Mediaboss Marketing

Will Jan. 6 be our next new national holiday? Perhaps it won't go so far as that. But there's been a campaign to make next week's anniversary of the Capitol riot the most important date on the calendar.

Democrats and a tiny cohort of their Never-Trump former (or soon to be former) Republican allies hope the day will live forever in the American memory. As far as they are concerned, every day since then has been Jan. 6. They have never stopped talking about it and the perfidy not only of the rioters but also of former president Donald Trump and, by extension, everyone who supported him. Almost all Americans felt outraged at the appalling spectacle of a mob breaking into the Capitol. But Democrats are now seeking to inflate the events of that day out of all proportion to what actually happened in order to distract the country from their own disastrous conduct since assuming control of the White House and both Houses of Congress.

As far as Democrats and their media cheering section are concerned, what happened on that day wasn't a riot. Within days they hit on the idea of reimagining it as an "insurrection," a term that has become standard usage in many fora. From that point on, it has been variously described as the moral equivalent of the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter and even the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, in the view of some, recalcitrant Trumpists of all sorts amount to "domestic terrorism."

Many now tell the story of Jan. 6 with the same reckless determination that for years characterized the ultimately debunked claims that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

The House of Representatives' Jan. 6 Committee has similarly embraced the "insurrection" idea. The events of that day unfolded live on television so there isn't really much doubt about what happened. But that hasn't stopped the committee from turning it into fodder for a new set of conspiracy theories in its ever-widening fishing expedition for "evidence." It has now resorted to issuing subpoenas for persons wholly unconnected to the riot, so as to give credence to the notion that Jan. 6 must have somehow been orchestrated by the Trump White House, Republicans in Congress or even Fox News Channel personalities.

The rioters were inflamed by speakers at a "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington largely predicated on conspiracy theories about Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election. The rally, at which Trump spoke, included a protest against the congressional certification of the Electoral College vote. Trump and others encouraged the attendees to think that there was some legal method of halting or rejecting the votes that had already been cast by the states.

That was both incorrect and deeply wrong. There was much to criticize about the way the election was held, and how Big Tech oligarchs and certain media companies sought to help Joe Biden beat Trump. But by Jan. 6, 2021, the outcome was settled. While many Republicans planned to make a symbolic protest by voting not to accept the certification of the vote, some who came to Washington that day believed the election was literally stolen.

A group of those people broke away from the rally once it concluded and then stormed the Capitol. Some engaged in violence against the police while others were, inexplicably, allowed in, sending members of the House and the Senate scurrying for safety. That discredited the otherwise peaceable Trump rallyas did the former president's slowness to condemn the riot.

Yet contrary to the misleading reporting about the incident, those who entered the Capitol did not have actual plans to kidnap or harm anyone. They wandered about the premises like misplaced tourists. Their conduct was inexcusable and all those who participated deserve to be punished for any violence they committed and for breaking and entering into America's shrine of democracy.

Yet as awful as that was, it wasn't an attempted coup d'etat. After a year of investigations, not a shred of proof has been produced to the contrary.

Nor, despite claims from some Democrats and media outlets, did they commit murder. The only person who was actually killed as a direct result of the riot was one of the rioters: Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed 35-year-old Iraq War veteran who was fatally shot by a Capitol policeman despitebased on video of her killingposing no direct threat to anyone.

Had Babbitt been a Black Lives Matter protester at any one of the hundreds of "mostly peaceful" convulsions of violence and lootingincluding attacks on police and assaults on government buildingsthat took place in America's cities last year, she would have been acclaimed as a martyr and her killer would have been indicted. Instead, she was widely derided as a "traitor" and the investigation into her shooting was quickly dropped.

The BLM riots are a useful analogy because, only months earlier, the same people who have embraced the insurrection myth shrugged their shoulders or rationalized away far more violence when it was done on behalf of a cause they liked.

Jan. 6 has become the focus of a new set of conspiracy theories in which Trump and Republicans can be presented as the foes of democracy. These theories allow the Left to categorize resistance to either the Biden administration's pandemic policies or woke doctrines as another version of the insurrection, similarly deserving of federal investigation.

Even as inflation rages out of control and the pandemic continues on Biden's watch, for liberals, the only thing that matters is that their political opponentsand not just an unruly mobare proto-authoritarians who must be discredited and defeated at all costs. That's why the narrative surrounding Jan. 6 is so important to them.

What really happened on Jan. 6 was bad enough. But by transforming it into something that it clearly wasn't, Democrats have overplayed their hand and convinced even many on the Right who were ready to blame Trump for his behavior that the goal of this exercise is to cast all dissent as treasonous. This has injected another toxic meme into our already poisoned political discourse and made it all the harder to imagine any future election being accepted by the losers regardless of which party wins. That's a big lie that will do as much damage in the long run, if not far more, as anything said or done on Jan. 6.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org, a senior contributor for The Federalist and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Original post:
Democrats' Own 'Big Lie' Will Be the Focus of Jan. 6 Hoopla | Opinion - Newsweek

The nation is facing a retirement income crisis.Social Security is unquestionably the nations most importantsource of retirement income. But the last time Congress expanded Social Security was when Richard Nixon was president. Unless this Congress addresses the crisis by expanding Social Security, too many Americans will be unable to retire without a drastic and precipitous drop in their standards of living.

As the wealthiest country in the history of the world, America can afford to protect and expand Social Security if we require those at the top to contribute their fair share. The good news is that this Congress is poised to take action.

Rep. John Larson John Barry LarsonDemocrats should make Social Security a top issue in the midterms here's how and why It shouldn't be this hard to grow old in America House Democrats reintroduce Social Security reform bill MORE (D-Conn.), chair of the House Social Security Subcommittee, just held ahearingon his legislation,Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust. The 2100 Act isco-sponsoredby 90 percent of House Democrats and incorporates all of the expansions that President Joe Bidenpromisedduring his winning campaign.

The legislation increases Social Securitys modest benefits both across the board and also in long overdue ways. It adds a caregiver credit, restores student benefits, improves benefits for widow(er)s, and much, much more. It pays for every penny by requiring the highest paid earners to contribute to Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us.

Although no Republican politician has co-sponsored the expansion legislation, protecting and expanding Social Security has strong bipartisan support among those who count most the American people. Largemajoritiesof Republicans, Democrats, and independents overwhelmingly support Social Security expansion. But Republican politicians are listening to their corporate donors, not their voters.

Now is the time for Democrats, who currently control both houses of Congress and the White House, to bring Social Security expansion to a vote. Theres no better way to show constituents the difference between the two parties on this essential, bread-and-butter issue.

Social Security is a priority for voters. A Public Policy Polling survey conducted in 2018found that56 percent of those who voted for Donald TrumpDonald TrumpNews networks see major viewership drop in 2021 Man who told Biden 'let's go Brandon' goes on Bannon's podcast, touts Trump Democrats should make Social Security a top issue in the midterms here's how and why MORE and 55 percent of those who identify as Republican would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported expanding and increasing Social Security.

Expanding Social Security, while requiring those at the top to contribute more, will help to reverse income and wealth inequality an issue President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaDemocrats should make Social Security a top issue in the midterms here's how and why How American conservatives normalize anti-Semitism VP dilemma: The establishment or the base? MOREcalledthe defining challenge of our time. That inequality not only exacerbates the retirement income crisis; it also costs Social Security billions of dollars of revenue every year.

Because the earnings of high-income workers have increased much more rapidly than the average over the last several decades, an increasing amount of their earned incomefalls above the current $142,800 cap on which Social Security contributions are assessed.That cap has slipped from covering 90 percent of nationwide wages, as Congress intended, to 83 percent today.As a result of that seemingly small slippage,those at the top paid $84.4 billion less to Social Security justin 2020 alone. Those are billions of dollars that should have gone to Social Security but instead stayed in the pockets of the wealthiest among us.

Moreover, congressional action on legislation which both expands benefits and reduces Social Securitys projected shortfall by more than half, as the 2100 Act does, will begin to restore the intangible benefit of peace of mind that Social Security is intended to provide. Too many Americans have lost that sense of security because they have heard, erroneously, that Social Security will disappear and they will never receive their earned benefits. A vote on safeguarding and expanding Social Security will restore the American peoples confidence that Congress is a responsible steward of their earned benefits.

Expanding Social Security willstrengthen the economyand create jobs.Because the vast majority of Social Securitys 65 million beneficiaries are low or moderate income, they tend to spend their benefits immediately in the local community in which they live. Social Security is especially important to rural communities, which tend to be older.

In short, Social Securityis a solution. Protecting and expanding Social Securitys modest benefits is wise policy and represents the will of the people. It will improve the economy, create jobs, and add substantially to the security of working families.

It is imperative that this Congress vote on Social Security. Democrats must make Social Security their next top priority. They must force Republicans to stop hiding and make their views clear in an up-or-down vote. If they do, voters will reward the party that created Social Security and continues to protect and improve it.

The Democrats will then be following the vision of President Franklin Roosevelt who proclaimed, when he signed Social Security into law, that he was laying down a cornerstone in a structure whichis by no means complete. President BidenJoe BidenFauci says CDC cut isolation time so people return to work faster Overnight Health Care CDC cuts isolation time for the asymptomatic Energy & Environment 2021's weather disasters cost 0B MORE, Chairman Larson, and the Democratic Party are poised to take the next step in completing this essential structure.

Nancy Altman is president of Social Security Works.

See original here:
Democrats should make Social Security a top issue in the midterms here's how and why | TheHill - The Hill

In his column Pa. Democrats have a union problem (Dec. 12,TribLIVE), Michael Torres attempts to prove that the Democrats are in trouble because they are siding with hard-working Americans and defending unions (one of the few institutions that actually works to protect working people).

Donald Trump, leader of the GOP, is being investigated for the coup he started, as well as a variety of tax dodges and frauds. There are millions of Democrats and unionists who are honest. Likewise Republicans. Finding honest GOP politicians may be harder.

The Jan. 6 commission has evidence that Trumps coup against Biden was facilitated by Republicans in the highest levels of government. In Congress, a majority of the GOP support the coup and insurrectionists who viciously assaulted police for protecting the Capitol and representatives and senators from the mayhem. State and local Republicans are passing new laws that may ensure that from now on only GOP politicians will win.

I think that both unions and Democrats will survive Torres attack. That is a lot easier to defend than a bunch of racist barbarians brutalizing police and breaking into the capitol to brutalize or kill people to impose a wannabe dictator who cant accept that he lost.

Leo Nagorski

Shaler

See the original post here:
Letter to the editor: There are honest Democrats, unionists - TribLIVE

Israeli author Einat Wilf, a former Laborite politician now a visiting professor at Georgetown University, spoke to the Israel lobby group Democratic Majority for Israel this month and offered advice to American Democrats. They need to issue some not pleasant messages to Palestinians about the Jewish right to a state. And Democrats must accept that Palestinians wont like them.

I had to wrestle with the fact that Im not a nice person, Wilf explained. And I accepted it. Because ultimately I do believe that the right of the Jewish people to self-determination is one of the most justified ideas.

Introduced by Arizona State Rep. Alma Hernandez, Wilf said that the conflict will end when Palestinians finally accept that Zionism is an indigenous liberation movement and therefore Jews have a right to self-determination in a Jewish state on lands where many Palestinians once lived. She explained how this was a not pleasant message for Democrats to send:

I believe that we need to first address the underlying conflict. And we need to do that by sending messages that I know especially for Democrats are not pleasant. The messages that need to be sent are, The war of 1948 is over, Israel is here to stay, the Jewish people have a historical and cultural and deeply-felt connection to the land of Israel, they are not foreigners, they belong there and have the right to self-determination.

You are not still refugees from a war that ended 70 years ago. And there will be no return because there is no such right. Not for you, not for the Germans, not for the Ukrainians, not for the Poles, not for the Hindus, not for the Muslims. Nobody has that right, and youre not special.

Now I know that these are not pleasant messages. Im from the political left in Israel. One of the things that people from the left like to believe is that they belong to the camp of the good. You know, we are for good things compromise, equality, justice. I had to go through a very wrenching and difficult emotional process to understand that even though I support two states and no settlements and end to the occupation and dividing Jerusalem and all of these things, as far as Im considered from the Palestinian perspective it doesnt make me a nice person because I still think that the Jewish people should have a state in the other part of the territory. Thats still from their perspective a terrible idea, a vile idea.

So I had to wrestle with the fact that Im not a nice person. And I accepted it. Because ultimately I do believe that the right of the Jewish people to self-determination is one of the most justified ideas. Again, I think it doesnt have to come at the expense of the Palestinians. We can live side by side. They first have to accept, that This is it, they can live next to Israel but not instead of Israel. And then we can negotiate. And by the way I think it will be at that point the easiest negotiation

The far harder process, the unpleasant process, and one that will take at least a generation once it begins we didnt even begin yet is to get the Palestinians to finally accept Zionism as a legitimate movement, as a legitimate equal claimant to the land

It is the Palestinian people who need to go through a process of reckoning and understanding that they are no longer refugees and that there is no return. And that involves the west for example giving them the harsh messages that I mentioned So defund UNRWA [UN refugee agency] Youre not refugees. Were going to tell you that. Were not going to shy away from telling you that

Wilf was delivering her message to a rightwing organization, but bear in mind that she is on the left in Israeli politics, long associated with Labor, and spoke up for the liberal Zionist group J Street when J Street needed Israeli allies.

Israelis have long instructed Americans on how to treat Palestinians, and American leaders have listened. As former peace-processor Dennis Ross told a New York synagogue, We dont need to be advocates for Palestinians, we need to be advocates for Israel. The good news is that some American leaders are no longer willing to carry the water.

Wilf repeatedly described the Israeli war of 1948 as a war of liberation and derided the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the lands from which they or their ancestors were ethnically cleansed. She said the west has indulged the Palestinians in the idea that they possess a right that was given to no people during wars of liberation when empires receded. She analogized Palestinian refugees to the millions displaced by World War II, including German refugees from Poland and the former Czechoslovakia who wished to return to those lands but were not allowed to. The message for refugees throughout the 20th century, Greeks and Bulgarians, and Hindus and Muslims, and Ukrainians and Poles and Jews, was sad, tragic, tough move on, she said.

One rejoinder Id make to Wilfs analysis is that all these peoples she mentioned achieved sovereignty. Palestinians never gained the state the world repeatedly promised them, as the Israeli state continually expanded its borders, and so they carry on a campaign for liberation to this day, with more and more allies around the world. That campaign is today a battle for equal rights for Jews and Palestinians; and equality is counter to Zionism. As Wilf says, You cannot split the difference between Zionism and anti-Zionism.

BEFORE YOU GO Stories like the one you just read are the result of years of efforts by campaigners and media like us who support them by getting the word out, slowly but doggedly.

That's no accident. Our work has helped create breakthroughs in how the general public understands the Palestinian freedom struggle.

Mondoweiss plays a key role in helping to shift the narrative around Palestine. Will you give so we can keep telling the stories in 2022 that will be changing the world in 2023, 2025 and 2030?

More:
Democrats need to send 'harsh' message to Palestinians and accept that Palestinians won't think they're 'nice' advice from 'Democratic Majority for...

Unlike all the Russia probes, however, there will eventually be a clean answer on Biden and 2024. He will either be on the ballot or he wont.

And while Trump set up his formal reelection campaign the moment he was inaugurated, that was an unprecedented move. Barack Obama didnt formally announce his reelection plans until the April after the 2010 midterm elections. If Biden were to follow Obamas timeline, then he has nearly a year and a half to make a decision. Then again, no one seriously doubted Obama was going to seek reelection.

Beyond all the speculating, the questions beneath the question about Biden and 2024 are probably more important and instructive for Democratic politics in 2021.

Question 1: But why wouldnt Biden run?

Very few American presidents have openly taken reelection off the table: One of them, James K. Polk, announced it the moment he received his partys presidential nomination in 1844. His decision was part ideological as a believer in limited government power and practical: agreeing to only serve one term was likely the only way he could build a coalition of party power brokers to back him for the nomination.

Biden has different issues. The reason people talk about him serving only one term is largely due to his age. At 78, he was the oldest person ever elected to serve as president in 2020. He could break that record if he ran again in 2024 at age 82.

Mental and physical capacity to serve as the leader of the free world is something that voters must determine for themselves. While plenty of data is available from Bidens doctors, it is still a subjective decision by every voter in how to read the data.

But lately, there is a second reason that people, including Democrats, are asking whether Biden will run: his poor poll numbers.

Now 10 months into his presidency, Bidens approval ratings have never been this low. A Marist poll out on Wednesday showed him at just 42 percent, in line with other recent polls. This means Biden is the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency, other than Donald Trump.

Question 2: Can anyone other than Biden win?

Aides have already signaled in anonymous quotes to the press that if Biden does run it might be out of a sense of duty. The 2020 election turned out to be much closer than Democrats thought it would be. It is possible that among all the Democrats who ran in 2020 the most diverse field in history and one of the largest only Biden could have defeated Trump for reelection.

With Trump looking more likely than not to run again, the Trump factor is not off the table. And the field of potential candidates is basically the same crew that ran in 2020.

And, yes, if Biden doesnt run it likely would be a crew. The most obvious heir apparent to Biden, his vice president Kamala Harris, had a 28 percent approval rating in one recent poll.

This has led to open speculation, even this week, that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg could run. Buttigieg would not only be among the youngest people to be elected president, but also the first openly gay person.

Lets be clear here: Even after winning the Iowa Caucuses and coming in a close second in the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic electorate didnt think Buttigieg could win (or that he sufficiently understood the Black vote). It is unclear whether a stint as transportation secretary would change that.

Question 3: If Biden doesnt run how badly will tensions within the party explode?

As anyone could see during the Democratic presidential primary season or witness this year during negotiations over infrastructure and Build Back Better legislation, there is a lot of tension within the party.

The partys base has moved left and wants leaders who are not old white men. There is also an establishment, led by Biden and South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who feel like they are more in tune with Democrats and the electorate as a whole.

That next year the Republicans could win big because of Biden, prompting Biden and his allies to say only proves that Biden has to run, is the conundrum.

James Pindell can be reached at james.pindell@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jamespindell.

More:
For Democrats, whether Biden will run in 2024 might be less relevant than these 3 underlying questions - The Boston Globe