Daily Archives: January 11, 2022

Back in September I got Covid, and got it bad. For two weeks I was too sick to work or do much of anything except sit on the couch or lie down in bed. The initial (and very intense) flu-like symptoms turned into a bad cough, which slowly faded into persistent fatigue and what many have described as a kind of Covid brain fog. It was nearly a month before I had recovered enough to work out and resume a normal schedule.

For all that, though, I was relieved. Having contracted Covid and recovered from what was by no means a mild case, I knew that my natural immunityconferred longer lasting and stronger protection against future infection and illnessthan the immunity I could get from any of the Covid vaccines.

But I was also relieved because it irrevocably settled a question for me: No matter what else happens in this pandemic, Im never going to get a Covid vaccine. Ever. Im one of the unvaccinated, and Im going to stay that way.

A lot of people, upon hearing this, wont want to listen to anything else I have to say. Theyll conclude Im a crank and a conspiracy theorist or just a blithering idiot. The unvaccinated, for too many Americans, are nothing more than selfish rabble whose continued intransigence is, at best, needlessly putting the vulnerable at risk and, at worst, outright killing people.

If anyone is to blame for the terrible toll of Covid, their thinking goes, its people like me, who are perpetuating what President Biden hasrepeatedly calleda pandemic of the unvaccinated. Were so awful, according to Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, that although it might be ghoulish to mock us if we die of Covid, its necessary. After all,were just getting what we deserve.

Yet at least 40 percent of the country remains unvaccinated. You cant just write off 130 million Americans as conspiracy theory-addled rubes, or decide its okay to dance on their graves if they die of Covid. Thats a recipe for a poisoned public discourse, and its fundamentally un-American.

Besides, one thing the omicron variant has made clear is that were going to have to learn to live with Covid, at least for a while. So its time for the vaccinated to try to understand the motivations of the unvaccinated, and learn to live with them, too, instead of incessantly scapegoating and demonizing them.

Like millions of other Americans, I chose not to get a Covid vaccine for a variety of reasons. Before I caught Covid, I knew that my age, fitness level, and medical history all put me in a very low-risk category for severe illness or hospitalization.

I also knew that, because the Covid vaccines have only been around for about a year, we dont have any data on their long-term effects but we do know about some of the risks they pose,especially to young people. In short, I concluded that the unknown risks of taking the vaccine were, in my case, greater than the known risks of catching Covid. That risk-benefit analysis will be different for everyone, but everyone needs to do it and come to his or her own decision.

Another factor for me was the contradictory and ever-shifting messaging about masks and lockdowns throughout 2020 that led me to question the honesty and competence of our public health experts and the pharmaceutical industrial complex. When the vaccines came out, the credibility of our experts was already in serious jeopardy. Things have since gotten much worse.

After I recovered from Covid, I was even more confident in my decision not to get a vaccine. Like the vast majority of healthy Americans who survive Covid, I gained natural antibodies that conferred a level of protection from future infection I otherwise couldnt get, not even with two doses of the vaccine and a booster shot.

Here, too, the experts unwillingness to discuss or even acknowledge the existence of natural immunity made me deeply suspicious. Some 60 million Americans have now contracted Covid. Fewer than a million have died from it. That means, at a minimum, tens of millions of Americans have some level of natural immunity. Why isnt that part of the conversation? Why doesnt that seem to factor into any policy decisions, especially drastic ones that affect peoples livelihoods, like employer vaccine mandates?

Now we have the omicron variant, and everything weve learned about it thus far has confirmed my decision, along with tens of millions of other Americans, not to get vaccinated. It turns out Covid vaccines are not very effective against omicron, and whatever protection they do offerseems to drop sharply as vaccine-generated antibodies wane. Case numbers worldwide right now are at record levels, despite mass vaccination efforts across the globe and ever-increasing numbers of the vaccinated.

Indeed, omicron is now tearing through countries that have vaccination rates of 90 percent or more. The data so far suggest the best protection against omicron isnt vaccination at all, but natural immunity from a previous infection.

One studyin Qatar found that previous infection offered about 90 percent protection from symptomatic reinfection by earlier strains of Covid, and about 60 percent protection against reinfection from omicron. Thats far higher than the 37 percent effectiveness against omicron from two doses of an mRNA vaccine and a booster shot, according toa separate study in Ontario.

I hesitate, though, even to cite studies to support my argument, because in online Covid-world anyone can dig up counterfactual data or some other study (however shoddy or underpowered) to dispute any assertion about vaccine efficacy. As Cory Zue wrote ina long blog post last week, one of the problems with our Covid discourse right now is that science and data about the vaccines are being used to affirm our previously-held beliefs, rather than help us see truth.

And the truth is, every one of us has to make our own decision about the Covid vaccine, about whats right for us and our families, assessing the risks and rewards for ourselves.

But whatever one believes about the vaccine, its getting hard now to maintain the position that the way out of the pandemic is through mass vaccination. In fact, mass vaccination might even prolong the pandemic, depending on how future variants react to fully-vaxxed immune systems that have had multiple booster shots in a relatively short timeframe.

If you want to get a vaccine and multiple booster shots, go ahead. Thats your decision. But Ill never do it, especially now that Ive had Covid. There are tens of millions of Americans like me, and were never going to change our minds. Thats something the rest of the country, at this point, is just going to have to accept.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

See the article here:

I'm Never Getting A Covid Vaccine, And I'm Not Alone - The Federalist

The woke-o-meter in public schools is about to ramp up. Parents who think they dont have time to homeschool may soon realize that, compared to the effort involved in monitoring and countering the nonsense from leftist classrooms, homeschooling is the relaxing alternative.

Not all teachers buy into the leftist narrative of race-obsessed anti-Americanism. But leftist K-12 administrators want to ensure that, eventually, all teachers will present only approved ideas and counter any wrongthink children are taught at home. Many of these educrats are now embracing a technological fix.

Trade publication Education Week recently reported that about 500 school districts around the country are rating teacher applicants according to their cultural competency, another code for wokeness. Many of these districts are contracting with a teacher-hiring company called Nimble, which uses artificial intelligence to examine applications and interview answers to determine which candidates harbor the correct political and cultural attitudes.

A central concern of Nimble and its leftist clients is mindsets about race. The goal is to hire only teachers who are anti-racist activists, who will reject equal treatment of all students in favor of discrimination against some (whites) for the supposed benefit of others (racial minorities). Note that under this rubric, Asian students, who as a group work hard and consequently excel, dont qualify as an oppressed racial minority.

Now that weve become a little more aware of the concept of anti-racism and maybe a little more woke as a culture, I do think that districts have started to emphasize these questions a little bit more, Nimble CEO Lauren Dachille told EdWeek. They might be more common, they might be more explicit.

Anti-racism as a motivating societal force was popularized by Ibram X. Kendi, who along with other savvy race grifters is profiting handsomely from the concept. Getting points for honesty if not integrity, Kendi teaches that discrimination against white people is a positive good, and indeed necessary to establish the equity of equal outcomes for all regardless of intelligence or effort. This is what is meant by anti-racism: If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.

What types of discrimination do Kendi and his disciples approve? Examples abound. White students may be shamed in classroom privilege walks or privilege deconstruction sessions. Black or Hispanic students may be held to lower standards of behavior. Programs for gifted students may be abolished.

Note the racism inherent in anti-racism. Anti-racists assume that black and brown children are less than white or Asian kidsthey cant excel in academics, they cant follow basic rules of personal conduct. Its necessary to change all standards to accommodate these presumed inferior beings. Such a theory ensures minority kids will never overcome personal obstacles because theyre told they dont have to.

This is the system that, with Nimbles help, many schools are trying to establish and perpetuate.

EdWeek identified a Boston elementary school principal who will tell candidates the schools priorities around anti-racism and ask them to respond. To make crystal clear the political attitudes expected from successful candidates, she will ask them what theyve done personally or professionally to be more anti-racist. Presumably, getting arrested at a Black Lives Matter riot would be, as Rush Limbaugh used to say, a resume enhancement.

Applicants in Indianapolis may be asked how [they would] ensure that student outcomes are not predictable by race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or sexual orientation. Of course, theres only one way to ensure such an outcome: manipulate it to guarantee that all students end up at the same low level. Any students who threaten the leveling by working too hard or achieving too much will have to be brought to heelat least, if theyre the wrong race.

Indianapolis teaching applicants may also be asked, Why do you think that low-income students predictably perform lower on standardized tests than their more-affluent peers? One would be pretty safe to assume a preferred answer would be because of systemic racism, not because those students, largely due to decades of misguided government policies, are more likely to come from fatherless families and grow up in a dysfunctional environment.

Throughout the article, district officials emphasize the importance of hiring teachers who are amenable to the schools priorities and values. But how is it appropriate for a public institution, funded by taxpayers who hold a wide range of political opinions, to institutionalize one set of those opinions? Even worse, how is it appropriate for the institution to guarantee the propagation of those opinions by limiting hires to candidates who agree with them?

These questions illustrate the bubble mentality of the left. Leftists are so certain of the objective correctness of all their views that they cannot conceive of any person of goodwill taking a different position. In the leftist mind, anyone not willing to engage in discrimination against whites or Asians in the name of equity is the moral equivalent of a Klansman. And who would object to screening out Klansmen from the teacher corps?

Parents who hope the public schools are still salvageable might want to reconsider. The skyrocketing wokeness of administrators who control teacher hiring will ensure that all classrooms are increasingly devoted to indoctrination rather than education.

How exhausting it is for parents to constantly monitor what their children are being fed in every class and then try to repair the intellectual and moral damage at home. Viewed in this light, does choosing another schooling arrangement really seem so hard?

Jane Robbins is an attorney and a retired senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington DC. In that position she crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.

Read more:

500 School Districts Publicly Declare Only Woke Teachers Need Apply - The Federalist

If the recent spread of the newly surfaced omicron variant has taught us anything, its that we cant stop the spread of COVID-19 with vaccine mandates.

While progressive cities in the U.S. trip over each other to mandate vaccine passports for entry to restaurants, gyms, and stores, and the Biden administration claims its vaccine mandates are necessary to combat the pandemic, vaccinated people everywhere are contracting the omicron variant. Even the U.S. Supreme Courts left-wing justices tried to defend COVID-19 vaccine mandates by falsely claiming that getting the jab prevents the spread of the virus, but the truth is, the vaccine isnt preventing the spread of COVID.

Despite being vaccinated and boosted, Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently showed symptoms and tested positive for the virus. She is one of the hundreds of thousands of people, many of who have received the COVID jab, who fell ill with the virus in the last few weeks. As a result, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention recently admitted that COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are not stopping people from getting infected or infecting others.

Our vaccines are working exceptionally well but what they cant do anymore is prevent transmission, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky previously said on CNN.

This concession by the CDC shows that vaccine mandates are not the answer to limiting COVID spread. As a matter of fact, there is no effective way to curb the virus. Omicron is here to stay.

On average, the U.S. is adding approximately 700,000 COVID cases a day as omicron rips through the country, sparing no one regardless of their vaccination status. These crazy case numbers skyrocketed even though many Americans concerned that they had the virus were unable to confirm their suspicions due to a testing crisis.

Multiple studies indicate that those infected with the omicron variant, including those who have received multiple COVID shots, usually only experience mild and minor symptoms if any at all. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that now-preliminary data indicate a decreased severity with omicron.

All of these developments have led people like Cory Zue, a Democrat blogger who explained why he did not get the COVID shot, to wonder: So now we have an impossible-to-stop virus that looks a lot like the common cold. And we have a heavy-handed global mitigation strategy based on vaccination that does very little to stop it.Surely, I thought, we will now see that these policies, and especially vaccine mandates, do not make any logical sense? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Its a question that many are thinking but far too few are asking.

Shortly after South Africa was hit with a wave of omicron, dozens of countries banned travel from South Africa with hopes of stopping the variant from crossing borders. Health bureaucrats in the African country, however, noticed that hospitalizations with omicron were less frequent and most people were recovering from the virus without any significant problems. As a result, the South African health department scaled back its COVID-19 guidance and ruled the pandemic basically over. People were no longer asked to isolate or quarantine.

The government acknowledged what is now obvious:this virus is here to stay, its not that bad anymore, and we need to live with it and get back to our lives, Zue noted.

But after acknowledging that most people in the country had developed some level of immunity and a number of people including children who are in contact with COVID-19 positive people, lose their income and valuable schooltime while staying at home without symptoms, health officials walked back their guidance after a flurry of media, stakeholders and public enquiries and comments.

Its apparent that COVID jabs arent stopping the virus, but that hasnt stopped health bureaucrats from repeatedly forcing them on the public. Even when they do make minor concessions about the vaccines failings, most wont admit what South Africa did just a couple of weeks ago.

Next, health bureaucrats in the U.S. will probably be tempted to demand N95 masking from everyone. Much like they have in the past, talking heads on CNN and MSNBC will claim that proper masking will be our ticket out of this pandemic.

But as Dr. Leana Wen recently noted, most masks are little more than facial decorations that dont stop COVID-19 infection.

Theres no good way to stop the raging omicron variant. But why should we? People will get sick with COVID regardless of their vaccination status, but most of them will recover just fine. In the next few weeks, hundreds of thousands of Americans will have natural immunity against the virus. They should have the freedom to return to their jobs, schools, and lives without the threat of mandates that cant protect them hanging over their heads.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

See the original post here:

We Can't Stop The Spread Of Omicron, So Stop Trying To Mandate It - The Federalist

The FBI refused to answer questions about the agencys possible provocative involvement with the Jan. 6 Capitol riots during a Tuesday hearing on Capitol Hill.

How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6? Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz asked the Executive Assistant Director for the FBIs National Security Branch Jill Sanborn.

I cant go into the specifics of sources and methods, Sanborn said.

Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of Jan. 6, yes or no? Cruz pressed.

I cant answer that, Sanborn said, despite The New York Times revealing in September the presence of federal agents within the crowd that stormed the Capitol. Earlier this month, Newsweek revealed in a blockbuster story the presence of secret commandos with shoot-to-kill authority.

Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on Jan. 6? Cruz followed up.

I cant answer that, Sanborn repeated.

Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on Jan. 6? Cruz asked.

I cant answer that, Sanborn said for a third time.

Cruz went on to ask the agency executive about Ray Epps, a suspect captured on tape encouraging people to enter the Capitol who disappeared without explanation from the FBIs Capitol Violence Most Wanted List last summer, according to an October report from Revolver.

Who is Ray Epps? Cruz asked.

Sanborn said she was aware of the individual but lacked specific background.

Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. Epps, Cruz said, highlighting Eppss encouragement of Trump supporters to get into the Capitol. This was strange behavior, so strange that the crowd began chanting Fed, fed, fed, fed, fed. Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?

I cant answer that question, Sanborn said.

After outlining Eppss mysterious disappearance from the agencys Most Wanted List, Cruz asked one more time.

Did federal agents or those in service of federal agents actively encourage violent criminal conduct on Jan. 6? Cruz asked.

Not to my knowledge, Sanborn said.

Moments later, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton pressed Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew Olsen about Eppss mysterious disappearance.

He was on the FBIs Capitol Riot Most Wanted page just days after Jan. 6. In fact, he was one of the first 16 suspects added to that Most Wanted page on your website, Cotton said. It does not appear he was arrested or charged with any offense. In July, without explanation, he was removed from the FBIs Most Wanted page. Mr. Olsen, who is Ray Epps and why was he removed?

Olsen referred Cotton to Sanborn after she repeatedly refused to offer details on the same case.

Senator, I dont have any information about that individual. I would defer you to Ms. Sanborn, Olsen said.

Youre the assistant attorney general for national security. You run the National Security Division. The department has said that these Jan. 6 prosecutions are one of their highest priorities, Cotton said. This is a man who was on the Most Wanted page for six months. Do you really, do you really expect us to believe that youve never heard of the name Ray Epps? You dont know anything about him?

I simply dont have any information at all about that individual, Olsen said.

What other suspects on the Most Wanted page do you know nothing about? Cotton asked.

Olsen didnt offer an answer before Cotton pressed again.

Can you name anyone else on the Department of Justices Most Wanted page? Cotton asked.

Im not familiar with the Most Wanted page, Olsen said.

In the same hearing, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee asked the panel about the agencys double-standard treatment of left-wing rioters in 2020 versus the Jan. 6 defendants who are being held as political prisoners in solitary confinement.

How many individuals who may have committed crimes associated with the riots in the spring and summer of 2020 were either arrested by law enforcement [with] pre-dawn raids with SWAT teams or had search warrants served on them through those means? Lee asked.

Sanborn said she didnt have the particular numbers available to answer the question.

Could you tell me at least an approximate number or whether its a comparable number to those who had those executed or arrested in connection with the spring and summer riots of 2020? Lee asked.

Sanborn said again she did not have the data with her at the hearing.

You have any way of telling me how many of these individuals who were arrested in connection with the spring and summer riots of 2020 were placed in solitary confinement? Lee asked.

I dont have that, Sanborn said. Im not exactly sure that the FBI would house that data.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Original post:

FBI Refuses To Say How Many Informants Were Involved In Jan. 6 - The Federalist

The 2020 presidential election was unlike any in American history.

Hundreds of laws and processes were changed in the months leading up to the election, sometimes legally and sometimes not, creating chaos, confusion, and uncertainty. Tech oligarch Mark Zuckerberg, one of the worlds wealthiest and most powerful men, spent $419 million nearly as much as the federal government itself to interfere in the governments management of the election in key states.

Powerful tech oligarchs and corrupt propaganda press conspired to keep indisputably important news stories, such as allegations of corruption regarding the Biden family business, hidden from voters in the weeks prior to voting. Information operations were routinely manufactured about President Trump in the closing months of the campaign, including the false claim that Russians paid bounties for dead American soldiers and Trump didnt care, and that Trump had called dead American soldiers losers. Both were disputed by dozens of on-the-record sources.

Effective conservative voices were censored by the social media arms of the Democrat Party. And all this was done after the establishment spent years running an unprecedented Resistance that falsely claimed Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Its not surprising that polls show most Republicans are deeply concerned about the integrity of such an election. If anything, its surprising that all of them arent screaming from the rooftops about it. But it is interesting and telling how little the media and other Democrats are willing to talk about efforts to rig the election.

With the exception of a single Time Magazine article admitting there was a conspiracy by a a well-funded cabal of powerful people who worked to change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information, to create a revolution in how people vote, corporate media have largely kept silent about or downplayed how the establishment secured its victory for their man Joe Biden.

Times article didnt come out until February 4, 2021, but in the months prior to its publication, Republicans grew increasingly concerned that the rigging it described had, in fact, happened.

Their desire for free and fair elections they could trust, elections that well-funded cabals of powerful people werent able to rig, resulted in mass protests following the November election. The fact that the election was exceedingly close didnt help matters.

Media and other left-wing pollsters had put out preposterous suppression polls to help Biden get over the finish line. For example, the Washington Posts final poll claimed Biden would win the swing state of Wisconsin by 17 points, indicating a nationwide blowout of historic proportions. (He won it by seven-tenths of a percent.) The actual outcome took weeks to calculate and came down to just 43,000 votes across three states, even closer than Trumps close victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The media and other Democrats have used the January 6 riot at the Capitol as a way to ignore legitimate concerns about what they did to the election system, and as a way to continue the assault on election security.

As part of their political operation, they have used a propaganda technique of redefining efforts to secure the integrity of elections as attacks on democracy.

The 2020 campaign to destroy election security by flooding the system with tens of millions of mail-in ballots was run by Marc Elias, a braggadocious Democrat attorney and former general counsel for Hillary Clinton who also ran the Russia collusion hoax that seriously damaged the country. In fact, one of his partners in the scheme was recently indicted by prosecutor John Durham for lying about his role in the hoax. Elias and his well-funded cabal of powerful people are hoping to make permanent or even expand the weakening of election security.

The propaganda press have also downplayed Zuckerbergs staggering $419 million expenditure, or falsely presented it as non-partisan help to voters. Independent researchers have shown that the funding dollars overwhelmingly poured into Democrat counties, and particularly such counties in swing states.

The money was used to enable the private takeover of government election offices, erasing the bright red line between campaign operations and government administration of elections. The massive grants were used to run Get Out The Vote operations through these government offices, in a manner that benefited Democrats in overwhelmingly disproportionate ways. The funds were used mostly to register Democrats to vote, encourage Democrats to vote, harvest Democrat ballots, cure defective Democrat ballots, count Democrat ballots, etc.

No right-wing billionaire could have gotten away with even thinking about such an operation, but had he, the media would be all over it. A few hundred thousand dollars in Russian Facebook ads for both Clinton and Trump generated years of hysterical media coverage from the corrupt press. Yet Zuckerberg funding the private takeover of elections to secure Democrat victories has barely been mentioned much less obsessed over by most of corporate media.

The media and Democrats J6 hysteria is meant as a distraction to keep Americans from properly dealing with the very real problems with how the 2020 election was overseen.

The future of the country rests on the ability of both winners and losers to trust our elections, to make it easy to vote but difficult to cheat, and to have some reasonable level of confidence that voting is conducted privately and without coercion, harvesting, or undue third-party influence.

The media and other Democrats are cartoonishly overhyping the J6 riot to avoid being held accountable for the many ways in which they destroyed election integrity in the months and years leading up to November 2020. Wise people are not fooled by their distraction attempt.

Continued here:

J6 Hysteria Is To Avoid Accountability For Rigging Of The 2020 Election - The Federalist

Most Americans recoil from calls for political purges. Despite that, Republicans are contemplating just such a measure over the conduct of two members of their House caucus. The participation of Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger in the Jan. 6 Committee convened by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has led many conservatives, both in the House and out of it, to demand their ouster from the GOP conference.

Although it might not have been her intent, Cheney just gave Republicans a compelling reason to expel her from the party. When Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., wrote to the Department of the Interior demanding that, as the person appointed by the Republican Conference to be the ranking minority member of the Jan. 6 Committee, he be given all copies of any information they give to the body, Cheney spoke on the floor of the House claiming his assertion was incorrect.

Cheney claims that since Pelosi named her to be the vice-chair of the committee, she is the ranking member. But that assertion merely confirms she is operating not merely independently of the GOP caucus but as an agent of Democrats, something that is clearly incompatible with her continued membership in the conference.

Even more than Cheneys ouster from the House GOP leadership this past spring, an effort to expel them from the conference would allow the pair to pose as martyrs to what they and their media enablers describe as an intolerant and proto-authoritarian Trump cult. For that reason, and because it would provide both Cheney and Kinzinger undeserved publicity as well as giving Democrats an excuse to ignore the abysmal failures of the Biden administration, its likely that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy would prefer to avoid a formal expulsion vote.

Besides, both are living on borrowed time in the House. Kinzinger has already announced that he wont seek re-election in 2022. Cheney is running for re-election and, despite the magic of the Cheney name in Wyoming and a formidable campaign war chest, she is facing an uphill primary battle against a Trump-endorsed opponent.

But those calling for formally tossing Cheney and Kinzinger out of the party are not out of line. On the contrary, they are taking notice of something that many in the GOP establishment inside the Beltway still prefer to ignore.

Rather than just another special congressional committee that its members will use to grandstand on a given issue, the Jan. 6 committee is different.

The Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a shocking disgrace. But almost from the moment the incident began, Democrats began to inflate what happened from a shameful affront to public order and the sanctity of a national shrine into something far more politically useful.

Although the rioters had behaved similarly to those who engaged in hundreds of mostly peaceful convulsions of violence and looting the previous summer on behalf of the Black Lives Matter movement, they were immediately labeled as insurrectionists and criminal traitors by the same liberal media that had winked or cheered when BLM rioters had attacked police and government buildings.

One didnt need to sympathize with President Trumps complaints about an election in which the guardrails against fraud had been discarded because of the pandemic and which was affected by big tech companies silencing stories that might have hurt Biden and otherwise tilted the scales against the Republicans to understand what was happening.

Not satisfied with their election victory or the opprobrium that was directed at Trump in the aftermath of the riot, Democrats and their media cheering section sought to expand the list of Jan. 6 villains. They began to treat not just the rioters, but all of the thousands of people who had attended a lawful rally and then all those who supported Trump election claims or even who had voted for him, as somehow responsible for what happened.

Rather than just a riot, it was now the moral equivalent of the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter or the 9/11 attacks. What Democrats had done in the previous four years as they consciously sought to portray their efforts as a resistance to a supposedly authoritarian fascist rather than a loyal opposition was forgotten. The same applied to three years of lies and conspiracy theories about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election that had been endlessly echoed by Democrats and their talking heads on the broadcast networks as well as CNN and MSNBC.

Branding all Republicans as terrorist sympathizers would effectively make the culture war about Trump a permanent feature of American politics and make opposition to what they claimed was a Trumpist assault on the entire idea of democracy the defining issue of every debate and all future elections.

The presence of Cheney and Kinzinger on the committee was already an affront to other Republicans. Pelosi had rejected McCarthys choices of GOP members to serve on the committee and instead invited the pair to join. As outrageous as that was, it is the actions of the committee on which the Republican renegades have sat that is especially damning.

There wasnt much to investigate about Jan. 6 over and above the prosecutions of those involved. The entire event took place on live television and we all know what Trump and those who had organized the rally protesting the certification of the Electoral College vote did and didnt do and how, once that event ended, a small portion of the crowd went to the Capitol, where the demonstration turned ugly.

To justify a proceeding of indefinite length, the Jan. 6 Committee began casting a wide net in a fishing expedition aimed at treating all those involved in a legal rally or entirely legal if foolish efforts to find a legal stratagem that would somehow prevent Biden from taking office, which was something that many Democrats and their Never Trump former Republican allies mooted in the weeks and months preceding Trumps inauguration in 2017, as conspirators.

Thus began the process by which both White House officials, like chief of staff Mark Meadows as well as those who were tangential to the Trump effort, like former Breitbart CEO and White House strategist Steve Bannon were subpoenaed. Even more egregious, the committee is now attempting to haul in some Republican House members like Rep. Jim Jordan for an inquisition.

There is no likelihood of any proof nor any likelihood of any being found that any of those who are being brought before the committee were in any way involved in the riot, let alone that Trump and his inner circle were even contemplating anything so absurd as having a few hundred people barge into the Capitol to no particular purpose.

But if your goal is to invent a grand conspiracy behind an alleged coup detat out of thin air in order to delegitimize one of Americas two major parties, none of that matters. That is why newspapers like The New York Times and networks like CNN and MSNBC have continued to breathlessly report new developments in the Jan. 6 investigation much the way they did similarly mendacious accounts of claims that would justify the Russia collusion hoax throughout Trumps presidency.

Cheney and Kinzinger tell fawning reporters that in joining the Democratic crusade against Trump they are putting patriotism over partisanship. But at no point have either of them pushed back against the rhetorical excesses of their committee colleagues demonizing all those who supported Trumps claims.

Nor have they attempted to use their outsized influence on the proceedings to limit its scope or prevent it from seeking to put House GOP colleagues in the cross-hairs of its investigators. On the contrary, they have nodded along when Democrats make extravagant claims about an insurrection or what they seem to be asserting is a vast conspiracy on the part of Republicans to support a coup and played a helpful role in their attack on figures like Meadows.

Were the pair interested in defending ordinary Republicans or the party, they might use their places on the committee to act as a check on its activities or to reassure ordinary Republicans who voted for Trump and think there was plenty that was fishy about the 2020 election that this isnt about targeting them or their beliefs. They might speak up when people like Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., refers to the support for Jan. 6 terrorism in the Republican Party.

But they have done none of those things and instead, seem all too happy to be the token Republican members of a kangaroo court that respects no limits to its efforts to paint the GOP with the broad brush of insurrection.

As such, participation in this farce isnt mere dissent from a Republican consensus or opposition to the ongoing influence Trump exercises over the party. It is instead a demagogic effort to destroy the GOP for its sin of backing the former president. That this harassment of legitimate opponents is done in the name of protecting democracy is an irony that would be laughable if it werent itself such a serious threat to democracy.

Seen in that light, Cheney and Kinzinger arent just anti-Trump establishment outliers. They are instead part and parcel of their Democrat friends attempt to falsely label every Trump voter and conservative as would-be authoritarians and traitors.

Their role in this vile effort means they have forfeited any right to call themselves Republicans or conservatives since they are actively assisting the left in its effort to forestall any challenges to their rule. Whether they are formally expelled from the conference or not, their indecent behavior means they should be treated as pariahs undeserving of respect or a place in any party that purports to uphold the principles they once claimed to support.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

View post:

For J6 Help, Cheney And Kinzinger Should Be Booted Out Of The GOP - The Federalist

Theres this movie about a giant celestial body thats going to destroy Earth. In fact, its making an impact right now. No, its not Michael Bays triumph of American ingenuity, heroism, and a fathers love for his daughter that we lovingly call Armageddon. Rather, its Adam McKays really bad and really derivative iteration of that classic of American cinema.

On its surface, Dont Look Up, the film making the above-mentioned impact, should have been equally impactful. Its got the chick from X-Men portraying Ph.D. candidate Kate Dibiasky with Leonardo DiCaprio as Dr. Randall Mindy, her mentor. There are some other people. Its about a giant comet. Were all gonna die. But theres a chance we wont.

This is really where the two films diverge, and for the worse. This isnt Spider-Man: Far from Home territory, where multiple plotlines and possibilities merge in a glorious synthesis. This is an unnecessary reboot that only serves to remind us of why the original was awesome.

Since this is about Dont Look Up, though, perhaps I should at least discuss it a little. The movie begins with Kate discovering a new comet while working on another project. She calls Dr. Mindy to share news of the discovery. He calculates its size and trajectory and figures out that it was going to destroy the planet, so he calls some other people.

After a few minor twists and turns, the two plus one of the people they called finally get to visit President She-Trump, played by Meryl Streep, who brushes them off until it becomes electorally disadvantageous to do so, then sells them out for some Big Business interest who was overtly distinct enough from Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs to not plausibly be either of them.

Naturally, Generic Evil Business Guy Who Totally Isnt Zuck Or Jobs takes over the mission to try to mine the comet for its rare-earth elements. I mean, why would a company need to do that, especially since comets are giant balls of ice, unlike asteroids that are made of metals?

In response to this, Dr. Mindy shrieks a lot about science and peer-reviewed science and Science and also peer-reviewed science before pivoting to how some things are beyond politics and only peer-reviewed politics should be trusted. At least I think thats what he said. To be honest, my eyes were glazing over by that point. Oh, Mindy also becomes a shill for the evil billionaire. For science.

At a similar point in Armageddon, Harry Stamper, portrayed by Bruce Willis, and his entire crew, including Ben Affleck playing A.J. Frost, had negotiated a deal, albeit one with the government, for learning to fly into space. Theyd also learned how to fly into space, flown into space, and started their actual mission, one which dealt with an actual asteroid, one which likely had some valuable elements in it. Why the oilmen didnt switch to mining the asteroid for computer parts is a question to which we will never get the answer.

Stamper, A.J., and company could have, instead, moped around and bought a sustainable, farm-raised, organic dinner to nourish them for the coming apocalypse, as Mindy, Dibiasky, and their families did. Like, they could have done that really easily. They were in a movie named Armageddon. Yet they chose not to.

Instead, these fictional heroes, from way back just over a decade ago when we were still allowed to have fictional heroes, forged ahead, despite Stampers ship and crew only almost landing in the right place, just around 26 miles away from where they were intending to land. Frost and his crews ship, on the other hand, crashed elsewhere even farther away on the asteroid.

As a result, Frost almost died, but didnt, unlike several other members of his crew. This meant that he and the other survivors only needed to navigate their super sweet moon buggy to the drilling site where the other crew, which had suffered far fewer fatalities, was working.

Of course, they did this with lots of help from science, though its unclear whether it was peer-reviewed. More importantly, they did so thanks to the American spirit that leads to things like movies and trips into space and movies about trips into space. Although I suppose movies like Dont Look Up mean we can at least still make movies about getting killed while sitting on Earth while the heroes gather around the dinner table to await imminent death, which is a climax of sorts, I suppose.

At Armageddons climax, we see A.J., who lost a game of shortest straw, prepare to meet his doom by manually detonating the nuke to blow up the asteroid to save the planet. But even though Stamper had some justifiable anger at A.J. for cavorting with his daughter Grace, played by Liv Tyler, Bruce knew she loved A.J.

As such, he ripped out the tubes for A.J.s oxygen supply, forcing him to return to the ship, where he and the others began their return to Earth while Stamper stayed behind to detonate the nuke, which he successfully did, thus saving the planet.

In other words, they actually saved the planet rather than just whining about it and pestering the government, unlike the protagonists of Dont Look Up, a film that doesnt exactly get everything wrong, although it does get its central thesis horribly wrong.

But it got one big thing right: By destroying the entire cast and the planet on which they existed, it makes a sequel impossible. For that, we have to thank its writers and producers. We are talking about a movie that Neil deGrasse Tyson, a man who hated the glory that is Armageddon, loved.

Richard Cromwell is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Husband. Father of three rambunctious daughters. Arkansan. Fan of whiskey and whisky. Originally an English major, Rich earned a degree in music business from Belmont in 2002. By day he produces shows and events for a local museum with a focus on giving back to the community. His writing can also be found at Pocket Full of Liberty. Follow him on Twitter, @rcromwell4.

Read this article:

'Don't Look Up' Is The 'Armageddon' Reboot That None Of Us Needed - The Federalist

Anyone waiting for the first hysterical 9/11 comparison on the first anniversary of Jan. 6 didnt have to wait long.

Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault, Vice President Kamala Harris said early Thursday morning. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11th, 2001. And January 6th, 2021.

A few minutes later, President Biden compared it to the Civil War.

Rioters rampaging, waving for the first time inside this Capitol, the confederate flag that symbolized the cause to destroy America, to rip us apart, he said. Even during the Civil War, that never, ever happened. But it happened here in 2021.

This, Biden gravely intoned, represented a dagger at the throat of America, at American democracy. It was nothing short of an armed insurrection.

Only it wasnt, according to prosecutors and courts of law. Of the more than 725 people arrested and charged in connection with the Jan. 6 incident, none have been charged with rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S. Code 2383.

The law, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, applies to whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.

If, as Biden and Harris (and pretty much every Democrat in America) suggest, the Jan. 6 defendants had stormed the Capitol with the intent of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election, then why have none of them been charged with it?

In addition, if, as they have been alleging for a year now, this insurrection was really aimed at toppling the incoming Biden government and reinstating Donald Trump as president, then why have none of the more than 725 defendants been charged with seditious conspiracy under 18 US Code 2384?

The statute provides that if two or more persons conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Doesnt that behavior sound exactly like what Biden, Harris, and the rest of the Democratic Party have claimed happened on Jan. 6? Didnt a group of conspirators egged on and perhaps even directly guided by former President Trump take the Capitol by force in an attempt at destroying the government (as well as democracy itself)?

And if Trump or anyone else supposedly fomenting and guiding the insurrection was indeed advocating for the overthrow of the Biden government, then why have they not been charged accordingly? 18 US Code 2385 criminalizes advocating the overthrow of government, which it defines as knowingly or willfully advocat[ing], abet[ting], advis[ing], or teach[ing] the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States.

After 365 days of criminal investigations, there has not been enough evidence to bring such charges against any of the more than 725 people arrested in connection with what is now hyperbolically (and laughably) considered a 9/11-like attack on the Capitol.

Were this an actual domestic terror attack, it would have been charged as such. It was not. Not one of the more than 725 Jan. 6 defendants has been charged with a terror-related offense. This will undoubtedly come as a shock to Biden, Harris, and any Democrat who believes their hysterical rhetoric.

Domestic terrorism is defined in federal law as acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

If the Jan. 6 terrorists really had brought gallows into the Capitol with the intent of hanging then-Vice President Mike Pence if he didnt acquiesce to their demands to stop the electoral vote certification, then why have none of them faced a domestic terrorism sentencing enhancement?

Under the law, such an act calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct is considered a federal crime of terrorism and can thus be used to enhance a federal sentence.

Wasnt the whole point of the Jan. 6 insurrection to affect the certification of the election through intimidation and coercion? Why havent the charges or sentences reflected this?

The answer is as simple as it is predictable: The reality of Jan. 6 is nowhere near Democrats rhetoric about it. Jan. 6 was a riot and a national embarrassment, but it was not an insurrection, an attempted coup, or the worst attack on America since 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

If it were, the criminal charges would have reflected it.

Dan ODonnell is a talk show host with News/Talk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee, Wis. and 1310 WIBA in Madison, Wis., and a columnist for the John K. MacIver Institute.

Visit link:

Jan. 6 Was Neither A Terrorist Attack Nor An Insurrection - The Federalist

A New York Magazine writer took to Twitter on Tuesday to mock a conservative group trying to help drivers stranded on snow-covered I-95 in Virginia.

After a snowstorm and subsequent accidents trapped hundreds of motorists in their vehicles for nearly 24 hours, The Reagan Battalion, a conservative media group, offered to connect people in need of food, water, and other help to rescuers armed with supplies.

New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, however, used The Reagan Battalions neighborly offer to take political shots at the conservative groups namesake, former President Ronald Reagan.

The Reaganites used to believe in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Chait tweeted.

Chaits insensitivity to the ongoing crisis was quickly reprimanded by several Twitter users including The Reagan Battalion which encouraged the writer to assist the people in need.

Now if you can use your account to help people in dire need of assistance and put your politics aside for a few hours that would be great, the group tweeted.

As of Tuesday morning, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam still had not called in the National Guard. Instead, he claimed that the Virginia Department of Transportation had all of the resources it needed to rescue people.

We have the manpower and people have been working through the night, the National Guard is on standby, Northam said, before switching his attention to the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

That doesnt happen at the snap of a finger. I dont know if anybody remembers the Insurrection. But that happened in the afternoon, we had the National Guard on the ground the following morning. These are civilians that have jobs and need to muster and then be deployed. So again, those are all options that are on the table, Northam said in a press conference.

Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine was among many of the drivers who slept in his car Monday night while temperatures outside stayed below freezing.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

See the article here:

NY Mag Writer Mocks Conservatives Helping Stranded Drivers On I-95 - The Federalist

President Donald Trump was permanently suspended from Twitter one year ago this day. In the ensuing turmoil, its easy to forget why. Ask near-any self-declared politico around Washington, D.C., and youll hear an unsure and uncertain allusion to the Capitol riot.

Its important to understand their reasons, however, to understand whats in store for the rest of our country.

Fortunately, we dont need to wonder; Twitter was open and upfront on the issue at least as much as they ever are: The sitting president of the United States, they declared, had sent two terrible and unpardonable tweets.

First, hed written that the political movement hed started would continue into the future, and wouldnt be disrespected:

The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

Second, he said he wouldnt be attending President-elect Joe Bidens inauguration in two weeks time. To all of those who have asked, he wrote, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

These violated their Glorification of Violence policy, Twitter claimed, and so the president was immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Its a private company, Twitters defenders insist, so it doesnt need remotely passable reasons to ban the president from messaging his 90 million followers. If you dont like it, build your own, sort of thing.

But that was as much a lie as the justification for banning the president, and the next night, Parler an alternative to Twitter that had rocketed to the most-downloaded app on the planet literally overnight was nearly destroyed by a combined attack from Apple, Google, and Amazon Web Services.

Parler had been used to organize the riot, Big Tech claimed. This turned out to be another lie, but it didnt matter. The weeks riot had given them all the rope they needed for hangings, with corporate media those bold lovers of the First Amendment jeering and cheering them on their way.

The Capitol riot was used as an excuse for deplatforming an American president and smashing a private company, but it wasnt the reason: The illiberal left has long used any pretense at all to justify its centralization of control and crushing of dissent; and Big Tech, once a free-wheeling vehicle for decentralized innovation, is now no more than an arm of the illiberal left.

During the 2020 election, Big Tech worked hand in glove with Democrats and corporate media to suppress the true story of Hunter Bidens corruption and defend their candidate under completely unproven pretenses.

In 2021, they went after conservative leaders on their platforms and cut the foundations out from a competitors platform.

Barring dissenting voices from social media wasnt enough, however. Democratic politicians had fled Texas for weeks in an attempt to stop their colleagues from curtailing their states abortion regime, but once the left was defeated, Big Tech deplatformed Texan Christians on their own website. Corporate media cheered.

Public health is the excuse used to silence doctors, scientists, and parents challenging the administrations COVID orthodoxy. Graphic content is used as the excuse to silence artists highlighting the Talibans brutal rule in the wake of the administrations retreat from Afghanistan.

Every week, the left grows bolder in their censorship-and-control campaign: On Jan. 6, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee introduced legislation to, outlaw attempts by candidates and elected officials to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to spread violence.

What constitutes a lie and what constitutes violence well, thats up to Jay and the boys.

There was a day when Americas Democratic leaders claimed to stand for freedom, individuality, and speech. That day is long gone, as is the day Silicon Valley stood for an open and interconnected planet.

Today, these forces stand for centralization. They want to control our opinions, decide who speaks and who doesnt, decide who can do business and who cant, and decide whos in power in Washington. The sooner we understand this, the better.

On Jan. 7 and 8 last year, they went too far, and now an alternative economy is afoot. Its incredibly rare to see a dominant industry turn so wildly on half its customers, and entrepreneurs of all stripes have seized the opportunity it affords.

Big Tech hates us, and they arent going to stop. We, however, can stop working with them. We know who they are; its time they learn what were about.

Read more:

A Year Ago, Big Tech Declared Open War On America. Here's What's Next - The Federalist