Pages

Monday, January 25, 2021

Democracy For Me But Not For Thee

That's the Dem's new coordinated ploy--Trump supporters are "endangering our Democracy." Of course, it's just another hoax--as several commenters here pointed out in the wake of the January 6 event at the Capitol. The same mantra of concern for the sacred space of the people and their reps only applied to non-Dem protestors. Among various incidents of excused Dem rioting in capitol buildings, the 2011 storming of the Wisconsin state capitol was particularly violent, but was widely and openly embraced by the Left. Why?Because at that time Scott Walker was the Republican governor of Wisconsin. Walker was a lightening rod for Dem hatred, especially because he was gaining a national following. That meant that anything would go.

Today at Fox News Yael Halon recalls the storming of the Wisconsin capitol. After noting the universal, mandatory condemnation of the January 6 event--the actual nature of which is, upon examination, becoming increasingly murky--Halon notes:


Ten years earlier, unionists stormed the Wisconsin State Capitol in an attempt to block a vote on collective bargaining reform. Thousands of demonstrators managed to enter the building by violently breaking down doors and shattering windows -- but the attack garnered much praise from Pelosi and other prominent Democrats at the time.

The occupiers were praised publically by Pelosi for their "impressive show of democracy in action." The House Speaker took to Twitter to express her "solidarity" with the activists as they attacked the Capitol, and sent senators into hiding until police managed to remove them from the building.  


Just to be sure that her views would be recorded unambiguously for posterity, Pelosi put them in writing, tweeting out:



And, of course, we saw the same thing over the past year, as Leftists trashed one American city after another.

A further extension of this ploy, working off the Big Tech censorship of online speech, is the coordinated tactic of the Left that was first put forward, to my knowledge, by (ex-Bushie) Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC. Her suggestion was that Republicans should be required to "speak the truth first" or "admit the truth first" before being allowing to say anything else in interviews. In other words, Republicans would be required to state that the new DC regime-- installed behind razor wire and a massive and unprecedented military presence--had won a free and fair election and that claims to the contrary were the real fraud. 

This tactic was deployed yesterday by the smarmy George Stephanopoulos in an interview of Senator Rand Paul. Here's how the interview started--with a "threshold question", meaning that this "question" would determine Senator Paul's veracity as regarded all else:


Let's start with a threshold question for you. This election was not stolen--Do you accept that fact?


Senator Paul, to his credit, didn't bat an eyelash and handled it all admirably:



We can expect more similar ploys. What it's really showing is an unprecedented degree of desperation on the part of the Dems. All must be forced to repeat the Big Lie before they can be allowed to speak on any topic. Senator Paul demonstrated for all, however, that it's not necessary to take a knee to Big Brother's Big Lie.

This too, I believe, will backfire. We must not--and need not--live by lies. Democracy is for all or for none.


24 comments:

  1. They're driving it like they stole it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Like Mark put so aptly, “They know that we know.”

      Delete
  2. It's Happening Already: Joe Biden Calls a Lid Four Days Into Presidency

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/01/24/its-happening-already-joe-biden-calls-a-lid-four-days-into-presidency-n1407860

    ReplyDelete
  3. Too bad, that Rand didn't get to challenge George's touting of Barr's words, those issued less than 1 month after the election.
    Had Rand said
    "One month is nowhere near enough time, for Barr's gofers to have determined anything of this complexity, in so many states",
    George's position would've been shown to be a grasping of straws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, Rand could've added, that
      "the DOJ had added, that it had *not concluded* its investigation of this issue.
      So, why have we not heard the MSM celebrating subsequently-issued Reports, specifying the bases for Barr's (tentative) conclusion?"

      Delete
    2. I watched the replay last night. Rand Paul did an excellent job. George's reliance on Bluto's words as AG to say their were no issues time and time again was awful to hear. Bluto did us no favors. Further, as others have suggested, it's their method to "dig in their heels" based only on the AG when in the past they reputed him at every opportunity.

      Delete
    3. OK, but George's reliance on Bluto's words was totally predictable, so Rand needed to be ready to rebut them.

      Delete
  4. This is literally a real world example of Solzhenitsyn's, "You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let this be your credo: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph.
    But not through me."

    Kudos to Mr. Rand for not being intimidated. This how all patriots must respond every time the Big Lie that there is no evidence of election theft is uttered. No longer can "conservatives" at any level allow the lie to pass through them by acquiescence for fear of confrontation.

    I don't much care for litmus tests, but any Republican that dodges or dissimilates rather than refuting the Big Lie, as Mr. Rand did must be primaried or recalled at the earliest opportunity.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rand Paul did an incredible service by speaking as he did to Stepanopolufugus.

    I lived and worked near the WI capitol shutdown when it happened. The busses pulled up a couple blocks away, filled with union folks from Illinois. Walker won his recall election because the people in our state were with him, not the bussed in union lackies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/just-chief-justice-roberts-will-not-preside-trump-senate-impeachment-trial/

    This has the appearance something straight out of Central America circa 1925.

    One wonders at the suicidal complusion of the Democrats to utterly destroy any semblance of legitimacy the U.S. gov't possesses. What color is the sky of the planet where they think they can survive the conclusion they are forcing.

    "By their fruits you shall know them."
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope the trial will give Trump's team time to lay out the full case for election fraud-- to the entire country. Might just be a turning moment. What happens when 55% of the country believes the election was stolen? Biden becomes a munchkin? Or a full-throated rebellion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I was wondering if Trump was hoping to do that. For the first impeachment, he wanted to prosecute his case that he was right about Ukraine corruption and the Bidens. He may want to try this time to say that he was telling the truth about the steal as his defense.

      McConnell is devilishly clever sometimes. I've wondered if he isn't playing every end to every middle here. To the GOPe, he is letting them vent about the uncouth and unseemly populist Trump. At the same time, he will let the Dems tie up Senate floor time with a circus impeachment--this time the Dems will own both the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate. In the end, McConnell will not vote to convict Trump on some technicality that has nothing to do with the merits of the charge brought by the Dems or any election fraud alleged by Trump.

      Delete
    2. The D's would be incredibly stupid to allow the election to be brought up, and yes they will control what is relevant to the charge.

      There is, theoretically, no viable defense for inciting insurrection, which is the charge. A defensible insurrection is, by definition, a successful revolution. The winners control trials as well as history.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  8. The January 6 riot was a preplanned antifa fraud. Check out the video in the Gateway Pundit post: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/setup-riots-capital-instigated-antifa-others-not-trump-supporters-video-evidence/. Probably not going to see this video on Fox News...

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is what Obama was trying to do and created the framework for all that came after his presidency.

    This was his change.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And... Where's the damn Durham report?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark, have you seen the Paul Sperry article in RCI yet today?

      https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/01/25/new_evidence_ties_fbi_higher-ups_to_dishonesty_of_anti-trump_lawyer_126807.html

      Delete
    2. Yes, and I've been working on that. Will publish soon.

      Delete
  11. O/T Re. Durham
    Is this something?
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/01/25/new_evidence_ties_fbi_higher-ups_to_dishonesty_of_anti-trump_lawyer_126807.html

    0311

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just about to publish a post on that.

      Delete
    2. I just posted a comment on that Sperry article on another thread. Noticed a very familiar name cited in the long but interesting article...

      Delete
  12. Isn't there a word for when a new regime sends in the military to occupy the capital, while putting the previous president on trial for fabricated crimes?

    Something like 3rd world dictatorship?

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  13. I personally don't want a democracy, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner isn't part of a Republic.

    I would argue the word in american politics is use as a selling point for mob rule and progressive agenda. It goes along with axing the electorial college and many other dubious selling points.

    Hamilton and Madison, the Federalist Papers, their emphasis... “IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share” which was to say, in no way shape or form, are we a democracy, but a representative government.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Question. How long can an organization continue to spew out hoax after hoax before it all comes tumbling down.the dems remind me of the Templars in the movie The Kingdom Of Heaven every one of their selfish deeds was preceded by shouting "God wills it"! Spoiler, it didn't end well for them!

    ReplyDelete