House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, having twice impeached President Trump without evidence, now apparently wants to prosecute Republican House members for allegedly aiding the Capitol rioters, again without evidence.

Pelosi’s desire to expel elected Representatives just for supporting what they assumed would be a peaceful rally or using their Constitutional power to challenge a vote they considered suspect was so over the top that even a liberal columnist in the Washington Post condemned it. He pointed out that under such a House precedent, “any member who helps to organize a mass rally that is disliked by a super majority of Congress could be at risk of expulsion or censure. We cannot have a democracy where minorities are subject to sanction when they legally protest against an existing majority.”

And here’s more on the evidence-free jihad against GOP House members:

I must be getting old. I remember when Democrats thought that convicting people without evidence was a bad thing – except certain Southern Democrats, who specialized in it.


After four years of hearing that Donald Trump is an authoritarian dictator and the biggest threat to freedom of the press ever – and hearing it from media outlets that attacked him publicly and relentlessly, with no fear of ever being censored, imprisoned or shot, like, you know, a dictator would have – there now is a serious threat to freedom of the press. And it’s coming from the media’s “progressive” darling and Vogue cover model, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


The fascist fashionista and her “progressive” acolytes are pushing for the creation of a government Ministry of Truth to help “rein in” the press and combat “misinformation.” She said, “It’s one thing to have differentiating opinions but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false. So that’s something that we’re looking into.”

Of course, that presumes that in the realm of political opinion, you can make an objective judgement of what is “false” (of course, it’s always the ideas that whoever is in power disagrees with) and that comments she thinks are "false" aren't protected by the First Amendment.

I think that I can make a far better case than she can that most of what she believes in is false. We actually have a century’s worth of evidence that socialism inevitably leads to corruption, oppression and starvation. We can also judge whether leftist or conservative policies work better by just comparing how many people are moving from California to Texas to how many are going the other way. Even so, I would never tell her she’s not allowed to go on Twitter and spout uninformed nonsense about socialism. But I would like to retain the freedom to respond to it.

Read this New York Post article about this real threat to freedom of the press. And the Post should know, since their accurate scoop about Hunter Biden’s foreign money scandals was branded as fake news and blocked by social media and other news outlets seeking to influence the election – and it worked, as a poll found that up to 17% of Biden voters wouldn’t have supported him if they’d known some of the stories about him that were suppressed.

In a related story, watch the staff of Politico go absolutely bonkers at the news that conservative Ben Shapiro would guest-edit just one edition of its morning Playbook feature. Just as at the New York Times, they completely melt down at the prospect that someone who has a different viewpoint might be allowed to express it even once. “Tolerance, diversity and inclusion!”


Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip DILBERT, has a subscriber-only service he calls “Coffee with Scott Adams,” featuring podcasts and posts from, you guessed it, Scott Adams. We recommend it as a way to challenge one’s confirmation bias and automatically boost IQ by several points, just by engaging every day. It’s on, which hosts independent "creators" (Greg Gutfeld is another) who prefer to be able to say what they want without getting black marks from the social justice warriors running Big Tech. That’s getting to be a challenge these days, in case you haven’t heard.

In Thursday’s podcast, Adams expresses a surprising lack of interest in what Congress has been doing with impeachment and the 25th Amendment to remove a President who is about to exit stage right anyway. He says: “If they want to do useless things in Congress, to me that just looks like another Tuesday. They’ve been doing useless things all year; why would this be the time they stopped doing useless things?”

He sees the people on the left as wanting to go beyond just enjoying the win. They want to “rub it in” and destroy Trump’s reputation, his family, his business, “everything about him.” And the only way that’s any fun for them, he says, “is if his supporters care.”

"I care about Trump as a person,” Adams says, “‘cause I like him,” noting that the real Trump, after you interact with him and get to know him a little, isn’t like his reputation at all. The left, he says, is also trying to grind the Trump SUPPORTERS down. It might really get to them to know that some of us don’t care more.

"If you care about this,” he says, “you’re caring about all the wrong stuff.”

Well………..let's think about that. It depends on what is meant by not caring. To not care in the sense of giving up and letting them continue to get away with what they’re doing --- that’s exactly what the left wants. To not care in the sense of staying strong –- getting stronger, even –- and pushing back against their agenda --- that’s what the left does NOT want.


Regarding impeachment, Adams asks a very good question; namely, why aren’t the Republicans impeaching Kamala Harris for the same thing Trump has been impeached for? The article of impeachment against Trump says that he “willfully made statements that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in imminent lawless action at the Capitol.” If you change “at the Capitol,” he says, to “in Portland” or “in cities across the United States,” the statements holds true for Harris as well.

"That is so completely, obviously true,” Adams says, “that how do you not put that into an impeachment?” On Day One.

He feels as if Republican politicians are letting their supporters down. Indeed. I would add that ten of them actively went over to the dark side. (And, yes, we’ve listed them.) "Can’t one Republican at least call the Democrats out on consistency?" he wonders. “Is that too much to ask for the standard to be similar for all sides; I don’t think that’s unreasonable.”

Ah, but to point out those inconsistencies –- that’s the brand new made-up sin of “whataboutism.” I’ll tell you something about whataboutism: It’s GREAT. Leftist hypocrisy is so rampant that we need to see a lot more whataboutism right now!

In fact, one Republican did have the guts to employ whataboutism to make the point about holding everyone to the same standard, but he used it on someone besides Kamala Harris. One of the best illustrations of the double standard we’ve seen in a day or two (there are so many) happened on Wednesday, when Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert stood at the podium on the House floor and said, “Here’s a quote: ‘I just don’t even know why there aren’t more –- why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.’ Or, 'Sadly, the domestic enemies of our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in Congress.’ We were called ‘enemies of the state.’

"Those are all quotes from our Speaker,” Gohmert continued. “Now, on our side, we didn’t take those quotes to be impeachable because we didn’t think she surely meant that. But by the Democrats taking this action [impeaching Trump], you’re telling me, ‘No, when WE [Republicans] say those, we actually MEAN to incite violence.’ That’s what this action is saying.”

The first quote Gohmert offered was said by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in June 2018 in regard to President Trump’s “child separation” policy at the border. The second was also uttered by her, in August 2020 when the GOP expressed opposition to universal mail-in voting. (We've since seen what happened with that. I digress.)

A number of Democrats who weren’t listening to Gohmert very closely apparently missed his point --- inadvertently proving it --- as Twitter went crazy with demands that he be sanctioned, arrested, and/or kicked out of Congress for inciting violence. This led one Twitter user to offer this hilarious deadpan tweet: “Gohmert said something that has those on the left demanding he be arrested or kicked out of Congress, but it turns out he was just quoting Nancy Pelosi.”

It won’t surprise you that even “journalists” mistakenly attributed the quotes not to Pelosi but to Gohmert. “Holy s---,” CNN analyst Asha Rangappa tweeted. “Is [Gohmert] encouraging MORE ‘uprisings’??!? Did I hear that right??????????”

"You did,” replied LAW & CRIME columnist Elura Nanos. “His testimony should be used to immediately expel him.”

Some reportedly have deleted their tweets and acknowledged their errors. But none, to our knowledge, have called for Pelosi’s expulsion from Congress for inciting violence.

Anyway, Gohmert was making the same point about Speaker Pelosi that Scott Adams made about VP-elect Harris. Whataboutism --- we love it.

As Adams says in his podcast, “If you impeach Trump for this exact behavior, you HAVE to impeach Kamala Harris, or at least attempt to...If it’s not even introduced as an article of doesn’t feel like trying. It looks like they’ve just given up.”

There’s one difference Adams doesn’t mention: Kamala Harris wasn’t Vice President yet when she incited violence. But that brings up another point: Democrats heard her incite violence, more than once, as a candidate, and voted for her, anyway. That shows their hypocrisy even more. If they can vote for a person whom they know incited violence, how can they impeach someone else for doing what they consider to be the same thing?

Maybe Adams doesn’t care much that Democrats in Congress are acting like the useless time- and money-wasters they are and impeaching Trump right before he leaves the White House. But he does seem to care quite a lot about holding people to the same standards regardless of political affiliation. And truly, that’s what will be the most important consideration, long after Trump leaves office.

And now, for your entertainment pleasure, here are more tweets from numb-headed leftists who went crazy thinking Gohmert, not Pelosi, was the one inciting violence.


NYT Tech Writer Has Doubts

January 15, 2021

Even the tech writer for the New York Times is slowly, haltingly, hesitantly beginning to wake up to the Orwellian nightmare of Big Tech flexing its power to crush free speech.

Of course, she bends over backwards to excuse and justify it…she surely knows she can’t voice her worries too strongly, or she’ll be “cancelled” by her own paper…or maybe the scary truth is only beginning to seep through the thick cocoon of leftist groupthink in which all Times writers dwell…but the fact that she admits at all to starting to feel a touch of the willies over the ruthless power of unaccountable Silicon Valley billionaires should tell you how bad it is. This is like the moment in “Jurassic Park” when the people notice ripples in their glass of water that are their first clue that a T-Rex is stomping toward them and about to devour everyone in its path.


While other issues have been dominating the headlines, the Supreme Court has quietly been making some welcome news. In a case involving privacy, free speech and freedom of association, the SCOTUS has agreed to hear an appeal by two conservative nonprofits of a 2015 case involving then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Harris threatened the groups with hefty fines if they didn’t give their confidential IRS list of donors to her office, which has a history of leaking such information. They argue that in this atmosphere, that would expose their donors to threats and harassment, and that the state has no legitimate interest in demanding to know the donors of a nonprofit organization that has not been accused of doing anything illegal.

The most frightening thing about this: the person who launched the case is about to become Vice President, and the person who took it over from her is Biden’s pick to run the HHS and be in charge of all our health records.


The SCOTUS will also decide whether public universities can be held accountable for infringing students’ First Amendment free speech rights…

…and the SCOTUS has ordered Nevada’s Democrat Governor to respond to a lawsuit by a church that his restrictions on in-person worship violate their Constitutional rights.

Let’s hope that the Supreme Court will ensure that a little good news will occasionally be coming out of Washington over the next couple of years.