Advertisement

January 10, 2022
|

The Democrats gave it their all on the anniversary of January 6, and then, from somewhere deep within their bowels, found even more to keep their narrative going over the weekend.

This was in service to their push to federalize elections with what we call the “Legalize Voter Fraud Bill.” Even before that day, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was setting the stage by saying January 6 was “a symptom of a broader illness, an effort to delegitimize our election process.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-to-use-jan-6-anniversary-to-make-push-for-federal-voting-rights-bill

Schumer was lying. As wrong as it was to resort to violence on that day, it was not an effort to delegitimize our election process. It was the opposite: a reaction to what people saw as an attempt by the LEFT to delegitimize our election process, and the refusal even to look at problems with the vote.

But Schumer was lying in service to his goal: passing unconstitutional election legislation. “...The Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration --- they will be the new norm.” They have to pass this bill “to save our democracy.” Schumer's even set January 17, Martin Luther King Day, as the deadline for Republicans to work with them to keep them from considering “changes to Senate rules” (ending filibusters) to get the bill passed. All to “protect the foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections.”

Attempts by Republicans at the state level to safeguard the vote against cheating have been recast by Schumer as voter suppression. That’s another lie. If any protection against cheating is going to be characterized as voter suppression, that means there can be no protection against cheating. See how that works?

On Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to offer another version of the same lie: “What the Republicans are doing across the country is really a legislative continuation of what they did on January 6, which is to undermine our democracy, to undermine the integrity of our elections...”

Never mind that Trump’s rally was FOR election integrity, protesting the staunch refusal to examine what appeared to be highly suspicious activity. THEY were protesting the undermining of democracy. And unless Pelosi’s brain is even foggier that we think, she is well aware of that.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-republicans-legislative-continuation-jan-6-voting-bill

Pelosi then said something much more applicable to her party than to the GOP: “They [the GOP] are not only suppressing the vote, they are nullifying elections, saying, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter who gets more votes; it matters who the three people we appoint to analyze that, what they decide.’” Doesn’t that sound like what DNC superlawyer Marc Elias wants to do to keep duly-elected Republican members of Congress from being seated? He wants to go to judges to disqualify GOP candidates from serving in office if they’ve offered any support or approval to Trump and/or his rally, saying that violates their oath of office. (!)

One of those duly-elected congressmen, of course, is Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, one of Pelosi’s “rejects” for her Jan. 6 committee. Jordan has written a letter to the chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, after the committee asked him to provide information about his communications with Trump. He essentially told them to pound sand.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/rep-jim-jordan-tells-jan-6-panel-pound-sound-rejects-legitimacy-investigation/

The committee wants to talk to Jordan “in detail” about every communication he had with Trump on January 6. He said he talked with the President all the time, so it wouldn’t be unusual for them to talk that day. “This request is far outside the bounds of legitimate inquiry,” Jordan wrote, "violates core constitutional principles, and would further erode legislative norms.”

The committee is supposed to investigate only as it pertains to “legislative purposes.” Jordan made it clear: “As you well know, I have no relevant information that would assist the Select Committee in advancing any legitimate legislative purpose.”

Even the committee itself is illegitimate, with no ranking GOP member. Liz Cheney of Wyoming has actually claimed to be the ranking member, which is untrue. As Mollie Hemingway tweeted on the 6th: “Holy crap! Liz Cheney just falsely claimed she is the ranking member --- the top representative of the GOP caucus --- on the J6 committee. In fact, she was hand-selected by Nancy Pelosi and is NOT the ranking member. Huge, huge legal implications associated with this lie.”

Democrat Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina lied, too, going on FOX News Sunday to say it was appropriate to tie the election bill to the events of January 6 because elected officials swore an oath to protect the Constitution from any “domestic terrorists among us.” NO ONE has been charged with domestic terrorism, let alone convicted. He’s trying to imply that anyone who opposes their bill is pro-domestic terrorism. But if Democrats are so all-fired set on protecting the Constitution, why are they pushing a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional?

Kamala Harris, in her speech Thursday, beat the same tinny drum, saying that “the American spirit is being tested” and that “we must pass the voting rights bills that are now before the Senate” on order to “secure and strengthen our democracy.”

Then the Vice President went on PBS for a softball interview with Judy Woodruff. Political hack Woodruff played her role well, praising Liz Cheney for holding Trump fully responsible for the riot and suggesting that Trump should face criminal prosecution.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2022/01/09/pbs-anchor-coddles-kamala-very-forceful-16-speech-wants-trump

Okay, here's a palate cleanser: The Epoch Times, in a premium story, offers an analysis of the competing January 6 narratives, saying it “...Depends on Who Tells the Story.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/jan-6-narrative-depends-on-who-tells-the-story

So, why were Trump supporters at the Capitol that day? To make their voices heard? Register their concerns about voter fraud and inaccuracy? Or overthrow the government? It depends on who wants to know and the answer they want to hear.

But the excellent point this piece makes is that it’s TRUMP SUPPORTERS, in particular those who were caught up in the Capitol breach and are still suffering the consequences, who are in the best position to answer that. Former Pennsylvania legislator and retired Air Force officer Rick Saccone, who with his wife rode a bus to the rally and never even knew there had been violence until he was headed home, says it was mostly just senior citizens peacefully demonstrating. He thinks the ones who actually got violent were not true Trump supporters.

Jake Lang of Sullivan County, New York, has been a (yes) political prisoner held without bail since January 13, 2021, and he has his own story to tell. He’s charged with assaulting a police officer, but he says he was trying to save a woman named Roseanne Boyland, who later died. His father says he’s grown thin in jail, with a scraggly beard that’s now down to his chest.

Boyland is the woman who it was said had died of a drug overdose. Now that video has emerged, there’s serious question about that.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/videos-shed-light-on-death-of-rosanne-boyland-at-us-capitol-on-jan-6_

Anyway, if we’re going to have competing narratives about January 6, how about looking at the one told by people who were actually involved, rather than by those who twist the truth in pursuit of a political agenda?

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 1-1 of 1

  • Jim Cartwright

    01/13/2022 05:57 PM

    I just heard that the Biden administration is now having a tall concrete wall built around the Whitehouse inside the fence. Do you know if that is true and if so, do you know what his (their) reasoning is? The source that I heard it from believes it may be potentially in case of some kind of war with Russia and/or China. What are your thoughts?