The National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement on Jan 6

On January 5, 2022, DC’s radical mayor, Muriel Bowser, sent a letter to the acting Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the Deputy Attorney General, rejecting any additional assistance from the National Guard and federal law enforcement agencies for Jan 6. Further, she demanded that “any request for additional assistance be coordinated”, apparently with her and using non-emergency protocols and procedures.  Notice that her rejection of personnel from federal law enforcement agencies also included any special forces, from anti-terrorism to ATF units. Bowser’s letter was widely publicized. Thus, mayor Bowser put a huge political roadblock to sending any reinforcement to the Capitol police on Jan 6. Continue reading The National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement on Jan 6

USCP Officer Letter about J6

Attached is a very important letter regarding Jan 6 from a high-ranking Capitol Police officer. The letter, dated by September 28, 2021, describes some events behind Capitol police actions on January 5-6, 2021, unknown to the public and perhaps even to Congressional Republicans. The letter was uploaded by Politico to Scribd, as non-text PDF with low quality OCR, which makes it hard to search or cite. MSM covered this letter for a few days  in October 2021 and then stopped. USCP-officer-letter-J6-OCR-human.pdf is a text PDF copy of this letter, after human assisted OCR and page matching for the ease of citing. It is in the public domain.

According to the letter, USCP Yogananda Pittman and Sean Gallagher (together, P&G) were the main culprits in the Capitol police failures on January 6. The letter states the following about these two:

  • They failed to share the most important intelligence with USCP commanders
  • They were in the command center and acted as USCP force commanders (the Area Command) on the January 6, but did nothing to help the officers who were fighting the intruders
  • They lied to Congress about Jan 6 events
  • Prior to Jan 6, they were promoted to their high-ranking positions under pressure by Congressional members, despite their lack of the operational experience
  • After Jan 6, they have been promoted despite their misconduct on and before that day

The UCPS officer who authored of the letter (the whistleblower) was under the impression that those who attacked the Capitol on Jan6 were associated with a pro-Trump group. Continue reading USCP Officer Letter about J6

Ray Epps was a Democrat Agent Provocateur on Jan 6, Part 2

This continues Ray Epps is a Democrat agent provocateur (“Part 1”).

The agent-provocateur Ray Epps was neither a Trump supporter, nor an FBI asset, but a Democrat party agitator.

There is no evidence of Epps ever being a Trump supporter nor of any political activity on his part since 2011. It is implausible that a man, who was not interested in politics in the last decade, suddenly decides that the Capitol building should be stormed, travels to DC, and successfully commands a crowd to breach the Capitol. It even less likely that he is would not be prosecuted for those actions.

These facts beg the question of how Ray Epps was motivated to become a provocateur and why he has been protected from indictment and imprisonment for his actions. Contrary to what some have suspected, this does not mean that Epps was an agent or asset of the FBI, or another government agency. There is exactly zero evidence linking Ray Epps to the FBI. He is protected by the DOJ, doing bidding of the Democrat party. Continue reading Ray Epps was a Democrat Agent Provocateur on Jan 6, Part 2

Ray Epps is a Democrat agent provocateur

Ray Epps is likely a Democrat agent provocateur, not an FBI agent or asset. 

The evidence:

  1. Ray Epps’ actions went far beyond what an FBI agent or asset would be allowed to do. See below.
  2. Ray Epps was placed on the FBI’s WANTED list on January 8 and scrubbed from it only after he was officially identified by the New York Times, on June 30, 2021. This strongly suggests that the FBI did not initially know of him.
  3. The absence of known connections between Ray Epps and the FBI, a year after his identity was established, also suggests that he is not a fed.
  4. MSM coming to the defense of Ray Epps in a glowing article (“Ray Epps has suffered enormously in the past 10 months as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him…” — NYT, July 13, 2022) is highly suspicious. 

Continue reading Ray Epps is a Democrat agent provocateur

J6 Timeline of Police Actions

07-14 update to the timeline: added Ray Epp at 1250.

07-13 update to the timeline: added that FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich dispatched a FBI tactical teams to the Capitol at 1420.

Almost a year and a half of heavy-handed, one-sided, Democrat investigations into the Jan 6 events have not turned up any evidence of significant planning or preparation of violence by Trump supporters. It is therefore time to look at the situation from another perspective.

Only Democrats stood to gain from a violent disruption of the J6 joint session of congress. This session was the only way for Trump supporters to present the evidence of fraud and debate the electoral slates in question, and the only path that could have resulted in Trump’s victory.

The Capitol police (USCP) and the DC police (MPD) were  ultimately under the command of Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser, respectively. Here is a summary of the security activities of these Dems-commanded forces: Continue reading J6 Timeline of Police Actions

Big Tech took part in J6 Democrat Coup

Only the Dems were interested in violent disruption of the January 6 joint session of the Congress. This post analyzes the mass deplatforming of President Trump by Big Tech on that day.

Twitter and the rest of Big Tech were on the side of the Dems. Contrary to the Dems’ narrative, Trump’s Jan 6 tweets called his followers for peace and calm.

Trump tweets on January 6, 2021, 2:30 – 5:00 pm, DC time

2:38pm Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

3:13pm I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

4:17pm (video in which Trump calls his supporters to maintain peace)

Twitter prevented retweeting and liking the 4:17pm tweet, then deleted it. Then it blocked Trump from tweeting. These actions show that Twitter’s allegations of deplatforming Trump for “inciting violence” were false. The purpose was to support the narrative that the Capitol violence was Trump’s fault, and to cut President’s public communication channels. Continue reading Big Tech took part in J6 Democrat Coup

Big Tech Suppresses Kids Health Damage Info

Google has been funding selected news outlets since at least 2013. This was done to garner their support for Google’s massive theft of third party content from almost all websites. Facebook later joined Google in further funding mostly the same news outlets. This money also buys the media’s positive coverage of Big Tech and protection from non-leftist criticism.

The Guardian, one of Google’s top beneficiaries,  used to periodically publish articles to suppress any inquiry into the damaging mental health effects Big Tech‘s products have on children.

2017-08-13: Are smartphones really making our children sad? was a pretty good interview with Jean Twenge. But one of the questions was: “Your arguments also seem to have been drawn on by the conservative right as ammunition for claims that technology is leading to the moral degradation of the young. Are you comfortable with that?” This  leading question has had a chilling effect on any research on this topic. Such insinuations basically serve as warnings to psychologists to stay away from such research, or they would be charged with the worst crime of our time — giving ammunition to conservative right. Continue reading Big Tech Suppresses Kids Health Damage Info

NOT Trump but Dems were interested in violent disruption of J6 joint session

Updated on July 1, 2022: re-election of Trump could be certified by the joint session by 278 votes. See the subsection Possible Slates Correction

Here, the term “Dems refers to the coalition of Big Tech and other oligarchs, overt racists, street thugs, and the broad Democrat electioneering apparatus. This is the structure of Democrat campaigns now. It does not include Joe Biden.

The Dems Narrative

The Democrat narrative, almost uncontested now, claims that Trump supporters invaded the Capitol on January 6 of 2021 to prevent the certification of Biden-Harris as the election winners. The Biden-Harris ticket had a lead in the slates of electors, certified by states’ executives. The spectrum of opinions then runs from Trump intentionally inciting the crowd to invade the Capitol to antifa and/or “the government” provoked the crowd.

The premise that disrupting the January 6 joint session of the Congress benefitted Trump is rarely questioned in the context of events of that day, even though Trump allies have stated that Trump was not interested in such a disruption. It is unfortunate because this premise is obviously wrong. If the joint session were disrupted on January 6 by Trump’s supporters, it could reconvene on January 7, with better security.

This premise relies on a myth – that the joint session of Jan 6, 2021 was just a formality. This myth was hammered in by the Democrat propaganda before and, especially, after the purported certification of Biden-Harris. Big Tech has been deplatforming people for opposing this myth, and there are calls to criminalize opposition to this myth. Continue reading NOT Trump but Dems were interested in violent disruption of J6 joint session

Death of Michael Stenger

Michael C. Stenger was the Sergeant at Arms of the US Senate, on January 6, 2021. He died the morning of June 27, according to the press reports.

The first public disclosure of Stenger’s death happened no later than 2:11pm ET, June 27  (DC time used here and elsewhere in this article). The Wikipedia article, Michael C. Stenger, was altered by the user Mmmerlot, on June 27 at 2:11pm ET. The word  “is” was replaced with “was” in the sentence “Michael C. Stenger is an American law enforcement officer”. Mmmerlot made another change to the article 10 minutes later. The account Mmmerlot was then deleted by 8pm that same day, despite its long history on Wikipedia. Continue reading Death of Michael Stenger

Big Tech platforms run on Users Private Property – First Amendment Protects Users

The First Amendment protects citizen’s speech , not the Big Tech platforms who interfere with that speech. Contrary to what they claim, the platforms run on their user’s private property.

Re: NetChoice v. Paxton

● The Platforms cannot Claim First Amendment Protection for Their Conduct on Consumers’ Property, including Consumers’ Content and Private Information

● The Platforms are Consumer Services Providers, not Speakers

● Physical Access to Consumers’ Speech is NOT Permission to Editorialize

● The Platforms’ Terms of Service are Invalid

● The Platforms are NOT Even “Like Media”

● The Platforms are NOT Authorized to Access Consumers’ Computers for Editorializing

● The Platforms’ Apps are Physically Installed on Consumers’ Smartphones

● The Platforms are NOT Granted Copyright License for Editorializing

● The Platforms are contractors for the Texas government, which has multiple accounts with them. Texas has the right and obligation to protect its residents, interacting with these accounts, against discrimination by the platforms.

SCOTUS-Platforms-v-Texas–Argument2  contains a more complete argument.

Originally published on 2022-06-02. Updated on 2022-06-08.

Big Tech Legal Drafts and Quotes

Big Social media platforms abandoned  Section 230 protections in the latest SCOTUS application (NetChoice LLC v. Paxton): “From the moment users access a social media platform, everything they see is subject to editorial discretion by the platform in accordance with the platforms’ unique policies.

Of course, trespass, fraud, & sabotage of their consumer is not “editorial discretion”. But they admitted that they show consumers information that they create, not information received from 3rd parties.

Continue reading Big Tech Legal Drafts and Quotes