Advertisement

You can certainly tell the Democrats are back in power with the announcement that the Biden Department of “Justice” will investigate...(no, not the violent communist radicals of Antifa...) the Trump Department of Justice.

https://www.westernjournal.com/bidens-doj-announces-opening-probe-trumps-doj/

They want to investigate the way the Trump DOJ investigated Congress members such as Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff who were suspected of leaking classified information to the media. You’d think that an actual Department of Justice would be more concerned with investigating the leaks of classified information. (Ironically, this relates to a partisan investigation of Trump that was found to be groundless, but that never stopped the Democrats from launching another partisan investigation and another and another…)

From the story:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the effort to track down leakers was ‘yet another egregious assault on our democracy waged by the former president.’ Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said they want (former Attorney General Bill) Barr and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appear before Congress to answer questions about the issue. ‘This appalling politicization of the Department of Justice by Donald Trump and his sycophants must be investigated immediately by both the DOJ Inspector General and Congress,’ they said in a statement.”

And if anyone knows about the appalling politicization of government agencies, it’s those two.

But as long as we’re digging into how the DOJ’s of past Administrations investigated alleged leakers of classified information, why stop with Trump’s alleged “egregious assault on our democracy”? How about the Obama DOJ that secretly obtained phone and email records from reporter James Rosen to try to identify his source for a story on North Korea, or that spied on the records from more than 20 phone lines of A.P. reporters to try to find out their source for a story from Yemen?

That sparked bipartisan outrage at the time over Obama’s “unprecedented war on journalism.” But while Obama later backtracked and promised a change in policy, at the time he said he would make “no apologies” for investigations into national security-related leaks. As Yahoo News reported in 2013, “The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined.”

Reporters at least have the First Amendment freedom of the press to protect them. What special provisions in the law prevent the investigation of Congress members who are suspected of leaking classified information? I’ll pass along the answer to that as soon as Chuck or Nancy call me with it.

Hilarious

June 18, 2021

Rep. Eric Swalwell filed a ridiculous nuisance lawsuit against President Trump, his son Don Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, claiming that they incited violent rioters to attack the Capitol on January 6th. Since then, Swalwell has repeatedly claimed that Brooks is hiding from process servers to avoid his subpoena.

This has led to some funny tweets from Brooks, pointing out that he’s shared the House floor with Swalwell over a hundred times since January. He’s posted photos of himself “hiding out” in public places, including one at his granddaughter’s birthday party where he’s wearing a sign on his cap reading, “I am not Mo.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/arrest-warrant-issued-swalwell-minion-followed-gop-reps-wife-home/

But the story turned serious when Swalwell actually sent an aide to serve a subpoena, and the man trespassed on Brooks’ property and chased his frightened wife into their house. Now, she’s filed a lawsuit and the Brooks family has made an arrest complaint. Swalwell’s camp tried to deny the claim, but it was all captured on security video. Brooks says he is putting anyone who would threaten his family “on notice that we will pursue illegal actions to the fullest extent of the law.”

So to sum up: because Swalwell tried to score publicity points by filing a bogus lawsuit falsely accusing Brooks of threatening his security, Swalwell's aide is now facing charges and a real lawsuit for actually threatening Brooks’ security.

On my TBN TV show recently, I had a story about how Australia’s oldest man credited his longevity to eating chicken brains, and I joked that they were about as small as Eric Swalwell’s brain. I might have to take that back. After reading this story, it doesn’t seem like a joke anymore. It just seems like an insult to chickens.

Props To Roger Waters

June 18, 2021

I don’t often agree with the politics of Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, who is known for ranting against Trump and pushing a boycott of Israel. But when someone’s right, I give him props for it. And boy, is he right about Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. (Warning: rock star-level profanity at the link.)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/f-you-no-fing-way-pink-floyd-co-founder-rejects-instagrams-request-to-use-his-song

Waters got a request from Facebook-owned Instagram to use his song “Another Brick in the Wall” in a commercial. His response: “(Bleep) you! No (bleeping) way!” At a press event to promote the release of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, Waters said they want to use his song “to make Facebook and Instagram even bigger and more powerful than it already is so that it can continue to censor all of us in this room, and prevent this story about Julian Assange getting out to the general public, so the general public could go, ‘What? What?’” (Ironically, that songs’ lyrics include “We don’t need no education,” so it would be perfect for a social media site that censors voices who shatter its preferred narratives.)

He went on to ask how this “little (bleep)” Zuckerberg, who started off by creating a platform where college guys ranked women by their looks, got any power…“and yet, here he is, one of the most powerful idiots in the world.” Waters said he at least has a little power over who uses his songs, and he will not be a party to “this insidious movement of them to take over absolutely everything.”

I’m not that big a Pink Floyd fan, but I suddenly feel an urge to put on “Dark Side of the Moon.”

A number of news and opinion forums, including our own, picked up on this week's story by REVOLVER NEWS about the FBI’s role in the January 6 “insurrection” on Capitol Hill. We and a few others called for questions to be answered, but most in the mainstream media misreported the story in an effort to dismiss it.

(In case you didn’t see our first report, it’s in the June 16 Morning Edition, “Hard Questions Remain about January 6 and the FBI.”)

Some commentators were intrigued. Bestselling author and “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams, in his “Coffee With Scott Adams” podcast, saw Tucker Carlson’s segment with the reporter from REVOLVER NEWS on Tuesday and briefly summarized that. He called it “a weird coincidence” that a number of domestic terror attacks had involved FBI assets or informants. “The suggestion is,” he said, “maybe they were doing more than just watching ‘em, Maybe they’re participating a little bit too much. Maybe they’re even prodding people to do something that they wouldn’t necessarily have done, or maybe not done as soon.”

Adams addressed Carlson’s main point of contention; namely, that there were unindicted co-conspirators involved in the January 6 “insurrection” who, curiously, have not been indicted. One likely reason for this, of course, is that they are informants or have some previous relationship with law enforcement. Adams also mentioned what we’d reported about the over 10,000 hours of security video that is still being withheld from public view.

“Maybe one of the reasons is that we’d see something they don’t want us to see,” Adams said. I don’t know.”

He said he had a hard time believing that someone from the FBI could talk someone into doing an actual terror attack. At the same time, he’s amused by the characterization of this security breach as an “insurrection,” saying it might also be called “a demonstration of free speech that went a little too far.”

“Somewhere in between is probably the truth,” he said. And that seems right to me. It definitely was a demonstration of free speech, and it definitely went too far. But then this question arises: at the time the Trump supporters were organizing it –- with or without help from the FBI –- did they anticipate at all that it would go THAT far and be painted as an act of terror? Certainly they had no idea that an unarmed woman might end up dead. (We can’t say the same for the FBI, unfortunately, if indeed they were a driving force.)

“But I think you’d have to put that in the ‘speculation’ category,” Adams continued. Yes, and that’s exactly what REVOLVER did. Adams hasn’t bought into the FBI’s involvement at this point, but he acknowledged that “there are legitimate questions. And those questions do lean in that direction. There’s no doubt about that.” He allowed for the possibility of another explanation, and he noted that the “pattern” of bad FBI behavior might not be as consistent as it seems in the story. Just because we haven’t seen the answers, he said, doesn’t necessarily mean the hypothesis of FBI involvement is correct.

He said Tucker’s segment, and the REVOLVER story that inspired it, did a credible job of laying out the circumstantial evidence for this and is “good work.”

“Don’t get too far ahead of the fact,” Adams cautioned, “but this is a good frame [as in, a well-structured argument]. We should understand this. The fact that it looks so damning --- that’s all you need to look into it a little further. But I’m not quite on the conspiracy side of this yet.”

Tucker Carlson opened his Wednesday night show with a brief follow-up report on Tuesday’s “insurrection” story. He pointed out that no event in media history has ever been used to greater partisan political effect: “Because of January 6, our attorney general told us this week, we’ve got to change our country forever.” He commented that before REVOLVER NEWS published their report on Monday, “we had no idea that at least 20 organizers and participants in the events at the Capitol have not been indicted, despite the nationwide dragnet for people who were there.”

The government obviously knows who they are. Why aren’t they being charged with crimes? The suggestion made by REVOLVER, and supported by their detailed analysis of another act of domestic terrorism, the attempted kidnaping three months before of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is that they had, in Tucker’s words, “some connection to the government.” It appears that they were in contact with the FBI beforehand.

We don’t have proof that the FBI spurred on the "insurrection," but, again, the circumstantial evidence is compelling, and we know the FBI is fully capable of creating a scandal themselves, with, gosh, nothing more than a flimsy, fictional Russian “dossier.” And as Tucker said on Tuesday, “It’s hard to think of a bigger potential scandal than this one.”

He noted that clips of his original report have circulated on social media --- “the Tech monopolies that helped get Joe Biden elected” --- which still work closely with the Biden administration to control the flow of information you’re allowed to see. “They tried to make me go away,” he said. In fact, Twitter actually inserted itself by pretending to be the arbiter of truth and “explaining” what was “wrong” with his report: “Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy,” Twitter lectured, “despite a baseless suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some co-conspirators of the January 5 attack on the U.S. Capitol were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents.”

“Baseless”? Well, Tucker pointed out that in trying to dismiss his report, they actually helped confirm it by suggesting that people who weren’t charged were cooperating witnesses or informants.

We’ll take Tucker’s refutation of Twitter even further: Cooperating witnesses who don’t get indicted are typically lower-level actors who are testifying to help the FBI bring down the “big fish.” In this case, from what we can tell, the unindicted co-conspirators ARE the “big fish,” while the little fish are the ones being aggressively prosecuted. In the Whitmer case, the REVOLVER report shows quite plainly that the people involved in the attempted kidnaping of Gov. Whitmer but who were not indicted were the ones in leadership roles. And that’s just not how “cooperation with the FBI” works within a normal investigation. It’s the little fish that get thrown back, not the big ones.

I know Twitter is just trying to help –- with the Democrats’ narrative, that is –- but they need to just stay out.

We scanned other media reports of the REVOLVER story and Tucker’s Tuesday night show and saw a pattern. They chose to inaccurately characterize this as an out-and-out accusation of the FBI and then go after that. Typical “straw man” argument. I’ll venture to speak for everyone who’s curious about the FBI’s role on January 6: All we want at this point is to be able to ask some questions, and, if we ask really, really nicely, maybe to see the security footage that’s still being withheld.

In a related story, it’s great to see parents in San Francisco fighting back against the leftist/immoral assault on their children, since San Francisco is ground zero of a movement that’s spreading across America under names like “Drag Queen Story Hour.” The media has lavished that movement with fawning publicity, and it sells itself as a local, independent grassroots movement to promote “tolerance.” But as the Federalist reports, it’s actually well-funded by a number of wealthy interests.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/17/san-francisco-leftists-are-funding-your-local-librarys-drag-queen-story-hour/

It’s also brought young children into close physical contact with at least three convicted sex criminals, two of whom are convicted pedophiles, and its events have been sponsored by a man who’s been charged with seven counts of possession of child pornography.

Another way that parents are fighting back against the LGBTQ+++ indoctrination of children is by turning off media outlets that are pushing Pride Month as if it were a paid sponsor. I told you about the inappropriate propaganda infesting the children’s channel Nickelodeon (right down to a cartoon beaver with bandages on its chest, apparently to signal that it had its breasts removed as part of its gender transition.) Well, apparently, while these media outlets have gotten “woke,” parents have also woken up to what’s being fed into their children’s heads, and they’re turning off the electronic babysitter/brainwashing machine.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/nickelodeon-ratings-crash-amid-lgbtq-push

There’s a saying about companies that prioritize pushing political messages over serving their customers: “Get woke, go broke.” Well, Nickelodeon’s ratings have broken through the basement, ripped up the basement floor, and dug a hole in the basement. In 2017, the channel averaged 1.3 million viewers a year. This month, amid their out-and-proud relentless promotion of “Pride Month,” viewership has plummeted to an average of 372,000 a week.

Parent company Viacom claims viewers are just moving to the new streaming platform Discovery+ to watch Nickelodeon there. If so, they’re likely doing it so their kids can watch older shows that aren’t full of sexually inappropriate propaganda. How long will that last once they discover that Nickelodeon is retrofitting the older shows to shoehorn in sexual messages, like declaring that a character on a popular show about infants is now a lesbian?

This is one of many reasons why our resident pop culture guru Pat Reeder advises people that if they want to see films and TV shows the way the creators intended, buy them on DVD and Blu-Ray. If you don't actually own them, then someone else controls what you'll see.