Friday, April 29, 2022

McConnell’s ‘Exhilarating’ Insurrection

When it comes to January 6, there are no coincidences.


A dirty little secret about January 6—one of many—is that Democrats and establishment Republicans, not Trump supporters, wanted to shut down the official proceedings of that day.

Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.

The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.

And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). 

During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.

From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits. 

“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”

Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” hhe declared n the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”

Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day.

While he projected a sober tone to the American public, McConnell privately was ecstatic, a new book about the 2020 election reveals. “I feel exhilarated by the fact that this fellow finally, totally discredited himself,” McConnell told New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin late on January 6, 2021 about Trump. Martin is the co-author of This Will Not Pass, of which excerpts were published in the Washington Post this week. Martin in the book recounts his midnight conversation with McConnell.

Trump, McConnell claimed, “put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger,” Martin writes. He then asked the reporter what he had heard about members plotting to invoke the 25th Amendment. Calling Trump a “despicable person,” McConnell reportedly bragged how he “crushed the sons of bitches” on January 6 and promised to do the same to them in the 2022 primaries.

Now, that seems like an oddly celebratory demeanor for someone who just survived an “attack on our democracy” and an alleged attempt to “overthrow” the seat of government power, doesn’t it? And why was McConnell so certain the four-hour disturbance would spell the end for Donald Trump?

Further—and more importantly—why did McConnell’s office fail to protect the Capitol on January 6?

His Sergeant at Arms at the time served on the U.S. Capitol police board, a four-man body that manages security at the sprawling Capitol complex. McConnell appointed Michael Stenger in 2018 to serve in that role; Stenger, in addition to his House counterpart, Paul Irving, rejected multiple requests by the Capitol Police chief for extra help in advance of January 6.

Steven Sund, a Capitol Police captain, said he spoke with Stenger on January 4, 2021 to ask for National Guardsmen. “Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6.”

He spoke with Stenger again on January 5; the board still refused to advance his plan for extra guardsmen.

As the chaos unfolded right as the joint session of Congress convened on January 6, Sund said he “notified the two Sergeant at Arms by 1:09 p.m. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a State of Emergency and authorize the National Guard.” Stenger and Irving, who were together that afternoon, said he was waiting for “authorization” by congressional leadership.

That approval came an hour later, but with a caveat: Sund also needed the Pentagon’s authorization. 

“Almost two hours later, we had still not received authorization from the Pentagon to activate the National Guard,” Sund testified in February 2021. “Mr. Stenger offered to have Senator McConnell call the Secretary of the Army to expedite the request. I agreed that this would be a good idea. I followed up approximately 20 minutes later to check on the call and express the need for leadership to call to assist in expediting the request.”

Guardsmen did not arrive until 5:40 p.m., four-and-a-half hours after Sund’s first dispatch and after the protest had ended.

McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—the three leaders responsible for protecting the Capitol on January 6—still have not explained their failure to do so. Not only did McConnell’s top law enforcement officials purportedly overlook the potential for violence on January 6, he denied requests for more officers days before and delayed sending guardsmen to Capitol Hill that afternoon. 

And it will be nearly impossible to find out why: Stegner, along with Irving and Sund, all resigned on January 7, 2021.

So, perhaps there is a darker explanation for McConnell’s  giddiness on January 6. What unfolded that day on McConnell’s watch ended Republican demands for an election audit; criminalized criticism of the 2020 election, which McConnell still describes as “fair” and legitimate; vilified Republican lawmakers; and prompted Trump’s second impeachment. McConnell also believed the protest would spell the end of the Trump movement, something the Beltway crony long attempted to quash.

Like the Biden regime, congressional Democrats, and the national news media, the aftermath of the Capitol protest achieved all sorts of political ends for Mitch McConnell.

And when it comes to January 6, there are no coincidences.


X22, On the Fringe, and more-April 29

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Tucker Carlson Emphasizes the Mission Priority of Newest DHS Agency, Disinformation Governance Board


In his opening monologue last night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson outlined the latest Dept of Homeland Security agency, the “Disinformation Governance Board,” and the head of the social media control agency, Nina Jankowicz.  WATCH:


BACKGROUND – Previously the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced a new Dept of Homeland Security priority to combat disinformation {LINK} on technology platforms including social media.

Many eyebrows were raised as the announcement appeared to be an open admission that the U.S. government was going to control information by applying labels… that would align with allies in social media…. who need a legal justification for censorship and content removal.

This CISA announcement was quickly followed by various government officials and agencies saying it was critical to combat Russian disinformation, as the events in Ukraine unfolded.  In essence, Ukraine was the justification for search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to begin targeting information and content that did not align with the official U.S. government narrative.

Previously those same methods were deployed by the U.S. government, specifically the CDC and FDA, toward COVID-19 and the vaccination program. All of this background aligns with the previous visibility of a public-private partnership between the bureaucracy of government, the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. social media.  That partnership now forms the very cornerstone of the DHS/CISA effort to control what information exists in the public space.  It is highly important that people understand what is happening.

In July of 2021 the first admission of the official agenda behind the public-private partnership was made public {Reuters Article}.

What we are seeing now is an extension of the government control mechanisms, combined with a severe reaction by all stakeholders to the latest development in the Twitter takeover.

For two years the control mechanisms around information have been cemented by govt and Big Tech.  Even the deployment of the linguistics around disinformation, misinformation and malinformation is all part of that collective effort.  The collaboration between the government and Big Tech is not a matter for debate, it is all easily referenced by their own admissions.   The current issue is how they are deploying the information controls.

We have COVID-19, the vaccination effort and now Ukraine as examples of the collaboration to control information, to control what people are permitted to question and discuss on the internet.  Now things are getting much more detailed, and more alarming.

Shortly after Elon Musk made a bid to purchase a single information platform, Twitter, and then expressed his intent to open the speech valves, former Obama administration intelligence officials wrote a letter {SEE HERE} warning about efforts to break up the information control by Big Tech and Social Media.

That letter was shortly followed by a speech delivered by Obama himself where he specifically demanded that government take a larger role in the control of information {LINK}, essentially promoting an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ to control information in the public sphere.

The internet search engine operators have already agreed to align with the interests of the government.  That’s not debatable as in the examples of Google {LINK) and DuckDuckGo {LINK} to name just two.  Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube have famously also expressed their intent to align with the control of information, based on the instructions and edicts of the same U.S. government agencies.   Again, this is not a conspiratorial claim, it is self admitted and we have all witnessed it.

Today, however, we are seeing the architecture of how they plan to organize the tools.

(POLITICO) – “DHS is standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia. Nina Jankowicz will head the board as executive director. She previously was a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship and oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.” (link)

You can read more about Nina Jankowicz and her ideological alignment with the control mechanisms here and here.  The bigger picture issue is that DHS will now work around any independence of social media, vis-a-vis Twitter as a free speech platform, by defining the parameters of allowed conversation.   A bureaucratic board within DHS will now serve as the group who defines what can and cannot be discussed.

Here’s Ms. Jankowicz in September of 2020.    The head of the DHS governance board, Nina Jankowicz, claiming that color revolutions are an appropriate response to rigged elections, but they will never rise in the U.S.  WATCH:


It doesn’t take a deep thinker to see exactly where this is going.  Various U.S. government agencies will now define their interests.  The definitions will then be transmitted to the officers within big tech and social media, and any entity who dares to challenge that govt definition or govt narrative will be targeted for content removal.

Permitted speech will be defined by government agencies, and the mechanisms for controlling, targeting or removing speech that challenges that narrative will now lead to content removal.  The shift here, the part that must be emphasized, is the official justification in the terms and conditions of the social media platform operators will come from U.S. government agencies, not the platform itself.

Against this backdrop it is not a surprise why Elon Musk’s entry into the information space is now considered a risk.

…”The 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote that same year gave Silicon Valley executives, U.S. elected officials and the public a peek into what can go wrong when social media companies opt not to wade too deeply into what people say on their sites.”… (link)

On the positive side, CTH 2.0 was built with precisely this big tech censorship and targeting prediction at the forefront of our assembly.

The proprietary tech and networks we put into place, and the layers within it, are designed to make this website antifragile.   This includes the optimized features that crossover to mobile devices.  Over 94% of CTH traffic does not come from or through any internet search engine.

CTH was built to be a lighthouse, a fortified bunker visible to the outside and yet not fragile to any threat from systems under the control of big tech or any corporate entity.   Many websites are constructed and assembled for maximum reach.  As a result the architecture is built with a different set of priorities.  That’s not us.

This is our labor of love, always has been.  The truth has no agenda.

CTH is fortified so the beacon can always broadcast.  It doesn’t make us flashy, fancy or filled with technology that many may prefer.  The structure is counterintuitive to almost every tech engineer.  However, it provides security and guaranteed impenetrable user privacy for you and all our ragtag misfit friends in the Rebel Alliance.

In essence, with the ten years of experience that preceded CTH 2.0, we built it for the battle we always knew would loom….

….. And here we are.


What Would George Washington Say About the Biden Family and Corruption?

The founders knew that the people would have to hold their leaders accountable for our system to work.


In recent months, Americans have learned more about Joe Biden’s family finances, including his brother James’ and son Hunter Biden’s financial deals with companies in China, Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As Fox News reported, Hunter Biden is “under federal investigation for potential violations of tax, money laundering and foreign lobbying laws through his business relationships abroad.” 

What would George Washington say about the Biden family’s financial deals with foreign nations? Washington showed that he opposed financial corruption when he was inaugurated as the first U.S. president 233 years ago on April 30, 1789. In his inaugural address, he told the American people that he was declining his salary, a sign that he would not be corrupted, even by Congress. 

I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department,” Washington said, noting he had also pledged to “renounce every pecuniary compensation” during the American Revolution. 

Only two other presidents have declined or donated their salaries: John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump. 

George Washington was well aware that corruption was one of several reasons for the American Revolution. Though the sentiment of no taxation without representation often receives credit for causing the revolution, corruption also played an important role. 

For years, the colonists had paid the salaries of their British governors and judges through their legislative bodies. Then King George III came along in the 1760s and paid governors’ and judges’ salaries instead, which made these officials loyal to him and not to the people. Some judges ruled against the colonists because they received a cut of the confiscation of the colonists’ cargo and ships. 

What opportunities then shall we in this province have to demand and obtain the redress of grievances, if our governors and judges and other officers and magistrates are to be supported by the [crown’s] ministry, without the gifts of the people?” John Adams, who would later be Washington’s vice president, had decried in 1772. 

By declining his salary at the start of the new federal government in 1789, Washington was declaring that he would not be beholden to any other power through financial benefit, even to Congress. Through this America-first policy, Washington put the American people above every other entity.

The founders were worried that future U.S. government officials would be corrupted, especially by foreign powers. 

“Guarded so effectually as the proposed Constitution is, in respect to the prevention of bribery and undue influence in the choice of President: I confess, I differ widely myself from Mr. Jefferson and you, as to the necessity or expediency of rotation in that appointment,” Washington had written the Marquis de Lafayette over the debate of placing presidential term limits in the U.S. Constitution. 

Washington knew that a president could be corrupted before his presidency began. He believed that if a president was taking bribes or beholden to other sorts of undue influence, he would be “in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity” and could not govern. 

In his Farewell Address, Washington warned Americans against political parties. “It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.” 

Author Peter Schweizer has chronicled this political and financial depravity in his book, Red Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win

“We spent more than a year investigating ‘Red Handed,’ and one of the most startling things we uncovered is the simple fact that the Biden family, while he was vice president of the United States and continuing when he became president, received some $31 million from Chinese individuals who are linked to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence,” Schweizer told Fox News. 

“So there’s no question in my mind that [the Bidens] were targeted by the Chinese and for the life of me, this is unprecedented. I don’t know of a time in American history where the American first family has had this kind of a financial bond with a foreign intelligence service, particularly a foreign intelligence service that wants to defeat the United States in global competition,” Schweizer concluded.

The founders knew that the people would have to hold their leaders accountable for our system to work. John Adams declared that “the preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people.”

If Washington were alive today, at minimum, he would say it’s time for Biden to leave office. He believed that if a president was under undue influence, he should not “continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it.” Washington believed that if the people didn’t demand that a corrupt president leave office, they had “become incapable of governing themselves.”

It’s time for Joe to go.


Is Chief Justice Robert’s Trying to Save Roe v. Wade?

Is Chief Justice Roberts Trying to Save Roe v. Wade?

Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Chief Justice John Roberts has been a thorn in the side of conservatives for some time now. Once praised by the right, Roberts has seemingly abandoned constitutional originalism and earned himself the status of being the court’s key swing vote. Thanks to Roberts, conservatives have found themselves disappointed in many rulings by the court, and rumor has it he’s actively trying to disappoint them in another.

Roberts is reportedly trying to get justices to side against upholding the Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, which is at issue in the Dobbs v. Jackson case. According to The Wall Street Journal, following oral arguments on Dec. 1, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito indicated they were “likely votes to sustain the law and overturn both precedents,” while “Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed, in their questioning, to side with the three conservatives …”

But here’s where things get interesting: Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly tried during the oral argument to “find a middle way.”

If [Roberts] pulls another Justice to his side, he could write the plurality opinion that controls in a 6-3 decision. If he can’t, then Justice Thomas would assign the opinion and the vote could be 5-4. Our guess is that Justice Alito would then get the assignment.

The Justices first declare their votes on a case during their private conference after oral argument, but they can change their mind. That’s what the Chief did in the ObamaCare case in 2012, much to the dismay of the other conservatives. He may be trying to turn another Justice now.

According to Josh Blackman at The Volokh Conspiracy, “This seems like very, very specific information. Has there been a leak? And which (singular) colleague is Roberts trying to turn?”

A ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.


100 Facts Elon Musk-Owned Twitter Should Now Allow People To Say Without Getting Banned

Enjoy these 100 facts that censorious Democrats might not like but a free-speech Twitter should let people tweet.


It’s only been a couple of days since Elon Musk officially took the Twitter reins completely, and already notable conservative accounts are seeing a remarkable spike in followers. But there’s a long road ahead if Musk wants to make the website a haven for free speech, starting with reinstating the account of the 45th president and releasing Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson from Twitter jail.

“Free speech haven” appears to be precisely Musk’s goal, though, so we have hope things will keep looking up. Here’s to no more “hateful content” warnings for pointing out the Y chromosome or saying the 2020 election wasn’t perfect.

To that end, I’ve compiled 100 facts that censorious Democrats might not like but Musk-owned Twitter should let people tweet.

1. Boys and girls are different.

2. Ivermectin works.

3. Cloth masks aren’t effective.

4. Lockdowns caused more harm than good.

5. Hunter Biden’s laptop is real.

6. Black Lives Matter is a grift.

7. Joe Biden was involved in Hunter’s sketchy foreign business.

8. Rachel Levine is a man.

9. The 2020 election was rigged.

10. People who teach gender identity to kindergarteners are groomers.

11. Preborn children are living humans.

12. “Gender affirmation” is child abuse.

13. AR-15s aren’t assault weapons.

14. Shotguns kick harder than semi-automatic rifles.

15. Gas prices are Joe Biden’s fault.

16. Inflation isn’t Vladimir Putin’s fault.

17. Covid vaccines don’t keep you from getting the WuFlu.

18. Covid vaccines don’t keep you from spreading the WuFlu.

19. Covid vaccines were a success of the Trump administration.

20. Peaceful protests aren’t fiery.

21. Donald Trump didn’t collude with Russia.

22. Barack Obama spied on the Trump campaign.

23. Covid probably escaped from a lab.

24. Communist China is committing genocide.

25. Roe v. Wade is bad case law.

26. College is overrated.

27. “Government-funded” means taxpayer-funded.

28. The world is not ending from climate change in the next decade.

29. Clean energy isn’t clean.

30. Fauci lied. People died.

31. Murdering babies in utero isn’t “eradicating” Down syndrome.

32. “Latinx” is not a real word.

33. The 1619 Project is historically inaccurate.

34. Drag Queen Story Hour is not a blessing of liberty.

35. Stacey Abrams has never been governor of Georgia.

36. Donald Trump never incited an insurrection.

37. “Mainstream” doesn’t define the corporate press.

38. Children have a right to a mother and a father.

39. Jack Phillips did nothing wrong.

40. Trans policies are hurting women.

41. Critical race theory is ideological poison.

42. Public schools are corrupted by critical race theory.

43. Conservative parents aren’t “domestic terrorists.”

44. Transition regret is real.

45. Paper straws suck.

46. Minimum wage isn’t supposed to be a “living wage.”

47. Obesity shouldn’t be celebrated.

48. The United States should not go to war with Russia.

49. Joe Biden is a plagiarist.

50. Declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be declaring war on Russia.

51. Abortion isn’t health care.

52. Wrong-sex hormones aren’t health care.

53. Covid is no longer an emergency.

54. Jobs recovered after government-induced lockdowns aren’t “new jobs.”

55. Mask mandates didn’t work.

56. Vaccine mandates didn’t work.

57. Parents should have a say in what their children learn in taxpayer-funded schools.

58. Brett Kavanaugh isn’t a gang rapist.

59. You can define “woman” without being a biologist.

60. Taylor Lorenz is a doxxer.

61. Satire isn’t hate speech.

62. Common Core is a failure.

63. The deep state is real.

64. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was a lie.

65. Strong borders matter.

66. The Jan. 6 Committee is a sham.

67. The first impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

68. The second impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

69. Censorship by non-state actors is still censorship.

70. Pornographic books are not appropriate for elementary schoolers.

71. Hatred for white people based on their skin color is racism.

72. Children don’t need smartphones.

73. Masculinity isn’t toxic.

74. Feminism lied to women.

75. Student loan forgiveness advantages high-earning doctors and lawyers most.

76. Disney hates your values.

77. Joe Biden wrecked the economy.

78. Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was deadly.

79. Careers don’t bring women more happiness than motherhood.

80. Ketanji Brown Jackson went soft on child porn offenders.

81. Hunter Biden lied on a federal background check form to illegally buy a gun.

82. Trans bathroom policies put girls in danger.

83. Jan. 6 rioters didn’t kill anyone.

84. Black Lives Matter rioters killed dozens of people.

85. Florida’s Parental Right in Education Law still allows people to “say gay.”

86. Andrew Cuomo’s nursing home policies killed people.

87. Silence isn’t violence.

88. Speech isn’t violence.

89. Border Patrol agents didn’t whip migrants.

90. Joe Biden hasn’t apologized for lying that they did.

91. Lia Thomas is a man.

92. Rochelle Walensky colluded with teachers unions to keep schools closed.

93. Children have never been at significant risk of death from Covid-19.

94. This inflation isn’t transitory.

95. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee funded the Steele dossier.

96. The Steele dossier was bogus.

97. Rep. Eric Swalwell hasn’t denied sleeping with a Chinese spy.

98. Biden’s director of the Bureau of Land Management is an eco-terrorist.

99. Mark Zuckerberg paid to staff government elections offices with Democrats.

100. The corporate media are fake news.