Given a list of choices, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is the top guess as to who Donald Trump will choose as his running mate. That’s according to our latest…
The following is from Just the News. The House Judiciary Committee has opened an inquiry to whether the IRS is using artificial intelligence to invade Americans’ financial privacy after an…
Good reminder here not to confuse NBC with troubled offspring MSNBC. Latter no doubt established as dumping ground for its lowlife & not-so-bright, etc.
There is a common denominator in most of these attacks, and it has nothing to do with race.
Drug use and/or mental illness. Think about it- this guy slammed into a checkpoint, and upon disabling the LEOs on site exited the car with a KNIFE. A knife? Didn’t he know he would face armed security at some point, even if he made it into the building?
And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
– Matthew 20:32-34 kjv
I was almost certain when I heard that the suspect in the Capitol attack had posted about the Nation of Islam that it would find its way into this newsletter because it fits the narrative that this newsletter is clearly trying to promote. And what’s more, rather than providing a more complete set of facts about possible motives, such as the reported facts that the suspect thought that he was under government “thought control” and that his family had expressed concern about his mental state, we are left with a binary choice about possible motives (“It is not known whether there was a racial motive in the attack by the suspect, who is black, against officer Billy Evans, who is white; or if anti-police sentiment was a motive.”). How about this for a motive? There was none – the guy was simply delusional.
To her credit, SA provides a link to an NBC story for those that are willing to go the extra mile that does provide a lot more complete version of events. Note that the NBC story eschews the sensationalistic headline about the Nation of Islam.
The story then segues into a rehash of the Capitol riots. First we are told that “some Democrats” are fearful about an “imminent threat of attack by white supremacists and/or Trump supporting “insurrectionists” (why the quotes around “insurrectionists” as if that isn’t an accurate description of who the rioters were?). Then we are told that this is the first actual security threat at the Capitol since the riot. So I guess we are supposed to conclude that “some Democrats” are being irrational?
And no description of the riot would be complete without a mention of the ONE BLM sympathizer that has been arrested thus far and a reairing of some of his incendiary, threatening language (and speaking of threatening language, how about “hang Mike Pence”). This is the third time that John Sullivan has been mentioned in this newsletter. Yet I can’t remember a single mention by name of any of the other rioters that have been arrested. At least there is a passing mention that rioters included “Trump supporters” (ya think?). According to what I read, at least 57 of those arrested have ties to right-wing extremist groups. But you wouldn’t know that from reading this newsletter. How about a profile and quotes from some of those folks?
So far, it’s just standard slanted coverage – emphasize the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that don’t. But then the story veers into truly strange territory with the discussion of the death of Brian Sicknick by raising doubts about how he died. It doesn’t appear that he died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher as originally reported. Perhaps it was because of the bear spray or perhaps he suffered a heart attack as a result of the stress of the situation. The specifics certainly matter to those being charged, but a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the larger point. Does anyone really think that Sicknick wouldn’t be alive today if the riot hadn’t occurred?
Finally, I don’t get the need to state that “Antifa activists” used bear spray during last summer’s riots. I’m not disputing that it’s true. But what relevance is it to the Capitol riots? Are we supposed to believe that because others acted badly last summer that somehow gives these insurrectionists leave to act badly now? Are we supposed to believe that the use of bear spray is “proof” that Anitfa had infiltrated the riot? Please tell us. Don’t make us guess.
The short answer is that my response was not intended to be any of the things that you mentioned. No one should apologize for, excuse, or justify the attack. Full stop. My response was about the fact that the article mentioned only two possible motives (anti-white or anti-police) when there are many reports of likely mental illness. It might turn out, of course, that it wasn’t mental illness at all. But that seems like the far most likely cause right now, and it certainly deserves at least as prominent a mention as the other causes.
Ironically, I could ask the same question of SA that you asked of me. Is the continued flogging of the story of John Sullivan (the ONE known BLM sympathizer arrested in the Capitol riots) an apology for the riot, an excuse for the riot, or a justification for the riot? The rioters were overwhelmingly Trump supporters (at least those known right now), but the newsletter articles are filled with references to BLM and Anitfa as if either of these “organizations” had any serious role in the riot. As with the story of Brian Sicknick and the questions about the specifics of his death, does anyone really think that the riot would have occurred absent the involvement of Trump? Yet our attention keeps being directed to other things and away from Trump and his supporters. I can’t say that that is intentional. All I can say is that it is repeatedly happening.
The “mainstream media” do not want to touch this story with a ten foot pole.
Like the James Hodgkinson story from 2017, it will be quickly tossed into the dust bin of journalism and only referred to in the most abstruse terms.
Good reminder here not to confuse NBC with troubled offspring MSNBC. Latter no doubt established as dumping ground for its lowlife & not-so-bright, etc.
There is a common denominator in most of these attacks, and it has nothing to do with race.
Drug use and/or mental illness. Think about it- this guy slammed into a checkpoint, and upon disabling the LEOs on site exited the car with a KNIFE. A knife? Didn’t he know he would face armed security at some point, even if he made it into the building?
And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
– Matthew 20:32-34 kjv
I was almost certain when I heard that the suspect in the Capitol attack had posted about the Nation of Islam that it would find its way into this newsletter because it fits the narrative that this newsletter is clearly trying to promote. And what’s more, rather than providing a more complete set of facts about possible motives, such as the reported facts that the suspect thought that he was under government “thought control” and that his family had expressed concern about his mental state, we are left with a binary choice about possible motives (“It is not known whether there was a racial motive in the attack by the suspect, who is black, against officer Billy Evans, who is white; or if anti-police sentiment was a motive.”). How about this for a motive? There was none – the guy was simply delusional.
To her credit, SA provides a link to an NBC story for those that are willing to go the extra mile that does provide a lot more complete version of events. Note that the NBC story eschews the sensationalistic headline about the Nation of Islam.
The story then segues into a rehash of the Capitol riots. First we are told that “some Democrats” are fearful about an “imminent threat of attack by white supremacists and/or Trump supporting “insurrectionists” (why the quotes around “insurrectionists” as if that isn’t an accurate description of who the rioters were?). Then we are told that this is the first actual security threat at the Capitol since the riot. So I guess we are supposed to conclude that “some Democrats” are being irrational?
And no description of the riot would be complete without a mention of the ONE BLM sympathizer that has been arrested thus far and a reairing of some of his incendiary, threatening language (and speaking of threatening language, how about “hang Mike Pence”). This is the third time that John Sullivan has been mentioned in this newsletter. Yet I can’t remember a single mention by name of any of the other rioters that have been arrested. At least there is a passing mention that rioters included “Trump supporters” (ya think?). According to what I read, at least 57 of those arrested have ties to right-wing extremist groups. But you wouldn’t know that from reading this newsletter. How about a profile and quotes from some of those folks?
So far, it’s just standard slanted coverage – emphasize the facts that help your case and ignore the ones that don’t. But then the story veers into truly strange territory with the discussion of the death of Brian Sicknick by raising doubts about how he died. It doesn’t appear that he died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher as originally reported. Perhaps it was because of the bear spray or perhaps he suffered a heart attack as a result of the stress of the situation. The specifics certainly matter to those being charged, but a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the larger point. Does anyone really think that Sicknick wouldn’t be alive today if the riot hadn’t occurred?
Finally, I don’t get the need to state that “Antifa activists” used bear spray during last summer’s riots. I’m not disputing that it’s true. But what relevance is it to the Capitol riots? Are we supposed to believe that because others acted badly last summer that somehow gives these insurrectionists leave to act badly now? Are we supposed to believe that the use of bear spray is “proof” that Anitfa had infiltrated the riot? Please tell us. Don’t make us guess.
Nice balanced writing,
I cannot determine if it is an apology for the attack, an excuse for the attack, or a justification of the attack?
As far as white right-wing radicals, I have heard that used to describe the boy scouts.
The short answer is that my response was not intended to be any of the things that you mentioned. No one should apologize for, excuse, or justify the attack. Full stop. My response was about the fact that the article mentioned only two possible motives (anti-white or anti-police) when there are many reports of likely mental illness. It might turn out, of course, that it wasn’t mental illness at all. But that seems like the far most likely cause right now, and it certainly deserves at least as prominent a mention as the other causes.
Ironically, I could ask the same question of SA that you asked of me. Is the continued flogging of the story of John Sullivan (the ONE known BLM sympathizer arrested in the Capitol riots) an apology for the riot, an excuse for the riot, or a justification for the riot? The rioters were overwhelmingly Trump supporters (at least those known right now), but the newsletter articles are filled with references to BLM and Anitfa as if either of these “organizations” had any serious role in the riot. As with the story of Brian Sicknick and the questions about the specifics of his death, does anyone really think that the riot would have occurred absent the involvement of Trump? Yet our attention keeps being directed to other things and away from Trump and his supporters. I can’t say that that is intentional. All I can say is that it is repeatedly happening.