CLASSICAL [Paleo] LIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:
Modern day “tolerance” is a bit different than previous days iterations. The “tolerance of old” assumed disagreement in its definition.
It basically said that two people have two views of the world, they can get together [hopefully amiably], and make their points vigorously, walk away either saying “I never thought about that,” or, “I still disagree but let’s meet up next week for pickle ball.”
This definition says you are tolerant by amiably disagreeing. Again, this historical tolerance accepted disagreement.
THE MODERN [Woke, Progressive, Left] ILLIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:
The new definition of tolerance rejects disagreement at the outset. This new form tolerance says that if you disagree, you are INTOLERANT.
One of the keys to this view is the person who is saying another is intolerant for disagreeing, is not amiable. They are activists. They want all of society to think a certain way… or else.
They also posit that the “disagreeing” person is not just wrong, but in many ways evil. And to prove this they attack a sign around their neck that reads any number of these labels: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.).
And voilà, this disagreeable person, is a troglodyte deserving of shunning from polite [so-called] society.
…..Technically, tolerance is an attitude of putting up with those with whom we differ. Tolerance presupposes there are differences and yet, in order to get along, we tolerate our opponents as fellow human beings, Americans and neighbors. We find ways to work together for the common good while still maintaining our differences.
But, with the death of trust, tolerance has gone from being a mature and honorable tension to being a binary state of war because trust has been evaporated from the equation. Let me explain: Historically, there have always been ethical binaries. That is, ethical pairs that were either/or. For example, something is either right or wrong, good or evil, black or white, up or down. But many ethical components are non-binary — think on a spectrum. For example, cold, cool, tepid, warm, hot. Throughout history, tolerance was non-binary. It was more needed when relating to those who differed greatly, less so with those more aligned with us.
But, today, the ethics of tolerance have become binary, either/or, and this has eliminated the basic meaning of tolerance altogether.
Today, love and hate are binary. If you don’t love something, if you don’t agree, don’t applaud, and don’t acknowledge ideas or behavior as ethically acceptable, then you are a hater. Consequently, there is no longer a sense of tolerance. The whole concept has been wiped from the page of society in our day. When it comes to our enemies, we don’t tolerate, we terminate.…
This form of “tolerance” has dangerous connotations in wanting to get people by coercion or force to think one way. Totalitarianism, or “total thought.” This leads to programs like “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)” – which are forcing “total thought,” what Tammy Bruce many years ago titled her book about her early encounters with it: “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds”
Today, politicians are seriously floating ideas of “re-education camps.” As an example, here is Hillary Clinton speaking about Trump supporters:
“Because at some point, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members, but something needs to happen” (WALL STREET JOURNAL: “The Totalitarian Heart of Hillary Clinton: The 2016 Election Denier Calls For “Formal Deprogramming” Of Trump Supporters“)
The point made in the title of the Wall Street Journal article is that Hillary vehemently denied the election of 2016:
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:
9 VS. 6
…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.
[….]
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.
[….]
In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….
You may think that the idea of reeducation camps in America is crazy. But diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are basically that. A tyrannical attack on thought. Even THE ATLANTIC knows it is an affront to freedom in their piece titled: “The Worst DEI Policy in Higher Education: At stake: the First Amendment rights and academic freedom of 61,000 professors who teach 1.9 million students”
… Under the changes to California’s education code, all community-college employees will be evaluated in a way that places “significant emphasis” on “antiracist” and “DEIA competencies.” […] For professors, that means all will be judged, whether in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions, on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as those concepts are understood and defined by state education bureaucrats
[….]
… “Under the previous faculty contract, faculty were evaluated for their ‘demonstrated ability to successfully teach students from cultures other than one’s own,’” the FIRE lawsuit notes. “Under the DEIA Rules, however, they are now evaluated on their ‘demonstration of, or progress toward, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) related competencies and teaching and learning practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles.’” Before, professors were judged on whether they “successfully teach students.” Now they’ll be judged on whether they show progress toward abstract competencies that are theorized to help them successfully teach students.
That is a degradation, and Chancellor Christian should reverse course. Many First Amendment experts believe that the new guidelines will be found to violate the civil rights of faculty members. And even if they are upheld, their language and implementation suggestions are so incompetently drafted that even a leading proponent of equity-mindedness can’t quite endorse them as written. Whatever one thinks of social-justice ideology, there are far stronger versions of it.
No reeducation camps for Democrats… just people who believe in traditional marriage, free thought and speech, those who think that being “color-blind” is the way to be. Etc., Etc.,
Over the past four years, President Biden has said that he did not know about, and did not benefit, from Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
BRIETBART has more on the exact dates these lies were spoke:
President Joe Biden “lied” at least 16 times about his family’s elaborate business schemes, the House Oversight Committee recounted Thursday.
The committee says Joe Biden lied in five different ways about his family’s foreign business endeavors:
1) That Joe Biden never spoke to his family about their business dealings; 2) His family did not receive $1 million through a third party; 3) Hunter Biden never made money in China; 4) Hunter Biden’s dealings were ethical; 5) and his son did nothing wrong.
This is a bit of a FLASHBACK PIVOT, but one worth making as it leads into a new talking point. Remember, the previous lkie told to get Biden across the finish line was that the laptop was Russian disinfo:
People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.
In confirming that federal prosecutors are treating as “authenticated” the Biden emails, the Times story applies the final dollop of clown makeup to Wolf Blitzer, Lesley Stahl, Christiane Amanpour, Brian Stelter, and countless other hapless media stooges, many starring in Matt Orfalea’s damning montage above (the Hunter half-laugh is classic, by the way). All cooperated with intelligence officials to dismiss a damaging story about Biden’s abandoned laptop and his dealings with the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma as “Russian disinformation.” They tossed in terms thought up for them by spooks as if they were their own thoughts, using words like “obviously” and “classic” and “textbook” to describe “the playbook of Russian disinformation,” in what itself was and still is a wildly successful disinformation campaign, one begun well before the much-derided (and initially censored) New York Post exposé on the topic from October of 2020…..
Now that it has been confirmed, Democrat politicians and the MSM have switched gears, saying, that there is no evidence that Biden benefited from these [now proven] transactions. Let me re-word it how the MSM and Dems do:
“NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT.”
BREITBART again notes this newest pivot by Dems and media:
….After Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s best friend in business, testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee, Democrats and members of the media used a joint talking point to try to discredit his testimony.
Archer told House investigators that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke on speakerphone over 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates to promote the Biden “brand.”
Breitbart News reported that Archer’s testimony produced evidence implicating Joe Biden in a bribery scheme in which a foreign company paid Hunter Biden in return for use of the Biden “brand.”
“So far they [Republicans] have not been able to prove any evidence of wrongdoing,” a reporter said on ABC News’ Good Morning America.
“House GOP members continue to try and link Hunter’s business dealings to the president, though they have yet to produce any concrete evidence,” NBC News’ Today morning show claimed. “Now it is important to keep in mind while Republicans believe that there is a tie between Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the president himself, they have yet to provide any hard evidence that the president himself has done anything wrong.”
“Republicans have not tied the president, Joe Biden, to profiteering from them,” MNSBC reported. “They didn’t have the evidence yet.”
“Where’s the evidence?” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) asked on CNN. “There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President.”
“There is today zero evidence — zero evidence — that Joe Biden, the president United States, knew about what his son was doing,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claimed.
“And if the President of the United States committed the kind of offenses that in the Republican fever dreams they’re saying he committed without any evidence,” he continued, “there is at this point zero evidence that Joe Biden is guilty of anything. What the Republicans are doing, of course, is they’re just very, very angry that their guy got impeached twice, and so they’re just casting about for a way of revisiting retribution on the Democrats and this is their latest fever dream.”
“Nothing shady is going on with Hunter Biden and his overseas business.”
“Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation.”
“Okay, the laptop is real but it doesn’t prove anything.”
Professor Turley make the most salient point when discussing the Democrats position:
“Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that the media and Democrats were offering “ridiculous” excuses about bribery allegations involving Hunter Biden.
“The media is now acknowledging that, sure, Hunter Biden was selling influence and access but it was an illusion and there’s no proof that Joe Biden got an envelope full of money or a direct deposit to his account; therefore, there’s nothing here,” Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “Democrats have constantly said stop asking questions because you don’t have that type of direct evidence of benefits. Well, that’s just ridiculous. I mean, obviously, all of these payments benefit Joe Biden. It’s going to the Biden family fund.”
[….]
“Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,” Turley said. “They have been in the influence peddling business for decades. There’s been articles, not just Hunter but the president’s brother openly selling his access according to critics, so they have been at this a long time.”
“Here’s the weird thing is that you have got this labyrinth of accounts, right? Two dozen different shell companies’ accounts that have no discernible pursuance except to hide the money transfers going to the Biden family and, yet Democrats are demanding the one thing that is the least likely to appear,” Turley added. “Despite that whole apparatus to transfer money, someone was giving a direct deposit slip to Joe and Jill Biden. I mean, how crazy is that? So we have to, I think, deal with the reality that this is what influence peddling is.”
Eric Schwerin, a former business partner of Hunter Biden who visited the White House at least 19 times during the Obama administration when President Joe Biden served as vice president, will testify before the House Oversight Committee, Republican Rep. James Comer told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow earlier Thursday.
Much like their other positions, this narrative is [grudgingly] starting to [have to] conform to evidence.
It’s so bad that like the “trump called NAZI’s good” lie, CNN has caved again to facts after a long holdout:
Maybe this fact will someday make the MSM?
9 VS. 6
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:
…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.
[….]
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.
[….]
In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….
The NEW YORK TIMES notes the following about the Democrats 21st century strategy:
…Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.
In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”
Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.
In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.
Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.
The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.
In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”
There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”
Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting…..
The NYT article went on to say Hillary conceded, but so did Trump — as much as Hillary did:
“Rigged” Election Claims | Trump 2020 vs Clinton 2016
GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:
8 Clinton defectors
4 WA (successful)
1 HI (successful)
1 MN (attempted)
1 ME (attempted)
1 CO (attempted)
2 Trump defectors
TX (successful)
Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:
The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:
Katie Phang is still [April 2023] saying that Trump stole the election!
RPT FLASHBACK
DEMOCRATS WERE FOR CHALLENGING ELECTORS BEFORE BEING AGAINST IT
The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.
Over the past 20 years, Democrats have on three separate occasions objected to the validity of electoral votes on the floor of Congress. Wednesday, Jan. 6, will mark the first time Republicans choose do so in the past two decades.
My sons and I have discussed the January 6th issues, and, some historical aspects as well. Firstly, people saying Trump should be impeached are just as radical as the people breaking into the Capital. The throwing around of the “sedition” label is funny, and shows how people are not aware of the recent history of the lawful process of debate in Congress about just such topic. Here is one blogger noting Chuck Todd’s biased lack of awareness:
…NBC host Chuck Todd, who is always in the running to overtake CNN’s Brian Stelter as the dumbest newsman in the news media, had it out with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) over a number of Republican members of Congress who are planning to dispute the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election due to questions of massive election fraud.
After being accused of trying to thwart the democratic process, Johnson hit back by telling sleepy eyes Todd that they are trying to protect it.
“We are not acting to thwart the democratic process, we are acting to protect it,” Johnson said to Todd.
[….]
Todd and others in the Fake News media are acting like the Republicans contesting the election results is an unprecedented affair.
Let me remind them that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won.
Lest they forget that the House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and President Trump’s win in 2016.…
PJ-MEDIA however has an excellent notation of this history when they point out Democrats outrage that Republicans objected to the certification of electoral votes. “It’s ‘conspiracy and fantasy,’ says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.” PJ further states,
“The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic,” the New York Democrat said. “The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting.”
“This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on the fact and reason—not conspiracy and fantasy,” he added.
There’s only one problem with Chucky’s “argument based on fact and reason.” Democrats have been challenging the electoral vote certification for two decades.
The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin appears to be even more incensed at Senator Josh Hawley’s plan to object to the Electoral College vote.
“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”
Brave Sir Dick seems to forget he was singing a different tune in 2005. Then, it was Democrats questioning the results of the Ohio vote, which went narrowly for George Bush.
Durbin had words of praise for Boxer then:
“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”
In fact, the Ohio electoral vote challenge was only the beginning. Rumors and conspiracy theories swirled around the outcome on election night that saw Bush winning Ohio by a close, but the surprisingly comfortable margin of 120,000 votes. So why are so many of these headlines familiar to us today?
Mother Jones: “Recounting the Election: Was Ohio stolen?”
And THE BLAZE also referenced it’s readers to the same issues in their post (BTW, these are the two videos I used for my upload):
TheBlaze’s Chris Enloe noted this weekend that while Democrats are rebuking Republicans for planning Wednesday to oppose the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory due to fraud concerns, Democrats themselves have a robust history of doing that very thing.
And a damning, resurfaced video underscores what’s already on the public record.
The video is a compilation of clips from congressional sessions following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, both won by Republican George W. Bush — and in the clips Democrats launched protests against Bush’s electoral votes.
[….]
That wasn’t all. The Washington Post reported that during the January 2001 session, words such as “fraud” and “disenfranchisement” were heard above Republicans calling for “regular order.”
More from the paper:
The Democratic protest was led by Black Caucus members who share the feeling among black leaders that votes in the largely African American precincts overwhelmingly carried by [then-Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore were not counted because of faulty voting machines, illicit challenges to black voters and other factors.
“It’s a sad day in America,” Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said as he turned toward Gore. “The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but . . . ” Gore replied.
At the end of their protest, about a dozen members of the Black Caucus walked out of the House chamber as the roll call of the states continued.
Here are three points the J6 Committee wish to make their endeavor both controlled and illegal.
FIRST
The First point is that this “committee” is illegitimate. I made this point with an upload to my YOUTUBEand subsequent post titled: “Trump’s Lawyer, John Eastman, Explains Why He Claimed the 5th.” Which is, this committee is actually illegal via the House Rules as well as the agreed upon rules of said committee. Which means, no one — zilch, zero, nada — needs to respond to any document calling them to speak at the committee. Over a thousand witnesses have been interviewed apparently… not a single one by the opposing view. This is tragically tyrannical, ripped straight from the paged of Stalin.
The same points are made but worth repetition, as, Pedagogy is the Mother of All Learning. Here the indomitable
So, that above point is key. Why would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want a one-sided [jaundiced] view of the evidence? Well… because they wish to hide something of course. To ensure something is not heard from the Halls of Congress, so-to-speak.
(RIGHT SCOOP) Democrats call everything a threat to democracy. Guns are a threat to democracy. Trump is a threat to democracy. Truckers are a threat to democracy. Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases is. Counting every vote is. Preventing voter fraud, living in Florida, using the wrong pronoun. Even refusing to send your kids to drag strip shows is a threat to democracy according to the left and the media.
But the realest threat to the American system, which is a constitutional system, is what is happening right now in the so-called January 6 “investigation.” Mark Levin broke that down tonight on Life, Liberty and Levin and it’s awesome – in the sense of hearing someone put into words correctly and well a thing that is terrible and not at all awesome.
SECOND
What is that “something”?
That something is discussed in a previous post, just updated a couple of days back but posted originally in February 2021, “Trump Offered 10,000+ Troops Prior To J6.” You see, they cannot claim that Trump wanted this to happen, or directed it, or any other charge if they allow the fact… the fact that Trump — upon hearing chatter of violence — wanted to ensure that this type of scenario didn’t happen. The FEDERALISTreports on a new Congressional investigative report of this failure (RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip):
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.
The Capitol Police (USCP) were HALF-STAFFED ON JAN. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms DENIED MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE USCP CHIEF in the days leading up to Jan. 6,OFFICERS WERE POORLY EQUIPPED and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were NEVER TRAINED TO HANDLE A RIOT EVEN AFTER THE RIOTS OF 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.
[….]
“This inaction left the Capitol unnecessarily vulnerable,” Banks and Davis noted.
Banks and Davis pointed to an After-Action Report from Capitol Police showing that the law enforcement department reorganized its intelligence without authorization which left it without essential “open-source intelligence capabilities” and caused staffing changes that “may have contributed to the tragedy” on Jan. 6.
In light of this information, Banks and Davis added that “the USCP intelligence unit had knowledge of the potential for violence yet failed to adequately communicate the threat or take the necessary steps to protect the Capitol.”….
John Solomon explains the new revelations that show Pelosi’s sergeant-at-arms refused the support of the National Guard ahead of Jan 6th due to “bad optics.”
(Watch the fuller show where the above clip came from, HERE)
What is not known by the typical cable news watcher, probably, is that both the Capital Police and the mayor of D.C. turned down offers to help secure the government areas before and as the mob of crazed Lefties and Righties descended on the Capital:
…Three days before the riot, the Pentagon offered National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. Capitol Police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter. Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, police planned only for a free speech demonstration. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020:
Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states.
[….]
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states.
But this isn’t the main issue… what is is the dilemma this would bring if noted publicly. You would get these commentaries in prime time:
Yep. Hypocrites. See more related to the issue on my site:
And another lie perpetrated by the media and the J6 Committee is that 5 police officers died because of the riot on Capitol Hill. While I disagree with Tucker on his opening point regarding Ashley Babbitt, he is wholly right on what he follows it with in the segment.
