The critical date is not January 6;It is not January 6 (2021) — repeated (quite deliberately) ad nauseam by the Democrats and the mainstream media alike (it is no accident that that date is the name of the committee that could just as well have been called, say, the Congress Breach Committee) — that is the significant date; no, the historical date is November 3 (2020).
the critical date is November 3.
In that perspective, all of the incessant chatter about the "riots" is so much fog — as is Donald Trump's alleged connivance in the "deadly" "attack" on "democracy" (a "deadly" attack in which no protestor had weapons, no protestor killed a single soul, and none of the half dozen victims — most of them by unrelated heart attack — was not pro-Trump). Speaking of riots, incidentally, how about the current protests in Iran and China — should they also be poo-pooed as scandalous insurrections?
You can rave and rant
all you want, however honestly you hold the belief, about
insurrectionists, traitors, conspiracy theorists, and domestic
terrorists; the mainstream media (here's looking at you, New York Times)
can tag on the (highly un-journalistic) adjective "baseless" and the
(highly un-journalistic) expression "the big lie" to every single news (sic) item about Donald Trump and his (eminently reasonable) accusations; you can bewail
"disinformation" threatening "our democracy" all you want… the fact
remains that without November 3 — without the (numerous as well as the
sweeping) anomalies of November 3 — there is no January 6.
Indeed, if anything is proof of disinformation, the big lie, and perhaps (why not?) treason to "our democracy", it is the very ubiquitousness of the January 6 date. (During the 1850s, incidentally, notably in his debates with Judge Douglas, Abraham Lincoln used the expression "the democracy" more than once as a synonym for the Democratic party, suggesting that it was far from an uncommon expression in the 19th century.) Update: obrigado to Sarah Hoyt.
As details have been emerging every week or even every day (most recently, Elon Musk's Twitter Files) about what really has been common sense since… the morning of November 4, 2020, the fact that the Democrats, the MSM, and the January 6 Committee continue unabated with their gaslighting — Update: referring Trump to the DOJ for prosecution on December 19, 2022 — is particularly egregious.
There is only one thing that you need to do to react to a mainstream media outlet, a Democrat politician, or any other type of leftist every single time that they mention the words "January" and "6" in unison.
Dear reader, please stand up from your chair and repeat after me (aloud, if you will):
The critical date is not January 6;
the critical date is November 3.
This post could end here, but for your convenience here are two recent commentaries on the matter, plus, at the bottom, a link to every one of this blog's posts on the subject of January 6 (sorry, on the subject of November 3) from the past couple of years.
"These people had a reason to be frustrated":
January 6 was never an insurrection, it was a mêlée
On a recent Fox News show, host Tucker Carlson is for once the one being interviewed (2nd video, 2:26):
[Adam] Schiff is a totally sinister person, and of course discredited. He's on the intel committee, and he was caught lying repeatedly over the past five years, and he retains his position, so that's a failure of our system. … he said "Look, Trump is going to run again, we better prosecute him." In other words, he believes that the point of the Department of Justice is to take his potential political opponents off the table by putting them in jail. I mean, that's what juntas do. So, like, that Adam Schiff is a huge problem for democracy …Later Tucker Carlson had some things to point out about January 6 (3:58):
It was never an insurrection, it was a mêlée, and people got super-exercised, I think there were some complicated components, there were — clearly — federal informants and/or agents in that crowd, their role is still unknown, we should find out. But in general these are people who thought the election was stolen, they had some evidence to support that view, it was not a free and fair election.
You don't have to believe that the voting machines were rigged to look at 2020 and say "that wasn't fair". I mean, you shut down negative stories about one guy, and highlight stories of the other. I mean, Google stopped the Trump campaign from sending out fund-raising emails on Gmail!
Nothing like that has ever happened before! We changed the way that we vote! We did it by mail! Of course there was massive fraud! I mean, these are real concerns. Whether they swung the election we can argue, but these people had a reason to be frustrated.
Democracy, which they really believed in, turned out to be kind of fake! So, rather than answer their questions or reassure them that out system is real, we throw them in jail?! I mean, what is that?! I will tell you what it is: It is a rotting, falling ruling class that sees its hold on power slipping away, and is grasping even tighter. And that just never works — in any régime — ever!
… You should never punish someone for expressing his political views, period! And above all, in a democracy, you have to answer people's questions. And if the question is "was the election fair?" tell me how it was. Tell me how it's fair for the tech monopolies to act in concert with the Democratic Party to shut down the other side. That's not fair. And if you claim it is fair, like Chuck Todd or whatever the kid's name is, you're a liar. You're a liar.
People are tired of woke bullies bossing them about,
and Donald Trump stands up to those bullies
Regarding the main intent of this post, the people (left-wing, conservative, or other) fixating on Donald Trump's shortcomings, real or alleged, are likewise (and many of them quite deliberately) focusing on the wrong spot. In that perspective, the Spectator's Lucian G. Conway quotes G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy:
“It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars.”… Casting about for someone to hold accountable after Republicans performed below expectations in the midterm elections, many Republicans offered a simple solution: Blame Trump.
… The sentiment has been echoed across the country. But this blithe dismissal of Donald Trump — and, by proxy, millions of Trump supporters — is misguided. To borrow Chesterton’s metaphor, Republicans are attacking the Trump police without ever having heard of the liberal authoritarian burglars that he was largely elected to stop.
We’ve seen this movie before. Rewind back to 2016. Mainstream Republicans back then didn’t like Trump either. So why did he win both the Republican nomination and the presidency? It’s actually not that complicated: People were tired of woke bullies bossing them about, and Donald Trump stood up to those bullies. He said he’d stand up to China even though people called him a racist for it. Trump said he’d stem the flow of immigration from Mexico, and he was roundly criticized. But he didn’t back down from the liberal media that relentlessly attacked him. Trump kept speaking his mind. In contrast, Establishment Republicans largely forgot about the lower middle class affected by these policies. Trump spoke to the forgotten class — spoke for them.
And it wasn’t just the lower middle class. There were plenty of people who were tired of the varied left-wing bullies in their world.
… These reasons are even more important today. And if Republicans want to win moving forward, they need to better understand this fact. They need to more fully “get” Trump voters. They need to understand the metaphorical Trump police and the authoritarian burglars.
… This time, as Republicans wrestle with the issues posed by another Trump run at the presidency, they should remember that — for all his flaws — the former president spoke for a lot of average people tired of the bullies throwing them under the bus.
Related: • The Central Absurd Inconsistency of the Ray Epps Conundrum Described in Two Sentences
• Kabuki Theater: the "top 12 strange, stand-out moments" of the January 6th Committee's interview with Ray Epps
• Déjà Vu All Over Again in the Banana Republic of Biden: No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns; they cheated, as usual
• Isn’t it strange that in Florida, with all those strict rules against cheating, the GOP red tsunami happened as predicted? The Democrats have again fixed, rigged, and stolen an election
• Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy
• If the Democrats learned anything from their 2016 debacle it’s that they didn’t cheat nearly enough
• Democrats don't support voter fraud; they just worry about disenfranchising the deceased
• Voter ID: Apparently not allowing minorities to cheat is a form of racial oppression
• Of the 47 countries in Europe today — the nations and the continent that the Democrats are always telling us to emulate — 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote
• Joe Biden, Why Are You Calling Denmark a White Supremacist Country? And You, Barack Obama: Why Are You Calling Africa a Racist Continent?
• What the January 6th protest actually reveals is the criminal determination of the Democrats to establish a one-party state at whatever the cost
• 2020: an
almost totalitarian effort by the national political and social media
to suppress and ridicule any doubt of the accuracy of the election
result
• Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability
• Isn't America Being Governed by a Mafia Family Dynasty, setting things up so that there will always be Democrats in power?
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Voter Fraud: A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"
• Dennis Prager: The Numerous (and Sweeping) Anomalies Regarding the 2020 Election That Cannot Be Ignored
We don't have to get into voting machines or evidence of fraud to claim the 2020 election was rigged. All we have to do is point to black letter law.
ReplyDeleteTo wit: Article 1, Section IV, Clause 1 states, and I quote, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Emphasis mine. That means, the 2020 elections were government by state law, as passed by each state's legislature.
Several states, including many of what turned out to be key swing states, saw their election laws changed by election officials, or judges. All ballots cast consequently are by definition non-conforming ballots according to the Constitution.
Constitutionally non-conforming ballots were cast by the millions in the 2020 election. All these ballots should have been tossed out, and if they could not be kept separate from the conforming ballots, by accident or design, then that state's entire count of ballots should have been nullified.
Congress could have fixes this when counting electors, as well as the Federal courts before electors were counted by Congress, but all of them ran away and stuck their cowardly heads in the sand. Pence could have set aside the electors from these states, but he was just as much a coward as all the rest.
I don't have to prove even one case of fraud, or provide even one example of tampered with tabulation machines. I know the 2020 election was rigged, and it was rigged in some cases months before the election was even held.
Thank you for your very informative comment. Information like that gives me the ammunition I need to continue the fight.
DeleteThe burden of proof is not upon the critics of the election; It is upon the officials conducting the election, to proactively assure that their procedures precluded fraud. The compromises in the process irreversibly eroded that assurance.
DeleteOnce fraudulent ballots are submitted for tabulation, it is extremely difficult to determine the magnitude of fraud. That is why adherence to procedures that assure chain-of-custody and other aspects of ballot integrity is essential. Those officials, and the courts, ignore that, because the Cool Kids think that we have to make it "convenient" to vote, integrity be damned ... and they didn't want the "drama" we saw in 2000 with Bush v. Gore. So they turned a blind eye to the compromises ... which were also convenient in that it helped them rid themselves of the embarrassment of Trump showing the rest of us that they are far less beneficial than they want us to believe.
The government does not enjoy the presumption of innocence. Trump's error is to play their game and accept the burden of proof that is not his to accept. But that doesn't remove the burden of those officials to assure election integrity, so that we can be confident in the fairness and accuracy of how we choose our leaders.
And let me say this: if the potted plant known as Joe Biden actually got 81 million legitimate votes, we have a greater problem than fraud: we have a critical mass of people in this nation willing to impose tyranny upon themselves and their neighbors, upon the direction of a "leader" to do the Nice Thing,
FBI Agent Elvis Chan tells you HOW the FIB stole the election for bite-me in a March 2020 interview with the Information Security Media Group.
ReplyDeleteWhen Chan says 'Secure Elections' I do not think it means what we are supposed to think it means.
VIDEO and rough transcript has been posted here:
https://www.theqtree.com/2022/12/09/dear-maga-tgif-open-thread-20221209/#comment-1006461
VIDEO: https://c80211ea91bab460a01a-e73d423e7486dd5fc383150a57d2a8f5.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/RSAC2020-Elvis-Chan-1280x720.mp4