What is known about a confrontation in the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is that a person arrested for injuring her husband, millionaire Paul Pelosi, was “mentally unstable” with a brain “addled by long-term drug use.”


Originally published at WND News Center. Used with permission.


He is a former “pro-nudist activist, convinced that ‘he was Jesus for a year,’ who lived in a bus on a semi-commune and has embraced conspiracy theories from the left and right,” according to columnist David Harsanyi at the Federalist.

So why, then, are so many questions remaining unanswered, including reports that Pelosi won’t turn over home security footage of the fracas.

Likely, Harsanyi finds, because with the truth of the matter uncertain, leftists can insist that “every conservative personally ‘condemn’ the actions of the mentally ill man.”

And that would have “nothing to do with lowering the rhetorical temperature or averting violence,” but instead has “everything to do with trying to compel Republicans to take responsibility…” he explained.

That appeared openly in the Washington Post, where three bylines appeared on a piece headlined, “Attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband follows years of GOP demonizing her.”

The commentary explains it’s because Republicans repeatedly have criticized Nancy Pelosi’s leftist agenda and pursuit of radical ideologies that the violence happened.

“By ‘demonizing,’ the Post means that Republicans run lots of political ads targeting perhaps the most powerful, partisan leader in the nation. Pelosi is demonized in the same manner Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis are demonized. Remember ads depicted Paul Ryan pushing grandmas off cliffs? Is it that kind of demonizing?” Harsanyi wondered.

Even if the attacker wasn’t being identified as “unstable,” that still wouldn’t mean the GOP has responsibility to stop pointing out the damage Pelosi’s policies are doing to America, he wrote.

“Neither political discourse nor political reporting should be inhibited by the prospective actions of third-party nuts. If Americans had to ponder the actions of political terrorists every time they took a position, they would only be empowering those nuts,” he said.

“Yet, this weekend, John Dickerson was wringing his hands on CBS News over the alleged structural and rhetorical pro-violence position of the right. You see the trick, right? Conservatives have a duty to self-flagellate over the Jan 6 rioters, to answer for Alex Jones and white supremacists of Charlottesville, and to condemn the nudists of Berkley, because they’re the ones who have allegedly coddled those extremists in the first place. It doesn’t matter that vast majority of conservative have never supported or instigated any violence, whatsoever.”

But violence from the left is “devoid of any political concerns.”

“There is no CBS News panel convening to agonize over the left’s support for BLM after riots decimated neighborhoods across the nation in 2020 — the costliest in American history,” he pointed out.

It is the Republic Brief that reported on one of the many unanswered questions about the event, that “there is no security footage being released to the general public, and the left is trying to pretend that it is no big deal and that everyone should just move along.”

The report confirmed there is security at the home.

But the report said, “In other major crimes that have occurred against a notable person security of the incident was released but in the Pelosi case, we are not only not receiving security footage but instead the mass media is changing the narrative every chance they get. At this point, there are way more questions than answers…”

Those include signs of forced entry at the home, was there anyone else in the home, “Why was Pelosi holding hammer, and attack only happened after police arrived?” and more.

Should Trump Prosecute Biden?*
This poll subscribes you to our newsletter. Unsubscribe any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.



Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.