The Current State Of Our Union.
Oh, did you think that I had forgotten about you all?
No.
As I stated back in the summertime-- we will get through this. But darker times are not completely over.
Our nation is evenly split. We have People Who Want Their Team To Win No Matter What. We have People Who Are Gleefully Showing Shocked Outrage At The Other Team. We have People Who Have Checked Out.
Our President will believe what is reported in his favor. He will strike out at anyone who reports something not in his favor, regardless of the veracity. He and his supporters have repeated the claims so much, it would be like denying faith to examine the claims with any eye toward critical thought, now.
People, long convinced that their votes were dismissed by a tampered-with election, are acting out against the government which they feel has let them down. They believe that the government is enabling the a fraudulently-elevated Biden to be President. They believe that this is life or death, and they have to act.
They have stormed the Capitol. They broke things and hurt people. This is a riot.
They were urged to show up by President Trump. Today was the day on which Congress was to certify the electoral college vote. Somehow, interrupting that count was going to bring some power back to them.
It did not.
What happened is that the pendulum swung a bit harder, separating and dividing us further.
For days, our President has been issuing pardons. For the last couple of days, the discussion has turned toward a phone call which he made to the Secretary Of State in Georgia, whom our President urged to "do a favor," and "find some more votes." Now, the discussion has turned to the issue of our nation's President issuing himself a preemptive pardon. This is ridiculous, because if he can do this, he may act unlawfully with impunity.
We have seen 62 courts throw out challenges to the elections, made by Trump's supporters, usually due to lack of evidence. Some of the judges were Republican appointees. Some even Trump appointees. No court yet tried has found sufficient evidence to intervene in the state elections for President.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R, KY) has called for a cease to the objections to the vote, by the Senate: "I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast," McConnell said. "The voters, the courts and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it will damage our republic forever."
Former President George W. Bush has made the call for the riotous demonstration to end. Numerous Republicans who had pledged to vote to oppose the election results have reversed themselves, and are choosing not to raise objections to the vote. Lindsay Graham, long a Trump supporter, gave an impassioned speech in which he remarked that only Donald Trump could get him to stand with Rand Paul on such an issue. Senator Paul declared that today's riot was "chaos and anarchy that needs to be stopped."
It has been reported that the President's Cabinet has current members who are discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment.
Now, you can say, "Matt, you've just provided links to MainStream Media. And they lie." Oh, I believe that MSM has biases, and gets some things wrong. But unlike your favorite blog or buddy on social media, or you, they actually have a stake in verifying what they say before they say it. We know that our President has lied. We know that a swarm of competing news organizations have shown these facts. Given a choice between our President's specious claims, and numerous professional news sources, I'll go with the news sources. I'll be right more often, if still occasionally wrong.
If you tell me that you would have been up at the Capitol, storming the building, to interrupt the Constitutionally-mandated count today--- I will tell you that I don't respect that.
And that I would have wanted to be up at the Capitol, stopping your unlawful interference.
Shall we go on together, as a nation, now, and lick our wounds, and try to heal?
Labels: in the news, One Nation, Politics
posted by Matt G @ 11:53 PM
17 Comments:
I don’t believe trump will stand down. He will have these people disrupt the inauguration if he can. I am worried his people are the modern day Brown Shirts.
People seem to have a short memory... What happened in 2017 at the Inauguration? Remember? As far as DC yesterday, there are a number of questions being raised, not the least of which is why they were immediately called rioters, not 'protesters' like Antifa/BLM. And no, the president didn't TELL them to go raid the capital. That is BS. Also, from LEOs in that area, there are at least 4 that have been identified as Antifa that were seen in the Capital. Also, why did the Capital Police open the barricades? The MSM is going overboard to paint this in as bad a light as they can. While I hate that it happened, and completely disagree with it, this has been coming. Once that Pandora's box is opened, it's impossible to stuff the rioting, etc. back in.
Fortunately, he has said that he will have an orderly transition of power. That's being played down, but it's a major sea change for him, because it is the first acknowledgement that he is going to leave office. That is as close as we will get to a concession.
Interestingly, the news have discussed at length the attack on the Capitol building, but there has been very little mention of the huge rally held on the mall, by Trump, earlier in the day. I've seen one photo, and that was a big crowd.
Okay, searching for it, I did find some other stories on it.
Matt, if you would. please provide a list of Trumps lies.
Skip, it's too long of a list. But the quick ones which come to mind:
1. COVID: On 02/28/20, he called COVID a "hoax." Yet on 02/7/20, in a interview with author and journalist Bob Woodward, he said of it: "You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus … This is deadly stuff.” He later said to Woodward that he just didn't want there to be a panic, so he "played it down."
2/10/20: "Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away."
2. On his speech on the S. Mall on Weds, right before the Capitol was stormed:
"You know the wall is built; we are doing record numbers at the wall. Now they want to take down the wall. Let's let everyone flow in. Let's let everybody flow in. We did a great job on the wall. Remember the wall; they said it could never be done, one of the largest infrastructure projects we have ever had in this country, and it has had a tremendous impact and we got rid of catch and release, we got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with."
According to a CBP status report, the U.S. has constructed 438 miles of “border wall system” under Trump, as of Dec. 18. Most of that, 365 miles of it, as we said, is replacement for primary or secondary fencing that was dilapidated or of outdated design. In addition, 40 miles of new primary wall and 33 miles of secondary wall have been built in locations where there were no barriers before.
Trump had promised 1000 miles of new wall.
3. He promised that he would release his tax returns. He fought this every step of the way, in the courts, and only a subpoena got them.
4. Here's a fun one, if a touch petty: He claims that he is 6’3” tall. Numerous photos of him standing next to persons of 6'1" or even shorter prove that he is not that tall. Silly little thing to lie about. Yet if a man will lie about something so brazenly false, what else will he lie about? Amusingly, he gave his weight as being so low (232lbs) that he was not considered "obese" (BMI over 30) while I was considered obese at 6'5" and 254 lbs last year. I'll show you a picture, shirt off. People didn't think I was overweight.
5. He said that he was the only one who wanted to close the US to China in early 2020, when he was briefed on the seriousness of the epidemic. No one else present confirms this. In fact, they say otherwise.
6. He said that had bone spurs, but he sure lied about them to get a medical deferment to keep him out of going to Vietnam. His attorney Cohen said that he admitted to lying, to keep out of going to war, and other reports have shown: he can't remember which foot that he had the spurs in, has said that it was both feet, has said that it was medically treated, and then has said that they just went away on their own. Convenient, with all of the golf.
7. Every member of his cabinet who has resigned, he claims to have fired. He brags that no woman ever dumped him; he always dumped her first. This seems to be a point of pride for him that he gets to claim that he fired everyone who ever quit his administration. It's certainly a long list, given that so many of them say that they resigned.
8. How many different ways do you wish to read the lies in the Stormy Daniels affair?
Could go on and on. . .
OldNFO:
"Also, why did the Capital Police open the barricades?"
Sir, please go watch this video:
https://twitter.com/PhilipinDC/status/1347028917685800961?s=20
That is a police force which underestimated the force meeting them, and rapidly getting overrun. They didn't open barricades. With the exception of one cop who came in late to the game, they were being too passive, admittedly.
And no, the president didn't TELL them to go raid the capital.
No, after they had chanted "fight for Trump," he said:
"So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
While I would not be completely surprised if a few ANTIFA anarchists went to such a rally, please know that ANTIFA was not behind the Capitol riot. Those were pro-Trump people. And I'm not saying that they were representative of Pro-Trump people. They were extremists. But they were extremists within the Pro-Trump movement. Hell, from cops at the scene, there were some people displaying badges as they raided the Capitol, to show that they were off-duty cops. Do they represent us cops? No. They were trying to avoid enforcement being taken against them.
. What happened in 2017 at the Inauguration? Remember?
I'll be honest when I tell you that I apparently don't remember what happened at the presidential inauguration, though I was listening to it, as I was driving to go hunting with you. :) Are you referring to the dispute over the size of the crowd? That's all I recall about it.
Again, I'll urge you to watch the video of pro-Trump supporters assaulting Capitol Police and overrunning the barricades, while shouting "This Is Our House" over a megaphone.
It was over a decade ago when I was a young patrol officer in Cowtown who occasionally stopped by your page. I'm not as young, nor in patrol, but I'm glad to have become reacquainted with it.
Very well said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/washington-faces-more-anti-trump-protests-after-day-rage-n709946
Also, the 'net is beginning to identify numerous Pro-Trump fanatics from photos of the event.
This guy ain't ANTIFA.
That dude in the furs and horns? That's Jake Angeli, a noted Trump Supporter from Arizona and Q-Anon supporter. His torso tats make it easy to identify him. Q-Anon has been pushing for Trump to "#CrossTheRubicon" in their dog whistle statements. Their hero Gen. Flynn has been associated with this idea, along with, of course, his proposal for President Trump to declare martial law. Long after he Tweeted that, General Flynn (I suppose that we still refer to a retired General by his rank, even after he was convicted of a felony.) was still in meetings with Trump, advising him. My suspicion is that his biggest attraction to Trump was Flynn's affiliation and draw with Q-Anon, though that's admittedly just my speculation.
Then there's this guy.>This guy wasn't ANTIFA.
Now, we KNOW some left-wing shit-stirrers were likely on scene, because "left-wing activist John Sullivan and documentary filmmaker Jade Sacker" were there filming, when Ashli Babbitt got shot. I don't know that they were doing mischief, but it seems pretty probable.
Okay, OldNFO, I read the story. I'll admit that I didn't recall such a fracas. It's interesting, and abhorrent. Every one of those participating in the riot needed to go to jail.
But what is your point? That it's tit-for-tat?
Those rioters were being destructive and blocking intersections. They set fire to a limo. They were focused "...Franklin Square, about a mile-and-a-half from Capitol Hill, just before Trump's swearing-in ceremony got underway, police said."
They were anarchists. They were of the same ilk as those who did the Occupy stuff, and the ANTIFA stuff. They were "Occupying" Seattle and New York and maybe a bit of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
But the group who came into the Capitol building-- they were a mob, but they were a politically-motivated mob. They went with the specific purpose of stopping the vote count, and were urged to do so by Donald J. Trump, less than an hour before. They were whipping themselves up, with people with bullhorns and such. Do you think it was spontaneous? That many wore body armor and gas masks, and carried striking weapons and even IEDs?
I do NOT believe that the vast majority of the Pro-Trump supporters present intended to blow up the Capitol or hurt Congress. I do believe that they marched on the Capitol with intent to break in and wreak havoc. I do believe that they attacked with recklessness about who got hurt. I do believe that most, if not all, went to rally with intent to break down the process of the vote count. And, because these destructive goals were in keeping with ANTIFA's, I'm quite sure that there were some ANTIFA people joining in.
But everyone there was just as radical as ANTIFA, and frankly, they were, on 01/06/2021, more dangerous.
Welcome Back. Please stay and keep the conversation going.
Very much agreed, sir, and appreciate your eloquence in describing it. Afraid this will be an extremely divisive issue, as OldNFO's comments neatly demonstrate.
My point, Matt, is that it was buried quickly by the media. No follow up, zip nada... The double standards, both on the media side and the Dems side are quite evident.
I can't agree with you on the desires of the majority of the crowd. No question a few were stupid, but they didn't burn the place, didn't tear down a single statue, and the ones that entered SHOULD be held accountable, which is quite different than what has been happening all year when the left's protesters were arrested (most of them were back on the street in 4 hours or less, charges dropped).
OldNFO, look at the video of this mob at the Capitol:
Police Officer Dragged Down Capitol Steps And Beaten By Mob Chanting "U.S.A."
(I don't know if it's behind a paywall or not.)
I think that it's important that you watch it, to convince yourself that:
1. This wasn't a false flag event put on by ANTIFA.
2. Despite the implication of your demand about "why did the Capital Police open the barricades?", the police there were fighting, potentially for their lives.
3. Also, despite what you said about "MSM is going overboard to paint this in as bad a light as they can," I think that the case could be made that it wasn't at that time painted badly enough, because they didn't have as much evidence then as they do now. Recall, several senators who were there changed their mind about objecting to the vote that very night, having seen the violence.
I would be curious what an eye in the sky would find the crowd count to have been.
So, let me know: Are you cool with what happened on 1/6/21? Not "well, they did thus and so, so now we get to..."
There are objective rights and wrongs to examine. You're not surrendering your status of being "Not A Libtard," if you call this out as frickin' wrong. And this needn't bear on our personal relationship. It's about you seeing an action, committed by actors who are ostensibly on your "side," and saying "Okay, that's too far. That is wrong."
In the video of the officer being dragged down the Capitol steps, there's about a hundred to a hundred-and-fifty just in the tight lens of the telephoto, cheering the attack on a Capitol Hill police officer, beating him with sticks and, in one case, with a US flag staff. The whole of the crowd is substantially larger, because you can hear persons in the crowd speaking individually, from right beside the photographer, who is a good distance away from the action that he focused upon.
I'll be honest-- as much as I abhor ANTIFA, I don't see how the ruckus by an anarchist group has anything to do with a concerted effort to interrupt and threaten Congress, urged by the President.
I'll be honest-- as much as I abhor ANTIFA, I don't see how the ruckus by an anarchist group has anything to do with a concerted effort to interrupt and threaten Congress, urged by the President.
___________
Let me start with what I don't know, but which I suspect:
--A large portion of that group was driven by an adherence to things put forth by Q Anon, which was making a concerted effort for just this.
--President Trump kept Gen. Flynn on his advisory staff because of strong pull with Q Anon.
--Gen. Flynn, a trained organizer, advised what President Trump should say, and under his advice, Q Anon motivators were placed among the crowd, some with bullhorns. Others at the rally spoke more overtly ( <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9130413/Mo-Brooks-REFUSES-apologize-urging-patriots-names-kick-ass-riot.html”> 'What are you willing to do? 'We came here to take names and kick ass!' Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks </a> )
--They came to Washington with intent to intimidate the Congress, and to stop the vote in the Senate, because they had a plan to do so all along. And Presidency DJT was okay with it, if it gave him any hint to stopping the process which would stop his Presidency.
_____________
You notice that I clearly labeled what I am speculating about. I made clear that I am not labeling it as FACT, because I obviously don't have enough proof. That is a good habit to get into.
I feel like we have gotten into this situation by way of what our friend Roberta X refers to as “Evidentiary Lysenkoism”: the belief that the assertion that you have evidence is the same thing as actually having and showing evidence.
Post a Comment
<< Home