the same light on those leveling the accusations.
Fox News is frequently highlighted as a problem, and among the criticisms is how they present misinformation. One example was seen in the Spring when the outlet made a report that Joe Biden was planning on severely curtailing meat consumption as part of his climate agenda.
The news channel based this off of an article in the Daily Mail, that had baselessly taken a study from the University of Michigan and conflated it into Biden’s policy proposal. The next day, Fox corrected the report, indicating that it was not, in fact, in Joe Biden’s plans. The network absorbed its share of harsh criticisms over this mistaken report.
Forbes called the report a “fib” and a “falsehood.” Media Matters calmly declared “Fox hosts try to scare viewers with a dystopian nightmare.” CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale weighed in, calling it a “distortion,” and claimed this showed “how right-wing media figures and elected officials turned a little-known academic analysis into a scary presidential plot.” Dale’s initial report failed to mention that Fox had come back and corrected the story, as he valiantly condemned the network. Yes, this was a bad error on the part of Fox News, but this was held up as an example of the network relying on fake news.
Yet we note that when other news outlets make a nearly identical report on misinformation there is hardly the same level of condemnation. Instead, excuses are made, and then actual congratulatory comments follow. The biggest individual to blame for this is CNN’s media guru, Brian Stelter. Over the years, he has been dismissively described as a “Media Hall Monitor,” for the way he always is tattling on FoxNews. In reality, though, he is more of a custodian for the press.
Regarding the fake news story of border agents supposedly whipping immigrants, Stelter grudgingly came around to covering the episode on his Reliable Sources program, but he took a decidedly different approach in order to excuse the press behavior. Instead of pushing lies and deceiving viewers, as Fox was charged with doing, after days of numerous outlets repeating the false story leading to government leaders – up to President Joe Biden — condemning the actions, Stelter declared it was “a faulty media narrative.” He and partner Oliver Darcy made the excuse that news outlets were in a rush to keep up with a story that originated on social media, as if that somehow excused them for running a false claim.
CNN’s Don Lemon, Brian Stelter discuss the Fox News texts on the Capitol riot, 12/13/21.
Also lacking was the admission that numerous on-air personalities at CNN repeated the claim. Fox had been impugned because of many different anchors and pundits covering the fake meat story, but no criticism was leveled at those at CNN who told the whipping fable all week, including those who repeated it after it was proven false. Then Darcy makes the brashest move – he applauded those who screwed up the story for ultimately getting the story correct, because that is ultimately what is important.
This is a common refrain seen in the press when retractions are delivered. We see repeatedly when a follow-up needs to be made to correct an inaccurate report that we should applaud the outlets for being forthright and open about their errors. Yet this is not afforded to Fox News or other conservative media. When they make an error it is called egregious and intentional, and when a correction is made on the air it is held up as proof they had been caught lying. When approved news outlets deliver fraudulent reports it is overlooked and excused.
These are the same outlets declaring who is lying, who is feeding misinformation, and who needs to be silenced. It appears they actually resent the outlets engaged in the exact same behavior they undertake themselves
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is using the J6 ‘threat to our democracy‘ narrative in an effort to gain support for legislation that will permit the federal takeover of elections. In a letter today, Schumer sets a deadline date of January 17 for a change in the Senate rules to remove the filibuster.
Schumer writes this letter without actually having the needed number of votes to change the rules, but he’s attempting to create pressure on fellow Democrats. Full propaganda letter below, but here’s the part that matters:
WASHINGTON DC – Chuck Schumer is attempting a filibuster Hail Mary as Democrats’ agenda on both elections reform and President Joe Biden’s economic plans remains stalled at the beginning of a critical midterm election year.
The Senate majority leader warned Monday that the Senate will debate and vote on changes to the chamber’s rules by January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, unless Republicans get out of the way on elections reform. His threat seems inevitable, since Republicans are almost certain to block Democrats’ next attempt to bring up their priority legislation. (read more)
As we previously noted, the entire roadmap for Democrats in the 2022 mid-term election is predicated on exploitation of the J6 ‘danger to democracy‘ narrative. They have multiple approaches, most of which will evidence as efforts in stupidity, toward using the J6 narrative.
With the current landscape of diminished support for Biden and Democrats, and with the Biden administration increasingly looking ridiculous as they try and rebrand their messaging, the political outlook simply does not look *good for their success. However, it’s likely they will keep trying.
*Note of caution – it must always be remembered, no political group has more experience than Republicans at turning an easy win into a convoluted hot mess of failure, simply because almost half the GOP idiots are closet Democrats. There are approximately 16 to 18 Republican senators less conservative than Democrat Senator Joe Manchin.
