I hate federal commissions, but Americans need one to look into the 2020 election To restore faith, we must review how mail voting worked, analyze problems like uncounted votes, and conclusively prove or disprove fraud allegations. Jonathan Turley

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/06/2020-election-mistrust-commission-prove-or-disprove-fraud-column/4132191001/

EXCERPTS:

I hate federal commissions. I have always hated federal commissions. Federal commissions are Washington’s way of managing scandals. They work like placebos for political fevers, convincing voters that answers and change are on the way. That is why it is so difficult for me to utter these words: We need a federal election commission. Not the one proposed by some Senate Republicans. And not like past placebo commissions. An honest-to-God, no-holds-barred federal commission to look into the 2020 presidential election.

That is not what we need. There are three reasons why the need for a real commission is needed: 

►First, and most important, this was an unprecedented election in the reliance of mail-in voting and the use of new voting systems and procedures. We need to review how that worked down to the smallest precincts and hamlets.

►Second, possibly tens of millions of voters believe that this election was rigged and stolen. I am not one of them. However, the integrity of our elections depends on the faith of the electorate.

Roughly 40% of that electorate have lingering doubts about whether their votes actually matter. Most of the cases challenging the election were not decided on the merits. Indeed, it seems they haven’t even been allowed for discovery. Instead, they were largely dismissed on jurisdictional or standing groups or under the “laches” doctrine that they were brought too late. Those allegations need to be conclusively proven or disproven in the interests of the country.

►Third, there were problems. There was not proof of systemic fraud or irregularities, but there were problems of uncounted votes, loss of key custodial information and key differences in the rules governing voting and tabulations. 

Nothing has changed. The stakes are too high to allow even a dust particle to tip the difference on the ultimate findings. The dust-free option requires a dependent, not independent, commission. Otherwise, the public will be the loser.

So, let’s have a commission, but let’s make it a real one.

A Coup of Pelosi’s Own The House Speaker publicizes her nuclear option to protect the world from Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-coup-of-pelosis-own-11610148740?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

We scoured the U.S. Constitution Friday afternoon and it’s definitely not there: the provision allowing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to intervene in the military chain of command to protect the world from President Trump.

Mrs. Pelosi told her Democratic colleagues that she spoke Friday morning to Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” She posted the “Dear colleague” letter on her website to make sure the world got the message. A spokesman for Gen. Milley told reporters the chairman “answered her questions.”

The press and left-wing Twitter (we repeat ourselves) love the idea of the Speaker inserting herself into the chain of command as a rebuke to an erratic President. But it’s an abuse of her own power, which is limited to leading the legislative branch unless both the President and Vice President are incapacitated or removed from office. In that case she is third in line for the Presidency.

But in the meantime she has no business telling the Joint Chiefs not to follow the President’s orders. Gen. Milley hardly needs the lecture, as he has been dealing with Mr. Trump for 15 months and isn’t about to indulge an unlawful order, much less an effort to launch nuclear weapons.

China Starts Collecting On Its Investment In The Bidens  Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-1-6-china-starts-collecting-on-its-investment-in-the-bidens

You have to hand it to China for one thing — they play a long game.

Remember back a few months to October. That’s when the infamous Hunter Biden laptop became public information through the diligent reporting of the New York Post. The biggest revelation on the laptop was the formation in 2017 of a joint venture between Biden family members and a Chinese-government-affiliated energy company called CEFC (10% for “the big guy”). According to emails on the laptop, sums changing hands included at least a $5 million “forgivable non-interest-bearing” loan. There was discussion in the laptop emails about much larger sums also moving from China to the Bidens, but since nobody has ever been able to get a Biden to answer any questions about the subject, the full extent of the payments remains a state secret.

But why, you ask, was China paying that kind of money to the Biden family in 2017 — a time when Joe had left office as Vice President, and was just one of many potential candidates for President in 2020? That question was answered by Tony Bobulinski, the guy the Bidens had recruited to be the CEO of their joint venture with CEFC. Bobulinski’s name was all over the laptop emails, which suddenly made him a very public guy, and led him in October 2020 to give interviews to the (NY) Post and others. He also gave a written statement to the Post with the answer to the question of China’s motive:

I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

Learn the Surprising Way that Judaism Influenced the American Founding

https://tikvahfund.org/ajj-ebook/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo_3i6fGM7gIVEPLICh1RsguOEAEYASAAEgIHjvD_BwE
One respected the Jews. One despised them. They both protected their religious liberty.

In July of 1776, a group of 56 men signed a document signifying the birth of a brand-new nation. This assembly of founders was seemingly in no way connected with the Jews, Judaism, or ancient Hebrew culture. But John Adams argued that Jewish concepts and principles permeate the framework of the American government — perhaps more than you might realize.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams disagreed on the contributions of the Jewish people — yet they protected the religious liberties of both Jew and Gentile. Why?

In this new e-book from the Tikvah Fund, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik examines Adams’ and Jefferson’s writings about the Jewish people, their teachings, and impact. With him you will explore:

How did the history, heritage, and practices of the Jewish people influence these two men and the foundation of our country?
How did the concepts of monotheism, morality, and divine intervention impact their thought?
Can the American Revolution be categorized as an achievement of Judaism?
What can this history teach us about the foundations and preservation of our religious liberty today?

Find out by reading Adams, Jefferson, and the Jews.

28 Times Media And Democrats Excused Or Endorsed Violence Committed By Left-Wing Activists By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/28-times-media-and-democrats-excused-or-endorsed-violence-committed-by-left-wing-activists/

After excusing and ignoring riots from leftists all year, Democrats and their allies in the media are ready to condemn riots now that the turmoil has shifted to fit their narrative.

Democrats and their allies in the media are ready to condemn riots now that the turmoil has shifted to fit their narrative.

On Wednesday, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building. It was an astonishing display of anarchic protest that delayed congressional certification of the Electoral College vote formally handing former Vice President Joe Biden the keys to the White House.

The scenes from the dark day of disaster demonstrations illustrated a deteriorating country, repulsed millions, and traumatized a nation still recovering from the death, despair, and disruption that came to define the dystopian months of 2020. Above all, what happened Wednesday served as a grim reminder that the institutional stress test of 2020 has followed us into 2021.

Media Outrage Over Capitol Riot Isn’t About Defending Democracy, It’s About Wielding PowerBy John Daniel Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/media-outrage-over-capitol-riot-isnt-about-defending-democracy-its-about-wielding-power/

For our political and media elites, the capitol riot on Wednesday is the perfect excuse to ‘cleanse’ the country of Trump supporters.

After the pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Twitter blue-checks, politicians, and elite corporate journalists wailed and rent their garments in outrage. But they weren’t really outraged.

Yes, the breach of the capitol was appalling and disturbing. Most people didn’t see it coming and were understandably shocked when images of MAGA bros fighting capitol police began popping up on social media (although the authorities should have been better prepared, most of all D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who had earlier rejected offers of additional law enforcement.) There’s no question the protesters who decided to riot should be prosecuted, as all rioters everywhere should be.

But elite outrage is not really about what happened at the capitol—about the “sacred citadel of our democracy being defiled” and so on. The outrage, like almost all expressions of righteous indignation from our elites in the Trump era, is performative. It is in service of a larger purpose that has nothing to do with the peaceful transfer of power and everything to do with the wielding of power.

Specifically, it’s about punishing supporters of President Trump. If the pro-Trump mob can be depicted as “terrorists” and “traitors,” then there’s almost nothing we shouldn’t do to silence them. Right? Rick Klein, the political director at ABC News, said the quiet part out loud on Thursday when he mused (in a now-deleted tweet) that getting rid of Trump is “the easy part” and the more difficult task will be “cleansing the movement he commands.”

That’s not the kind of language you use when you’re in the business of reporting the news. It’s the kind of language you use when you’re in the business of social control.

Ashamed of What? Let’s stop fixating on Wednesday’s events. We can deplore them once the Left repents of its far, far greater sins. By Paul Gottfried

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/08/ashamed-of-what/

People ask me if I feel “ashamed” about what Miranda Devine describes as “the clueless insurrection” in the Capitol on Wednesday. My response? I am about as ashamed as Joe Biden, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Juan Williams of Fox News were about the riots and shootings that the Democratic Party subsidized and even justified last summer.

Unlike those violent riots, which the Democrats and national media attributed to white racism, and which came from Democratic voters, the turmoil in the Capitol on Wednesday did not result in burning and looting. There were no white or black policemen shot and the only shooting victim (which the media don’t seem to care about since white Republican lives don’t matter) was a female protestor, Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, by a Capitol police officer.

I also heard our Democratic constitutional expert on Fox News, Jonathan Turley, telling us Wednesday evening that pro-Trump thugs had “lost their faith” in our constitutional system. It was for this reason that they “desecrated” our sacred space. I don’t recall similar talk about desecration when the “peaceful protesters” tried to burn down St. John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House last summer. 

Of course, there was a storm of media abuse afterwards when President Trump spoke before the historical site that had been saved from “peaceful protestors.” Nor do I remember anything more than whispered protest, even on Fox News, when the Democratic Party got howling banshees to invade the Senate chamber to protest the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice and to hassle his supporters. It seems that there are big-time desecrations, for example, when people with MAGA hats commit them, and then there are the entirely excusable ones that transpire when feminist Democrats invade the sacred precinct. 

Rowan Atkinson is dead right about cancel culture The online culture warriors really are the modern equivalent of the medieval mob.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/05/rowan-atkinson-is-dead-right-about-cancel-culture/

Actor, comedian and national treasure Rowan Atkinson has attacked cancel culture, comparing it to the actions of the ‘medieval mob’. In a world where ‘controversial’ opinions can be banned from social media and dissenters are subjected to hate campaigns, he could not be more right.

In an interview with the Radio Times, the actor spoke of a serious problem with online debate – or rather, the lack of debate:

‘The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be “cancelled”’.

Atkinson also highlighted the vital importance of free speech:

‘It’s important that we’re exposed to a wide spectrum of opinion, but what we have now is the digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn. So it is scary for anyone who’s a victim of that mob and it fills me with fear about the future’.

He is, of course, correct. Exposure to different views broadens our minds. In suppressing alternative ideas, we behave like the irrational and hysterical witch-hunters of old.

This is not the first time Atkinson has spoken words of wisdom about freedom of speech. When Boris Johnson was attacked for comparing women in burqas to letterboxes, Atkinson argued that ‘All jokes about religion cause offence, so it’s pointless apologising for them’.

More recently, he has criticised the authoritarianism of the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill, which would criminalise speech even in the privacy of our own homes.

We should all be free to air our opinions in the public sphere, safe from censorious interventions by either the government or the cancel-hungry mob. That this even needs to be said is a sign of our illiberal times.

Big Tech has become a tyranny Facebook’s banning of Donald Trump sets a terrifying precedent. Tom Slater

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/08/big-tech-has-become-a-tyranny/

In a crowded field, those cheering the suspension of Donald Trump’s Facebook account might just be the most idiotic people in political life today.

The decision announced by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg yesterday to close down Trump’s page for the rest of his presidency, perhaps indefinitely, represents the most profound assertion yet of Big Tech’s right to police democratic politics.

At a stroke, unaccountable billionaire capitalists have decided to deprive a democratically elected president – the leader of the free world, no less – access to a large part of what now constitutes the public square.

A line has been crossed that can never be uncrossed.

And yet, among commentators and politicos, many of them liberals and left-wingers, this has been met not with shock and horror, but a boneheaded chorus of ‘what took you so long?’.

No one can plausibly defend what Donald Trump has said and done, online and off, in recent days.

His praise of the cosplaying loons who stormed the Capitol Building in Washington, DC yesterday, a violent attempt to thwart the process by which Joe Biden’s election victory was being affirmed by Congress, was despicable.

His claim that the presidential election was rigged is based on little more than bullshit conspiracy theories. He is sowing distrust in the democratic process purely to protect his own wounded ego.

But none of that justifies the action Facebook and other tech giants have now taken (YouTube also removed one of Trump’s videos; Twitter banned three of his tweets and handed him a temporary suspension, and it is now being egged on to make it permanent).

The Mob on the Hill Was Far From a Coup The only description that makes sense is a venting of pent-up resentments.By Edward N. Luttwak

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mob-on-the-hill-was-far-from-a-coup-11610061914?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

Insurrections are common but Wednesday’s aborted insurrection on Capitol Hill was unique. The usual purpose of mobilizing a mass of people and deploying their sheer momentum against the edifices of power, a royal or presidential palace, or a parliament is to seize power—through the act of seizing that iconic building. But that is logically impossible when the ruler is not the enemy to be replaced but rather the intended beneficiary of the insurrection.

What happened was certainly not an attempted coup d’état, either. Coups must be subterranean, silent conspiracies that emerge only when the executors move into the seats of power to start issuing orders as the new government. A very large, very noisy and colorful gathering cannot attempt a coup.

There have been quite a few cases around the world of what is best described as mass intimidation directed against parliaments. But in all such cases it was some specific law that was wanted or not wanted, which legislators under the gun might then vote for or against. For that to happen, the legislators have to be all gathered in the legislature and kept there to be coerced. Most recently in Beirut last August, Lebanon’s Parliament was besieged by a crowd demanding and forcing the government’s resignation. This conspicuously did not happen in Washington on Wednesday because it was a crowd that invaded the building, not snatch teams sent to seize individual legislators to be cajoled or forced into their seats.

Given all these exclusions, only one description remains: a venting of accumulated resentments. Those who voted for President Trump saw his electoral victory denied in 2016 by numerous loud voices calling for “resistance” as if the president-elect were an invading foreign army. These voices were eagerly relayed and magnified by mass media, emphatically including pro-Trump media.