But here’s the deal: You know — I wish you’d one day say these things — you know as well as I do that the former President made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1.
… Biden can go only so far in claiming the agreement boxed him in. IT HAD AN ESCAPE CLAUSE: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did, but Biden chose to stay in it, although he delayed the complete pullout from May to September.
Chris Miller, acting defense secretary in the final months of the Trump administration, chafed at the idea that Biden was handcuffed by the agreement.
“If he thought the deal was bad, he could have renegotiated. He had plenty of opportunity to do that if he so desired,” Miller, a top Pentagon counterterrorism official at the time the Doha deal was signed, said in an interview.
The piece goes on to acknowledge that that course of action may have led to difficulties of its own, but Biden should have been able to rely on the decades of foreign-policy experience he has boasted as having to craft a better deal…..
…IT HAD AN ESCAPE CLAUSE: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did…
So according to the “deal itself” and the Biden Admin ignoring that and getting rid of the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR) — as the original post details below — Afghanistan is 100% Biden’s issue. Period!
The UPDATED VIDEO can be found at the bottom of the post. (Originally posted Aug 18th)
Here is an excerpt, you should read the whole article!
Joe Biden’s State Department moved to cancel a critical State Department program aimed at providing swift and safe evacuations of Americans out of crisis zones just months prior to the fall of Kabul, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
[….]
The document is dated June 11, 2021, though The National Pulse understands the decision to pause the program may have come as early as February, both undermining the original Trump-era date for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and certainly giving the Taliban time to threaten American assets and lives on the run up to Joe Biden’s September 11th date of withdrawal.
The subject line reads: “(SBU) Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau,” and the body of the document recommends:
“That you direct the discontinuation of the establishment, and termination of, the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR), and direct a further review of certain associated Department requirements and capabilities.”
It goes on:
“That you direct the discontinuation of the establishment, and termination of, CCR, consistent with the applicable legal requirements, necessary stakeholder engagement, and any applicable changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual and other requirements.”
The document reveals the recommendations were approved on June 11th 2021.
Speaking exclusively to The National Pulse, former President Donald J. Trump blasted Biden’s irresponsible move:
“My Administration prioritized keeping Americans safe, Biden leaves them behind. Canceling this successful Trump Administration program before the withdrawal that would have helped tens of thousands Americans reach home is beyond disgraceful. Our withdrawal was conditions-based and perfect, it would have been flawlessly executed and nobody would have even known we left. The Biden execution and withdrawal is perhaps the greatest embarrassment to our Country in History, both as a military and humanitarian operation.”
In a lengthy article in Vanity Fair from May 2021, the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR) – also referred to in overlap with a predecessor/partner bureau called “OpMed” is described as a “little-known team of medics and miracle workers—hidden deep within the U.S. Department of State.”
“Even before COVID reared its head, OpMed was finding ways to do all sorts of things, serving as the hidden hand behind daring and often dangerous operations to rescue Americans from peril abroad,” the article states, before going on to quote Secretary of State Tony Blinken on the importance of the program’s goals.
“The Bureau of Medical Services’ Directorate of Operation—or ‘OpMed,’ as we call it—is a lifeline for the Department of State and the American people… Though perhaps lesser known outside of the Department, it’s vital to our operations. That’s because OpMed provides the platform and personnel to save American lives around the world, especially in times of crisis. During the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, OpMed was integral to our evacuation and repatriation of 100,000 Americans to the United States as countries began locking down their borders.”
But The National Pulse understands that career officials inside the State Department objected to the Trump-era aim of creating a Contingency and Crisis Response bureau with the express purpose of avoiding a future Benghazi-style situation for Americans overseas.
Instead, Biden’s team revoked the funding and the approval for the plan, even as the COVID-19 crisis reasserted itself, and and Afghanistan withdrawal loomed………
NEWSBUSTERS has this updated CNN clip where Darrell Issa schools Jim Acosta
There’s a reason why you don’t see conservatives on CNN very often.
Hack journalist Jim Acosta couldn’t keep up as his Republican guest, Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA], schooled him on his own show, Sunday, over President Biden’s Afghanistan debacle. Acosta repeatedly tried to blame President Trump for the Taliban takeover, but Issa exposed the journalist’s pathetic hypocrisy…..
SEE ALSO:
The Fatal Failure Of Gen. Mark A. Milley Over Closing Bagram Air Base (NY POST)
Sweden, of course, was maligned in 2020 for foregoing a strict lockdown. The Guardian called its approach “a catastrophe” in the making, while CBS News said Sweden had become “an example of how not to handle COVID-19.”
Despite these criticisms, Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic continues today. In contrast to its European neighbors, Sweden is welcoming tourists. Businesses and schools are open with almost no restrictions. And as far as masks are concerned, not only is there no mandate in place, Swedish health officials are not even recommending them.
What are the results of Sweden’s much-derided laissez-faire policy? Data show the 7-day rolling average for COVID deaths yesterday was zero (see below). As in nada. And it’s been at zero for about a week now.
Even a year ago, it was clear the hyperbolic claims about “the Swedish catastrophe” were false; just ask Elon Musk (also see: here, here, and here). But a year later the evidence is overwhelming that Sweden got the pandemic mostly right. Sweden’s overall mortality rate in 2020 was lower than most of Europe and its economy suffered far less. Meanwhile, today Sweden is freer and healthier than virtually any other country in Europe.
As much of the world remains gripped in fear and nations devise new restrictions to curtail basic freedoms, Sweden remains a vital and shining reminder that there is a better way.
….If the treatment group in a clinical trial were dying off faster than the control group, an ethical researcher would halt the experiment. But the lockdown proponents were undeterred by the numbers in Florida, or by similar results elsewhere, including a comparable natural experiment involving European countries with the least restrictive policies. Sweden, Finland, and Norway rejected mask mandates and extended lockdowns, and they have each suffered significantly less excess mortality than most other European countries during the pandemic.
A nationwide analysis in Sweden showed that keeping schools open throughout the pandemic, without masks or social distancing, had little effect on the spread of Covid, but school closures and mask mandates for students continued elsewhere. Another Swedish researcher, Jonas Ludvigsson, reported that not a single schoolchild in the country died from Covid in Sweden and that their teachers’ risk of serious illness was lower than for the rest of the workforce—but these findings provoked so many online attacks and threats that Ludvigsson decided to stop researching or discussing Covid.
Social-media platforms continued censoring scientists and journalists who questioned lockdowns and mask mandates. YouTube removed a video discussion between DeSantis and the Great Barrington scientists, on the grounds that it “contradicts the consensus” on the efficacy of masks, and also took down the Hoover Institution’s interview with Atlas. Twitter locked out Atlas and Kulldorff for scientifically accurate challenges to mask orthodoxy. A peer-reviewed German study reporting harms to children from mask-wearing was suppressed on Facebook (which labeled my City Journalarticle “Partly False” because it cited the study) and also at ResearchGate, one of the most widely used websites for scientists to post their papers. ResearchGate refused to explain the censorship to the German scientists, telling them only that the paper was removed from the website in response to “reports from the community about the subject-matter.”
The social-media censors and scientific establishment, aided by the Chinese government, succeeded for a year in suppressing the lab-leak theory, depriving vaccine developers of potentially valuable insights into the virus’s evolution. It’s understandable, if deplorable, that the researchers and officials involved in supporting the Wuhan lab research would cover up the possibility that they’d unleashed a Frankenstein on the world. What’s harder to explain is why journalists and the rest of the scientific community so eagerly bought that story, along with the rest of the Covid narrative.
Why the elite panic? Why did so many go so wrong for so long? When journalists and scientists finally faced up to their mistake in ruling out the lab-leak theory, they blamed their favorite villain: Donald Trump. He had espoused the theory, so they assumed it must be wrong. And since he disagreed at times with Fauci about the danger of the virus and the need for lockdowns, then Fauci must be right, and this was such a deadly plague that the norms of journalism and science must be suspended. Millions would die unless Fauci was obeyed and dissenters were silenced.
But neither the plague nor Trump explains the panic. Yes, the virus was deadly, and Trump’s erratic pronouncements contributed to the confusion and partisanship, but the panic was due to two preexisting pathologies that afflicted other countries, too. The first is what I have called the Crisis Crisis, the incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians. It’s a longstanding problem—humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the “population crisis” and the “energy crisis”—that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets. To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.
Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”—quoting from a study by Anthony Fauci. Life magazine wildly exaggerated the number of infections in a cover story, headlined “Now No One Is Safe from AIDS.” It cited a study by Robert Redfield, the future leader of the CDC during the Covid pandemic, predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility.
Journalists and politicians extend professional courtesy to fellow crisis-mongers by ignoring their mistakes, such as the previous predictions by Neil Ferguson. His team at Imperial College projected up to 65,000 deaths in the United Kingdom from swine flu and 200 million deaths worldwide from bird flu. The death toll each time was in the hundreds, but never mind: when Ferguson’s team projected millions of American deaths from Covid, that was considered reason enough to follow its recommendation for extended lockdowns. And when the modelers’ assumption about the fatality rate proved too high, that mistake was ignored, too.
Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded. For Americans under 70, the probability of surviving a Covid infection was about 99.9 percent, but fear of the virus was higher among the young than among the elderly, and polls showed that people of all ages vastly overestimated the risk of being hospitalized or dying.
The second pathology underlying the elite’s Covid panic is the politicization of research—what I have termed the Left’s war on science, another long-standing problem that has gotten much worse. Just as the progressives a century ago yearned for a nation directed by “expert social engineers”—scientific high priests unconstrained by voters and public opinion—today’s progressives want sweeping new powers for politicians and bureaucrats who “believe in science,” meaning that they use the Left’s version of science to justify their edicts. Now that so many elite institutions are political monocultures, progressives have more power than ever to enforce groupthink and suppress debate. Well before the pandemic, they had mastered the tactics for demonizing and silencing scientists whose findings challenged progressive orthodoxy on issues such as IQ, sex differences, race, family structure, transgenderism, and climate change.
And then along came Covid—“God’s gift to the Left,” in Jane Fonda’s words. Exaggerating the danger and deflecting blame from China to Trump offered not only short-term political benefits, damaging his reelection prospects, but also an extraordinary opportunity to empower social engineers in Washington and state capitals. Early in the pandemic, Fauci expressed doubt that it was politically possible to lock down American cities, but he underestimated the effectiveness of the crisis industry’s scaremongering. Americans were so frightened that they surrendered their freedoms to work, study, worship, dine, play, socialize, or even leave their homes. Progressives celebrated this “paradigm shift,” calling it a “blueprint” for dealing with climate change.
This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow “the science” to know what they’re talking about. Science is a process of discovery and debate, not a faith to profess or a dogma to live by. It provides a description of the world, not a prescription for public policy, and specialists in one discipline do not have the knowledge or perspective to guide society. They’re biased by their own narrow focus and self-interest. Fauci and Deborah Birx, the physician who allied with him against Atlas on the White House task force, had to answer for the daily Covid death toll—that ever-present chyron at the bottom of the television screen—so they focused on one disease instead of the collateral damage of their panic-driven policies.
“The Fauci-Birx lockdowns were a sinful, unconscionable, heinous mistake, and they will never admit they were wrong,” Atlas says. Neither will the journalists and politicians who panicked along with them. They’re still portraying lockdowns as not just a success but also a precedent—proof that Americans can sacrifice for the common good when directed by wise scientists and benevolent autocrats. But the sacrifice did far more harm than good, and the burden was not shared equally. The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world. Students from disadvantaged families suffered the most from school closures, and children everywhere spent a year wearing masks solely to assuage the neurotic fears of adults. The less educated lost jobs so that professionals at minimal risk could feel safer as they kept working at home on their laptops. Silicon Valley (and its censors) prospered from lockdowns that bankrupted local businesses.
Luminaries united on Zoom and YouTube to assure the public that “we’re all in this together.” But we weren’t. When the panic infected the nation’s elite—the modern gentry who profess such concern for the downtrodden—it turned out that they weren’t so different from aristocrats of the past. They were in it for themselves.
Larry Elder’s Show from Wednesday the 26th (2021) was good. The upload is mainly from the first hour, however, I add a lot of video to compliment his excellent points. Very long but worth the watch and listen.
(UPDATED TODAY)The Democrats take to the streets based upon no evidence. Now we have broad evidence of voter fraud and they’re mad that Republicans have the audacity to verify the election results?
….Seventy-eight percent of Democrats, according to an August 2018 Gallup poll, believed not only that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election but also that this interference put Trump in office. Our intelligence community reached no such conclusion.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., falsely blames President Ronald Reagan’s CIA for playing a major role in the urban crack-cocaine epidemic. Waters even wrote a foreword for a book called “Dark Alliance,” that made this sensational claim. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, despite their contempt for Reagan, all disputed Waters’ assertion. The San Jose Mercury News, the newspaper that published the CIA-crack cocaine allegation, issued a retraction of the most serious claims. The reporter resigned, and later, at age 49, committed suicide.
Prominent Black entertainers accused the American government scientists of inventing HIV/AIDS. Comedian/activist Dick Gregory said the virus “was not passed from chimpanzees to mankind, but was probably knowingly developed by doctors and scientists working for the U.S. government.” Bill Cosby said AIDS “was started by human beings to get after certain people they don’t like.” Will Smith claimed, “AIDS was created as a result of biological-warfare testing.” Director Spike Lee said, “I’m convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease.”
Lee also speculated that the U.S. government, under President George W. Bush, blew up levees during Hurricane Katrina to force Blacks out of New Orleans. “It’s not far-fetched,” Lee said, “and also I would like to say it’s not necessarily blow it up. But, the residents of that ward, they believe it, there was a Hurricane Betsy in ’65, the same that happened where a choice had to be made, one neighborhood got to save another neighborhood and flood another ‘hood, flood another neighborhood.”
So, spare us the concern about irresponsible “conspiracy theories” given the left’s embrace of several, including the damnable lie that the police engage in “systemic” racism against Blacks. For four years, Democrats like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Rep. John Lewis called Trump “illegitimate.” Democrats and the media do not want a Biden presidency similarly handicapped.
Just a flashback of Hillary saying Trump was not legitimately elected (basically for 4-years). See more at:
Hillary Clinton Labels Trump an ‘Illegitimate President’(National Review)
Democrats Have Been Denying Trump The Presidency Ever Since His First Victory (The Federalist)
…..The Left’s message to the public is that there were no consequential 2020 Presidential election malfeasance, irregularities or illegalities — supposedly because the courts objectively and thoroughly investigated those claims, and ruled them to be unfounded.
Neither element of that assertion is even remotely true.
To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a List of Lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc.
We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.)
To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary. (If we didn’t do justice to any of these, please let me know and I’ll issue an update.)
Another idea we implemented was to color-code the decisions — to make it easy for the reader to segregate the various outcomes.
Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”.
So what are the takeaways?
To begin with our list shows that there have been seventy-five (75) lawsuits filed that are relevant to the 2020 Presidential election. (Note 1: we are counting an original filing, plus additional appeals as one single case. Note 2: other lawsuits are possibly undiscovered.)
The results to date are:
a) Eight cases have been withdrawn or consolidated. (These are not wins or losses to either side.)
b) Twenty-five cases have been stopped from proceeding (dismissed) due to legal technicalities (standing, timing, jurisdiction, etc.). These have nothing to do with the merits of the case and should also not be considered wins or losses for either side. That more than a third of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing is more of an indictment that many judges appear to be afraid of opening this pandora’s box. Considering the importance of election integrity to our country, it’s a shame for them to hide behind subjective legal technicalities. How is that in the interest of the citizens in our country?
In any case, this leaves us with forty-two (42) lawsuits relevant to the 2020 Presidential election where a judge has ruled (or hopefully will rule) on the merits. The results so far are:
c) Nineteen cases are completed (adjudicated). These are where the court heard arguments, considered evidence (where applicable), and then formally ruled on statutory issues (e.g. the legality of a state’s election process), etc. Of these:
i) Eleven cases were WON by Trump, et al, and
ii) Eight cases were lost by Trump, et al.
d) Twenty-three cases are still active and have not yet been decided — so the ultimate winner and loser of these cases has not been determined.
So, Trump (et al) have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits! Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?…..
Newsmax host Rob Schmitt opened his show on Tuesday discussing the upcoming impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump. Schmitt also took time to mention the many irregularities, rule changes and fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Schmitt may be the only honest reporter left in America today.
QUOTE via FBI MEMOS:
Pipe bombs found near Capitol on Jan. 6 are believed to have been placed the night before. [RPT Note: planted at Democrats AND Republican offices]
[….]
One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” Some had been preparing for conflict for weeks.
[….]
In the week leading up to the rally and riot, Watkins and Caldwell were in regular contact as they talked about various groups of people meeting up on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to an indictment filed this past week against them.
This was planned weeks ahead of time, the violent crowd had already entered the Capitol even before Trump was half-way through his speech:
Based on Chief Sund’s timeline, the riot at the Capitol began more than thirty minutes before Trump finished his speech, and long before he made the only comment that Democrats pointed to in order to back up their baseless claim that the president “encouraged” insurrection. (LIFESITE)
Again, the pipe-bombs were placed at both Republican and Democrat sites, the DAY BEFORE:
Just to be clear, While I am posting a portion by RIGHT SCOOP, this is them sending people to the fuller article, to quote:
I highly recommend reading the whole article. It may be unusual to send a reader to another site, but this is the kind of thing that requires the group, the crowd, to fight back against.
The bombs were placed the night before. The plans were made weeks in advance. The riot mob and Trump’s rally audience were different groups.
The incitement narrative is “falling apart before our very eyes,” says Kyle Becker in an outstanding new column at his substack.
On January 6th, amid a large gathering at the nation’s capitol to protest what millions of Americans perceived to be illegitimately held elections in key swing states, the former president gave a speech. The timing of the speech was the convening of the Joint Session of Congress to validate the slates of electors from the Electoral College.
It has been argued that Donald Trump’s language at the speech, including using the words “fight” was deliberately incendiary. But let’s take a look at the actual language of the speech. Trump deliberately says “fight” in the commonplace political context:
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible.
It should be noted further that allegations of election “fraud” are not incitement. Indeed, the same mainstream media accusing Trump of ‘inciting’ the crowd with fraud allegations accused Donald Trump himself of perpetrating fraud in the 2016 election.
Becker walks through several of the deceptive headlines that have poured out since January 6th (which is in fact its own form of incitement) and gets into the heart of it.
“For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI,” the report states.
It is quite obvious that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and head of some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, would not incite an “insurrection” or a “coup” from a mob of common political supporters and amateurish rabble like these fellows, who are suspiciously emblematic of the media’s warped reading of who is likely to be a Trump supporter:
After the U.S. Capitol riot, Democrats suddenly discovered law and order, and they no longer want to defund the police. But back during the Black Lives Matter riots throughout the summer of 2020, not so much. In this episode, Larry looks back at the comments made from the Democrats and the mainstream media, and how they served as cheerleaders for the rioters burning and looting in cities across America. Can you say… double standard?
A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here (RUMBLE)
“The idea that instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at ‘em with a knife or something, shoot ‘em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing. There’s a lot of different things that can change” — Joe Biden
…or that making burritos is racist… the Left changes the meaning of them for political gains or the racializes them to malign their opponents. If not that, they make up entirely new words from whole cloth or damage the grammar of the Romantic Languages or English itself.
Now…. “peaceful and Patriotic” is inciteful. That now means to pillage and destroy.
(YouTube Channel’s description) As a viewer from across the pond in the UK, I was amazed by the scenes at Capitol Hill and the media coverage. What confused me was why are none of the media organisations not showing this clip, but showing edited clips with the words PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY omitted… How are the words “PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY” an “INCITEMENT TO INSURRECTION”?
[ANSWER to my compatriot across the pond: Democrats]
Here I wish to reproduce in it’s entirety a letter to the editor of a small Indianola (Iowa) paper. I am doing so just in case it is removed to keep the paper’s server’s free of space.
The House of Representatives has, for a second time, engaged in a lawless and irrational impeachment of President Trump. This snap impeachment, after only two hours of debate, without any investigations, hearings or any due process, where the President’s counsel would be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, is as lawless as the invasion of the Capitol, albeit less violent.
It is based on the lie that President Trump incited the criminal invasion of the Capitol.
The Washington Post reported that the FBI was aware of plans to invade the Capitol before January 6th. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the rioters, “came with riot helmets, gas masks, shields, pepper spray, fireworks, climbing gear — climbing gear! — explosives, metal pipes, baseball bats.”
Obviously, they planned an attack long before Trump spoke.
The rioters could not have been “incited” by the President because they probably heard little or none of his speech. The President’s speech lasted from 12:00 p.m. to 1:11 p.m. According to Chief Sund, the assault on Capitol police started at 12:40 p.m. According to Bing, under normal conditions, it takes 32 minutes to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol. This means the rioters had to leave no later than 12:08 p.m. On January 6th, however, due to crowds, it took 45 minutes to make that walk. This means the rioters had to leave the Ellipse, if they were ever there, by 11:55 p.m, before the President’s speech started.
Even if they had heard the speech, President Trump never called for force, violence, or overthrow of government. He made only the following comments on the Capitol:
“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
To impeach a President based on his asking his supporters for a peaceful march to the Capitol in order to “make your voices heard,” violates the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.
The President’s critics have ignored his call for peaceful demonstration. They have quoted, out of context, his statement made not two minutes before the end of his speech, when no rioters could have been there to hear them, that, “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country.”
In fact, just as Obama stated that Democrats should bring a gun to a knife fight, the President repeatedly used “fight” to refer to “fighting” in the legislatures, courts, elections and in the media. He referred to Jim Jordan fighting in Congress. Did he mean that Jordan was punching his colleagues? Did Obama mean that Democrats should engage in knife fights with Republicans but use a gun to win?
As for the President controlling the rioters, the Washington Post reported that, “’4:30: Outside the east side of the Capitol, a man with a megaphone announced to a crowd of hundreds: ‘Hey, everyone, Donald Trump says he wants everyone to go home.’ In response, some in the crowd booed loudly.
One man shouted back: ‘Shut the f— up! We’re not going to bend a knee, motherf—–!’”
The impeachment is a lawless and irrational abuse of power.
DONALD BOHLKEN
Which brings me to a REASON.ORG article that I read that was helpful…
….Citing unnamed “officials,” the Timesreports that Trump “was initially pleased” when some of his supporters “stormed into the Capitol” and that he “disregarded aides pleading with him to intercede.” But about 20 minutes after the demonstration turned violent, Trump urged his supporters to “stay peaceful.” Half an hour later, he reiterated that message: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” Later that day, he recorded a message urging the protesters to “go home now,” saying “we have to have peace,” even while continuing to insist that “we had an election that was stolen from us.”
Trump did not advocate violence, even in general terms. If his remarks qualify as incitement to riot, so would similarly fiery rhetoric at other protests that are marked by violence.
In 2016, a Baton Rouge police officer who was injured during a Black Lives Matter demonstration sued one of the movement’s leaders, DeRay Mckesson, saying he “incited the violence.” A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that Mckesson “solely engaged in protected speech” at the protest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later revived the lawsuit, but its decision focused on the allegation that Mckesson “directed the demonstrators to engage in [a] criminal act” by blocking a highway, which “quite consequentially provoked a confrontation between the Baton Rouge police and the protesters.”
Trump, by contrast, did not commit a crime or urge others to do so, even if the violence that followed his speech was predictable. His opponents may regret establishing a precedent that speakers who neither commit nor advocate violence can be prosecuted for the criminal conduct of people inspired by their words.
Yep.
Which leads me to have a heart of hope with the caliber of some of our Representatives in Congress, and some of their speeches I heard while driving yesterday:
SPEECHES
Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., argued against moving forward with a second impeachment against the president during House debate Jan. 13. Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting electoral votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety.
SUPPORT: FIERY SPEECHES
Rep. Louie Gohmert Uses Pelosi’s Own Words Against Her
TWITTER GOES NUTS! (Proving Gohmert’s Point)
THE FEDEERALIST and JUST THE NEWS notes the progressive Left and some media outlets thinking these are violent words. Correct:
Corporate media journalists and left-wing activists took to social media on Wednesday to spread claims that Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is in favor of inciting insurrection.
“Here’saquote. ‘Ijustdon’tevenknowwhytherearen’tmoreuprisingsalloverthecountry,andmaybetherewillbe,’” Gohmert said on the House floor during the impeachment debate.
While Gohmert specified that what he was saying was a quote, taken directly from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s previous statements encouraging uprisings, journalists and activists quickly twisted his words, publicly speculating and claiming he was calling for increased political violence around the nation.
[….]
Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting Electoral Votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Democrats are pursuing an impeachment because they want to “cancel” him. He said Republicans condemn all violence, and that Democrats hold Republicans to a double standard. Jordan said “cancel culture” is attacking the First Amendment, and warned if it doesn’t stop, “it will come for us all.” He touted Trump’s accomplishments but did not address the president’s rhetoric in his speech before the Capitol riot. He added that a second impeachment will further divide the nation.
SUPPORT: HEADLINES MENTIONED
Nancy Pelosi said in 2019 they have been trying to impeach Trump for 2-and-a-half-years.
She said it three separate times and so I take her at her word (RPT). Here are some of the article Rep. Jordan was making reference to:
There was this racy headline, from Vanity Fair on Nov. 14, 2016: “Will Trump Be Impeached?”
Then this, yet another Vanity Fair piece, on Dec. 15, 2016: “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.”
There was this, from The New York Times, in an opinion headline from Nov. 3, 2016: “Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat.”
Remember: Trump wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2017. He wasn’t even elected president until Nov. 8, 2016.
[Even a GOPer FOR impeachment makes some critically important points]
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said that President Donald Trump deserves “universal condemnation” for perpetuating the false claim that there was widespread fraud in the Nov. 6 election, and for pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his Constitutional duty to count Electoral College votes. While Roy said Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election results amount to what he believes are an impeachable offense, he called the articles drafted by House Democrats “flawed and unsupportable,” and expressed concern they would lead to the stifling of free expression by focusing on incitement and insurrection. “Let us condemn that which must be condemned, and let us do so loudly,” Roy said. “But let us do it the right way, with deliberation, and without disastrous side effects.”
MARK LEVIN
I added a couple videos (President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris) to enhance Levin’s audio. I think this is a must hear first hour of radio!
To meet the legal definition of incitement, you need statements like the above not to be in the incitement. Also, the legal incitement charge needs to show as well the continued incitement, and not calling for peace, after the understanding of violence. Even with the admission that Trump has made to Kevin McCarthy that he feels somewhat responsible for Wednesday’s event, he did not incite the crowd. In other words, both things can be true… Trump not realizing the “quality” of the crowd and the mixed intentions of it… for instance, this man and his family:
Which is my segue into an excellent post by RIGHT SCOOP quoting a Wall Street Journal article.
An interesting opinion piece ran in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by a former prosecutor who has a history of convicting protesters in Washington DC. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro wrote that while it is a crime to incite a riot in the nation’s capital, President Trump is not guilty of doing it:
The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.
Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”
“To peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”
The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.
Someone send this to Pelosi, because I’m sure it’ll change her mind!…
Lol, in case you didn’t catch it, that last sentence I included was sarcasm. That being said, I think the Democrats and the Left saying “all white people are racist” in one of the most “inciteful” thing someone could say! (Examples here, here, here, and here — I could give hundreds of examples, but that should suffice).
However, I wanted to include some examples via Larry Elder of the hypocrisy of the Left:
This video is from Larry’s YouTube Channel (here). At the end of his small montage I add video of a larger call to violence by [hypocritical] Democrats.
Larry Elder plays a question to Biden on the campaign trail and then the Sage responds how Democrats expect others to think regarding Biden’s Presidency. For more on Trump being tough on Russia, see here: Trump, Tougher On Putin Than Obama
This is from yesterdays show (1/7/2021), and is a large sample of why The Sage is great at what he does. I add some video which radio only allows audio to play, as well as adding some of the video from @The Larry Elder Show — HERE: Enjoy, it is a stitching of large sections from all three hours.
Last segment of the above is a great shorter listen. This is the last portion of a larger audio, HERE. Larry Elder discusses new studies – but included one from the 1970s… this is the first time I have heard this particular study
49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist — July 2019
83% of Democrats think Trump is racist — June 2020
After becoming the leader of the Democratic party in the Senate in 2017, Schumer spent the last four long years accusing time and time again President Trump is a racist. Flashback to 1974: Sen. Schumer came to power as an Assemblyman by an overtly racist scheme he created to force out Black people from a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. Much to his dismay, the plan failed, and the residents remained in the neighborhood with nicer digs. To this day, the saint of anti-racism somehow still has a no-fly zone over him.
Trump is the worst RAAACIST EVA!
Historic black unemployment;
First Step Act;
Music Modernization Act;
School Choice;
Illegal Immigration;
Pardons;
ETC.
If Trump Is A Racist… He Needs To Go Back To Racism School.
President Trump is still constantly called racist by many people, but his policies towards black Americans prove quite the opposite. Larry takes a deep dive into the various policies and positions the President has taken that have benefited black Americans across the nation.
In the midst of The Democratic Party and the media labeling President Trump’s remarks about Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley as racist, Larry decides to do some digging. What did the president actually say? How long has the Democratic Party been labeling Republicans as racist? Have race relations actually worsened under Trump? Larry answers all these questions and more in this week’s episode.
….78% of Democrats, according to an August 2018 Gallup poll, believe that “Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign and that it changed the outcome of the election.” Never mind that Jeh Johnson, President Barack Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security, in his 2017 prepared testimony before Congress, said: “On Election Day, DHS assembled a crisis-response team to rapidly address any reported cyber intrusions into the election process. To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results.”
Whatever Russia, China or Iran did to meddle with our elections pales in comparison to the impact of our biased, bigoted, Republican-hating, class-warfare waging, secular, “health care is a right,” “there’s no such thing as illegal people, only ‘undocumented,'” Donald Trump-hating media. Let’s compare the impact of Russian, Chinese or Iranian election interference with the election interference of the American media.
In his book “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” Professor Tim Groseclose, economics and political science professor, attempts to quantify the impact of our left-wing media. How do our overwhelmingly liberal media affect how Americans think and vote? Groseclose wrote in 2011:
“For the past several years, I have researched this question, trying to solve the following thought experiment: What if media bias were suddenly to disappear? In such a world, how would America look and act politically?
“The answer is, approximately like Texas.” (Note: This year, President Trump handily won that state.)
“More specifically, if media bias were to disappear, according to the analysis, then America would think and vote like any region that voted around 56-43 percent for Republican John McCain in the last presidential election. Besides Texas, such regions include Kansas, North Dakota, Kentucky, Salt Lake County, Utah, and Orange County, Calif.”
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, once admitted, “The left, as a rule, does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement.” Given this mentality, liberals, Democrats and the media find Trump absolutely, positively insufferable. This raises a question. Mr. Biden, which side needs to heal?
Larry Elder travels through some highly unusual outcomes of the election. The newest member of the chorus is an article from Patrick Basham:
Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
The other articles that are a must read are these:
5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST);
Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR).
