What Is Behind Trump's Attack on DeSantis? Has He Lost His Marbles or Does He See Things the Rest of Us Do Not — Such as the Florida Governor Being Set Up as a Stool?

As you listen to Democrats and Republicans alike rage against, mock, or blame Donald Trump in the wake of the 2022 mid-terms, there is one question we all ought to be asking ourselves: How exactly is this different than what has been hurled at Trump for the past six-seven years?

In this case, however, the charge is made worse, of course, by the results of the mid-terms — but have conservatives really forgotten to what extent Democrats rig elections? — along with the fact of The Donald's mockery of “DESANCTIMONIOUS” (thanks to Glenn Reynolds — as well as to Ed Driscoll and to Sarah Hoyt).

While highly critical of "Trump’s tantrums over the attention DeSantis is getting", Jeff Goldstein nevertheless recognizes that

the corporate media and GOP establishment shadow-puppeteers like Paul Ryan are trying to blame Tuesday’s underwhelming showing on Trump. And yes, they are wooing DeSantis as a potential Trump killer. But the facts are that Trump had a 93% win rate as a midterm kingmaker, with several races still undecided, and obvious missteps like Dr Oz notwithstanding. 

 … just because the GOP establishment wants to push DeSantis over Trump doesn’t mean they can control DeSantis. They may think they can

When, however, Jeff Goldstein says that Trump's "behavior repels independents and suburban women", he is forgetting the two-minute (the two-hour?) hate sessions retreaded daily by the "neutral" media…

In that perspective, it should be noted that over at the Conservative House, Sundance points out that the élites, Democrat as well as Republican, are betting on Ron DeSantis in the hope (well-founded or not) that the Florida governor will (consciously or otherwise) be more open to (their) influence.

The Bush clan have wrapped their arms around Governor Ron DeSantis as a 2024 weapon to counteract the MAGA movement. They have poured hundreds of millions into the “acceptable Republican” effort and are in full control of the DeSantis campaign management.

The Mitt Romney’s, Mitch McConnell’s, Paul Ryan’s, Kevin McCarthy’s etc are trying to leverage the club dynamic over Ron DeSantis and provide enticements to maintain the alliance with their internal battle plan to retain full control over the Republican Party.

The Never Trumpers, financed by donors, the professional party system and club officials, are all part of the internecine battle.

When President Trump labels the former congressman, now Florida Governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious,” that background reality is the who, what, when and why.

This battle is about Republican Party control and the use of Ron DeSantis by the club members who refuse to let go of power.

As noted by a comment from Rick Stans:

Watching heads explode over Trump’s “DeSantimonious” comment is exactly what the RINO elite relishes! Sundance has spelled out Ron’s position very clearly over the past weeks and anyone with half a brain could see it! Ron is a tool being forged as the splitter to weaken Trump in his bid to win in ‘24.

Moreso, the “god” man is what the RINO elite like Ryan and McCarthy hope will destroy the MAGA movement and restore the order of Kings & Queens in D.C. verses the serfs in fly-over country! The Coastals are becoming a bit uneasy hearing about Red Waves and MAGA movements! Time to crush these peasants once and for all!

Enter “god” man! Smiling, snarky Ron the Trump slayer! The Rip Van Winkle of Mar-a-Lago post raid! Trump’s friendly shot across the bow is a wake-up call!

No Ron, we won’t sit back and let you be another fraud, a fallen acorn from the dead Bush Oak that was fertilized with our hard-earned tax dollars for decades!

Either we’re all in for MAGA (despite what Trump does) or we’ll all be learning how to say “can I trade my dollars for yuan” in Mandarin one day! Wake up foolish Ron supporters who have become offended by Trump! Haven’t you learned from your parents that “sticks and stones may break my bones…..”

Trump is a gamer and his words were just a precursor to let Ron know that all the money and notoriety he will be promised for distancing himself from MAGA to “Save” America, is really nothing but fools gold in the end if MAGA goes the way of the Tea Party!

The Republican Club would rather lose elections and retain power than win and be held accountable to deliver on their false promises.

Time to allow Richard Baris, the People's Pundit (thanks to LafnH20), to share his Twitter feed:

I’ll tell everyone what it was right now, though it’s not the smartest fight for REPs to have before a midterm. When Ron DeSantis is chatting with @kevinomccarthy and Team Paul Ryan behind the back of the man who made him the governor of Florida, it was bound to happen.

 

They’ve targeted Ron DeSantis as the stool they believe is their best chance to foil another Trump Presidency and after enough hammering away at him and blowing up his head, there are indications that it is working. But make no mistake, it is a DC establishment plan and is true.

 

I’ve received at least a half dozen calls from GOP donors who have told me the contents of their conversations AND sitting members of Congress have confirmed it.

@GOPLeader Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan have hatched a plan to defeat MAGA in 2024 and Ron DeSantis is the stool.

 

Sorry if that hurts some of your feelings, but it’s true and those of you most likely to bitch about me saying it don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about. If DeSantis doesn’t bite, though he has been more lately, their next target is @GlennYoungkin.

 

 … Point being, for those of us who know, it was not at all surprising to hear that. Sure, it plays into their hands, but that’s Trump folks. That’s his way to say, “I know what you’re doing, I’ve heard all about it.” “Andrew Gillum would be governor of Florida if not for me.”

 

The reactions to this thread are exactly why Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell are in love with this idea.

Folks, I don’t really care for whom you vote. But don’t delude yourselves into pretending it isn’t #NeverTrump behind the push for Ron DeSantis to fracture the party in a primary if and when Trump obviously runs. It most definitely is them to include McCarthy and McConnell.

And both things can be true. It [the friendly fire] absolutely could’ve waited for Wednesday. But come on, everyone should know by now, that’s Trump.

 

Mitch McConnell’s former chief of staff and campaign manager, right here, and retweeted by Byron York with the quickness. I have to be brutally honest, I’m a little surprised the party who beat Fox New is gearing up to potentially fall for this plan. He knows full well, folks.

Incidentally, I am getting the following message on some of the People Pundit's tweets:

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists.

But the Twitter account seems to appear normally on my phone. Elon Musk, where are you?!

After speaking to Sebastian Gorka, who called Trump and DeSantis "two alpha males" (thanks to Sarah Hoyt), the National Pulse's Raheem Kassam offered his prescription:

1. Democrats run “better” campaigns, mostly because they’re allowed to, which in turn is because they dominate in positions that exert pressure – in politics, media, and culture. It’s easier for Democrats to rip down Republican yard signs without recompense. It’s also easier for left leaning activists to get away with violence or intimidation. Their talking heads are rarely challenged when they lie. They use Chinese Communist-owned platforms like TikTok to radicalise impressionable young voters and they use issues like abortion and student loans to do it. We recognise all of this as immoral. But elections aren’t conducted by Marquess of Queensbury rules. Republicans play touch football and call it smashmouth. Democrats play smashmouth and call it kiss chase.

2. The GOP ‘McLeadership’ must change. If you accept that Republicans should have done better in this cycle, you have to go to the source of where the decisions are made and how the money is spent. That’s in the hands of people like Kevin McCarthy, Tom Emmer, Mitch McConnell, and Ronna Romney McDaniel. Trump isn’t a “party leader” in a European political sense. He wasn’t on the ballot this year. He doesn’t control the purse strings, nor the hires inside the GOP. His philosophy is ultimately beholden to centralised implementation.

3. DeSantis has a big and bright future. But it cannot come at a cost to the MAGA movement. Even those surrounding and supportive of the victorious Florida governor accept that DeSantis is closer to the GOP comfort zone – including the neoconservatives – than Trump is. The Florida governor had the winds at his back in this election – an horrific opponent, a mass Republican migration to the Sunshine State, and of course, his own well-earned incumbent record to run on. …

Déjà Vu All Over Again in the Banana Republic of Biden: No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns; they cheated, as usual

Of course, it’s completely normal on Election Day for 44 polling places to run out of paper simultaneously. Don’t start fueling conspiracy theories by noticing that such a shortage must be deliberate!

Referring to Emerald Robinson's substack, Salty Popcorn opines that No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns. They cheated, as usual.

Astounding that, in the wake of the 2022 election, while everybody is asking What Explains the Lack of a Red Wave in the 2022 Mid-Terms and to what extent (if any) Donald Trump is responsible, so few people, not even on the right, seems to be saying the obvious, that America's Voting System Is Rigged. How rigged? Just as rigged as, in fact, still as rigged, as in 2020 (thanks to Ed Driscoll). Via Raheem Kassam, Emerald Robinson asks:

What does this vote-rigging look like?

 … A day after the election, the corporate media is telling you that “late arriving mail-in ballots” are still to be counted in order to decide elections in Arizona, Nevada, and elsewhere.

If you can believe these obvious lies, you can believe anything.

susan denton adds that Stalin said: ' It's not who votes but who counts the votes-' so my question is WHY isn't the GOP screaming this as well as who said it?

In another post, Emerald Robinson adds that It's Deja Vu All Over Again In The Banana Republic of Biden:

Countless people have called in the last few days to ask me if Kari Lake or Blake Masters or Adam Laxalt or Lauren Boebert— and all the rest of the midterm candidates in “stalled” races— will ultimately prevail.

My answer is always the same: no. No, I don’t think they’re going to prevail. They’re going to lose. In fact, they’re being cheated out of their victories right now. 

My rule of thumb is simple: if you’re a Trump-aligned Republican and your election results were not released within 24 hours of Election Day, then you’re toast.

The entire point of “slow-rolling” vote-counting is that it gives the cheaters the necessary time to count how many ballots they need to beat the Republican candidate and then to manufacture those ballots — or to disappear the necessary number of GOP ballots by “abjudication.”

Didn’t the GOP learn any of these lessons from the 2020 election? Of course not.  

 … Democrats have no problem posting literally unbelievable vote margins in order to win.

There is, or there ought to be, a civil war coming, and like in the 1860s, it's is entirely the Democrats' fault.

Related: • 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? 
• Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability
• 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
• 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
• 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

What Explains the Lack of a Red Wave in the 2022 Mid-Terms?

1) The best explanation for the sorry fate of the Republican Party in the mid-terms of 2022 comes from the always genial Tucker Carlson via PJ Media. Matt Margolis points to the Fox News host's insight into the single issue which Explains the Lack of a Red Wave More Than Anything Else:

There are many theories about why the elections played out as they have. Many believe it was a lack of quality candidates, or the issue of abortion, or even Donald Trump. But on Wednesday, Tucker Carlson of Fox News offered his explanation for the Republican Party’s dismal midterm election results despite a favorable environment — and it makes perfect sense.

“[T]he mechanics of an election. They matter. In fact, they matter sometimes more than any individual running in the election. The way people vote makes a big difference to the outcome,” he explained.

Case in point: Pennsylvania.

“Two and a half years ago, the last administration, its Republican allies in Congress, watched passively, seemingly in glassy-eyed sedation as the Democratic Party used the pretext of COVID to rewrite election laws around the country in order to get its own candidates into office. They didn’t do it by accident. They knew what they were doing” [Carlson declared]. “Last night those laws, many of which are still on the books, paid off generously. John Fetterman bombed in his one public debate. You saw it. He humiliated himself. He made a mockery of the election, but it didn’t matter by that point.”

Polls showed a surge of support for Dr. Mehmet Oz after Fetterman’s disastrous debate, and most polls in the final days of the campaign had Oz ahead. It appeared that Fetterman’s goose was cooked, but while he was hiding from the public for months, the local party was banking early and mail-in votes.

“Thanks to early voting, Fetterman’s margin was already in the bank. Nearly 70% of Democrats had voted early in the Pennsylvania races. Only 20% of Republicans did” [Carlson continued].

2) Incidentally, have you noticed that for once, the leftists haven't made a big deal out of how the popular vote should trump all other voting systems (like the USA's electoral college, etc…)? Wonder why that is? Guess what: That's because the popular vote was won by the GOP! (That's right: the "principled" Democrats only protest loudly about said principles when it benefits their party…)

According to the Cook Political Report, as of Thursday morning, Republicans took 52.3 percent of the popular vote in the 2022 midterms, compared to the Democrats’ 46.2 percent

3) Tucker's Fox News colleague Jesse Watters adds that Democrats created a system focused on ballots, not votes (It's not about persuasion anymore, it's about Democrats getting as many ballots as possible):

Elections used to be decided on election night. "American Idol" can handle millions of votes in a commercial break, but it takes Arizona, Nevada a week? None of it makes sense because they don't want the system to make sense. The longer some of these races drag out for, the better it is for Democrats because they've created a system centered around ballots, not votes. It's not about winning your vote anymore. It's not about persuading you. It's about flooding the state with as many ballots as possible and getting them filled out Democrat.

Related: • Déjà Vu All Over Again in the Banana Republic of Biden:
No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns; they cheated, as usual
• 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

John R. Lott, Jr : [As a for an overwhelming majority of] the 47 European countries [they] don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in country. Another ten European countries … allow absentee voting, but [with strict requirements]. … With loose absentee voting rules, a country is making itself vulnerable to vote fraud. With mail-in voting, a country is almost begging for vote fraud.

More Related: • What Is Behind Trump's Attack on DeSantis? Has He Lost His Marbles or Does He See Things the Rest of Us Do Not — Such as the Florida Governor Being Set Up as a Stool? 
• Joe Biden, Why Are You Calling Denmark a White Supremacist Country? And You, Barack Obama: Why Are You Calling Africa a Racist Continent? 
• Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability
• 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
• 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
• 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

Despite America's Cuban Embargo, the Main Supplier of the Island's Food Products is None Other than… the USA Itself

As we commemorate (or ought to commemorate) international Victims of Communism Day, note that last week, a member of Republicans in France (RIF) was a guest on the English-language version of France 24 for a debate on the Cuba embargo: Why does the US continue to reject UN moves to end it? Needless to say, in the debate produced by Antonia KERRIGAN, Alessandro XENOS, and Mark OWEN, the conservative was, as usual, outgunned, not least by the "moderator" himself, but Erik Svane fired back at the drama queens with both barrels…Among the guests were :

• Anne Kraatz, Historian, US Foreign Affairs Expert
• Luis Miguel Cabrera, FRANCE 24 journalist
• Pascal Drouhaud, Associate Researcher in Latin America, Choiseul Institute
• Carlos Alzugaray, Cuban diplomat, former Cuban ambassador
• Erik Svane, Member of 'Republicans in France', Author of "La bannière Etalée"

Now 60 years old, the trade embargo on Cuba has been perpetuated primarily at the behest of Washington. When it was imposed in 1962, John F. Kennedy was US president and Fidel Castro was the revolutionary leader of Cuba: a Communist too close for comfort for Washington at the height of the Cold War. Arms sales to Havana had been banned four years earlier and Cuba leant on its major ally, the Soviet Union, to fill the gap. Our panel discusses why the embargo remains in place today and if there is any hope of lifting it.

Thanks to myself, notably for an article I wrote almost 20 years ago, Romanticists Overlook Allende's Many Faults, the second half of which included a discussion on Cuba, notably Gustavo Arcos Bergnes's New York Times article, A Prisoner Becomes A Warden… 

Update: I should like to address a common criticism on Youtube — the alleged lack of compassion for eight sick Cuban kids.

First of all, I should like to reiterate the two or three opening points which I said about Cuba, namely, that contrary to what is regularly said about the Caribbean island, what is imposed upon it is not an American blockade but an American embargo. Meaning, that nothing prevents Havana from engaging in commerce with countries such as France, Denmark, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia (indeed, it is hardly a secret that Moscow supported the régime for decades), Japan, China, etc (not least as a tourist destination).

Second, given the way that Uncle Sam's heartless imperialists are described by Havana's communists, you would think that (rather than be outraged) they would be delighted — positively delighted — that none of the capitalist pigs' despicable products come to pollute the minds of the Cuban people.

Third, the many arguments charging the Yanqui imperialists as responsible for Cuban citizens' misery are moot, given that there are exceptions to Washington's embargo, namely for humanitarian reasons, i.e., in the very fields of (wait for it…) food and medicine. Indeed, as it happens, the main provider of both food and medicine is none other than… los Estados Unidos de América.

Having mentioned those points, I will now turn to the criticism, and point out what Luis Miguel Cabrera does towards the middle of the debate is a typical leftist trick. Or a typical leftist tactic, if you prefer. He brings in some unknown tidbit, usually a very personal kind of tragedy, one which uses the epitome of innocence — "children's lives!" is his outburst — and one which none of us has heard about and none of us can — conveniently — verify or retort to. The leftist goes on to pinpoint exactly where and with whom the blame lies — "The U.S. prevents Cuba from acquiring custodial" he says, perhaps reading from a news source (Granma? Juventud Rebelde?) — and thus he shames his opponents into silence, with no alternatives being considered.

But let us assume that there is truth in his example of eight Cuban kids who needed organ transplants but had to wait for months for the medicine. 

Notice that everybody assumes that none of the eight ever got the medicine (from whatever source in whichever country) and indeed that all eight have since died, even though neither of those things are ever stated outright. And although Luis Miguel Cabrera uses what must be called weasel language, saying that "I know some of these children who didn't make it" (suggesting that none of them made it) — although "not making it" might not mean what it is assumed to mean — I will go out on a limb and suggest that, for precisely the very reason that the France 24 journalist never states outright that any of them are dead, it is likely that most, if not all, of them are in fact alive today.

Again, assuming everything he says is true, however, the first question to ask is, How long would the embargo have had to be over for the calamity not to happen? Two months? Two years? Twenty years?

Besides, I thought that health care was one of the communist government's biggest sources of pride. (Indeed, wasn't that the subject of one of Michael Moore's "documentaries"? Related: Cubans wait months, sometimes years, for something as basic as a wheelchair.)

Second, why didn't we hear about the tragedy until today? Is it perhaps because of the communist media's censorship?

Imagine the French government, or a Danish hospital, or a Canadian NGO (not to mention a similar institution somewhere in the… USA) learning about the heart-wrenching tragedy of eight dying kids (in any foreign country) in dire need of a "chemical solution" for an organ transplant. You would imagine that any, or all, of them would immediately open their doors to welcome the kids to their country, as much to save innocent lives as for the good publicity and to mark points against Uncle Sam.

Having said that, it is inconceivable that Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis or Senator Marco Rubio (not to mention the President of the United States, whether it is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, or either of their secretaries of state) hearing about this calamity and, insofar as the situation is correctly described, not immediately demanding that the State Department be overridden (is that who is allegedly responsible? Don't people know that most bureaucrats in the federal government seem to lean left? — see Elián González) and the medicine be dispatched forthwith.

This suggests that when Luis Miguel Cabrera charges that "there are a lot of restrictions," said restrictions regarding medical purchases are not coming from the political world, but from the medical sector.

I'm guessing here — I have no other choice — but maybe the restrictions are quite reasonable, for instance insisting that any operation involving this type of medicine must be administered by a doctor who has at least, say, 18 months' experience in a particular field of study. (Meaning that the US might export the medicine to a — specialized — hospital in Paris or Copenhagen or Tokyo or Bogota, but not to a hospital in Kampala or Havana — in the latter case, one reason being because the island's communists will not let its medical students travel abroad for study; for that matter, it just might be that the restrictions might prevent them from sending the chemical solution to just any hospital in Kansas, in Colorado, or in California…)

This in turn would mean that the situation can — easily — be solved, by another solution: not to export the medicine but to "import", i.e., to welcome the patients to the USA. If it is true that "the rest of the world was afraid of having sanctions from the U.S." (hardly believable, certainly not regarding humanitarian aid such as food and medicine), why is there not another option: the "Cuban-Americans in the US gathering money" to fly the Cuban eight (and their doctors and at least some members of their families?) to, say, Miami for the medical treatment they needed?

There, indeed, is the final question: whether they had foreign invitations or not, why did the kids along with their families not travel abroad for care (the care that would presumably have been free)? Is it because of communist governments' habit of denying travel outside of the mother country? For fear that they, or some of them, might learn things about the communist system abroad and/or, worse, defect?

Hiring a Teenage Girl for the Benefit of Dilbert's Company

Scott Adams presents a Dilbert cartoon on making hiring decisions to help resolve the most complicated technical decisions of the company…

Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability

Stacy McCain takes on the J6 Committee's Tantrum (thanks to Glenn Reynolds): 

“… the terrible violence … scrambling to get more police and military reinforcements on the scene … the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and insurrectionists … the attempted political coup and violent insurrection … the mobilizing of a domestic violent extremist movement …”

Listening to that, I was struck by how easily these hyperbolic phrases tumbled out of Raskin’s mouth [that of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland)], as evidence of how insulated inside the echo chamber Democrats have become and, of course, the “journalist” Willie Geist is part of that echo chamber. He is as objective about the J6 Committee as my teenage daughter is objective about Harry Styles.

The predicate of the J6 “investigation,” the fundamental tenet of the belief system in which the Capitol riot was an “attempted political coup,” is that there is no reason to believe that the 2020 election was fraudulent. If no reasonable person could suspect that the election was stolen, then what happened on J6 was an illegal “insurrection,” an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government. Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are unwilling to hear the arguments made or to examine the evidence cited by those who claim that Biden was not legitimately elected. The bedrock assumption of Democrats is that Biden was elected in a landslide — 81 million votes! the most popular presidential candidate in history! — and thus they view any expression of doubt about Biden’s legitimacy as “insurrectionist” crazy-talk.

This is not how discourse in a democratic society is supposed to operate. Controversies over public policy would never occur, if we all shared the same set of beliefs, and so the fact that there is controversy about any subject (in this case, the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election) requires a public hearing of arguments on both sides of the dispute, so that the electorate may be fully informed. The J6 Committee deliberately avoided such a discussion. Indeed, the whole purpose of this committee (which, by the way, lacks legitimacy under the normal rules of House procedure) was to criminalize doubt about the 2020 election.

It is one thing, when partisans on either side of dispute are seeking to rally their supporters, to make a one-sided argument in favor of a particular policy. This is entirely normal in politics. Yet the proceedings of a congressional committee are not supposed to be partisan rallies. Pelosi’s charade of phony “bipartisanship” — handpicking Trump-haters Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as “Republican” members of the select committee, over the objections of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — cannot disguise the one-sided nature of the J6 Committee’s business. At no time in the operations of this committee has there been any fair consideration of the views of 74 million Americans who voted to reelect President Trump, 77% of whom think cheating affected the 2020 election.

 … There is a world of difference between a protest motivated by a sincere sense of grievance and an “attempted political coup,” and yet at no time did the J6 Committee ever allow any consideration of the election doubts that inspired the events of J6.

Furthermore, and this is equally crucial, Democrats and the media absolutely refuse to recognize that the outbreak of violence at the Capitol in January 2021 was clearly inspired by the months of “Black Lives Matter” riots that broke out in May 2020 — riots that the Democrats enthusiastically applauded. Many millions of dollars of damage were inflicted, and many people killed or injured, during the weeks of arson, vandalism and looting which CNN reporter Omar Jimenez infamously described as “fiery but most peaceful” protests.

By applauding this destruction, Democrats thereby legitimized violent “protests,” and if the Capitol rioters believed there would be no repercussions for their actions on January 6 — well, why shouldn’t they believe that? Antifa thugs and mobs of urban looters had gotten away with criminal activity which everybody saw happening live on television throughout the summer of 2020, and Democrats never objected to those “mostly peaceful” protests.

Glenn Greenwald strikes back (thanks to Instapundit) in a Twitter thread:

The issue isn't so much NBC and CNN failed to cover the materials in the Hunter Biden laptop about *Joe Biden's* business activities in Ukraine and China (though that's true). The main issue is that both networks repeatedly *lied* about it by calling it "Russian disinformation."

I'll never stop talking about this and don't care if it's annoying. This is a huge journalistic scandal: almost every major news outlet ratified an outright lie to manipulate the 2020 election and - to this day - not one of them, not one, has apologized, explained or retracted.

 

This is why I say - and I mean - that these corporate news outlets and their employees deserve your deep contempt. They constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc. They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability.

I promise you: if you talk to @HuffPost's political reporters and editors, they really believe they're the good guys, fighting disinformation, etc. etc. 

Every time I say this - these corporate news outlets deserve your hatred and contempt - people in these outlets, including friends, DM me, upset. But tell me: how can you justify this? Everyone knows this was a CIA lie. Yet *not one of you* has admitted you broadcast lies.

Back in February 2020, nine months before the election, Caroline Glick wrote, presciently, that it all boils down to the politics of projection: 

Since 2016, the Democrats have repeatedly projected all of their prejudices, malicious actions and plans onto Trump and the Republicans … [For instance] the collusion that Clinton and later the FBI, CIA, the Democrat Party, the media and a special prosecutor accused Trump of carrying out with the Kremlin was actually conducted by Clinton and her campaign with active assistance from the CIA, FBI, the media and the Democrat Party against Trump. In accusing Trump, they were describing their own actions. 

 … Since the impeachment hearings last January, Democrat lawmakers and aligned media have been pushing the claim that Trump will refuse to accept the election results if he loses. Just as Trump is repeatedly asked whether he condemns white supremacists, he and his campaign advisors have been asked repeatedly by reporters whether he intends to concede if the results of the election are not in his favor. At Tuesday’s debate, Wallace continued the practice. He asked the candidates to pledge to accept the election results.

 … What is clear … is that if you want to understand who the Democrats are and what they are doing, all you need to do is look at what they are accusing Trump and his colleagues of being and of doing

Related: • Of the 47 countries in Europe today, 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? 
• 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
• 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
• 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

"Defund the Police" Vs. "Defund the FBI": What Tocqueville and the Founders Might Have Pointed Out

According to non-thinking Republicans (that would be RINOs, for the most part) and to non-thinking Democrats (that would be the lot of them), "Defund the Police" and "Defund the FBI" seem to be, at best, two sides of the same coin.

1/4)  Seeking the Approval of Those Who Hate Us

That, at least, was how Mike Pence made headlines after the FBI raided Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August, saying that calls to defund the FBI was “just as wrong” as shouts by leftist drama queens and crisis seekers to defund the police.

“The Republican Party is the party of law and order,” [the former VP] said. “Our party stands with the men and women who stand on the thin blue line at the federal and state and local level, and these attacks on the FBI must stop. Calls to defund the FBI are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.”

Is that truly the case, however? Is "Defund the FBI" really the equivalent of "Defund the Police"?

I have written before on conservatives (more than a few of them fairly religious, unfortunately) who, as admirable as they otherwise may be, don't seem to use their brains and are just clueless (maybe not as clueless as Joe Biden, but certainly far less willing to fight).

— see The Mote in Thine Own Eye (in the Eye of the Conservative): Why Are Conservatives So Naïve That They Refuse to See the Beam in the Eye of Those Who Hate Their Very Existence?

In that perspective, Trump’s former vice president added this:

“I also want to remind my fellow Republicans, we can hold the attorney general accountable for the decision he made without attacking the rank-and-file law enforcement personnel at the FBI.”

Fine.  But again, why isn't any progressive on the left-leaning side making similar comments regarding local police forces?  Why can't they — why can't we all — be against the cops who are corrupt or who shoot and/or kill unarmed civilians (white as well as black) while not exonerating the rest of them? Why must only conservatives and Republicans play the Nuance and Self-Blame games while the Left (and the Rinos) get to scream their virtue signals to their hearts' content? Why the usual double standards?

For instance, listen to one Matt Lewis. He claims to be a "conservative", which may be true, but it seems more likely that he is using the left's old trick whereby leftists write letters and posts claiming that "I am a lifelong and faithful Republican except that there is just this little problem that I cannot stomach that dreadful person (Trump/Bush/Reagan/Palin/etc/etc/etc…) that my party nominated" followed by (this being an actual Matt Lewis quote) "Today’s Republican Party is 180 degrees different from the party that most of its members—like myself—signed up to join."

When you mention "the devastating revelations in the Jan. 6 hearings" (ho-hum) and the "many outrageously cynical flip-flops for the party of Trump", Matt Lewis — without ever once alluding to any of the Democrat party's many faults — you might just be a Liz Cheney-type RINO, and therefore an outright fake conservative.

But no matter. Let us hear what Matt Lewis has to say regarding alleged Republican hypocrisy:

After a 2020 election cycle that saw the “law and order” party criticize Democrats for wanting to “defund the police,” we’ve seen quite a few members of the right’s commentariat blithely wave off video of MAGA rioters beating Capitol police officers with flagpoles. (Those cops’ lives don’t matter, to the Blue Lives Matter crowd.) Now, a lot of those same voices on the right are saying, “Defund the FBI.” So much for lionizing the law enforcement heroes who run toward danger.

Do the FBI's "law enforcement heroes … run toward danger", Matt Lewis?  Or do they run towards hymn-singing pro-life activists and towards Melania's underwear drawer in Palm Beach?

Why the reversal? It’s not because the police have suddenly become more abusive, and it’s not because Republicans figured out that standing against law enforcement wins votes. The real reason concerns Trump’s attempt to avoid accountability and oversight.

The police have not become more abusive, Matt Lewis?! See Tucker Carlson's replies below (section 3/4). That Matt could write this post without even alluding to the many instances of concern regarding the politicized FBI (not to mention the the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland calling not just January 6 protesters but reg'lar run-o'-the-mill parents "domestic terrorists") — after refraining from even alluding to the many instances of grave problems with the 2000 election — seems to confirm that he is a fake conservative or a RINO in the Romney/Cheney mold. Someone who Hates Our Very Existence.

Indeed, the first indication that Matt Lewis is not being straightforward is — again — that he never, ever, not once, pauses to do what seems to be obvious, i.e., condemn the leftists' "Defund the Police" slogan. Wasn't that what, after all, started the whole mess in the first place? Couldn't Matt Lewis have done so just once, at least in a brief aside?

This is one of the main ways of identifying an undeclared partisan such as a RINO, by the way, and this you can (try to) explain to a Republican (real or fake), to a Democrat, and/or to an Independent alike, as well as to a foreigner:  a self-professed conservative, man or woman, black or white, who gets on his high horses always and only, or mainly, concerning scandals real or alleged related to members of the GOP.

At this point, let us turn to Instapundit, who links to The very bad reason white Democrats want to defund the police. Here, The New York Post asks, "if higher socioeconomic status and greater insulation from violent crime do not entirely explain the white vs. non-white “wokeness gap,” what does?"

The answer, [contends Zach Goldberg], is that group-based feelings of guilt and shame over perceived white privilege and racial inequity tend to prevail over worries about risk. Particularly in the aftermath of high-profile racialized police incidents (such as Floyd’s death), white Democrats — who score high on measures of collective shame and guilt — become fixated on distinguishing themselves as “good white people,” who are doing something (however counterproductive) to protect minorities from the “racist” institutions that “victimize” them. The downside of depolicing either doesn’t register, is rationalized, or [is] dismissed altogether. 

 … these findings should at least give pause to those who dismiss white depolicers as “limousine” liberals supporting “virtuous” policies without having to live under them. 

The reality might be even more disturbing: Gripped by “white savior” ideology, they may actually be willing to endure the consequences for what they falsely perceive will bring about equity and justice. If only they wouldn’t impose this tradeoff on the rest of us.

Read the whole thing™. (Merci `a Monsieur Driscoll pour le hyperlien.)

Below, I focus on more historical reasons for what separates the two movements.

2/4)  The Historical Perspective: The Origins of the American Republic

Because we are not here to simply take down Matt Lewis.

We are here to discuss in general terms whether Defunding the FBI is really on the same level as Defunding the Police.  Is it tit for tat, and nothing more? Is the one as bad as the other? Is one just replying with a Nyah-nyah to the other side?

The answer comes from de Alexis de Tocqueville:

One of the most pertinent things that the writer of Of Democracy in America found in his 1830s visit to the young American republic was how every citizen felt connected to all concerns, local as well as national, was a participant therein, and how well the Republic functioned because decisions were always taken at the lowest (at the most local) level possible.

In "Democracy in America," published in 1833, Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary association to government regulation

writes Niall Ferguson (thanks to Instapundit).

"The inhabitant of the United States," he wrote, "has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to it . . . only when he cannot do without it."

Unlike Frenchmen, he continued, who instinctively looked to the state to provide economic and social order, Americans relied on their own efforts. "In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, of commerce and industry, of morality and religion. There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals."

What especially amazed Tocqueville was the sheer range of nongovernmental organizations Americans formed: "Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations . . . but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools."

That concerns policing as well.

A local cop (of whatever race) will hardly agree to gratuitously aiming at or arresting the son of, say, the Doe family down the street as a "white supremacist" or as a "domestic terrorist" or some other sort of wild criminal charge since he has known John Doe (and his parents and his family) since young John was a kid (whatever the cop's age, older or in the same age bracket).  And if he did, the cop's own neighbors — especially the cop's own mother — would be sure to intervene, and browbeat her policeman son for acting like a twerp.

Consider the difference with an FBI member, or certainly an FBI leader, thousands of miles from home, whose new "neighbors" are professional politicians in the Democrat-dominated Washington DC along with the rest of the professional Drama Queens, crisis seekers, and hoi pollo whose cocktail parties and whose cool kids' parties he wishes to attend and whose women he wishes to meet.

In general, America's local decisions attitude implies trust:  trust in one's neighbors, trust in one's fellow citizens, trust in a We-Can-Do-It spirit.

This is what the American Revolution was about.  If you want to attach a religious dimension to the Spirit of '76, what the revolutionaries fought for was adhering to the Bible's command to "Treat (and love) your neighbor like yourself."

The message "Don't tread on me" is not only a warning (to Britain and to George III) to "stay away or reap the consequences"; It is a — rather dispassionate — affirmation of the Biblical command, with strong practical implications. It implies that the use of bureaucrats (not just policemen) and all types of aristocrats in life is often unnecessary.

As W Cleon Skousen's The 5000 Year Leap (A Miracle That Changed the World) points out, the independent attitude was all that was needed for progress to spring forward by leaps and bounds, once the equality of man was declared and, better yet, ensconced in the fabric of a new nation.

If you can treat things on the local level as well as, or better than, at the national level (or simply at a larger level), there is not much need for bureaucrats and a socialist state.

This, not at all incidentally, explains why modern-day leftists, and why the Deep State, hate the Judeo-Christian religion, along with America itself. (Shouldn't the average schmoe be feeling (collective) shame and guilt?)

(Regarding local control, incidentally, if you believe that the South's Democrats fought for States' rights during the Civil War, know that it is nothing less than The Greatest Myth in U.S. History.)

As Dennis Prager writes (in Whites Aren't Hated for Slavery but for Making America and the West),

the left … hates America, which it regards as the paragon of capitalism. By becoming the most successful country in history, America, the quintessential capitalist country, remains a living rebuke to everything the left stands for. If America can be brought down, every left-wing egalitarian dream can be realized. … What the left does very much seek is to destroy America as we have known it -- the capitalist and Judeo-Christian enclave of personal freedom.

This is what Democrats abhor:  the idea that the average citizen and neighbor is worthy of trust.  This is what the Left can't stomach. That policemen are more loyal to their community and to America writ large than to its central government. They want to defund the police in order to put more power in the hands of the national police force in Washington whose members, or at least whose leaders, are less loyal to their neighbors in the communities in which the grew up than to their new "neighbors" the national politicians and the Deep State (not to mention the new state religion).

3/4)  Watch Some FBI Maneuvers that Would Not Likely Be Duplicated Among Your Everyday Police Force

Following August's Mar-a-Lago raid, the FBI raided dozens of Trump supporters nationwide in September, meaning that In 2022, whether you're considered dangerous or not depends on who you voted for. Tucker Carlson contrasts the FBI raids with rifles and body armor on pro-lifers singing hymns at abortion centers with the FBI's lack of interest in the firebombings of pregnancy service centers:

 … what's really stunning is nobody — the people who've lectured us for years, "the criminal justice system is just too mean", that "MS-13 are children of God" — they don't have a problem with this at all. The people who claim to hate mass incarceration, it turns out, are strongly for the mass incarceration of anyone who disagrees with them; and they're doing it. 

As Julie Kelly has reported relentlessly, judges have sentenced dozens of January 6 defendants to months in prison, followed by probation. Why? Oh, because they entered a public building as police officers stood by, lifted the ropes for them. What was that about, by the way? Don't ask, shut up. They belong in jail.

As of this week, dozens of January 6 defendants are still being held in pretrial detention. No one notices. Where's the Republican Party in that? Nowhere. At the same time, the FBI has made zero arrests — none — to protect pro-lifers from actual violence — not hymn singing, firebombing. The CompassCare Pregnancy Services center in Buffalo was firebombed in June. No arrests have been made. In fact, the FBI seized surveillance footage from the facility and never gave it back.

 … See how this works? So, a group aligned with Joe Biden firebombs a building (firebombs!) and the FBI does nothing. Instead, they send agents with automatic rifles to the home of a 55-year-old man with 11 children because he sung hymns in an abortion clinic. 

4/4)  Conclusion

What it all boils down to, doesn't it?

On the contrary: "Defund the Police" and "Defund the FBI" complement each other exceedingly well. But not in the way Pence and Lewis think.

If you want to defund the Police, you do not want to defund the FBI; indeed, you want to defund local policemen for the nation to have to rely on a centralized police force, one that is loyal to the power in place instead of to the neighbors in one's tiny community.

If you want to "Defund the Police", you want to actively "fund" the FBI. Conversely, if you want to "Defund the FBI", it is because you trust in, and because you want to fund, your neighbor — the average American citizen (black or white) — to wear the local police uniform.

The national police force is open to politicization. Local police forces are not. (Not as much, at least.)

A number of members of the FBI are willing, perhaps eager, to see the establishment of a police state, or at best blind to it.

In that perspective, shall we let the last word go to Steve Bannon?  Lest you think that I have been too polite and courteous throughout this just-the-facts-ma'am post, Steve will let go a broadside or two.

In response to Mike Pence, Steve Bannon argued that the FBI's raid on President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate 

represented the actions of a "police state," which he said justified why some Republicans were calling for its dismantling.  "There is no comparison of any defunding the police," he claimed. "We've never called for defunding the police. We're calling for defunding the police state."

Anti-Tehran Demonstration in Paris Marches on Iranian Embassy Only to Be Tear-Gassed by French Police

Across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower, thousands of demonstrators, many (perhaps most) of them Iranian, gathered at le Trocadéro this weekend to protest against the anti-woman repression in Iran and the warmongering policies of the ayatollahs in Tehran. 

In the wake of the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini at the hands of the police almost a month ago, one sign read "End sexual apartheid. Close all [Western] embassies in Iran." 

On the other side, it read "European Union must stop nuclear deal. Biden must stop giving money to the Islamic Regime in Iran" with the four final words covered in red to symbolize blood. 

Chanting such slogans as femme, vie, liberté ! (Woman, life, freedom!), the protestors left the colorful square during the Sunday protest to try to march on the Iranian embassy in the French capital, report Le Monde and the AFP, only to be tear-gassed by the French police before they could reach their destination.

A similar protest and similar clashes have taken place in London…

Here are some of the photos  that I took at le Palais de Chaillot.

The MSM Guidebook on How to Determine the Blame for Various Types of Disasters

The Media Rushes to "Katrina" Ron DeSantis, writes Ace of Spades, leading Instapundit's Gail Heriot to echo Townhall's Brad Slager and make the following comment:

The media can’t wait to blame DeSantis for Hurricane Ian.  Of course, that’s nothing new.  Bush got blamed for Katrina.  And the recent report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put the blame on Trump for Hurricane Maria.  What’s interesting is how the blame gets assigned to the federal, state, or territorial level depending on where the Republicans are.

Almost five years ago, I tried to figure out how conversations are carried out in the MSM's news rooms during disasters, the natural types as well as other kinds:

3 Political Scandals of the Past Two Decades in the USA, and How the MSM Managed to Find the Culprits

1) WHO IS GUILTY?! In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, rescue efforts were bungled in Louisiana's largest city. Who should be blamed for the scandal?

Should it be the mayor of New Orleans?

Well, ain't Ray Nagin a Democrat? So: scratch that.

Should it be the governor of the Pelican State?

Well, ain't Kathleen Blanco a Democrat? So: scratch that.

Should it be the president of the United States?

Hold on: who's in the White House? Ain't it a hombre by the name of George W Bush? And ain't he a Republican?! Yup, it certainly appears so. Well (Snaps fingers) there you go! Nailed it!

2) WHO IS GUILTY?! In 2014, lead poisoning was found in the water supply of the town of Flint, Michigan. Who should be blamed for the scandal?

Should it be the president of the United States?

Hold on: who's in the White House? Ain't it, lessee here, this fellow by the name of, uh, Barack Obama? And ain't he a Democrat? So: scratch that.

Should it be the mayor of Flint?

Well, ain't Dayne Walling a Democrat? So: scratch that.

Should it be the governor of the Great Lakes State?

Hold on a second: ain't Rick Snyder a Republican?
But (Snaps fingers) of course! Nailed it!

3) WHO IS GUILTY?! In 2018, a false ballistic missile alert threw Hawaii into a panic. Who should be blamed for the scandal?

Should it be the governor of the Aloha State?

Well, ain't David Ige a Democrat? So: scratch that.

Should it be the legislature of Hawaii?

Well, ain't the state's senate 100% Democrat? And isn't its House of Representatives Democrat, 46 to 5? So: scratch that.

Should it be the president of the United States?

Hold on: Who is in the White House? (Lemme think…) Ain't it a dude by the name of Donald Trump? And ain't he a Republican? Well (Snaps fingers) there you go! Nailed it! 

That turned out to be pretty easy…

Update: thanks to Ed Driscoll for his hypelink, which, among other things, features

• martynWW's Simpler chart for hurricanes:

  

Another update: In early 2026, a failure of the Potomac interceptor resulted in the largest spill of wastewater in U.S. history. In view of the fact that the District of Columbia and Maryland are in the hands of members of the Democrat party, Salena Zito reacted by saying, tongue firmly in cheek, that 

It is interesting to me in a profession that loves to point out the political party of a disaster to not see the mention of any political party related to this disaster.

Note to Google & Blogger: Immediately Un-Ban No Pasarán's Posts on the Nazis' (Hostile) Attitude Towards the Christian Religion!

"This post was unpublished because it violates Blogger Community Guidelines.
To republish, please update the content to adhere to guidelines."

THAT DIDN'T LAST LONG!

Is Google's Blogger joining the Woke Left and their Cancel culture?! (To be sure, they probably already have, and that years ago…)

Apparently, the Left cannot stomach the idea that they cannot paste the group they claim to hate the most (Nazis! Fascists!) on their adversaries and their faith(s). (By the way — quick aside — whatever happened to the importance of the so-called Godwin rule?! Dropped by the wayside, we can guess, as soon as it proved unhelpful to the Left…)

No sooner had Ed Driscoll, on September 10, linked to a post on No Pasarán (卐mas Caroling: The Extremes Hitler Wanted to Go To in Order to Replace Christianity with the “Religion” of National Socialism) than the post was removed ("unpublished"). 

Google! Blogger! After one week, it is time to reinstate that post — in addition to the handful of others you have removed!

The Caroling post dates from 2012: For 10 years, nobody has had reason to complain about that post for the simple reason that — like everything else we (try to) do on No Pasaràn since the blog was founded, 18 years ago — it is (or certainly tries to be) entirely fact-filled, it is entirely dispassionate, and there ought to be nothing controversial about its conclusions. 

To reiterate: Barely had Ed Driscoll linked to Mark Judge's Adolf Hitler Thought More Like Nancy Pelosi Than Donald Trump piece than my 10-year-old post giving ample evidence of a campaign of Nazi hostility to Christmas and to the Christian religion was banned — as was indeed, a follow-up post three days later replying to a couple of wise-ass leftists in the comments section alleging that my post was wrong.

Despite [the] evidence, [Richard Weikart writes in Hitler's Religion (The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich)], the idea that Hitler was a Christian still pops up in Progressive arguments and on atheist websites. “One of the reasons they argue that Hitler was a Christian is that they are atheists or agnostics and want to bash Christianity. They’re wanting to show the evils of Christianity, so making Christianity responsible for the Holocaust meets their idea about Christianity representing all the evils in the world.”

The following day, September 11, I discovered that three other posts were "shut down" on No Pasaràn very recently, on August 25, i.e., two weeks after the banishment as well as between Ed's posts of July 16 and of September 10 linking to No Pasarán's 卐mas Caroling. It's not entirely clear when that post — which Instapundit has linked to a few times over the years (Danke schön, Herr Driscoll und Professor Reynolds) — was removed, i.e., the fourth to be "unpublished."

The three other posts banned, all at least seven years old (!), are:

• Adolf Hitler in Religious Surroundings: Is There Really Evidence That the Führer Was a Christian? (December 2012)

• By laying the crusades at the feet of Christianity, Obama was unwittingly laying ISIL's atrocities at Islam's feet  (December 2015)

• Homo Scandals? Reporters are quick to self-censor when they have reservations about the damage their stories might do to beloved causes (the latter, from December 2014 — which in my mind was the least uncontroversial of the lot given its focus on the gay agenda — was restored within an hour or two of my complaint on September 11, 2022, and is the only one so restored)

When going into Blogger, I find the post(s) concerned "unpublished", i.e., reverted to Draft status (that's where the four screenshots in this post come from), along with the option Request review and with the message

This post was unpublished because it violates Blogger Community Guidelines. To republish, please update the content to adhere to guidelines.

Except they never indicate which part(s) of the content is (are) in violation of the guidelines. It's not like they are highlighted in yellow or marked in red or something.

As far as I can see, there is not many ways to communicate with Blogger or Google about their Blogger Content Policy. All I can do is click on the orange Request review button (see screenshots above and below) and wait. 

Incidentally: if any reader(s) have any information about how to contact Google, Blogger, or Facebook in a more reliable way, their input — to be published in Instapundit's and/or No Pasarán's comments section — would be much appreciated. 

Facebook? Wait a minute! Why mention Facebook at this time? Because on the day after the 2020 election, and without any kind of warning, I was totally banned from Zuckerberg's website. Almost two years later, I have still not been reinstated or, indeed, ever received any reason whatsoever for my banishment (my Facebook page was a place where I studiously tried to avoid politics), either as a courtesy or an automated reply or as a written answer to my (numerous) attempts to contact the powers that be.

Google! Blogger! There are not one, but two books that provide the exact same correction to the historical fallacy (the… lie?) that Adolf Hitler in any way was associated with Christianity.

Besides Richard Weikart and his Hitler's Religion, we have Ray Comfort, whose “Hitler, God and the Bible” points out der Führer devised a master strategy to crush all Christian churches, explains that it would be either ignorant or disingenuous to call Hitler a Christian:

In a special Christian Broadcasting Network program, Comfort cites the head of Hitler Youth, Boldur von Schirach, who said, “Destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist Movement.”

 … The CBN program explains how Hitler put on a religious, even Christian, façade, until he became powerful.

 … But later one of his inner circle acknowledged: “I’m absolutely clear in my own mind, and I think I can speak for the Fuhrer as well, that both the Catholic and Protestant churches will vanish from the life of our people.”

There are also numerous articles or fillers from respected (and usually left-leaning) periodicals — all duly linked by this… very blog (!) — that provide the same correction to the historical fallacy (or lie), which is in fact easily witnessed to by simply referring to such Nazi slogans as "Kirchenkampf" and "Out with Jesus!"

They include to The International Herald Tribune, Life Magazine, and  The Daily Mail, along with Denmark's foremost historical publication. Google and Blogger: do you want to ban those periodicals as well?

• Kirchenkampf: Hitler Was Determined to Diminish the Number of Catholic Schools (The International Herald Tribune) 

• How Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine tried to take Christ out of Christmas (The Daily Mail)

 • "Out With Jesus": During His 12 Years in Power, Hitler Tried to Ban the Tradition of Christmas (Denmark's Historie monthly)

• Just for the record, Hitler detested Christianity (Jonah Goldberg)

• Worshipping Little Else But the Aryan Race, Hitler Abhorred the Christian Faith and Wanted to Replace Christmas with the Pagans' Yuletide (Life Magazine)

One week is more than enough, Google and Blogger. Stop the hysterics, ignore the fearmongering, and re-publish my posts. All of them. Now. (And thanks for linking this post, Instapundit.)

A week later, this NP post replying to leftist attacks with dispassionate facts is still "under review"

Not PC: "If we can't condemn Islam for Muslim terrorists, why do we condemn Christians" for the Crusades? And, while we're at it — update — how about domestic and "white terrorists"?

 

"All the News that's fit to ignore." However, this post has been re-published…