Displaying posts published in

January 2021

The Purge Has Begun. Where It Stops, Nobody Knows. Jarrett Stepman

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/11/the-purge-has-begun-where-it-stops-nobody-knows

In the weeks since the November presidential election, numerous liberals, leftists, and other opponents of President Donald Trump have called for a purge of him and his supporters from public life.

Just days ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20, those purges have begun in earnest.

In the wake of the protest that turned into a mob and then into a riot at the U.S. Capitol building, various media and high-tech companies have used the moment not simply to condemn the violence, but to remove the president of the United States and countless other Americans from their digital platforms.

It’s understandable that many Americans are shaken by what they saw at the Capitol last week. It’s part of a larger pattern of mob law.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today.

But the crimes of a few lawbreakers should not be used as an excuse to punish and silence other Americans simply because of their political beliefs.

Those actions appear to be targeted and coordinated. It’s a deeply disturbing trend, given that Biden and his fellow Democrats are less than 10 days from effectively controlling both Congress and the executive branch.

No, Trump Isn’t Guilty of Incitement Inflaming emotions isn’t a crime. The president didn’t mention violence, much less provoke it.By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of “incitement to insurrection.” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is “looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role” in the Capitol riot. Some reporters have construed that as including Mr. Trump.

The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office? by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16935/senate-trial-trump

Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don’t know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president, like Trump, who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.

The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Article II, Section 4)

The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.

The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.

What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.

Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don’t know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president, like Trump, who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning. The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Article II, Section 4)

Another provision of the Constitution says that an impeached president (or other office holder) may be disqualified “to hold and enjoy any office….” So some are arguing that the Constitutional provisions regarding impeachment should be interpreted to apply to any person who may be eligible to run in the future. Such an absurd interpretation of the Constriction would literally allow millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35 to be impeached and disqualified from future office holding.

Facts Win Out Peter Wood’s learned and thoughtful demolition of the 1619 Project by Jonathan Leaf

https://www.city-journal.org/review-of-peter-woods-critique-of-1619-project

1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, by Peter W. Wood (Encounter Books, 272 pp., $28.99)

In August 2019, the New York Times magazine published the “1619 Project.” This series of essays and articles provided readers with many “facts” that they may not have known: that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery; that Abraham Lincoln was a racist; that America’s foundational premise was “slavocracy;” that present-day American wealth is a direct consequence of slavery; and that the essential pattern of our history is not one of unprecedented growth in freedom and democracy but institutional hatred and oppression of blacks.

If you were unfamiliar with these facts, there is good reason—none are true. As National Association of Scholars president Peter W. Wood reveals in 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, the larger purpose of the Times’s project appears to have been to promote racial grievances and resentment. Most damningly, Wood points out that a Times fact-checker who contacted a radical historian to weigh the claim that the revolution was fought to protect slavery was told that this was nonsense. But the paper ignored that input, and 1619’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, herself recently said that the project was not intended to serve as history (after nearly a year of claiming the opposite).

Wood’s 1620 is an extraordinary book. Readers looking for a polemic should be forewarned: it is a learned and thoughtful investigation of the topic, and Wood goes to considerable lengths to give a hearing to Hannah-Jones’s assertions. In doing so, he systematically demolishes all but one of them.

Wood makes a convincing case against the 1619 Project’s contention that Lincoln was a racist who was merely opposed to slavery’s cruelty. He acknowledges that Lincoln was a politician and, as such, capable of being quite guarded about his ultimate aims, thus making a definitive argument hard to present. So, while Wood concedes the well-known fact that Lincoln had a meeting with black leaders in 1862 to discuss repatriating freed blacks back to Africa, he points out that the president made the unusual and seemingly calculated gesture of inviting a reporter to attend. This suggests that it was for show, intended to allay concerns among some whites that he sought abolition and racial equality. Yet Wood notes that Lincoln had said that the Declaration of Independence’s phrase “all men are created equal” should actually include all men, and that he publicly and controversially endorsed a constitutional amendment for African-American voting at the end of his life.

Forbes boldly announces its intention to discriminate against staffers of President Trump By Ethel C. Fenig

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/forbes_boldly_announces_its_intention_to_discriminate_against_staffers_of_president_trump.html

Common decency and morality, not to mention US law, prohibit not hiring an individual on the basis of race, creed, gender, religion, national origin or physical challenge.  Merit should be the basic hiring criterion.  In recent years this lofty ideal, admittedly not always practiced, has been modified with additional criteria of affirmative action and diversity which often clash with and negate the former. 

But now Randall Lane, chief content officer and editor of Forbes Magazine, which specializes in business and technology, publicly announced a “truth reckoning” as he calls it, a new discriminatory  business relationship  and future content policy towards anyone or any business daring to hire prominent staffers who worked in President Donald J. Trump’s (R) administration.

Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

Hmmm, so this hollow threat suggests that when Forbes works with, writes about others in the business world who are not tainted with “Trump’s fellow fabulists” they will not “scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet” and will therefore be more likely to accept anything they say; print their public relations puffery verbatim.  Or maybe with slightly altered nuance as he later slightly qualifies, “this standard needs to apply to liars from either party,” thus admitting that up to now Forbes hasn’t done that scrutinize, double-check thing very thoroughly very often; that Forbes itself is “a potential funnel of disinformation.”

Crazy 2020 Is Dead! Long Live Crazier 2021! Hang on. It is going to be Mr. Toad’s wild scary ride for all of 2021. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/10/crazy-2020-is-dead-long-live-crazier-2021/

The proper conservative response to last Wednesday’s violent entry into the Capitol and vandalism, as well as assaults on law-enforcement, is to identify the guilty parties and ensure they are arrested.

Such deterrence will prevent any future devolution from legal popular protests into thuggery. No constitutional republic can tolerate its iconic heart stormed, breached, and defiled.

Is Some Violence Worse than Others?

Of course, there is no such thing as “good” or “acceptable” violence of either Trump supporters or of the Antifa and BLM sort.

Yet the latter were largely exempt from any consequences for most of the summer—despite Joe Biden’s demagogic implication that the now multibillion-dollar funded BLM was treated harshly in comparison to the rogue Trump rioters.

Do we remember the authorities’ exemptions given to “warlord” Raz Simone and his armed thugs who, with absolute impunity, took over a Seattle “autonomous zone” known as CHOP or CHAZ, where four shootings and two deaths followed? Who exactly destroyed or vandalized thousands of state and federal public monuments—some in Washington, D.C.—and burned and looted hundreds of buildings with impunity?

Those who wrongly demanded to defund the police, now rightly deplore the lack of a Capitol police presence. Their only consistency is their own perceived political self-interest.

Biden himself rarely if ever, without exceptions, outright condemned the atrocious violence of Antifa and indeed contextualized it as an “idea”—a disincarnate entity that apparently could magically also burn and loot.

What Now? Terrifying times lie ahead. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/what-now-bruce-bawer/

I’ve been ranting for years about the perfidy of the left. At times I’ve been accused of exaggerating. On rare occasions I feared – or hoped? – that perhaps I was exaggerating. In fact I can now see that these people are worse than I ever imagined. Worse than most of us ever imagined.

Worse, even, than Donald Trump, with all his insight, imagined.

He went into office determined to clean up the swamp. He was tireless. But not tireless enough. No mere mortal could have been tireless enough. Trump had denounced the swamp in apocalyptic terms, but it proved to be even deeper and more extensive than he knew. It reached into the upper echelons of the intelligence community and the military, into cabinet departments and the judiciary.

Not only did the Democrats try to derail his campaign and then his presidency. Even people whom he appointed to White House jobs proved unreliable. Far from being too suspicious, he’d been too trusting. He’d appointed two-faced D.C. insiders. He’d trusted people who turned out to be snakes in the grass.

The news media, with very few exceptions, made it their task to thwart his progress and poison his name with a constant flow of disinformation. They said Trump had told people to drink bleach. They said he’d called neo-Nazis “good people.” They said many other outrageous things that they knew were outright lies. They relentlessly repeated the charge that he did nothing but lie, lie, lie, when in fact it was they, the media, who were constantly feeding us lies.

Twitter Unpersons Trump Silicon Valley escalates its reign of terror against patriotic Americans. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/twitter-unpersons-trump-matthew-vadum/

Twitter, the popular microblogging website President Donald Trump masterfully exploited to win office in 2016, has permanently banned the president on false charges, expanding Big Tech’s ongoing, unprecedented wave of digital repression against conservatives and Republicans.

Twitter took action January 8, two days after several individuals bearing Trump campaign flags and paraphernalia ran amok in the United States Capitol while lawmakers were attempting to officially certify the results of the hopelessly fraud-ridden, compromised November 6 election that the dementia-suffering leftist Joe Biden and his Chinese Communist Party-influenced corporate allies claim he won. This Big Lie that 81 million Americans voted for a vegetable is so important to the Left that anyone who questions it on social media is swiftly persecuted and marginalized.

Now that the fog of war created by the lying media is dissipating, we have learned that many of the so-called Capitol invaders were not invaders at all. They did not “storm” the complex but were well-behaved and allowed in by Capitol police. It was not much of a coup attempt, which may explain why Capitol police posed for selfies with the Americans who allegedly forced their way in.

One of the more interesting voices on Twitter throughout this crisis has been, interestingly enough, fashion model Emily Ratajkowski who tweeted January 7, asking if anyone else felt that Capitol police “being absent/letting Trump people in/providing insane visuals of MAGA dudes on the floor of the house was wildly convenient to justifying big tech’s rollout of censorship?”

Driving Out the Scapegoat Why, with only a week left in his term, expend all this hatred on a lame-duck president? Bruce Thornton ******

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/driving-out-scapegoat-bruce-thornton/

After last Wednesday’s Trump rally at the Ellipse in D.C., some of the up to 100,000 present walked over to the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to ratify the Electoral College vote. While there an even smaller number, a few hundred at the most, broke into the Capitol lobby, with some proceeding into a few Congressional offices.

So, a rally attended peacefully by the majority of people, was taken over by a small mob of knuckleheads and day-trippers who invaded the Capitol. Sadly, a woman and a police officer were killed, and three other protestors died from “medical emergencies.” Scores more including police officers were injured.

The police authorities in D.C. had bungled badly their security preparations, and bear a large share of the responsibility for this fiasco. But as always, the guilt lies with those who broke the law and should be punished. “The doer suffers,” as Aeschylus says.

But after five months of incessant rioting, vandalizing, and looting tolerated, ignored, rationalized, excused, encouraged, or even celebrated by the progressive Democrat leadership, media, commentators, mayors, and governors, this half-day-long violent episode is pretty far down on the list of civic mayhem––and the only one of hundreds of protests this year that was fomented by supporters of the President. Indeed, maybe security was light because Trump has conducted massive rallies for four years without any significant violence.

Reaction, however, to the Capitol riot has elicited even more-intense hysterical attacks on the President. Worse, now Republican and conservative lawmakers and commentators have indulged the bathetic rhetorical excesses that mechanically issue from Dems and NeverTrump Republicans skulking in digital hovels like The Lincoln Project and the Bulwark. They are demanding the President’s resignation, impeachment, or removal from office via the 25th Amendment, some preposterously professing anxiety that Trump will launch a Parthian nuclear strike as he leaves office.

Parler Is Silenced Wesley J. Smith

https://www.theepochtimes.com/parler-is-silenced_3651255.html

The social media company Parler—which is a French word meaning “to speak”—was mugged and left for dead by Big Tech last week in what appears to be the start of a cultural offensive aimed at stifling conservative advocacy in our country’s public discourse.

I am shocked but not surprised. In my last column in these pages, I warned of a looming and authoritarian “corporatocracy” that threatened to stifle freedom in a way that our government never could. Little did I know that within a week of writing, behemoth social media companies would prove my words prophetic.

Here’s the story: After the godawful Capitol Hill riot of Jan. 6, Twitter and Facebook launched a cyber jack-booted crackdown on conservative advocacy. Not only did the social media giants cancel President Trump’s accounts, but Twitter appears to have launched a great purge.

Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, actor and conservative icon James Woods, and Fox News pundit Brett Hume, among many others, announced that they had each lost tens of thousands of followers on Twitter in just a few days. Similarly, less famous voices reported the loss of hundreds of followers.

Whatever is going on—Twitter hasn’t said—the company seems hellbent on stifling conservatives’ ability to communicate across the width and breadth of the social media public square.

Attacking a Competitor

The subsequent attack on Parler was even more egregious. Parler is a direct competitor of Twitter and operates in almost the exact manner; members post their thoughts or news articles, with “followers” able to comment and add the original posts to their own timelines.