FBI Counterterrorism Official: No Firearms Recovered During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

“Armed insurrection!” I think that is what the MSM and the Democrats are calling it? Hmmm, but no firearms were recovered?? So why is the US Capital surrounded with razor wire and guarded by armed troops? mrossol

The Epoch Times, 3/3/2021

An FBI official on Wednesday testified at a Senate hearing that she has no knowledge of any guns being recovered from suspects who were arrested during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

When asked by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) about whether firearms were recovered or if any suspect was charged with firearms offenses, FBI counterterrorism chief Jill Sanborn responded: “To my knowledge, none.”

But in the hearing, Sanborn also said that before the Jan. 6 incident, “We knew they would be armed, we had intelligence that they would be coming to DC, but we did not have intelligence that they would be breaching the Capitol.”

Johnson previously told news outlets that the term “armed insurrection” used by some Democratic officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and mainstream news outlets is incorrect as no guns were recovered. The only shooting involved an officer-involved shooting that left one protester, Ashli Babbitt, dead. The officer’s identity has yet to be disclosed.

“I would say, if it’s properly termed an ‘armed insurrection,’ it was a pretty ragtag one,” Johnson said in an interview with the New York Times last week.  “This didn’t seem like an armed insurrection to me. When you hear the word ‘armed,’ don’t you think of firearms? Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask: How many firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired?” he also said.

Johnson added: “If that was a planned armed insurrection, you really have a bunch of idiots.”  [Well, everyone knows that anyone who supported Trump is an idiot, right?  mrossol]

The senator’s comments drew a rebuke from media pundits and congressional Democrats, who attempted to characterize him as someone who is sympathetic to the rioters.

Separately on Wednesday, the U.S. Capitol Police said Wednesday it has obtained intelligence pointing to a possible plot by a militia group to breach the building on Thursday.

The statement did not name the organization but called it “an identified militia group.” Thursday marks the date when some have claimed that Trump, defeated by Biden in the Nov. 3 election, will be sworn in for a second term in office.

A day before that, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the Jan. 6 incident is being classified by the agency as “domestic terrorism.”

The U.S. Justice Department has charged more than 300 people with taking part in the Capitol breach. Among those arrested were members of right-wing groups such as the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and Proud Boys. The Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are armed militia groups.

There was no indication that the Senate or House would alter their legislative activities on Thursday. The House is aiming to debate and pass a policing reform bill on Thursday. The Senate could be in the midst of a potentially long debate and votes on a COVID-19 aid bill.

Reuters contributed to this report.



Why Did Amazon Cancel Justice Thomas?

If you do business with Amazon, you should be complaining. If you are Amazon Prime customer, you should pull you subscription- and tell them why. mrossol

WSJ  2/2/2021 by Jason L Riley

Now that another February has come and gone, perhaps Amazon will revert to offering customers a broader and more variegated view of black history.


Early last month Amazon deleted a documentary film about Justice Clarence Thomas from its popular streaming service. Titled “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” and culled from more than 30 hours of interviews with its subject, the film recounts Justice Thomas’s rise from poverty in segregated Georgia to Yale Law School and, eventually, to the Supreme Court. Along the way, viewers learn about the justice’s views on race, religion, politics and the role of the judiciary.

The documentary began airing on PBS in May 2020 and streaming on Amazon in October. But it was taken down by Amazon on Feb. 8, according to the director, Michael Pack, and he has never been told why. “Our distributor, who’s the one who made the deal with Amazon, has repeatedly asked them for explanations but they haven’t given any,” Mr. Pack told me by phone this week. “They have the right to pull anything from their site, and they don’t have to give an explanation. So it’s not a contract violation. But many people have complained, and they haven’t put it back up.”


If this episode sounds familiar, it’s because Amazon pulled a similar stunt last fall. Eli Steele’s “What Killed Michael Brown ?”—a critique of liberal social policies that was written and narrated by his father, the race scholar Shelby Steele —was slated to stream on Amazon in October, then held up for reasons the company never fully explained. Amazon eventually relented and made the film available, but only after these pages weighed in and made a fuss.

Mr. Pack said that “Created Equal” was doing well on Amazon, so it wasn’t pulled because no one wanted to see it. “For a while our film was, briefly, No. 1 in documentaries. And I think it’s still No. 25 or 30, so it’s been selling,” he said. Notably, he added, less-popular documentaries about Anita Hill and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continue to be available for streaming on Amazon. “So why don’t they offer ‘Created Equal’? There’s obviously customer demand.”

There seems to be plenty of demand these days for positive assessments of black conservatives, even while one of the country’s most popular streaming services is ambivalent about showcasing them. In addition to Messrs. Pack’s and Steele’s documentaries, the past year has brought Larry Elder’s “Uncle Tom,” which is about the treatment of blacks who challenge liberal orthodoxy, as well as “ Thomas Sowell : Common Sense in a Senseless World,” a profile of the Hoover Institution economist narrated by yours truly.

Mr. Pack was particularly dismayed that his film was pulled during Black History Month. “Clarence Thomas, to my mind, is the most important African-American leader in America today,” he said, adding that people ought to be exposed to a range of black opinions. He’s right, and what Amazon has done is a disservice to anyone—black or white—who is interested in the rich history of black Americans.

“The spectrum of thought amongst African-Americans is and has always been much broader and multifarious than commonly perceived,” the black legal scholar Randall Kennedy wrote in a recent essay for Heterodox Academy. “Fervent debates about scores of subjects—indeed every imaginable subject—have roiled African-Americans ideologically: accommodation versus protest; interracial socialism versus black nationalism; Gandhian non-violence versus ‘by any means necessary,’ support for affirmative action versus detestation of ‘lowered standards,’ ‘integration’ versus ‘black power.’ ”


One reason for this misperception is Black History Month, whose emphasis is on celebrating the achievements of blacks who fit a liberal narrative while ignoring or minimizing the achievements of those who don’t. If you are a prominent black figure who has been more focused on black development than on black victimhood (Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Robert Woodson ), or someone who is more interested in the results of a policy than in its intentions (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams ), there is an attempt to write you out of black history. Wittingly or not, Amazon has used its power to abet this effort.

“I don’t think Amazon should get away with doing these things without suffering at least some PR consequences,” Mr. Pack said. “I think it’s great that the Steele film got reinstated after the controversy. Deplatforming will go on if people don’t write about it and complain about it.”



Who needs For-Profit Colleges?

WSJ 2/25/21

Colleges for years have justified charging exorbitant tuition by offering what they claim is an immersive education. But many closed their campuses during the pandemic and didn’t discount tuition. Now Democrats plan to shower them with more money while punishing vocational schools.

Congress allocated colleges $14 billion from the Cares Act and $23 billion in the December relief bill on top of the $125 billion in federal student aid they soak up annually. The new $1.9 trillion bill would hand them another $40 billion regardless of whether they open or need the money. The December bill at least reduced aid to colleges with enormous endowments.

Democrats have also cut the share of money going to proprietary schools to 1% from 3%. For-profits will have to distribute 100% of their federal relief to students, which is fair enough. But nonprofit and public colleges only have to spend 50% on student aid. They can spend the rest on diversity coordinators and higher salaries for tenured professors.

The distinction between nonprofit and for-profit colleges is becoming increasingly tenuous. Four years of tuition at many nonprofits now costs more than a new home. Yet colleges aren’t accountable for student outcomes, and many graduate with enormous debt and degrees that don’t help them get high-paying jobs.

At least the pandemic forced some to tighten their belts. Consider the University of Southern California, which is trading its president’s colonial seven-acre estate for $24.5 million for a more modest $8.6 million mansion. Tough living. For-profit enrollment has shrunk by half over the last decade due to the Obama regulatory assault and improved job market. Several large chains have closed, and many surviving schools are small businesses that offer training in fields like welding, cybersecurity and nursing—skills in high demand.

Yet Democrats have slipped a provision into their bill that would force many of these to close. A 1998 law known as the 90/10 rule requires for-profits to derive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal student aid. The rule doesn’t apply to nonprofit and public colleges, which generate much of their revenue from state aid, federal research grants and private donations.

Democrats have long complained about a “loophole” in the 90/10 rule, which excludes veterans benefits from the federal revenue calculation. This isn’t a loophole. GI Bill benefits are delayed compensation for military service, not federal handouts or loans. For-profits are popular among veterans because they offer vocational training and flexible schedules.

The Democratic bill aims to drive more proprietary schools out of business by counting veterans benefits as federal revenue in the rule. An analysis by an American Enterprise Institute fellow this month estimated this would cause 87 for-profit institutions to fall out of compliance, including many that are popular among military students.

As the report notes, hundreds of public institutions “report student outcomes as weak, or weaker, than those of the for-profit colleges failing a 90/10 rule.” For-profits might be forced to turn away veterans to avoid losing access to all federal aid. Some veterans might end up at community colleges, and others might not avail themselves of their GI benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 90/10 rule change would reduce federal spending by $124 million over 10 years, allowing Democrats to claim savings in budget reconciliation. Behold another example of how Democrats are using pandemic relief to jam through their progressive agenda, which includes hostility to private education.



I'm serious… usually. (Martin Rossol)