+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
America has far more at risk from radical Democrats, progressives, liberals and the likes of Soros and billionaire technology folks than from some misguided patriotic Capitol attackers.
Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Stone-cold sober elites are systematically waging a far more dangerous and insidious revolution in the shadows than anything threatened by the American Right.
Recently, Democrats have been despondent over Joe Biden’s sinking polls. His policies on the economy, energy, foreign policy, the border, and COVID-19 all have lost majority support.
As a result, the Left now variously alleges that either in 2022, when they expect to lose the Congress, or in 2024, when they fear losing the presidency, Republicans will “destroy democracy” or stage a coup.
A cynic might suggest that they praise democracy when they get elected—only to claim it is broken when they lose. Or they hope to avoid their defeat by trying to terrify the electorate. Or they mask their own revolutionary propensities by projecting them onto their opponents.
After all, who is trying to federalize election laws in national elections contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? Who wishes to repeal or circumvent the Electoral College? Who wishes to destroy the more than 180-year-old Senate filibuster, the over 150-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, and the more than 60-year-old, 50-state union?
Who is attacking the founding constitutional idea of two senators per state?
The Constitution also clearly states that “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Who slammed through the impeachment of Donald Trump without a presiding chief justice?
Never had a president been either impeached twice or tried in the Senate as a private citizen. Who did both?
The Left further broke prior precedent by impeaching Trump without a special counsel’s report, formal hearings, witnesses, and cross-examinations.
Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?
New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in December decided to ration potentially lifesaving new COVID-19 medicines, partially on the basis of race, in the name of “equity.”
The agency also allegedly used racial preferences to determine who would be first tested for COVID-19.
Yet such racial discrimination seems in direct violation of various title clauses of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
That law makes it clear that no public agency can use race to deny “equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof.” Who is behind the new racial discrimination?
In summer 2020, many local and state-mandated quarantines and bans on public assemblies were simply ignored with impunity—if demonstrators were associated with Black Lives Matter or protesting the police.
Currently, the Biden Administration is also flagrantly embracing the neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal law.
The Biden Administration has allowed nearly 2 million foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally across the southern border—in hopes they will soon be loyal constituents.
The administration has not asked illegal entrants either to be tested for or vaccinated against COVID-19. Yet all U.S. citizens in the military and employed by the federal government are threatened with dismissal if they fail to become vaccinated.
Such selective exemption of lawbreaking non-U.S. citizens, but not millions of U.S. citizens, seems in conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
After entering the United States illegally, millions of immigrants are protected by some 550 “sanctuary city” jurisdictions. These revolutionary areas all brazenly nullify immigration law by refusing to allow federal immigration authorities to deport illegal immigrant lawbreakers.
At various times in our nation’s history—1832, 1861-65, and 1961-63—America was either racked by internal violence or fought a civil war over similar state nullification of federal laws.
In the last five years, we have indeed seen many internal threats to democracy.
Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national to concoct a dossier of dirt against her presidential opponent. She disguised her own role by projecting her efforts to use Russian sources onto Trump. She used her contacts in government and media to seed the dossier to create a national hysteria about “Russian collusion.” Clinton urged Biden not to accept the 2020 result if he lost, and she also claimed Trump was not a legitimately elected president.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has violated laws governing the chain of command. Some retired officers violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by slandering their commander-in-chief. Others publicly were on record calling for the military to intervene to remove an elected president.
Some of the nation’s top officials in the FBI and intelligence committee have misled or lied under oath either to federal investigators or the U.S. Congress—again mostly with impunity.
All these sustained revolutionary activities were justified as necessary to achieve the supposedly noble ends of removing Donald Trump.
The result is Third World-like jurisprudence in America aimed at rewarding friends and punishing enemies, masked by service to social justice.
We are in a dangerous revolutionary cycle. But the threat is not so much from loud, buffoonish one-day rioters on January 6. Such clownish characters did not for 120 days loot, burn, attack courthouses and police precincts, cause over 30 deaths, injure 2,000 policemen, and destroy at least $2 billion in property—all under the banner of revolutionary justice. Even more ominously, stone-cold sober elites are systematically waging an insidious revolution in the shadows that seeks to dismantle America’s institutions and the rule of law as we have known them.
And:
It is one thing to be an incompetent fool, it is another to be a lying, corrupt SOB. Biden is all that and more:
GOP Slams Biden Decision To Ignore Mandate To Disclose How Iran Sanctions Relief Funds Terrorism
By Adam Kredo
Congressional foreign policy leaders slammed the Biden administration's decision to not comply with a legal mandate to detail to Congress how sanctions relief for Iran will bolster the regime's ability to conduct terror attacks.
Republicans in Congress, in comments to the Washington Free Beacon, accused President Joe Biden of obstructing the legislative branch's constitutional oversight role. They say the Biden administration does not want Congress to know how much money sanctions relief provides to Iran's terrorist allies as negotiations with Tehran over a revamped nuclear deal drag into another year.
"President Biden thinks the rules don't apply to him. He thinks he can ignore a statute that mandates he tell Congress how much money he's sending to terrorists," Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who helped spearhead the reporting mandates, told the Free Beacon. "Well, he better be ready in 2023. House conservatives will hold him accountable to the law."
Biden, in a statement issued during the Christmas holiday, said he would not fully obey a reporting provision included in the bipartisan spending bill that mandates the administration account for every dollar Iran receives as a result of lifted sanctions. The administration said providing that information would "include highly sensitive classified information, including information that could reveal critical intelligence sources or military operational plans."
The strenuous reporting requirement, written into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is one of the first of its kind and would have forced the administration to provide an unprecedented look into how the easing of sanctions enriches Tehran's terrorist allies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The noncompliance announcement comes as the Biden administration attempts to reenter a nuclear deal with Iran—using sanctions relief as a bargaining chip. The Biden administration waiver also applies to other NDAA provisions requiring a full accounting of the equipment and classified materials abandoned in Afghanistan when the United States left the country last year, as well as a detailed report on joint U.S.-Taliban intelligence-sharing operations.
Rep. Ronny Jackson (R., Texas), the primary author of the Iran reporting statute, told the Free Beacon that he and his colleagues will not allow the administration to obstruct congressional efforts to mandate transparency.
"Nobody is above the law, and Joe Biden must follow the NDAA that he just signed into law," Jackson said, adding that Biden is "refusing to comply with the law that he himself signed."
"President Biden is taking dangerous actions by going all in to restore the failed Iran nuclear deal. He now appears to be going so far as to wager Israel as a bargaining chip," Jackson said. "I will not stand for this and will be working with my colleagues to do everything we can to stand with Israel and counter Iran's malign behavior."
The NDAA's Iran section was crafted to ensure Congress is given detailed information and an oversight role in the administration's efforts to renegotiate the 2015 nuclear accord, which former president Donald Trump abandoned in 2018.
Ongoing talks with Iran, which have hit multiple speed bumps over the past several months, are centered around sanctions relief. Iran wants every restriction imposed by the Trump administration lifted, and U.S. officials have publicly stated that they are willing to comply with this request if Iran rolls back some portions of its nuclear program, which greatly expanded throughout 2021.
Republican hawks are highly critical of the negotiations and have been trying to avoid a repeat of 2015, when the Obama administration unilaterally approved the nuclear deal without consulting Congress or complying with its information requests. So far, the Biden administration has employed similar tactics, ignoring a slew of GOP-led investigations into the negotiations and the extent of sanctions relief.
The NDAA provision was a bipartisan attempt to force transparency. In addition to the report on sanctions relief, the Biden Pentagon is required to provide Congress with an assessment of how sanctions relief benefits Iran's military infrastructure, including its paramilitary fighting brigades and ballistic missile program. These measures were spearheaded by the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in Congress, and received bipartisan support when the final NDAA was passed by the House and Senate.
"Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. At a time when this administration is choosing to actively negotiate with them, the least they can do is provide Congress with the necessary information regarding Iranian activity and follow the letter of the law," Rep. Pat Fallon (R., Texas), another chief sponsor of the Iran statute, told the Free Beacon. "President Biden and his advisers are choosing to ignore the law and abuse the classification of intelligence. This is unacceptable and I urge this administration to reconsider their claims."
In addition to the Iran reporting section, the Biden administration says it will not come clean about its bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden, in his signing statement, objected to two statutes that would withhold Pentagon funding until it produces "a written description of the military cooperation or military intelligence that was shared with the Taliban." This also would have included a detailed report on "classified material and money in cash that was destroyed or abandoned in Afghanistan or removed from Afghanistan" when the United States exited the country and left the Taliban in control.
The White House National Security Council did not respond to a Free Beacon request for comment on the signing waivers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hillary is one sick lady worse than even Trump. She keeps trying to climb back on board. When McCarthy was no longer in the limelight he drank himelf to death.
Hillary Clinton Says It’s Time To Focus On “What Wins Elections”
(PresidentialWire.com)- Disgraced former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton still hasn’t left political life and is once again telling the Democrats what to do to win elections…despite her having lost two presidential runs already. In December, Clinton took a swipe at Democratic party leadership and told them to think about “what wins elections” instead of doing what they think works best for “deep-blue districts.”
It’s interesting that she’s talking about how Democrats can pander to win elections, rather than telling them to genuinely address the issues people care about. It’s only about winning elections, even when they don’t believe what they say…
During an interview with Willie Geist on NBC, Clinton said that Democrats should get behind having a “vigorous debate” about major political issues, including more voices in the process of governing. However, she also warned that it doesn’t mean anything if Congress can’t “get things done” or if they cannot count on the White House “to be sane and sober and stable and productive.”
It’s hard to tell whether she’s taking a swipe at President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris…
Perhaps both?
“I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win,” she said.
She said that she understands some politicians are working on pushing their “priorities” and that’s what they are elected to do, but insisted it was more important to maintain power.
Okay, so now it sounds a little more like she’s taking a swipe at Kamala Harris.
When even Hillary Clinton realizes that far-left extremism and AOC-style socialism is a bad idea, you know things are going too far.
Perhaps Harris should listen to her, if she wants to save her political career…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The other side, can you hear it? Democrats seize the narrative because winning and retaining power is everything to them. The truth never fazes them.
Democracy Isn’t Dying
Jan. 6 was a riot, not an insurrection, and U.S. institutions held.
By The Editorial Board
The Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, was a national disgrace, but almost more dispiriting is the way America’s two warring political tribes have responded. Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem intent on exploiting that day to retain power, while the Donald Trump wing of the GOP insists it was merely a protest march that got a little carried away.
We say this as a statement of political reality, not as a counsel of despair. Our job is to face the world as it is and try to move it in a better direction. So a year later, what have we learned?
***
One lesson is that on all the available evidence Jan. 6 was not an “insurrection,” in any meaningful sense of that word. It was not an attempted coup. The Justice Department and the House Select Committee have looked high and low for a conspiracy to overthrow the government, and maybe they will find it. So far they haven’t.
There apparently was a “war room” of motley characters at the Willard hotel and small groups of plotters who wanted to storm the barricades. But they were too disorganized to do much more than incite what became the mob that breached the Capitol.
The Justice Department says some 725 people from nearly all 50 states have been charged in the riot, linked mainly by social media and support for Donald Trump. About 70 defendants have had their cases adjudicated to date, and 31 of those will do time in prison. The rioters aren’t getting off easy.
They also didn’t come close to overturning the election. The Members fled the House chamber during the riot but soon returned to certify the electoral votes. Eight Senators and 139 House Republicans voted against certifying the electoral votes in some states, but that wasn’t close to a majority.
The true man at the margin was Mike Pence. Presiding in the Senate as Vice President, he recognized his constitutional duty as largely ceremonial in certifying the vote count. He stood up to Mr. Trump’s threats for the good of the country and perhaps at the cost of his political future.
In other words, America’s democratic institutions held up under pressure. They also held in the states in which GOP officials and legislators certified electoral votes despite Mr. Trump’s complaints. And they held in the courts as judges rejected claims of election theft that lacked enough evidence. Democrats grudgingly admit these facts but say it was a close run thing. It wasn’t. It was a near-unanimous decision against Mr. Trump’s electoral claims.
None of this absolves Mr. Trump for his behavior. He isn’t the first candidate to question an election result; Hillary Clinton still thinks Vladimir Putin defeated her in 2016. But he was wrong to give his supporters false hope that Congress and Mr. Pence could overturn the electoral vote. He did not directly incite violence, but he did incite them to march on the Capitol.
Worse, he failed to act to stop the riot even as he watched on TV from the White House. He failed to act despite the pleading of family and allies. This was a monumental failure of character and duty. Republicans have gone mute on this dereliction as they try to stay united for the midterms. But they will face a reckoning on this with voters if Mr. Trump runs in 2024.
As for the Pelosi Democrats, the question is when will they ever let Jan. 6 go? The latest news is that the Speaker’s Select Committee may hold prime-time hearings this year, and the leaks are that they may even seek an indictment of Mr. Trump for obstructing Congress.
Really? Their constitutional power runs to impeachment, and they’ve already impeached Mr. Trump twice. As our friends at the New York Sun note, such a prosecutorial inquiry runs close to what the Constitution bars as a “bill of attainder” against a single individual. As a way of harming Mr. Trump’s future prospects, we suspect it would work about as well as both impeachments did.
We have an open mind about the Jan. 6 Select Committee, not least because an honest inquiry that laid out the facts could be helpful. But at this point it’s also hard not to see that playing up Jan. 6 has become the main Democratic election strategy for November.
One clue came recently from Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer and House insider. He tweeted on Dec. 20: “My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress. We may even see litigation.” Mr. Elias would rip at democracy in the name of defending it.
***
None of this leaves much cause for optimism—but then we survived Jan. 6, as well as more than a few bad Presidents. Keep your eye on the Constitution’s enduring principles and institutions, and who sustains or tears them down. That’s where self-government will live or die.
+++
Stop Calling Jan. 6 an ‘Insurrection’
That’s a legal term that denotes much more than a sporadically violent riot or disturbance.
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system. Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an “insurrection” is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice.
Many crimes undoubtedly took place at the Capitol that day. Demonstrators rioted, destroyed government property and in some instances engaged in acts of violence. Many are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 371, which makes it a crime “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States,” and with underlying charges of civil disorder, disorderly conduct, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, destruction of government property, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
These are important criminal charges that shouldn’t go unaddressed. But of the hundreds of “Capitol Breach Cases” listed at the Justice Department’s prosecution page, not one defendant is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That’s because insurrection is a legal term with specific elements. No prosecutor would dare mislabel negligent homicide or manslaughter a murder, because they are totally distinct crimes. The media has no legal or moral basis to do otherwise.
The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” A usage note adds that the term implies “an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.” A closely related term, “insurgency,” is “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as a belligerency.”
Other near synonyms include “rebellion,” “revolution,” “uprising,” “revolt” and “mutiny.” All require two elements, neither of which was present in the Jan. 6 breach—the organized use of violent force and the aim of replacing one government or political system with another.
A real insurrection would have required the armed forces to quell an armed resistance. Actual insurrections—apart from the Civil War—include Shay’s Rebellion in 1787, in which thousands of insurrectionists tried to seize weapons from a Massachusetts armory after months of planning to overthrow the new revolutionary government, and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, in which 500 armed men attacked the home of a U.S. tax inspector in Western Pennsylvania. Both events required President Washington to quell the insurrections with thousands of armed troops, who killed several resistors.
The demonstrators who unlawfully entered the Capitol during the Electoral College count were unarmed and had no intention of overthrowing the U.S. constitutional system or engaging in a conspiracy “against the United States, or to defraud the United States.” On the contrary, many of them believed—however erroneously—that the U.S. constitutional system was in jeopardy from voter fraud, and they desperately lashed out in a dangerous, reckless hysteria to protect that system.
The media’s mischaracterization of these events created a moral panic that unfairly stigmatized Trump supporters across the nation as white supremacists conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, resulting in the unnecessary mobilization of armed U.S. troops in Washington.
Those who violated the law inside the U.S. Capitol should be prosecuted and, if convicted, sentenced accordingly. But dramatizing a riot as an organized, racist, armed insurrection is false reporting and dangerous political gaslighting.
The misuse of words, especially involving criminal accusations, can easily result in overreaching enforcement of the law and a chilling effect on free speech, all of which have already happened—and in this case, endanger the very system the rioters’ accusers purport to protect.
Mr. Shapiro served as an assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia, 2007-09 and a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, 2017-21.
And:
+++
Conservatives Wonder How the FBI Has Made Zero Progress on Investigation of One Jan. 6 Threat
By Leah Barkoukis
+++
By Leah Barkoukis
+++
By Julio Rosas
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The entire January 6th episode gave rabid Democrats and their media buddies ammunition. It has nothing to do with one's religion.
Why Jewish Republicans will never call January 6 an insurrection
The Capitol riot was a disgrace. But the more Democrats talk about the January 6th ‘insurrection,’ the ‘Trump coup’ or threats to democracy, the less Republicans, including Jews, are listening
By Jonathan S. Tobin
Perhaps there was a moment — on Jan. 6, 2021 and in the days after it — when the riot that disrupted the certification of the Electoral College vote in the 2020 presidential election could have fundamentally altered the way Americans thought about Donald Trump, and those who believed that he had been cheated out of re-election.
The riot took place after the "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington, D.C., at which Trump and some of his acolytes made wild claims about election fraud. Afterwards, some of those in attendance marched on the Capitol. That led to a violent confrontation with outnumbered Capitol Police, some of whom were overwhelmed by the rioters, while others simply let them walk into America’s shrine to democracy
Though Trump had not specifically asked his supporters to break into the Capitol or commit violence, he was blamed even by many Republicans for having riled up those who had done so.
The soon-to-be ex-president’s stock had declined precipitously. The images from the riot — which included participants’ placardsand apparel showing some were not only far right extremists, but also antisemitic — and the shock they induced among most Americans, seemed to be a turning point for the GOP.
But a year later, it’s obvious that the riot changed nothing — except to exacerbate the already perilous decline into polarization that was afflicting American politics.
How is that possible?
It is due in part to the intractable nature of the partisan culture war into which American politics descended even before January 2021. But it is also a reaction to the way the riot was inflated by Democrats into something that to all appearances and available evidence it was not: an actual "insurrection," or attempted coup d’etat, by Trump and the Republicans.
Even the many Republicans who condemned Trump in the aftermath of Jan. 6 have become convinced that the Democrats’ claim that democracy is at stake isn’t merely partisan hyperbole, but an effort to gaslight the nation into believing that the GOP is a proto-authoritarian party, while they are themselves either complicit in or actively attempting to suppress or delegitimize their political opponents.
Over the course of the last year, every sign of truculent conservative opposition to either the Biden administration or to woke leftist doctrines — whether it is a coded refrain of contempt for President Biden ("Let’s Go Brandon"), or the actions of those resisting the spread of critical race theory teachings in schools — has been labeled as more evidence of an ongoing "insurrection" worthy of condemnation, if not a federal investigation.
Democrats’ hyperbole about the Capitol riot illustrates the problem. They are willing to not merely claim — as the New York Times has done — that "every day is Jan. 6," part of an effort to portray all political squabbles as an extension of the riot, but also to exaggerate it as the moral equivalent of the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter, or as bad if not worse than the 9/11 attacks.
That even a moderate group like the Democratic Majority for Israel would speak of the riot as a broad "plot to destroy America" shows how the discussion has escalated. That has undermined any hope of a consensus about what happened or what it meant.
The same applies to the actions of the House’s Jan. 6 Committee. Conservatives believe the ever-widening fishing expedition being conducted by the committee to implicate the entire Trump administration, congressional Republicans and Fox News personalities in an event in which they had no part as a McCarthyesque witch hunt.
They also see the committee’s efforts to broaden its scope to treat efforts by Trump supporters to come up with legal stratagems to prevent Biden from taking office as a criminal conspiracy as hypocritical, given that some of Trump's strongest opponents were openly considering, though ultimately rejecting, efforts to do the same four years earlier.
That Jan. 6 and the alleged threat to democracy from Republican legislators is being used as a rationale for passing the Democrats’ unprecedented legislative attempt to federalize elections, and discard the guardrails ensuring the integrity of the vote, is also a red flag for conservatives.
That has essentially pushed just about everybody on the right — with only an ever-dwindling band of Never Trump holdouts in the media and Congress as exceptions — to think their opponents’ target is not so much Trump but his voters and all Republicans. And if that is the case, they see no reason to draw any conclusions at all from Jan. 6, except to see its exploitation as even more justification for distrusting the same media and political figures that they have always seen as opponents.
Part of their resistance to the promiscuous use of the term "insurrection" is fueled by what Democrats will label as "whataboutism."
Conservatives point out that only a few months before Jan. 6, there were hundreds of instances of violence and looting in American cities that were part of the aftermath of Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Those "mostly peaceful" riots also involved assaults on law enforcement and attacks on public buildings. But most of the same people in politics and the media who bemoaned the "insurrection" rationalized or even applauded those riots.
They also believe, not without reason, that though Trump’s efforts to treat Biden’s win as the result of fraud was appalling, they followed years of Democrats and liberal media outlets promoting a different set of conspiracy theories about collusion with Russia, whose aim it was to delegitimize the 2016 election results.
And even those Republicans who rightly discount the conspiracies floated by Trump lawyers like Rudy Giuliani about voter fraud in 2020 hold a grudge about what happened that year.
The way Big Tech companies that control social media, as well as mainstream media outlets, did their best to tilt the election toward Biden — including successful efforts to silence discussion about stories that raised the hint of scandal about his family’s activities — is seen as proof of unfair practices that influenced the outcome, even if the election wasn’t stolen.
Nor have the efforts of liberal groups like the Anti-Defamation League to link the Capitol riot to antisemitism on the far right convinced many Jewish Republicans that they are on the wrong side.
The involvement of groups like the Proud Boys in the riot shows how the "Stop the Steal" agitation attracted far right extremists, but it comes at a time when the base of the Democratic Party — and its Congressional caucus — has been welcoming to left-wing antisemites and anti-Zionists.
So Republican Jews simply aren’t listening to what they regard as more of the same bogus claims about Trump — whom they believe to be the most pro-Israel president ever — being an antisemite or an ally of Jew haters.
The failure of Democrats to ostracize the likes of an antisemite like Rep. Ilhan Omar has resulted in people like Steve Bannon, or Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, who, unlike the rioters, are extremists with a foothold on the public square, being essentially given a pass from mainstream Republicans for their activities and statements.
Jewish Republicans may disdain both Bannon and Taylor-Greene, but at such a moment, a willingness to attack potential allies at the behest of political foes is rare on either side of the aisle.
Besides, they are focused on opposing Biden’s policies, especially those concerning Israel and the likelihood of a new round of appeasement of Iran, which they believe are more consequential than the disturbing images from Jan. 6.
You can blame it on the same factors that have created the chasm that separates the two warring political camps. Americans now read, listen and watch different media based on their politics. Social media allows them to completely isolate themselves from opposing views.
The aftermath of the last two presidential elections has also created a situation in which it is difficult to imagine either side accepting a loss — even by a large margin — in any election as legitimate. Both Democrats and Republicans now believe their foes want to destroy the country and are seeking to advance measures that will guarantee their continued control by crooked means.
Jan. 6 was a dark day in American history and the riot was a disgrace. But it is not the electoral game changer in the way liberals speak of it, as polls indicating a potential GOP landslide in the November midterms indicate. The more Democrats talk about "insurrection" or threats to democracy, the less Republicans, including Jews, are listening.
One year after Jan. 6, far from questioning their ties with Republicans, and regardless of whether they think the idea of Trump running in 2024 is a good idea, Jewish Republicans are just as resentful of media talk of "insurrection" as non-Jewish GOP voters.
And they are so disgusted by Biden’s dismal performance that it is likely that few, including those who’d be far happier with one of the other, more attractive GOP candidates waiting in the wings for Trump to retire, would fail to fall in behind the former president if the choice was between him and any Democrat.
No comments:
Post a Comment