The liars and traitors who accuse him of inciting riotous behavior are worthy of scorn and contempt. Antifa and Black Lives Matter joined forces in disguising themselves as participants in the Jan. 6 rally, using a peaceful protest as cover to commit violence and more than likely murder as well.
President Trump has held countless rallies across America that were attended by staggering numbers of people at every venue – and there were no riots or violent behavior. Yet the media in association with pusillanimous Republicans are blaming President Trump for something in which he played no role.
President Trump will always be my president. I will never again support any insider the Republican Party promotes. I take what they have done to my president as a personal insult. They relieved their bowels on me and on all those who believed it right to support a man who held fast to what we believed.
President Trump is now being savaged with the intent to destroy all that he accomplished and to destroy him as a man.
I implore President Trump not to despair. He served with honor and faithfulness to God, country and American interests. We, the thinking People of America, will always remember and applaud your service, Mr. President. And as long as we have life, we will neither forget nor overlook what Republicans and Democrats did to our president. Because what they did to you they did to us.
-- Mychal Massie, Jan. 11 WorldNetDaily column
The left is trying to get rid of President Trump before the end of his term, saying he incited an insurrection in the speech he gave near the White House on Jan. 6. House Democrats have drafted Articles of Impeachment with over 150 sponsors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared Trump's actions to those of President Nixon's in Watergate. Dozens of Democrats and some Republicans are also calling on Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet to remove Trump through the 25th Amendment, saying he is no longer fit for office.
They use a lot of vague, lofty language but are short on specifics. They say he "gravely endangered the security of the United States government." They claim he "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government." What do they cite as his dangerous words? Saying he won the election by a landslide. He encouraged "imminent lawless action" that "interfered with the peaceful transition of power." They assert that he will "remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office."
Does this meet the definition of incitement under the criminal code? In the past, Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. The Supreme Court case Clarence Brandenburg v. Ohio established the legal standard for violent speech, which is speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So let's look at what Trump actually said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." This is the opposite of inciting violence. This is speech protected under the First Amendment. In fact it is the heart of free speech, the right to march in political protest.
As for remaining a threat if he stays in office and thwarting the peaceful transition of power, the Democrats failed to mention in their Articles that after the violence started, Trump tweeted twice denouncing it, then followed up with a video denouncing it again. He conceded the election, saying his "focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
-- Rachel Alexander, Jan. 11 WND column
From here on, under their new relentlessly repeated revisionist narrative, Trump will be the American Hitler and every Deplorable a white supremacist. In their minds, and to the Blue Pill Public, this will justify their every action against conservative speech, thought, symbol, organization and person. The reprehensible rhetoric and tactics of the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hate group will become public policy. BE WARNED: Especially in the early stage, any militant bluster or bravado from Trump supporters will be characterized as hate speech and/or sedition. Marxist Brownshirts will look eagerly for people to make examples of. If you doubt me, just ask Adolfo Martinez who is serving 16 years in prison for the unforgivable crime of burning a "gay pride" flag.
How can the MAGA movement not just survive the purge but emerge from it stronger when it finally wanes? Use your 20/20 hindsight and consider what you would do if you were a Russian Christian during the Bolshevik takeover of 1917.
-- Scott Lively, Jan. 11 WND column
On Jan. 6, 2021, a right-wing mob of a few hundred people broke away from a peaceful right-wing protest involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of American conservatives and forced its way into the U.S. Capitol. One Capitol policeman was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, and one of the right-wing Capitol invaders was shot by a Capitol police officer. (A handful of others who died in the vicinity of the Capitol did so of nonviolent causes.) Aside from smashed windows, the mob seems to have done little damage to the Capitol. Their intent is still not clear. It seems to have been largely catharsis. They hurt no legislators, and if they intended to overthrow the government, they were delusional.
Beginning the next day, the American left used the Capitol mob just as the Nazis used the Reichstag: as an excuse to subjugate its conservative enemies and further squelch civil liberties in America – specifically, freedom of speech.
Another lie was the immediate labeling of the mob attack on the Capitol as "insurrection." All left-wing media and Democrats now refer to the event as an "insurrection," a term defined by almost every dictionary as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." As morally repulsive as the actions of the mob were, they did not constitute a revolt against civil authority or an established government. Disrupting the work of legislators for a few hours – as wrong as that was – does not constitute a "revolt."
But what proves the left's "insurrection" label is a lie is that Democrats and their media never once labeled the left-wing riots of 2020 – which involved the destruction by fire and/or occupation and vandalizing of police stations, and the establishment of "autonomous zones," which, by definition, revolted against "established governments" – as an "insurrection." The enormous number of businesses burned down, looted or otherwise destroyed was barely covered by the mainstream media, and their violent perpetrators were almost never prosecuted, let alone condemned, as engaging in an insurrection. Dozens of people were killed in these riots, yet there was more outcry and condemnation against the hours-long occupation of the U.S. Capitol than against six months of left-wing violent riots.
Then, like the Nazi regime after the Reichstag fire, the left immediately moved to further curtail civil liberties, specifically conservatives' ability to promote their ideas. Twitter and Amazon made it impossible for the alternative to Twitter, Parler, to exist, all in the name of preventing another right-wing "insurrection."
In the name of the Capitol "insurrection," the Democrats announced they would impeach the president of the United States, though he had only 14 days left in office.
-- Dennis Prager, Jan. 11 WND column
Let me put this bluntly: Those who have not listened personally to Trump's speech on Jan. 6 at the Save America rally, who nevertheless assert as an established fact the narrative put forth by leftist news sources that Trump incited people to riot, are allowing ignorance to set their tongues wagging. We know that news agencies have their own biases and that there is often more to a situation than meets the eye. In a world full of emotional manipulation, lying propaganda and psychological warfare used to stir human passions, how do we look past media hype to arrive at a true picture of particular situations?
Many of these eyewitnesses testify to how a relatively small group of individuals who did not exhibit the same spirit or, in some cases, even look like the majority of people present, began to cause trouble at the Capitol building. While a small group advanced aggressively on the Capitol and entered it, many others moved away from the building, realizing that something quite evil and wrong was taking place. People were in fact surprised and confused at what they saw happening.
One witness said he heard a troublemaker say to his colleagues, "We need to shake things up so that these people will look bad." A a result of such experiences, many eyewitnesses who were present believe that the small group of rioters was composed – at least, in part – by Antifa members and other violent revolutionary types disguised as Trump supporters. These infiltrated the rally precisely to give the press corps an opportunity to paint Trump supporters as a group of lawless insurrectionists, ready to explode like a stack of dynamite in order to overthrow the government through mob violence. The experience of many eyewitnesses who were present, whose personal testimony contradicts the narrative of the leftist media, needs to be considered.
The last thing Trump would have wanted, obviously, is for idiots to ruin everything by rioting – which is what some knuckleheads did, either "lunatic fringe" supporters whose contempt for the rule of law finds no support in Trump's speech, or Antifa operatives who disguised themselves as Trump supporters.
Personally, I don't believe for a moment that Trump organized this event to incite acts of violence, vandalism, or insurrection, which makes no sense, if you think about it logically. This is clearly a deceitful narrative created by the left, prior to the facts being fully investigated and known, in order to achieve a political end – to turn public opinion against Trump and his supporters and to provide a pretext for censoring Trump by closing his social media accounts. Their goal is to make Trump look like a dangerous criminal, a lawless insurrectionist, which neither he nor those who support his policies are. That way, Trump's voice and conservative, populist message will be silenced as people feel intimidated to echo that message. Those who rioted were denying everything that the rally and that Trump' s message stood for– which was actually a call for the rule of law to be upheld and to prevail – a goal totally at odds with lawless rioting.
-- Marty Owen, Jan. 12 WND column
The fallout from last Wednesday will likely continue for a long time. The pitchfork brigade that frightened those in the Capitol for a few hours will likely become the face of "conservatives" on direct mail pieces of the Southern Poverty Law Center and their ilk.
But those inside the Capitol were not typical of the vast majority of conservatives, including those who attended the D.C. rally. Pastor and columnist Larry Tomczak was there.
One now-repentant participant inside the Capitol is quoted in the New York Post (Jan. 8): "My decision to enter the Capitol was wrong, and I am deeply regretful to have done so. Without qualification and as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, I condemn the violence and destruction that took place in Washington."
But, of course, if he's looking for forgiveness from the left, he will not find it. There is no redemption from the left.
-- Jerry Newcombe, Jan. 12 WND column
Senators reneged on their promise to object to the Biden electors from Georgia and elsewhere, but senators have no role under the 12th Amendment to interfere with this process. They relied on the disputed Electoral Count Act of 1887, which even liberal scholars have condemned as unconstitutional.
The various senators who sanctimoniously speak out against Trump now have no constitutional authority to pick the next president, or certify electors. The 12th Amendment is clear: The House of Representatives, convening by state delegation, is required to pick the next president when no candidate has a legitimate majority of the Electoral College.The same 138 Republicans who properly objected to certifying Biden electors could still meet under the Constitution to rectify the election of the next president. While Pelosi and Democrats are grasping for other provisions of the Constitution to try to destroy the Republican Party in the waning days of Trump's first term, the 27-20 GOP majority by state delegation could reelect him.
Leftists have taken over the narrative of the rally at the Capitol last Wednesday and completely misrepresented what Trump said, and what his supporters did. Far from the liberal portrayal of a "riot," which has a goal of stealing, vandalizing and injuring, the unarmed protesters were akin to anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s, and many similar ones ever since.
When four protesters were shot and killed at Kent State University in 1970, it was considered a national calamity. But the killing at the Capitol of unarmed pro-Trump 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who had honorably served our country during four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, is barely mentioned by liberals.
-- Andy Schlafly, Jan. 12 WND column
For those of us who saw it, the scene remains embedded upon our psyche, perhaps rekindled as we witness Donald Trump's final days. We see Trump, like the sea captain, left to ponder how his ship of state came to hit an iceberg – his in the form of the Jan. 6 Capitol building break-in by a group of supposedly all pro-Trump supporters – leading to tragedy.
One who probably enjoyed watching the Titanic captain's demise is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. As Trump faces his few remaining days in office, his nemesis, Pelosi, plots a similar end for him.
While Trump has accepted< responsibility for hitting his iceberg, the fallout from it is fueled by the same political enemies he fought his entire term.
Pelosi supposedly is Catholic, although she prioritizes politics over religion by supporting abortion. During Catholic services, attendees make a proclamation from John 14:27, "Peace I leave you, my peace I give unto you." To a heartless witch, this proclamation means nothing, perhaps justifying for Pelosi an appropriate replacement – the letter "w" for the letter "b."
-- James Zumwalt, Jan. 12 WND column