Connect with us

Wire

Professor Drops Nuke on Jan 6 Insurrection Narrative: They Don’t Look Like Trump Supporters

Western Journal

Published

on

This is a tale of two narratives, both by the same man.

The first is a fairly straightforward academic paper, “American Face of Insurrection,” by University of Chicago Political Science Professor Robert A. Pape, saying those breaching the Capitol January 6 were not crazy right-wing kooks, but were closer to the mainstream.

The second is an article, “The January 6 Insurrectionists Aren’t Who You Think They Are,” in Foreign Policy by Pape that says, given the mainstream dimension of those involved at the Capitol, the insurrectionist next door is working with the Republican Party to “rationalize political violence in the future,” as in the upcoming midterm elections.

It is quite a tale. And speaking of telling tales, before we begin, I want to write a few words on words. Words mean things. As a result, when I write the word “insurrection” or “insurrectionists,” I am quoting or paraphrasing what someone has said.

Because the claim that an insurrection against the United States of America occurred on January 6, 2021, is a lie.

It was an incursion, a riot, a false-flag operation, political theater, a trap for conservatives, a demonstration that got out of hand, an orchestrated media event or whatever. You choose. Or be agnostic about it, if you wish.

In the wake of ongoing BLM and antifa rioting and open borders, it was not an insurrection.

That said, Professor Pape’s paper is an analysis of the characteristics of 716 “individuals [who] have been charged with illegally entering the Capitol or Capitol grounds on January 6.”

Pape notes a stereotype leftist’s hold of the participants in the event, quoting from an article The Atlantic:

“Here they were, a coalition of the willing: deadbeat dads, YouPorn enthusiasts, slow students, and MMA fans. They had heard the rebel yell, packed up their Confederate flags and Trump banners, and GPS-ed their way to Washington.

“After a few wrong turns, they had pulled into the swamp with bellies full of beer and Sausage McMuffins, maybe a little high on Adderall, ready to get it done.”

Not so, Pape wrote. Most arrested were under age 55, many were business owners, had college degrees and came from urban, not rural, counties that voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

He based his research on the demographics of those arrested with the demographics of 1) individuals arrested in recent years as “right-wing violent offenders,” 2) the U.S. electorate in general, and 3) Trump supporters.

In his paper, Pape and his associates found “The insurrectionists closely reflect the U.S. electorate on most socio-economic variables and, hence, come from the mainstream, not just the fringe of society.”

And, if they weren’t involved in orchestrating the event, what might give Democrats pause is Pape wrote that the January 6 incursion “appears driven by Millenials and Gen Xers.”

As conservative University of California at Berkeley Professor Steven Hayward noted in the Powerline blog: “And if the energy of the so-called ‘insurrection’ is mostly among younger people, well it means liberals are in for several tough decades ahead.”

While all arrested were Trump activists, there was hardly a baby boomer to be found – only 15 percent were over age 55, compared to 49 percent between ages 35 to 54 and 36 percent under age 35, Pape said.

Pape’s analysis could trace about 500 occupations of the 716 arrested. Significantly, 26 percent were business owners and another 10 percent described themselves as self-employed.

That means more than a third of those arrested don’t fit what might be the stereotype of an individual in a high-pressure demonstration – someone unemployed, underemployed or a student.

Indeed, the unemployment rate among those arrested following the January 6 event was 7 percent, close to the national rate of 6 percent and much lower than the 25 percent of people arrested as “right-wing extremists” in other situations from 2015 to 2020.

While past arrests of “right-wing extremists” found 48 percent belonged to militia-type organizations, of those arrested January 6 there were 51 Proud Boys, 24 Oath Keepers, 18 Three Percenters, along with nine belonging to other groups.

Pape doesn’t touch claims that FBI informants may have been involved. He does note that there were no arrests of members of antifa and says nothing about BLM.

While the general narrative is that those arrested January 6 came from the reddest states, that’s not true, according to Pape. Rather, “Most insurrectionists came from counties that Biden won. Most insurrectionists came from counties that are less white than the national county average. Most insurrectionists came from urban, not rural, counties. Most insurrectionists do not come from counties with higher than average unemployment,” he said.

Pape suggested his “insurrectionists” came from counties with a declining white population. That decline “has a galvanizing effect, and counties that have had higher rates of non-Hispanic white population decline in the last half-decade are likely to produce insurrectionists at a higher rate.”

As Berkeley’s Hayward noted, “It suggests that the Biden Administration’s relentless drive for open borders is going to drive a lot more mainstream Americans into opposition.”

For the most part, Pape’s paper is straightforward in presenting its findings, although, unlike a lot of academic papers, it’s easy to read. Presumably, that’s because Pape wants Democrat leaders to actually read it, rather than sinking in unintelligible multisyllable academic word traps.

But the foreword on his paper gives his agenda away by using language like, “The violent assault on the U.S. Capitol…is a major act of domestic political violence the like of which is unfamiliar in recent U.S. history.”

Pape also wrote: “It is also vital to understand who we are dealing with in the new movement and targeting pre-2021 far-right organizations will not solve the problem.

“Political violence coming from a new mass movement requires new political solutions,” he said.

That’s a summary of the first of Pape’s narratives. To find out more of what he’s saying, we need to go to the second narrative, where he steps away from the charade of academic neutrality.

In the Foreign Policy article published, of course, on the first anniversary of the January 6 incursion, Pape reiterates that the old way of thinking about right-wing extremists no longer applies.

“The insurrectionist movement is mainstream, not simply confined to the political fringe,” he said.

Of those arrested for the Capitol incursion, “more than half are business owners, including CEOs, or from white-collar occupations, including doctors, lawyers, architects, and accountants.

“…In other words, these were people who had something to lose when they went to Washington and carried out this violence,” Pape wrote.

Besides his paper on January 6, Pape cited research from the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats, conducted last summer and fall, that estimated millions of Americans believed Joe Biden was not a legitimate president and that “the use of force to restore Donald Trump to the presidency is justified.

“With a margin of error of 2.9 percent this insurrectionist movement could be as small as 13 million or as large as 28 million.”

Note that Pape said believing something makes one an insurrectionist, whether acted upon or not.

Using a figure of 21 million, Pape said these people “are active and dangerous; an estimated 2 million of them have attended a protest in the past 12 months, 4 million have prior military service, and 8 million own guns.”

Do you see where this is going? Have you attended any protests, comrade? Hmmmm? Marched against abortion last week? Or maybe against rezoning for a new commercial district in your neighborhood?

Are you a veteran? And do you own one of those caliber-measured devices-that-must-not-be-named?

And there’s more. Despite leftist criticism that conservatives are captive to the thoughts of conservative media (42 percent of those with so-called “insurrectionist sentiments” had as their main media source Fox News, Newsmax or One America News Network), 32 percent watch CNN and MSNBC, Pape said. Only 10 percent, he said, get their news mainly from right-wing social media like Gab or Telegram.

“Fringe social media matters,” he wrote in his FP article, “But the insurrectionist movement is mainly consuming mainstream media.”

Pape’s research on January 6 and the surveys conducted in mid-to-late 2021 bring him to these conclusions:

Insurrectionists are mainstream. And they’re everywhere. And they have diabolical plans for 2022.

“The United States is now moving into a highly volatile 2022 election season. The insurrectionist movement is akin to a stockpile of combustible material, much like a vast amount of dry wood that can be set off from a lightning strike or a spark, causing a wildfire.

“The 2022 election season is a tinderbox, where there could be many sparks at the local levels made even worse by the recent changes in election laws in Georgia, Texas, and other states where the counting of the vote has been greatly politicized.”

Democrats are already telegraphing that Republicans will steal the midterm elections. After all, requiring that voters show ID, be properly registered, be citizens and demonstrate residence other than a cemetery show evil aims on the part of the GOP.

So if Democrats get trounced, they can cry foul and sue for recounts and do what it takes to do what they know so well: steal elections.

And Professor Pape is paving the way, preparing us for the insurrectionists at the local precinct.

“…Many millions of Americans sympathize with the rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol,” he has said.

Of course, what Pape does not acknowledge is that every conservative individual commenting on the events of January 6 disavows what happened. We all do.

Having reservations about how the 2020 election was conducted or pipe-dreaming about how malfeasance might be remedied does not constitute insurrection.

And, given his claim of the mainstreaming of protest at the Capitol, if Pape’s analysis is correct, maybe it reflects that government officials have lost the consent of the governed.

That’s being remedied, to be sure, at the local level, as voters — including those in liberal districts — are questioning decisions of their school boards, public health policymakers and elected officials up to the level of President of the United States.

Nobody’s calling for violence.

The people are getting ready to vote, and to make sure their votes count.

That’s not insurrection. That’s America.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Clarence Thomas Speaks Out on Supreme Court Leak: ‘It Changes the Institution Forever’

Western Journal

Published

on

Robert Mueller

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the leak of a draft opinion that could lead to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion has severely damaged the court.

“I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad… I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference, according to Fox News.

He repeated the concern and elaborated further in remarks quoted by The Washington Post.

“I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder — when they’re gone or destabilized — what we’re going to have as a country,” he said, according to The Post.

Thomas has spoken out previously about the pressures faced by the court to rule in ways liberals want.

Last week, Thomas said Americans are “becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” according to the Daily Mail.

“It bodes ill for a free society,” he said, according to The Washington Post.

“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that,” he said then.

Will the court pull back from the opinions expressed in the leaked draft?

Thomas said Friday that, until the leak took place, it was unimaginable that such a thing would happen.

“The institution that I’m a part of — if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone, you would say, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that,’” Thomas said, “There’s such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, belief in what we’re doing, that that was verboten.”

 “And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity, that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said at the conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution.

“Anybody who would, for example, have an attitude to leak documents, that general attitude is your future on the bench,” Thomas said. “And you need to be concerned about that. And we never had that before. We actually trusted — we might have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.”

Thomas said the principle of stare decisis — which means that precedents are generally accepted — is a guideline, not a commandment.

“When someone uses stare decisis, that means they’re out of arguments,” he said. “They’re just waving the white flag.”

He later spoke about those who lack of courage, without being more specific.

 “Like they know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it. And then they come up with all these excuses for not doing it.”

During his remarks, he said that as a black conservative, he has had issues with one particular group.

“People assume that I’ve had difficulties when I’ve been around members of my race,” Thomas said. “It’s just the opposite. The only people with whom I’ve had difficulties are white, liberal elites who consider themselves the anointed and us the benighted. . . . I have never had issues with members of my race.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the leak of a draft opinion that could lead to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion has severely damaged the court. “I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad… I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference, according to Fox News. He repeated the concern and elaborated further in remarks quoted by The Washington Post. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder — when they’re gone or destabilized — what we’re going to have as a country,” he said, according to The Post. Thomas has spoken out previously about the pressures faced by the court to rule in ways liberals want. Last week, Thomas said Americans are “becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” according to the Daily Mail. “It bodes ill for a free society,” he said, according to The Washington Post. “We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that,” he said then.

Will the court pull back from the opinions expressed in the leaked draft?
Thomas said Friday that, until the leak took place, it was unimaginable that such a thing would happen. “The institution that I’m a part of — if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone, you would say, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that,’” Thomas said, “There’s such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, belief in what we’re doing, that that was verboten.”  “And look where we are, where now that trust…

Continue Reading

Wire

Parents’ Group Speaks Out After Reportedly Being Targeted by FBI, Merrick Garland as Terrorist ‘Threats’

Western Journal

Published

on

The head of a parents’ organization — consisting mostly of concerned mothers — that was reportedly targeted by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s FBI said Garland himself is “the terrorist.”

Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice told the Daily Caller she was concerned investigations into the group’s members might “intimate our moms” in a piece published Friday.

The remarks came two days after House Republicans said they’d found smoking-gun evidence the FBI was investigating parents’ groups that had engaged in protests at school board meetings, despite Garland’s protestations to the contrary.

(Here at The Western Journal, we’ve proudly supported parents standing up to woke ideology like critical race theory — and we’ve decried the interference at the federal level by President Joe Biden’s administration. We’ll continue fighting for parental rights. You can help us by subscribing.)

The letter to the Department of Justice, authored by Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and signed by other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, noted the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division had created a threat tag for investigations into parents’ groups — EDUOFFICIALS.

“We have learned from brave whistleblowers that the FBI has opened investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in almost every region of the country and relating to all types of educational settings,” the letter noted.

“The information we have received shows how, as a direct result of your directive, federal law enforcement is using counterterrorism resources to investigate protected First Amendment activity.”

Garland had come under fire after an Oct. 4, 2021 memo directed the FBI to look into “threats” against school personnel.

Should critical race theory be removed from the classroom?

The memo came after a wave of parental protests and contentious school board meetings — particularly in Loudoun and Fairfax counties in Virginia — over critical race theory in the classroom.

“In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools,” the memo read.

“The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.”

During testimony later that month, Garland insisted the directive only involved “concerns about violence, threats of violence, other criminal conduct.”

That doesn’t seem to be the case. The House Judiciary Committee’s letter notes the FBI interviewed a Moms for Liberty member after an investigation that began when a tip submitted to the bureau through the National Threat Operations Center hotline, claimed she told a local school board “we are coming for you.”

The snitch said the mother was a threat because she was part of a “right wing mom’s group” and “is a gun owner.”

Jordan then noted that when the FBI interviewed the mom, they discovered she only meant Moms for Liberty sought “to replace the school board with new members through the electoral process” because of their stance on mask mandates.

Justice told the Daily Caller that she was “sad to see” the FBI investigations “happening to people that care most about this country.”

The mothers who show up at school board meetings, she said, were “genuinely concerned about their children’s education” — but Garland’s DOJ sees them as “the enemy.”

“This should not be happening and we are going to do everything we can to ensure that it stops,” she told the Daily Caller.

In a statement, Justice and her fellow Moms for Liberty co-founder Tina Descovich said this was “proof of what many of us suspected and some of us knew: that the Department of Justice was using counter-terrorism authority under the PATRIOT Act to investigate parents of schoolchildren.”

“We at Moms for Liberty knew first hand of the first example Jim Jordan cited, because she was – as the whistleblower letter says – one of our members,” the statement read.

“The mother was terrified. She had been contacted by the FBI. She had been told by the FBI not to say anything about that call. She had also been told that there were many other mothers being investigated.”

The letter was more confirmation of what Garland has strenuously denied: that FBI resources are being used to treat parents as potential domestic terror suspects without any specific threat.

The House Judiciary GOP had already blown the whistle on the EDUOFFICIAL tag last November. We now have a rough idea of how promiscuously it’s being applied and how little threat there actually is.

While no sinister, violent, far-right threat against school boards has, as of yet, been uncovered, we now have credible reports of the FBI harassing a member of a conservative mothers’ group based off of a cardboard-flimsy rationale.

When Garland’s memo was released, it seemed clear the FBI was being weaponized against a widespread parents’ revolt in which wholly rational anger was being unleashed — in a constitutionally protected manner — against school boards that were adopting woke ideology or prolonging mask mandates beyond reasonable limits. This anger led to, among other things, a Republican sweep of statewide offices in off-year elections in increasingly blue Virginia, including for governor.

Perhaps when Garland was talking about investigating “threats,” he wasn’t talking about any hazard to the well-being of school-board members or educational employees. Instead, it was about the Democrats’ 2022 electoral chances.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The head of a parents’ organization — consisting mostly of concerned mothers — that was reportedly targeted by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s FBI said Garland himself is “the terrorist.” Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice told the Daily Caller she was concerned investigations into the group’s members might “intimate our moms” in a piece published Friday. The remarks came two days after House Republicans said they’d found smoking-gun evidence the FBI was investigating parents’ groups that had engaged in protests at school board meetings, despite Garland’s protestations to the contrary. (Here at The Western Journal, we’ve proudly supported parents standing up to woke ideology like critical race theory — and we’ve decried the interference at the federal level by President Joe Biden’s administration. We’ll continue fighting for parental rights. You can help us by subscribing.) The letter to the Department of Justice, authored by Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and signed by other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, noted the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division had created a threat tag for investigations into parents’ groups — EDUOFFICIALS. “We have learned from brave whistleblowers that the FBI has opened investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in almost every region of the country and relating to all types of educational settings,” the letter noted. “The information we have received shows how, as a direct result of your directive, federal law enforcement is using counterterrorism resources to investigate protected First Amendment activity.” BREAKING: The Biden Administration has mobilized FBI counterterrorism resources to investigate parents, including at least one member of @Moms4Liberty, for expressing protected political speech at local school board meetings. This is a grave abuse of power. pic.twitter.com/MdK0vm51VN — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 12, 2022 Garland had come under fire after an Oct. 4, 2021 memo directed the FBI to look…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week