June 13, 2022
From Joey P, on Substack:
My goodness. And the networks really believe I will tune into this poopoo show. Good luck.
From Scott Adams podcast (Episode 1771), “Real Coffee With Scott Adams”:
“Let me say this: Any time people show you edited video, whether the clip is edited or it’s put together with the other clips from other things, and any time they put an audio overlay over that, especially if the audio comes from a different time or place, which is what the January 6 committee is doing…are we not sophisticated enough yet as voters and the public to know that when anybody does this, it’s propaganda? It wouldn’t matter who did it. If the Pope makes you a “mix” video, it’s propaganda.”
You are being manipulated. If your best friend does this, “he’s not your friend. I don’t know how much more clearly I can say it.”
“Every bit of that is criminal, basically, or should be criminal. We’re allowing our government to do something right in front of us that should be against the law [when the other side isn’t allowed to respond]. But the only reason it’s not is that the people doing it make the laws….and I’m kind of amazed that we put up with it.”
We’ve said it wasn’t the riot that was a threat to democracy, but the REACTION to the riot, and Adams observed essentially the same thing: “If I had to rank them for which was worse, the events of January 6 or the hearings, it’s not even close. The events of January 6, with the violence: REALLY BAD. But, it’s not as bad as what the Democrats are doing in the hearings. I consider that worse, ‘cause the risks are higher. There was no risk that the country was going to be overthrown on January 6...but this hearing...to me, this is a gut-punch to the Republic.”
The fact that we even allow this makes Adams want to “have an insurrection right now,” he said. He never felt the urge before, but he does now. It’s the lack of any counter-argument. The Democrats are doing this with such impunity, that –- although he stressed he does NOT recommend violence –- he said that if he “were going to do an insurrection, they’re talking me into it.”
Adams thinks there should be “a hearing about the hearings.” The GOP, when they retake the House, should look into why these hearings were allowed to happen and how they were put together, “and then the Democrats should not be allowed to respond,” haha. He’d also like to see impeachment for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for his incitement of violence against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who was refused a seat on the January 6 committee by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said essentially the same this weekend on “Sunday Morning Futures.” We need to see ALL depositions, ALL documents, he said. He also reminded us that the committee had previously altered evidence, a text exchange between him and Mark Meadows. Those snakes had to admit it in December of last year. Don't believe anything they put in front of you in these hearings.
I would add that we'll also need to find out about the elephant in the room: the FBI’s role (before and during the event), and the lack of security in spite of the FBI’s intel report to Capitol Police just days before. Another question: why did they not ever locate the person who planted a bomb outside RNC and DNC headquarters? What’s the real story with that?
In Tucker Carlson’s Friday monologue, he explained why this “hearing” –- shown, he said, on every news network except FOX News –- wasn’t a real hearing, because in a real hearing, “the other side can speak.” That’s what we’ve been saying: that Thursday was essentially a prosecutor’s opening statement. Actually, two things are missing from a prosecutor’s opening statement: 1) any opposition, and 2) EVIDENCE. Selectively edited video is not evidence.
And, yes, NEWSMAX did finally give in and run the political theatre --- to provide it “without the spin,” they said. At least they had some good commentators, such as former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker and legal analyst Alan Dershowitz.
This literally was a show trial, to the point where it was scripted and read off teleprompters.
Tucker’s hypothesis is that they’re doing this because every minute they devote to January 6 “and some imaginary threat from QAnon” is another minute “they’re not covering the collapse of the American economy.” As I’ve said, when leftists first started mentioning the so-called right-wing menace of QAnon, my staff and I had to look it up, because we didn’t know what it was.
Later in his broadcast, he recalled what so many seem to have forgotten: “It was just two years ago, live on television, summer of 2020, a mob of Biden voters tried to storm the White House; remember this? They torched a church across the street. They attacked Secret Service officers. A mob called for the President of the United States to be lynched. He was taken to an underground bunker for safety. We don’t like to be hysterical, so we kind of downplayed it at the time…”
“This is what our country’s capitol looked like,” he said, with video of raging fire, broken glass and protesters breaking down barriers in the background.
“It’s just too much,” Tucker said. “Stop lying to us! Stop telling us things that we know for a fact are not true. We watched them in real time.” But no, we’re expected to believe that “January 6, 2021, remains the single worst thing ever to happen to America.”
Ashli Babbitt’s widower Aaron was also on the show. We’ve learned more about her shooting death in recent days, such as that killer Michael Byrd admitted he knew Ashli was likely unarmed, that he never even had to file a police report, and that he received a $200 donation on his GoFundMe page from –- get ready –- committee member Adam Kinzinger. As you know, the committee on Thursday night never mentioned Ashli’s name.
Interesting note about Monday morning’s hearing: In an announcement late Sunday, one of the people called to testify --- in his case by subpoena --- is 2020 Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien. Stepien now happens to be campaign manager for Harriet Hageman, Liz Cheney’s Trump-endorsed opponent in her Wyoming congressional race, who is beating Cheney up in the polls. So, Liz Cheney will be interrogating her current opponent’s campaign manager. (Of course, Cheney’s side, the “prosecution,” is the only side doing any questioning.) This is one more hop away from the rules for this kangaroo court.
Jonathan Swan reports that a knowledgable source tells him Stepien might not be a “friendly” witness. Maybe he’s not fond of kangaroos.
Upon hearing this development, Taylor Budowich, communciations director for Trump and Save America, tweeted: “This circus is beyond embarrassment and will forever stain the integrity of Congress.”
Nick Arama at REDSTATE comments:
June 13, 2022
Remember free speech? That was great while it lasted, wasn’t it? It obviously no longer exists in the Washington Commanders (formerly Redskins) organization, where defensive coach Jack Del Rio was fined $100,000, even after he apologized for asking why we were making so much of a “dust-up at the Capitol,” where nothing was burned down, but an entire summer of “riots, looting, burning and destruction of personal property,” where people’s livelihoods were destroyed and businesses were burned down, is never discussed and “no problem.” He tried to explain, “I just think it’s kind of two standards and if we apply the same standard and we’re going to be reasonable with each other, let’s have a discussion.”
For that, head coach Ron Rivera accused him of drawing an equivalence “between the events of that dark day and peaceful protests, which are a hallmark of our democracy.” He went on, “I want to make it clear that our organization will not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the actions of those on Jan. 6 who sought to topple our government.”
Certainly, there were “peaceful protests,” but I think he was likely referring instead to the people who tried to burn down a courthouse with people inside; and whose violence, looting, arson and vandalism left 19 people dead and over 2,000 police officers and an unknown number of civilians injured, and caused damages estimated at up to $2 billion, the costliest civil unrest in US history.
FYI, just to show how fair I am, I’m going to link to a liberal site that attempts to downplay the riots and debunk that figure.
Also because I find it amusing that even though the writer twists the facts like a pretzel to make it sound not so bad, in the end, he still has to admit that, yeah, it could’ve been as high as $2 billion. But insurance companies had to pay most of it so it doesn’t count, apparently. Because insurance companies don’t raise everyone’s rates when their costs go sky high.
That’s like saying that we all aren’t losing our free speech rights, just because Jack Del Rio was the one who has to pay a $100,000 fine for making a perfectly reasonable statement that millions of Americans agree with.
One who agrees and who is still exercising his right to really free speech is author/blogger Larry Correia, who unleashed a brutal Twitter thread about why most Americans don’t care about January 6th. Warning: really bad language alert. He might have to put $100,000 into the swear jar.
June 13, 2022
The 911 call that led to the arrest of the armed young man outside SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home confirmed that he came there intending to kill Kavanaugh because he was all fired up by incendiary rhetoric about the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. We know this because the would-be assassin made the call himself.
He said he found the house thanks to an article containing a photo and the address (nice doxing job, guys), but when he saw there were officers there, he left and called 911 to give himself up. He admitted needing psychiatric help and said he wanted to be fully compliant.
We can learn a few things from this. Like how incredibly dangerous it is to print the addresses of Supreme Court Justices. And how shockingly irresponsible it is for people like Chuck Schumer to make threatening comments intended to influence the judges’ votes, knowing that there might be mentally unstable people listening and taking him seriously (if you listen to Chuck Schumer at all and take him seriously, you’re likely mentally unstable.) And we learn that the gun didn’t come to shoot a Justice all by itself. As is often the case, it was carried there by someone who had mental health issues.
Of course, some people are incapable of learning, which is why radical pro-abortion groups like Ruth Sent Us are continuing their unconscionable intimidation campaign against not only the Justices but Amy Coney Barrett’s children at her school. And we learn that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal to enforce federal law against harassment of judges at their homes is not only emboldening these dangerous people, it’s also adding more grounds for Garland’s inevitable (and I hope, swift) impeachment in the upcoming GOP Congress.
Related: The New York Times buried the story below 16 other stories, and headlined it, “Armed Man is Arrested Near Home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.” Wonder how they would’ve treated it if it had been an armed man in a MAGA cap admitting he intended to assassinate Justice Sotomayor?
June 13, 2022
We’re mad as heck and we aren’t gonna take it anymore: The newspaper chain Gannett may have finally gotten “woke” in a good way, as in “Woke up to reality and realized they’d go out of business if they didn’t stop annoying readers with leftist lectures.”
The Daily Mail reports that a committee of editors presented a report to Gannett in April, warning them that people are turning away from USA Today and other Gannett-owned papers because they’re fed up with the leftist bias, both in editorials and supposed “news” stories. The editors said that not only are these leftist editorials among the least-read content, but were frequently cited as reasons for canceling subscriptions.
They noted that the public’s trust in the news media had plummeted in recent years due to leftwing bias, and that “readers don’t want us to tell them what to think. They don’t believe we have the expertise to tell anyone what to think on most issues.” Sounds like the readers are definitely smarter than the writers in that regard. They also suggested that the papers hire writers who aren’t leftwing activists. Ironically, that probably means hiring journalists who didn’t attend “journalism” school.
In response, Gannett is scaling back the number of editorials and ending political endorsements except in local races. This reminds me of the old joke about what you call it when a thousand lawyers are dropped into shark-infested waters: “A good start.” Both CNN and Gannett are finally scaling back the leftist activism as a survival measure, but there’s still so much of it infesting “journalism” that the people writing it may not even realize they’re doing it. Maybe they just assume that since everyone they know is a Republican-hating leftist, they spew that attitude without even thinking about it.
The entertainment media echo chambers are particularly bad about this. One of my writers who handles pop culture stories canceled his subscription to weekly Variety (for which he was paying a rock bottom professional rate of something like a dollar a year) because the leftist bias was so thick that even at two cents an issue, it wasn’t worth it. He was also a longtime subscriber to Entertainment Weekly, where you would find Obama cheerleading or Bush and Trump bashing in everything from record reviews to movie previews. He didn’t have to cancel that because they recently stopped publishing it.
The TV ratings are in for the Democrats’ big prime time, anti-Trump show trial, and they are grim. Although to be fair, they’re better than I expected. I thought the audience might be three people: me and my two writers, who were forced to watch it so you wouldn’t have to.
The good news for Democrats is that over 11 million people total watched it on ABC, CBS and NBC. The bad news for them is that the combined daily viewership of those networks' non-prime time evening news shows is usually around 18 million. A few million more watched on CNN and MSNBC, but they were preaching to their choir of rabid Trump-hating viewers, so that wasn’t the audience they needed to convince (and even with the ratings boost, CNN still had 340,000 fewer viewers than Fox News’ regular lineup.)
To give you an idea of how bad that was, 3.24 million people watched the hearing on CBS. That’s 600,000 fewer than watched last week’s rerun of “Young Sheldon” in the same time slot. And on both CBS and ABC, the audience dropped in the second hour as viewers tuned out.
The public has now had a chance to see that the January 6th Kangaroo Kommittee has no game-changing new evidence or revelations, just a lot of dark innuendo, biased narratives and selectively-edited video and testimony. They may be planning days more of this political theater, but since they had just one shot at prime time and didn’t show it then, I assume they have no blockbusters that they’re saving for 10 a.m. on a Tuesday. What they gave us was, to quote Shakespeare, “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Most Americans think the riot was deplorable, but they have far bigger problems to worry about now, and Congress should be dealing with those instead of obsessing over trying to indict Trump. Not that this Committee should be completely ignored. The next Congress will have to investigate it thoroughly and change the rules so that such a biased, illegitimate and unconstitutional abuse of power never happens again.
And for those who do still care about both what really happened on January 6th and why this Committee isn’t really even trying to find out, try this.
And here’s a list of Democrats, including members of this very committee, who previously tried to block the certification of elections of Republican Presidents, back before they decided that was insurrection.
Here’s a page set up by a conservative site to counter disinformation related to January 6th.
Finally, while Democrats keep falsely claiming that police officers were killed on January 6th, the widower of the only person actually killed, unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt, has spoken out in the wake of the televised hearing where her name wasn’t even mentioned.
June 13, 2022
Sunday, a group of 10 Senate Republicans and 10 Democrats announced that they had reached a “breakthrough” deal on a "framework" of new gun laws. It’s not yet in the form of legislation. It doesn’t ban any particular guns, the way many Democrats want; but it includes money for mental health and school security, it would add juvenile records to background checks for any gun buyers under 21, it would deny guns to people convicted of domestic violence, and it includes grants for states to institute “red flag” laws.
These Republicans argue that it would be easier for people caught in red flag laws to appeal on the state level, but I’d say that depends on the state. Some of the provisions are sensible, like increasing school security, while others sound sensible on the surface but wouldn’t have prevented recent school shootings (for instance, most of the shooters didn’t have anything on their records for a background check to catch.)
Even though having the support of 10 Republicans might seem to make this a slam dunk in the Senate, it’s not clear whether Democrats who are pushing for much more radical plans will settle for it, or whether these Republicans will all stand firm after they hear from their constituents, or after they see what Democrats might try to add to it. And it will take 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
In the meantime, conservative commentators are wondering why Republicans so close to a midterm election would want to tick off their constituents by backing new anti-gun laws that are wildly unpopular with them? (Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at The Blaze, noticed that of those 10 GOP Senators, four are retiring and none of the others are running for reelection this year. Coincidence?)
Even laws as seemingly reasonable as red flag laws can be abused to deny Second Amendment rights to someone who’s done nothing wrong. Good luck trying to convince Republican voters that they can trust the government never to falsely brand them as dangerous extremists or domestic terrorists.
The NRA issued a statement, but declined to go into detail until the “framework” actually becomes a piece of legislation.
At these links, Rick Moran of PJ Media and Spencer Brown of Townhall.com have more thoughts on this subject.
And Kevin Downey of PJ Media goes further, pointing out that Democrat DA’s aren’t even trying to arrest and lock up the people who are committing the vast majority of shootings. They call it “social justice” or “justice reform,” but Downey’s theory is that leftist DA’s have deliberately created a crime wave to give them an excuse to disarm the law-abiding.