It’s hard even to know where to start in addressing the atrocity that happened last week and the growing exploitation of it by the left. I’ve made my position clear on the use of violence, whether it comes from the left, as it usually does, or the right, as it did this time. It’s all bad, and we have condemned it totally, unlike those on the left who have selectively excused it in the fulfillment of their ideology.
First, I’d recommend you watch the monologue from Mark Levin on Sunday’s LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN. It treads some of the same ground we’ve gone over in the past several days, including much of what the left has been doing to change the culture and normalize violence from their side, but Levin expresses it very well.
As he reminds us, the media dismissed it when people who attended a Trump event were assaulted during their long walk from the White House grounds to their transportation home. Sen. Rand Paul, to name one, was attacked. (He’s actually been attacked twice, if you count the one earlier at his home.) There was also the rioting in Lafayette Park in which historic monuments were defaced and toppled and scores of Secret Service agents were injured. When Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about the horrendous vandalism by unhinged leftists, she said that “people will do what they do.”
She and her cohorts casually dismissed an ATTACK ON WASHINGTON, but the media let it go. They were saving their venom for their preferred target, and last Wednesday they finally got their chance to bite.
We’ve showed over and over how the media ignored violence from the left. If you weren’t watching a conservative-leaning site, you didn’t see it, because most news outlets didn’t cover it. This went on for months as entire city blocks were occupied, looted and burned. Reporters defended the destruction and called it "largely peaceful." Then-candidate Joe Biden wouldn’t speak out against it; neither would then-running mate Kamala Harris. Only much later, when polls showed public sentiment turning against them, did Democrats say anything about it, and even then their comments were perfunctory. Meanwhile, the Democrat-controlled media had for years been mocking Trump supporters as an inferior species and condemning them as “neo-Nazis.” Actually it WAS the Nazis who spoke of other people such as Jews as “sub-human, rats, and vermin.” I find no instance of Trump supporters speaking of the opposition as “inferior people,” just people with inferior ideas.
"The media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country,” Levin said, “and they’re exploiting now what took place on Capitol Hill, trying to silence conservatives, silence Republicans, and, unfortunately, a lot of Republicans are buckling.” Democrats know good and well that we didn’t want this to happen and that we reject it totally. If anyone wanted it to happen, it’s likely the people who benefited from it; namely, the very ones on the left who are exploiting it now.
As Levin said, the headline in THE NEW YORK TIMES last Thursday was TRUMP INCITES MOB. Trump used some pretty strong language, and we are on record as having disagreed with that, but he absolutely did not act to “incite” the mob. (“Incite” is a specific legal term; I’ll get to that below.) If you don’t think the NYT folks were gleefully happy to print that headline, you are living in an alternate universe. They welcomed this story with open arms and will enjoy exploiting it in the weeks, months and years to come.
As Tammy Bruce said this weekend in an interview with Steve Hilton, the left are acting swiftly before more information can come out about what really might have happened last Wednesday, more reports on who might have showed up there specifically to initiate violence. Bruce calls them “parasitic opportunists.”
"It is not a representation of what Trump has stood for,” she said.
But the WASHINGTON POST headline was almost identical: TRUMP MOB STORMS CAPITOL. The DAILY NEWS headline was this: PREZ INCITES INSURRECTION. Again, he did not. USA TODAY put it similarly: PRO-TRUMP MOBS STORM US CAPITOL. These headlines were chosen quite deliberately to suggest Trump called for violence.
Levin contrasted these headlines with some that were more objective. The NEW YORK POST put it this way: CAPITOL INVASION. The WASHINGTON TIMES called it an ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY. Yes, that’s better. It still strongly condemns the violence but refrains from falsely implying that Trump was behind this. It was the last thing he wanted.
On what the Democrats are doing now, Levin nailed it. “Out of one side of their mouth, they talk about unity,” he said. “Out of the other side of their mouth, they spit on people.”
Since they have only a slight majority in the House and Senate (where Kamala Harris will have to break the ties), they want to use what happened to ratchet up their extreme calls for expanding the Supreme Court to create a partisan rubber-stamp, ending the Electoral College system, adding four more Democrat states to cement power in the Senate, and completely eliminating the filibuster. To obtain these things, Democrat politicians, with coordinated help from the megalomaniacs who run social media, plan to use the Capitol Hill incident instead of the mandate from the electorate that they'd expected but DID NOT GET.
In the short term, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using this little window of time by insisting the 25th Amendment is in play, as an alternative to the impeachment she says she’ll put forward --- nine days from Biden’s inauguration. Ah, yes, Democrats are all about healing and unity.
Here’s what legal expert Jonathan Turley had to say about the legal merits of impeaching Trump now. What Trump said certainly did not meet the standard of “inciting” violence. All this would do is further divide the nation and give one more big slap in the face to Trump supporters, which I assume is what Democrats want to do. They hope to fragment us --- that's also part of the coordinated attack on us by social media that we'll talk about --- but now is the time for us come together.