RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/17/democrats-selective-outrage-over-insurrections/

To listen to House Democrats’—and Liz Cheney’s and Adam Kinzinger’s, but I repeat myself—shrieks of hysteria from the opening nights of the January 6 House Select Committee dais is to hearken back to the Soviet-era show trials of yesteryear. Vladimir Lenin, as the veteran conservative commentator Roger Kimball reminds us, referred to them as “model trials,” wherein the “aim isn’t to discover the truth—which was supposedly already known—but to stage a propagandist exhibition.”

For Democrats, the aim of the January 6 committee’s “propagandist exhibition” is twofold: First, to attempt (in vain) to distract a besieged citizenry from the myriad problems now tearing asunder the country, under their leadership, in this midterm election year; and second, to lay the foundation for a Justice Department indictment against the 45th president that could hamstring his efforts to seek a second term come 2024.

To anyone paying even a modicum of attention—and I’d recommend no more than that—to the committee’s theatrics, it is obvious that the game is rigged. Consider as but one data point how Cheney, who will be looking for a new job come January, deliberately edited Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” exhortation from that fateful rally to omit the fact that he urged his supporters to make their way to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” 

Or how about the fact that the committee has thus far made no effort to subpoena the families of the roughly 800 people who have been arrested—and sometimes placed in solitary confinement, per columnist Julie Kelly’s exceptional reporting at American Greatness—for wandering in and traipsing around the Capitol, often shepherded right in by Capitol Police? Curious, that. A legitimate committee interested in investigation and arriving at the truth would surely want to call some of those families as witnesses. Perhaps that hypothetical legitimate committee would also be interested in hearing from the family of Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran fatally shot on that day by a subsequently exonerated Capitol Police officer. Alas.

Instead, to take Democrats at their word—an always dubious endeavor—is to believe that January 6, 2021, represented the closest thing to an “insurrection” since the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. To be sure, some—a very small minority—of the protesters who made their way into the Capitol on that day did so with malicious intent. And that very small minority should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But as a whole, January 6 looks something like a limper version of the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, which amounts to no more than an asterisk in the high school history textbooks.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/17/a-cretinous-beltway-reproduction-of-a-stalinist-show-trial/

If one watches episodic police and detective dramas, there often occurs a scene wherein a culprit is apprehended and charged as an accomplice “after the fact” for helping to cover up the crime. In the British equivalent of such shows, the police use the phrase “perverting the course of justice.” The bottom line is, if one aids in concealing, distracting, or diverting attention from the criminal act to prevent its detection, one is guilty of participating in a criminal enterprise, whether it be before or after the fact.

The House of Representatives’ January 6 committee has been called many things, such as a failed TV pilot, but sadly one knows what the committee is not and was never intended to be, courtesy of Victor Davis Hanson. As for the events of January 6 and its aftermath, the diligent and intrepid work of American Greatness’ Julie Kelly is essential reading.

Regarding the motivation behind the committee, one is to damage Donald Trump’s prospects in 2024, which the committee is in fact abetting by driving his base to rally around him. (Of course, this could well be the Democrats’ covert hope, as many of them, rightly or wrongly, consider him the most beatable GOP nominee.) Another motive is to deflect public attention from Joe Biden and the Democrats’ disastrous economy. (Good luck with that). 

Yet, in conjunction with current developments in an ongoing criminal investigation and upon further reflection following this cretinous Beltway reproduction of a Stalinist show trial, these Democrats’ hearings have a far more subversive motive: namely, concealing and preventing the detection of their own party’s weaponization of the federal government’s police and surveillance powers against its opponents, most notably in the instance of “Russiagate.”

https://www.city-journal.org/climate-mccarth

President Biden has deputized White House climate-change advisor Gina McCarthy to snuff out reckless talk on global warming. McCarthy, speaking at a virtual event hosted June 9 by Axios, said it is time for social media companies to crack down on climate “disinformation” online.

But however wrong, damaging, and mendacious climate-change alarmists like New York magazine columnist David Wallace-Wells and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be, they deserve, like anyone else, the freedom to say their piece. Though such figures have certainly misled Americans with their doomsday predictions, their right to expression ought not to be infringed. McCarthy has stepped beyond her mandate by overzealously seeking to keep climate debate within approved guardrails.

I jest, of course. It is not the exaggerations from Ocasio-Cortez or Wallace-Wells that find themselves in the crosshairs of the White House. Biden’s climate attack dog is hounding good-faith challenges to the administration’s policy recommendations and skeptical arguments about the viability of a renewables-only energy policy.

At the Axios event—dubbed “A Conversation on Battling Misinformation”—McCarthy called on tech companies to “really jump in” against allegedly inaccurate claims about the costs and benefits of different approaches to managing climate change. “Now it has moved from denial,” McCarthy said, “but the dark money is still there. The fossil fuel companies are still basically trying their best to make sure that people don’t understand the challenge of climate.” McCarthy then suggested that not only scientific dissent but also debate over what technologies are cost-effective is beyond the bounds of civil discourse. “What the industry is now doing is seeding doubt about the costs associated with [renewables] and whether they work or not,” she said. “We have to get tighter. We have to get better at communicating. And frankly, the tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.”