As this is being written, I’m hearing that Attorney General Merrick Garland is planning to give “remarks on holding Capitol rioters accountable.” Perhaps by the time you read this, you’ll already have been subjected to it. Get ready for a surreal couple of days during which the Capitol Hill breach will be presented as “one of the darkest days of our democracy” (quoting Colorado Rep. Jason Crow) and worse than the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Combined.

This just might be the most outrageous political theatre we’ve ever seen. One thing that won’t be happening: the unveiling of a monument to the event that was to be created by the Architect of the Capitol (not kidding) through legislation co-sponsored by Crow and Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild, to ensure the integrity of American democracy and counter “violent, anti-democratic rhetoric.” For some reason, the bill got stalled in May, so Democrats were unable to save the Union from the threat of future insurrection.

But it’s 2022, when Democrats have this travesty on the drawing board while calling for the removal of monuments to Thomas Jefferson.

The big theme for this anniversary will be the word “anti-democracy.” How ironic that a riot sparked by evidence suggestive of election fraud that the Supreme Court called “moot” is being painted now as anti-democratic. It was tragic and ill-advised, but it was PRO-democratic. You know what’s anti-democratic? Election fraud, and all steps taken to make it easier and less detectable.

Adding to the irony is Democrats’ use of the event to push even harder for “election reform,” which to them means the unconstitutional federalization of elections, with the rules they choose. Anyone who thinks the way to have honest elections is to put Democrats in charge of them should perhaps seek professional psychiatric help.

But Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is adamant about ending the filibuster rule so he can barely pass what we like to call the “Voter Fraud Legalization Act.” This is the opposite of the reaction we should be having to claims of voter fraud.

The most idiotic fear tactic of all was used by by resident congressional idiot Rep. Eric Swalwell, who tweeted that “if we don’t get this right” (win in 2022), “it could be the last election.”

What they’re doing isn’t about democracy, but about electing Democrats and keeping Trump out. Liz Cheney admitted as much on CBS’s Face The Nation when she said, “I can tell you that the single most important to ensure that Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee and that he certainly is not anywhere close to the Oval Office ever again.” Democracy indeed.

Brit Hume appeared Tuesday with Lawrence Jones on FOX News Primetime to talk about the general hubbub and truth-stretching going on now, including that surrounding Jan. 6. “We are not living in normal times,” he said. “What we need is for people to calm down. The bitter divisions that we see in this country are exacerbated by this tendency to exaggerate, and to do so grossly.”

I take some exception, though, with the way an unusually taciturn Hume seemed to blame President Trump for what happened that day, I assume for daring to challenge the results. “It was a cockamamie scheme by Trump that was bound to fail and did.” Perhaps I don’t understand Hume correctly; by “cockamamie scheme,” does he mean having a constitutional protest rally? Is he saying Trump was being anti-democratic? Trump was up the night of November 3 with the rest of us and saw what we all did that made him honestly suspect the vote in key counties was fraudulent. The courts had refused to take it up. He had called for a peaceful protest that was PRO-democracy. And we certainly can’t blame him for the riot; in fact, we’re finding out more and more about other forces at play that day.

Moving on...Since we’re marking a year since the riot, this is also the ideal time to note that a group of Americans have been denied bail and held many months without trial, when not one of them has been charged with insurrection. And the conditions they’ve endured have been been, pardon the expression, deplorable. Some reportedly have been denied critical medical care, as in this case of a man very ill with celiac disease who is not receiving the closely monitored gluten-free diet he needs. The following account sheds light on why these Trump supporters have been treated so callously; read what jail superintendent Ted Hull had to say to the man’s attorney in an email obtained by The Epoch Times. It could hardly be more snide and unprofessional.

Fourteen House Republicans have sent a letter to Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser demanding that Deputy Warden Kathleen Landerkin, who oversees the detention of the Jan. 6 defendants, be fired. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louie Gohmert recently visited them and found that they were “being treated categorically different from the remainder of the prison population.”

After reading some of Landerkin’s politically unhinged anti-Trump tweets, it’s easy to see why these detainees would be treated with such open disregard and even hatred. One example: in a post a few days before the rally, she said, “Re-tweet if you you want [Nancy Pelosi] to punish the 140 House Republican traitors who are trying to overturn the election by refusing to seat them in Congress.”

So, this is the woman overseeing treatment of the detainees. In a must-read story, here’s more about the conditions as seen during a surprise inspection in November. Judge Royce Lamberth was scathing in his assessment and did get one man released so he could receive medical care for his broken hand and...(yes) cancer. “I don’t know if this [neglect] is because he is a January 6 defendant or not,” he said, but I think we can guess.

Finally, let’s go back to what started it all, the claims of election fraud. A VIP story in PJ Media --- I’ll link for those who are signed up --- reviews the problems with the election that resulted from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s funding of the Center for Tech and Civic Life. We’ve covered that in detail, and have also recommended Mollie Hemingway’s coverage in her book RIGGED.

The article says that according to Rasmussen, 70 percent of those polled said that the hundreds of millions spent by Zuckerberg to influence the election was bad for democracy. And guess what? --- 59 percent thought it’s likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, including 41 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of unaffiliated voters. Personally, I’d like to hear more about THAT on January 6.

Thankfully, most people are too smart to think of the riot as an actual “insurrection” or of Republicans as anti-democratic. In fact, there’s data to show the Republican Party is better set today than it was before last January 6. And that, perhaps more than anything, is why we’re seeing so much hysteria now.

Monday, a California jury found one-time billionaire tech star Elizabeth Holmes guilty on three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against investors. Each count carries a maximum 20-year penalty.

Homes co-founded a company called Theranos that claimed to have invented improved technology for doing blood tests. It was praised by many prominent people, and Holmes was compared to Steve Jobs before being accused of bilking investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars while covering up that the company’s technology was actually flawed and unreliable.

The case also has political ramifications, with some media outlets bringing up a visit to Theranos’ headquarters by then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2015. He effusively praised Theranos for its inspiring leadership in health technology.

I know it’s an easy target, but I’m not going to pile on Biden for this. I don’t expect him to do an in-depth investigation into every company where he makes a public appearance, and at the time, few suspected that there was anything fishy about Theranos. In fact, a lot of prominent people on both sides of the aisle were duped. If anything, it just shows how important it is to do your due diligence before investing in any company.

Opponents of government vaccine mandates won a small victory in Nevada, and blogger Robert Zimmerman makes several great points about why it has larger repercussions.

The Nevada State Board of Health had mandated that all college students get the shot or be banned, but that expired after 120 days. It could only be extended by the Legislative Commission, and when they split 6-6 on party lines, the tie killed the mandate. Zimmerman notes that like many such mandates, it was imposed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. This was the first time elected representatives weighed in on it, and that ended it.

Some other important points he notes that are going overlooked: the fact that this was the first time elected representatives have had a say shows how much power has been usurped by unelected bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats ignored evidence that the mandate was ineffective and imposed a discriminatory policy that violated students’ First Amendment rights and their autonomy over their own bodies. This is also an example of how the excuse of a “medical emergency” has opened the door to many organizations violating laws protecting the privacy of citizens’ medical records. And most importantly, the party line vote shows how this issue has been completely politicized, with decisions based not on science but on politics.

I recommend you read the whole thing, but here’s a quote I have to share in this election year, because he makes the point that only the people can fix this by changing the politicians:

“The six Nevada Democrats who voted for this illogical mandate did so not because they had any facts on their side (which they did not), but because the edict expanded the power of government, and that today is the overriding goal of every Democrat. Crush the opposition, squelch free debate, and twist the law in any way possible to guarantee victory. The voters should have thrown these bums out of office years ago. It is...imperative that they do it now, because there is very little time left. Soon, if these power-hungry Democrats have their way, elections will no longer matter. They will be in control, and will not allow you to remove them.”

Sounds like the perfect response to Chuck Schumer’s balloon juice about ending the filibuster to pass the “Legalize Vote Fraud” bill to “save democracy.”

And a PS from Zimmerman that’s also important:

“Nor are the Republican politicians much better. Too often for decades they have made deals, going along to get along, rather than stand for freedom and smaller government, as they consistently would promise during every single election campaign. The voters need to throw a lot of them out of office as well.”

I don’t envy the poor media handmaidens of the Democratic Party having to try to convince their viewers that the violence last January 6th was the worst thing to happen in the history of ever. The Democrats are trying to turn this into the biggest melodrama since Hollywood was turning out Technicolor tearjerkers like “Magnificent Obsession,” but it’s coming across more as “Ridiculous Obsession.” As the Federalist notes, it’s clear that it's not about “protecting democracy,” it’s about branding their political opponents as domestic terrorists so they can silence them.

But how can the media make this fake “insurrection” seem as historically horrific as the Dems are making it out to be? Especially since, as Todd Starnes pointed out, a full year later, not a single person has been charged with insurrection, sedition or treason.

Well, one way is just to flat-out lie about it, like Joy Reid of MSNBC, who repeated the debunked claim that officer Brian Sicknick died of injuries inflicted by protesters. He actually died the next day of a stroke.

(Note to Twitter: I believe you call this “misinformation,” and ban people for spreading it. So why is Joy Reid still on Twitter?)

You’ll also likely see a lot of references to at least five people dying that day, without telling you that they’re including people who died of natural causes and who weren’t even in the Capitol. The only person who died a violent death in the Capitol was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester shot in cold blood by a Capitol Police officer.

That’s worthy of further investigation, along with the bad decisions of people in charge of security that day, but since those people include DC’s Democrat mayor and Nancy Pelosi, we’re still getting nothing but stonewalling from that sector.

So what are the Democrats doing to goose their ratings? They’re trying to force a personality from a news channel people actually watch, Sean Hannity, to testify to their committee.

Hannity was nowhere near the Capitol, had nothing to do with the violence, and condemned it on his show. But they want to grill him about his private texts with Trump and other sources close to him, to try to bolster their nonsense claim that Trump was planning a violent insurrection. This is dangerously close to stomping on the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press, but somehow, I doubt that protecting Constitutional rights of conservatives is a major concern for the people involved in this committee.

Adults are now in charge

January 5, 2022

Remember how we were told we had to elect Democrats so that “the adults would be back in charge”? Where are those adults, I wonder? Did they all go to Florida so they could enjoy life in peace and leave the kids and teenagers back in DC to destroy the house with an endless kegger party? Listening to some of the top Democrat leaders, I sometimes feel as if I’m arguing with children whose entire arsenal of replies consists of “It’s not FAIR!” and “I know you are, but what am I?”

Take Senate “Majority” Leader Chuck Schumer, please. He’s making the rounds of similarly juvenile talk shows, once again pushing the idea of doing away with the Senate filibuster so that the Dems can ram their agenda (including their unconstitutional “Federalize elections and legalize vote fraud” bill) down Americans’ throats with only a 50-50 tie plus the vote of VP Kamala “28% approval rating” Harris. He used a lot of overheated hyperbole about January 6th to try to justify it as protecting democracy, but it all really boils down to, “When we lose an election, it’s not FAIR!”

(I could also throw in all the Democrats who are publicly wailing about how traumatized they were by January 6th, like children who are still crying over a boo-boo they got a year ago to milk it for more free ice cream. Yes, January 6th was bad, and those who broke the law should be punished. But go tell your sob story to all the Americans who lost their homes and businesses to looters and arsonists and who were assaulted by actual armed insurrectionists, all of whom were defended and bailed out of jail by those very same Democrats.)

You’d think Schumer might have glanced at the recent obituaries for his predecessor Harry Reid that recalled how his weakening of the filibuster came back to bite Democrats when they became the minority. But that would require long-term thinking and reading the news, two things that five-year-olds are not famous for. Schumer couldn’t even be mature enough to acknowledge his own arguments in defense of the filibuster, back when it was to his advantage.

He doesn’t have the consistent principles of a mature adult but the childish attitude of “I get my way every time, or it’s NOT FAIR!”

And then we have the case of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who responded to legitimate criticism of her rank hypocrisy by claiming that her critics are just frustrated because they find her so hot and can’t have her. Trust me, that’s not why I write about her. At least her response was more mature than Schumer’s arguments, but only in the sense that a spoiled teenage drama queen is slightly more mature than a tantrum-throwing five-year-old.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ spokeswoman Christina Pushaw (whom I assume does not find AOC too sexy for her House seat) took on the adult role and set her straight:

And some of the other responses from female critics of AOC were downright hilarious, even on CNN…

Fortunately for America, a couple of adults still remain in the Democratic Party (Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema), and they realize the dangers of obliterating all minority power when their party is likely about to become the minority. Without their votes, Schumer won’t be able to end the filibuster. But I have no hopes that a dose of reality will make him suddenly start acting like a mature adult who is aware of the heavy responsibilities of his position.

It might be old fashioned to say this, but I think the only way to make these brats grow up is for the voters to deliver a good spanking to them.

Related: This is a good analysis by Joe Cunningham at about how Schumer knows he doesn’t have the power to end the filibuster, and for all the vitriol that leftists are hurling at Joe Manchin, his maturity and ability to think long range are likely their only hopes of retaining the majority after the next election.

Yesterday, we talked about the need to dig deep into conspiracy theories for which there’s credible evidence, noting that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is neutral until facts emerge that prove or disprove it. The claim that the Capitol Hill security breach was more of a “fed-surrection” than an insurrection is one of those so-called conspiracy theories that deserve to be taken seriously. So let’s take a closer look.

RELATED READINGAnswering a reader about "conspiracy theories"

In a preposterous reach, Sen. Chuck Schumer is using January 6 to try to justify ending the filibuster so the Senate can pass the “election reform” bill that Democrats so desperately want passed, to help them cheat---I mean, preserve democracy. (Pardon my bluntness, but affecting the outcome of elections is undoubtedly what they want to use this for.) Mark Elias is already using the courts for this, but they really need a, shall we say, comprehensive strategy to ensure a win this time.

Laura Ingraham, on FOX News’ Ingraham Angle, showed the clip of Sen. Schumer saying to Joy Reid on MSNBC, “...If we don’t change the [filibuster] rules, the Republicans will block this [election reform], and our democracy could be at risk, and even wither, invariably, in real ways.”

Thanks to Laura for pointing out that in 2005, when Republicans held the majority, Schumer was saying the opposite about the filibuster. Today, he assumes most of us are too stupid to realize that, or to understand that if the Senate ends the filibuster rule and passes the so-called “Voting Rights” bill, we’ll have one-party rule and the whole Democrat agenda will be forced through, regardless of what voters think of it.

But, to get back to my original point, Schumer is using January 6 as a pretext for all of this. As we’ve said, the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill breach plays into the hands of Democrats so incredibly well, we’d naturally suspect that if Republicans hadn’t planned it to happen, the Democrats would’ve MADE it happen. So, did they? That’s a conspiracy theory –- so far neither proven or disproven –- but we’re finding out more all the time that strongly suggests covert federal operatives were urging it on.

Fortunately, even though Congress won’t do its oversight job on this –- does anyone seriously think their “committee” is anything more than a kangaroo court? –- there are other ways to uncover the full story of what happened, and one is through evidence submitted in actual court cases. To cite another example of how this works, recall that Special Counsel John Durham’s “Russia” investigation was helped a great deal by litigation that went on in London in a civil suit brought by Alfa Bank against Christopher Steele of “dossier” fame. Durham learned a LOT from testimony in that case. Likewise, even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “special committee” won’t be turning over the rocks we’d want them to, other litigation regarding January 6 could bring to light key information.

For example, in the government’s case against Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keepers member accused of conspiring to storm the Capitol, his attorney Jon Moseley is calling some very interesting witnesses: Ray Epps (a riot instigator who’s strangely not being prosecuted), Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes (ditto), and “Utah activist” John Sullivan (an apparent leftist agitator).

Mosely told National File that he believes their testimony will prove his client’s innocence and also that the entire prosecution is politically motivated.

National File reports: “FBI sources stold Reuters earlier this year that there was little to zero evidence of any plans to take hostages in the Capitol and stop the count of electoral votes.” Yet this level of interference is what Schumer uses as an excuse to end the filibuster and federalize elections.

National File also cites the Revolver News investigative reports that we’ve been bringing you. What they’ve turned up is highly suggestive that Rhodes was working in some capacity for the federal government while there that day. While defendant Meggs has been held without bail for nearly a year (!), Rhodes, for some reason, was interviewed by the FBI but was not been charged with any crime.

As for Epps, Revolver News exposed him as someone who, on both January 5 and 6, took to a bullhorn and urged conservatives to storm the Capitol during Trump’s rally. He’s on video –- check out Rumble –- “telling people to enter the Capitol and beat up police,” Moseley said. You’d think someone caught on video doing something like that would’ve been at the top of the list for indictment and detention without bail, but for some reason he just wasn’t.

In case you didn’t see this the first time we linked to it, here’s the most recent Revolver News report on Ray Epps. It’s extremely detailed but highly recommended; you might need to come back to it later.

About a month ago, National File reported that they had obtained documentation of an FBI interview with “Person 10,” the Oath Keepers member who planned the security detail for that day, that made it clear: Oath Keepers had had no plans to storm the Capitol on January 6.

But according to Moseley, the indictment against his client alleges there was “a well-plotted Oath Keepers conspiracy to take over the Capitol on January 6.” He describes this allegation as the government “doubling down on things they know were false.” “Person 10,” according to FBI notes, made it clear he had no idea this was going to happen and “could not believe” people went into the Capitol. He, Rhodes and others had dinner at the Olive Garden that night and talked about this and also, incidentally, about “a girl that was shot.” I wonder if they knew then that the girl, Ashli Babbitt, had been unarmed and was shot in cold blood by federal security.

National File reports that “the interview with Person 10 now makes clear that he sought to remove Oath Keepers from any danger at the Capitol, and stop fights between protesters and police officers.” He said he was in charge of what they called their “Quick Detention Force,” which was intended to help provide security if there was an attack by “antifa or others.” It was never activated, he said.

Moseley told National File that they’ve got lots of other things they’re going to do as part of Kelly Meggs’ defense. He says other witnesses have confirmed “Person 10’s” story to the FBI. He suspects prosecutorial misconduct and will be seeking notes from the grand jury to determine this.

In another court case, a 39-year-old mother of four from Minnesota, Victoria White, is claiming that on January 6, she was forced into an entrance, trapped in a crush of people, and repeatedly beaten by police. Surveillance footage reportedly shows the woman, visible in a red MAGA hat, being hit with a baton and fist nearly 40 times in about 4 minutes.

A judge in the case has ordered that three hours of video from that day be released. So once again, it’s through court cases related to January 6 --- NOT the government’s sham “investigation” --- that will tell us more of what we need to know about that day.