Chatter

Joe Biden was sworn in as President yesterday. I wish him and his administration only the best and hope that they take a different and more moderate path they promised, ignoring the leftists within the new Democratic party who want the country to become a socialist utopia.

Biden has a number of inherent advantages going in. The media, giddy as tweens at a boy band concert, are already cheerleading his every move. They will temper criticism (unless it's that his administration isn't woke enough) and protect him from any intimation of scandal. In addition, most of the heavy lifting with regard to COVID-19 has already been done, as had the difficult part of trade negotiations. The economy was remarkably strong before the virus, and although badly shaken, will recover if it isn't "fixed" by Biden. Finally, foreign policy is in a good place. All the Biden administration has to do is NOT screw it all up. We'll see if that happens.

Now, about Inauguration Day itself ... 

In the days following the January 6th debacle at the Capitol, a leaked FBI report warned that armed protests in all fifty state capitols and DC were likely based on unspecified chatter and intelligence sources. Yesterday, reporting from news sources indicates that none of that happened. In fact, these were representative headlines as on the evening on January 20th:

"Few protests, sparse crowds in DC on Inauguration Day; state capitols stay quiet" (USA Today)  

"No Large Protests In D.C. As President Biden Is Inaugurated" (NPR) 

"The pro-Trump inauguration protests at state capitols were complete duds" (Vox) 

"Police outnumber protesters as law enforcement continues to guard NC Capitol on inauguration day" (CBS17 News) 

"Inauguration Day protests remain small, peaceful in California despite fears of violence" (LA Times)

"State capitols braced for violent, pro-Trump protests on Inauguration Day, but barely anyone showed up" (Insider)  

" ‘We Have One Demonstrator’: Braced For Chaos, States Report Sparse Inauguration Day Protests" (Forbes)

I'm pleased that there were few, if any, protests, that violence did not occur, and that the predictions of the FBI, the mainstream media, and the breathless warnings of both Democrat and a few GOP politicians did not come to pass. Luckily, the violent protests that occurred during the last presidential Inauguration did not occur this time around.

One plausible explanation is that the heavy police and national guard presence dissuaded people from protesting or rioting. And maybe that's all there was to it.

But it's still reasonable to ask why absolutely nothing happened when it was claimed that "chatter and intelligence" indicated that it would. Was the threat overblown? Was the leak of the FBI report an attempt to reinforce the narrative that the capitol riots were, in fact, a full blown insurrection or coup attempt? Was the massive deployment of national guard troops and police solid security policy, or was it in some part political theater? And why didn't the media investigate the provenance of the FBI report instead of simply reporting it as near certainty? 

If the four constituencies (media, Dems, establishment GOP and deep state operatives) had not tried for four years to manipulate public opinion using leaks and fake news, the questions posed above would not have to be asked. But that's not the world we live in.

I suppose one thing that can be said is that the predictions of violent protests were incorrect—and that's a good thing. 

UPDATE-1:

There is a somewhat darker view of the events in Washington, titularly precipitated by the Capitol riots. Roger Simon comments:

... what I caught glimpses of more than anything else was a massive display of guard troops, not quite what you would see marching through Pyongyang to commemorate Dear Leader’s birthday, but enough to make you wonder what kind of state you were in, democratic or autocratic.

The putative excuse was to avoid violence and a repetition of the occurrences of Jan. 6, but a hundred troops or so would have been more than sufficient to have blocked entry to the Capitol that day, had they been so empowered.

For the inauguration we had twenty to twenty-five thousand troops, an army of greater size than Lincoln employed to prevent the invasion of Washington during the Civil War ...

What was the purpose then of all this saber rattling on a day that was supposed to be a celebration of the peaceful transfer of power in a democratic republic other than an ominous show of force, a reminder to the unruly masses that “stability” had returned and you had better accept it?

The counter argument is that the massive show of force was necessary, because ... chatter. But in hindsight (there were few, if any protests and absolutely no rioting), it does all seem a bit much. And all of this initiated by a political party that roundly condemned the use of national guard troops to quell on-going, destructive and violent leftist rioting in cities across the United States this summer.

UPDATE-2:

Michael Yon is a respected author and war correspondent who has reported from places such as Iraq, Syria, Croatia, Afghanistan, Africa and others where violence is common. He reports from Washington, DC on Inauguration Day:

I am a war correspondent. Many years experience across the world. I am American.

Now, troops are everywhere. D.C. is locked down tighter than Beijing or Hong Kong. I got kicked out of Hong Kong last year, and greatly doubt China will let me back into Mainland, or back to Tibet without arrest.

D.C. and this mayor are like something from 1984. Which I decided to read again during pandemic 2020. Read it.

Hmmm. Just imagine the uproar if Trump had put 25,000 troops into Washington, DC during the summer riots of 2020. 

Oh, BTW, Yon has been censored on Twitter, and threatened with "violations" by Facebook.