Fox News personality Sean Hannity, facing heavy criticism after making remarks on his primetime show insinuating that President Joe Biden was using his long-documented stuttering condition as a cover for mental decline, doubled down on his accusations today about the President and demanding further proof from him.

"Literally the first thing you receive after you born is a Stuttering Certificate," Hannity said on his show. "The doctors at birth will make a full assessment to find out whether you be a stutterer for the rest of your life, and that piece of paper will prove that you are indeed a stutterer and not somebody simply willing to shamelessly pretend to stumble over words to gain an unfair advantage over others in life. Well, Mr. President, today literally all of America demands answers. Where is your Stuttering Certificate?"

While the controversial host insisted that the President showed no signs whatsoever of a stutter in 2012 or 2016, a simple fact check shows that Biden gave numerous interviews ranging back years before that time period where he discussed in detail his struggles with stuttering as a child, how he managed to overcome those problems in good part but how occasionally he will still fall victim to it.

Hannity, however, remained undeterred.

"The scandal about this phony-baloney stutter from Joe Biden is literally the most pressing issue on the minds of literally every single American," Hannity claimed. "For anyone to so callously hide behind the veil of an impairment he knows he doesn't have and yet refuses to provide us with the single piece of paper that would show otherwise is literally a crime of treason against the United States."

When pressed for comment, White House officials were dismissive of Hannity's accusations and demands.

"There is no such thing as a 'Stuttering Certificate' and Sean Hannity is the biggest moron to ever walk the face of the earth," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki remarked at her daily briefing before the White House press corps.

"Literally," Psaki added.

DETAILS AT ELEVEN.

If so, do I have the deal for you!

You can register now for the 2021 For God and Country Patriot Roundup* conference deep in the heart of Dallas, Texas!

Headlining speakers include General Michael Flynn, a man who once caused a US District Court judge to make a double take as to why he hadn't been charged with treason yet; Kraken extraordinaire Sidney Powell, the Washington Generals of the legal world who wants you to know that former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler was murdered in a fiery automobile crash much to Loeffler's own surprise; Comedian and star of Who's Line is It Anyways? Wayne Brady--**whispers in ear**--I'm sorry, not Wayne Brady but radio talk show host Wayne Dupree, who thinks that mass shootings were all false flag hoaxes (my deepest apologies to Mr. Brady--huge fan!); drinking/leaking enthusiast George "Dapapodoulous" Papadopoulos; human garbage person Juanita Broaddrick; Gene Ho, the photographer to Diamond and Silk (no, really!); internet commentator RedPill78; Brad Getz--the brainchild behind the sensational video "QAnon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration"; January 6th Capitol Insurrection veteran MC Popa** and who we can only assume is his...daughter(?) Bela Popa, who wants everyone to know she is 18 years old.

Oh yeah, also a bunch of other random sketchy guys with long beards.

$500 a popa (get it?) gets you in the door, while $1,000 will get you the VIP treatment, which is presumably an very uncomfortable moment sitting next to George Papadopoulos at the hotel bar and the exclusive opportunity to buy lunch for Wayne Dupree at the fast food establishment of his choice.***

And yes, in case you're wondering, all of this is 100% real:


https://thepatriotvoice.us/roundup-speakers/



*No affiliation with the weed killer. At least we don't think there is..

**MC Popa's availability is subject to whatever bail conditions might be imposed on him at the time of the event.

***All dollar menu items prohibited.

Go TU QUOQUE CRAZY for a FESTIVAL OF FALSE EQUIVALENCE!!! Bring your RED HERRINGS ONE AND ALL as you prepare to hear about EVERYTHING BUT THE INSURRECTION ON THE US CAPITOL!!!!!!!!!!

**Airhorn blast**

Just as I have, I'm sure if you've spoken to anyone on the right about the events of January 6th and the former office occupant's culpability therefore, one of the first arguments you almost certainly received in response was a "whataboutism" deflection.

More specifically, they would inevitably insist on pointing out about the various acts of vandalism, property damage or even violence that was attributed to the Black Lives Matter protests over the spring and summer 2020. They will then insist that not only did Democrats and individuals on the left not sufficiently denounce these acts, but they actually encouraged them. And that--they claim--somehow disqualifies them from claiming Trump should be held to account for incitement of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th.

Naturally, such a disingenuous position only serves to create more questions than actually provide any good-faith discourse to the debate.

First--and speaking strictly from my personal perspective--I never condoned any acts of violence from anyone claiming to be associated with the BLM protests. I know most frequently these acts were associated with the "group" Antifa, which does not really exist on an actual structured and organizational level. I honestly don't know who the people were who did this or why they might have done it. Were they anarchists who simply enjoyed chaos for the sake of chaos? Were they right wing provocateurs who wanted to falsely paint the BLM protest movement as being violent or unruly? Were they people simply frustrated at what they saw as injustice and needed a pathway for their aggression? Or were they legitimately "true believers" who actually thought their acts were some sort of justifiable civil disobedience?

Honestly, I simply did not know. Nor did I care to know. Perhaps some others on this board might disagree, but I saw people who used the BLM movement as an excuse for property damage or violence to be selfish and self-sabotaging. That they were giving the right carte blanche the excuse to demonize BLM as something violent as opposed to what it really was--a peaceful (but not placid) protest movement rooted in justice for victims of injustice at the hand of the police, and a demand for reform and action (no matter how either artfully expressed or otherwise.) And with little room for error, allowing for any sort of unforced errors on our part just makes the ultimate goal all the more difficult.

But ultimately, all of this is a moo point. Ultimately, even at the very worst strawman-like depiction of the BLM movement from the Right, it still bears absolutely no comparison to the events of January 6th, on facts that are on their face undeniable.

BLM was an issue-based movement. It was never about one person, or one person's desire for power. It was never about any political party or candidate. No one was seeking to take control by means of the protests or the movement. Rather, it was a movement about seeking justice and reform. And while there were--for reasons I can't understand--some acts of chaos, vandalism and even violence that were ancillary to some of the otherwise peaceful protests, that was never central to the issue that drove the protests; if anything, it was in direct contradiction to such a message and supporters of the BLM movement could easily denounce those actions without compromising the mission.

On the other hand, the "Stop the Steal" events of January 6th were very much political. They were centered around a single person--namely, Donald Trump--and with a singular goal in mind: to see to it that Donald Trump remains the President no matter what the certified results of the election were. They literally were waiving flags with his name on them. There was no greater issue to them than one person. And even if they never breached the Capitol grounds, their mere presence in DC was still to make it known that they demanded Trump remain President.

At its very worst, BLM was a protest movement with some unfortunate offshoots of violence associated with it (for whatever reasons). It was, however, never an insurrection. It did not seek to topple the democratic order in the country.

January 6th, on the other hand, was nothing but an insurrection. It was an attempted coup and it acted to serve the interests of only one man.

In short: Where as BLM attempted to advance an issue in spite of associated violence, January 6th was defined by its violence; it was the central essence to what it really was.

Even under the most objective of considerations, there simply can be no comparison of the two.

Chef Jose Andres.

He epitomizes what the award is truly about.

On edit, in case you haven't heard of him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Andr%C3%A9s

When I heard news that the plane that had been designated Air Force One and had flown Trump to Florida was en route and returning back to DC.

For some reason, it reaffirmed what the Presidency--and this country--stood for.

The thing was, Donald Trump always thought he was bigger than the Presidency itself. To him, it served one purpose only: to give him a claim to ultimate and never-ending power, glory and attention. However, the nitty gritties of the job that his predecessors and now successor have had to grapple with--the checks and the balances, the constitutional constraints, the unflattering burdens of the office--that was always beneath him.

He could have as well called himself Emperor, and no doubt would have if he could. And have at his disposal all those powerful glories at his hand for an indefinite amount of time, without regard to the popular will of the people or whatever concerned them.

Powerful glories that included a 747 jumbo jet at his beck and call, with the name of our country emblazoned on its side, and its fuel and maintenance paid for at our taxpayer expense.

I had actually seen Air Force One once before a year or two back, parked on the tarmac at the West Palm Beach airport. My kids were in the car with me, and under normal circumstances I would have happily pointed it out them as an exciting moment. But the thought of the man who used it and called himself the President disgusted me so much that I simply drove on by without comment.

He would have loved to have had that plane for life. And the bloody events at the Capitol two weeks prior were intended to make that come to pass.

But thank God, it failed.

And thank God, we live in a nation of law, with a President and not an Emperor.

So when I heard news that the plane that had carried Trump to his residence was returning back to the Nation's Capital, it really hit me deep.

Because no matter what Donald Trump thinks, no man or woman will ever be greater than the Presidency. The Presidency--and its office, and both its perks and solemn responsibilities--will always be greater than one person. And so that plane was leaving Donald Trump behind, alone and without further power, and returning to serve President Biden during his time in office.

On the morning of November 9, 2016, I truly and honestly thought we were going to lose our democracy and our country. I truly expected the man ascending to the office to seize the reigns of power for himself and end our republic as we knew it.

And in the four years that followed, we very nearly did lose it.

But somehow, by luck or Divine Providence, we did not. And knowing Donald Trump had been left behind as our country carried forward absolutely hit me on a heavy emotional level.

(The irony is that I live a mere half hour away from where he now sits and stews in oblivion, behind the gilded walls of Mar a Lago. And yet all the same, I haven't felt further away from him as I do now that he no longer has his grasp around our collective necks.)

The idea that we as a country have suffered a mass traumatic experience from the past four years might sound laughable. But it's absolutely true. And like individual victims of traumatic experiences, only now that the danger has passed are we going to start to emotionally absorb what we had just gone through, and process all the horrors.

And let us not mince words; they were truly horrors indeed.

And the idea that we survived, that the danger--at least the immediate danger--has passed, is both a relief but also an emotional bombshell that leaves us shaking. Think of Tom Hanks' portrayal of the title character in Captain Phillips; in the end, after his rescue he collapses into a quivering wreck even as a nurse assures him, "You're safe now."

But we survived.

And our plane, leaving the most disgraced person to ever hold the Office in its wake, has come back home to us.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1351424718142906368

That was the one lyric that stuck in my mind and gave me the slightest bit of hope the dark morning of November 9, 2016 when the worst case scenario came to be.

(Ironically I—along with nearly everyone else—was unaware that Cohen had passed away just two days before.)

And that lyric again came to my mind when I saw this picture of the Washington DC sky.

I won’t deny it brought a tear to my eye just thinking about it.

This morning I discovered we had a raccoon take up residence in an eave space in our roof. While I have nothing against raccoons in general and did not wish to see any harm come to the creature, I wasn't really a big fan of it becoming a permanent tenant there or-- even worse--making its way into our attic and wrecking havoc in there.

After attempting to shoo it away with a garden hose (which did absolutely nothing; honestly, I think it actually enjoyed it), I was forced to call in a professional to humanely extricate it from our roof.

When the guy from removal service arrived, I assumed he was simply going to set up a trap cage to which it could be lured in. However, instead what he did was get a long stick--about eight feet in length--and placed a rag on the end of it. In turn, the rag had been doused in a mysterious liquid. The removal service guy simply placed the stick in the general direction of the raccoon, and within about 10 seconds the raccoon had climbed out of the eaves space, made its way down the roof, jumped down and high tailed it in the direction of the neighbors (maybe to scout out their eaves space for a more comfortable habitat).

The removal guy then explained what was on the stick; it was the excretion fluid from a male raccoon, and our raccoon being a female (although thankfully with no kits in tow, which would have made the situation far more complicated), females apparently despise this male raccoon excretion fluid and want nothing to do with it.

Thus, if it comes noon on January 20th and Donald Trump has stubbornly refused to vacate the White House premises, I wholeheartedly endorse the tactic of shoving a stick in his face covered in raccoon excretion fluid in the hopes it might cause him to flee.

After all, it does seem to be a foolproof method of getting rid of unwanted squatting pests.

I grew up near the birthplace of Roger Brooke Taney.

Under normal circumstances you would think being the home of a Supreme Court Chief Justice would be a matter of great civic pride.

Museums, monuments, schools, roads, buildings—all named in your honor. All for the fame that you brought your hometown. It’s what typically happens with locals who achieved great heights.

But there was nothing around me named for Roger Brooke Taney. There was no museum. No monuments or statues—not even in the era of erecting statues to controversial figures as a symbol of defiance.

The only indication that we had any connection whatsoever to Roger Brooke Taney was a small historical plaque near his birthplace, a sign so insignificant when driving past it at 60 miles per hour that barely any of our own long time residents knew it existed.

For Roger Brooke Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision, an infamous ruling denying the humanity of fellow human beings kept in slavery which is almost universally regarded as the worst decision ever in Supreme Court history.

Nobody wants that legacy. Not the least of which being other members of the Supreme Court, regardless of ideology.

Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all owe their seats to Donald Trump (and to some extent Mitch McConnell and his hypocritical machinations as well).

They received a position for life, and one where the burden to remove them prematurely is extremely high.

No doubt about it, they will be on the wrong end of many, many bad and unsavory decisions for years to come. And that’s quite a sad and depressing fact.

But dare I say none of them want to be put in the company of Roger Brooke Taney.

None of them feel the need or loyalty to Donald Trump to the extent they would support his demands to overturn a fairly decided Presidential election and disenfranchise millions of American voters.

They got what they wanted from Trump. And now they’re done with him. And none of them want to follow him down the path towards American infamy.

This is not a matter of principle on their part but rather mere practicality.

Nobody wants to be Roger Brooke Taney.

They hate her with an absolute passion--her and former Ambassador Michael McFaul probably received more wrath from Kremlin based trolls than any other American figure.

It all dates back to 2014 after the US State Department had levied sanctions against Russia after the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Russian trolls would send the nastiest comments at the State Department's daily press briefings, which Psaki conducted. While most Americans hardly knew who Psaki was or bothered to watch any State Department briefings themselves, she was a household name to the Russian online community and they went after her on an everyday basis.

I suppose the vitriol against her was an example of "shooting the messenger" but thankfully I don't think Psaki ever let it get to her. Glad to see this hire from the President Elect.

She's widely acknowledged it herself:

https://twitter.com/jrpsaki/status/847138578182389761