The following is the opening satirical monologue from “The Andrew Klavan Show.“

New videos released by Tucker Carlson at Fox News suggest that the January 6 kerfuffle was actually a mere ruckus except for brief moments when it became a fracas before settling into a foofaraw followed by a to-do interrupted by a bobbery which then expanded into a melee before dying out in a pother — that is, if it wasn’t just a bunch of idiots charging into the Capitol building followed by another bunch of idiots trying to prevent the first bunch of idiots from certifying the election of a new bunch of idiots, in which case all we can say about January 6 is that the capitol was filled with idiots just like any other day when congress is in session.  

The media hoo-hah over the hurly-burly became a full-blown williwaw after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave Carlson the new videos of the ruction or possibly foofaraw, depending on who’s telling the story. Democrats immediately objected to the showing of the videos saying Carlson was cherry-picking scenes of the pandemonium in order to make it appear to be a mere hoopla whereas they preferred to cherry-pick scenes of the hoopla to make it seem like pandemonium.

Senate Majority Leader and demonic lying dirtbag Chuck Schumer said, [Quote] “It is absolutely despicable for Carlson’s distortion of events to interrupt our distortion of events when anyone can see from our distortion of events that this was much worse than it looks in his distortion of events. You didn’t see the news media pulling this sort of thing when Adolf Hitler was trying to overplay the burning of the Reichstag, although perhaps that isn‘t the best possible analogy since it’s exactly the same sort of thing we’re doing and makes us look like Hitler.” [unquote]

Republican opponents of Schumer responded by accusing the Senate leader and demonic lying dirtbag of being a demonic lying dirtbag, but Schumer claimed he was being completely transparent since demonic lying dirtbag was actually right there in his job description and, anyway, you can tell what he is just by looking at him so he’s obviously not trying to hide anything.

The scenes in the Carlson videos do suggest that events at the kerfuffle differed from the bobbery described by House Democrats when they were dishonestly suppressing dissenting voices in order to give their version of the bobbery which was really just a kerfuffle. For instance, while the guy who dressed in a furry horned hat and called himself Q-Anon Shaman was sentenced to four years in prison after pleading to a charge of joining a bunch of idiots to disrupt a bunch of idiots, the video shows Capitol police actually guiding Q-Anon Shaman around the building as if they were giving him a tour. However, the videos do confirm that he was, in fact, dressed in a furry horned hat, which is also punishable by four years in prison or at least should be.

In response to the Fox News report, the media rushed to defend the Democrat narrative by forming a circle around it and beating their shields while chanting loudly in order to drown out the sound of everyone ignoring them while watching Fox News. CNN, in a secret meeting held on air during prime time to make sure no one was watching, said the Fox videos were [quote-unquote] dangerous because they revealed that CNN had been spewing skewed propaganda which might cause them to lose some of their zero viewers so that they would have negative viewers, a metaphysical impossibility which might cause reality to implode into fragments of incoherent blather, so that the entire universe would be indistinguishable from Don Lemon. 

The New York Times, a former newspaper, ran a headline — and this is a real headline — that said [quote] “Republican Lawmakers Split over Carlson’s False January 6 Claims.” When asked how they knew the claims were false, Times editors replied, “It’s right there in the headline.”

President and Venal Houseplant Joe Biden also condemned the Carlson videos, and drove the point home by falling up a flight of stairs into an airplane where he found one of his male political appointees dressed as a woman and stealing his luggage, causing Biden to fall back down the stairs, where he bumped into one of his male political appointees dressed as a woman and calling for the sexual mutilation of children, a scene of such chaos, incompetence and moral depravity that it caused a bunch of idiots to storm the Capitol building demanding that the bunch of idiots already in the Capitol building should refuse to certify Biden’s election which was already certified. So it was quite a foofaraw. Or a hoo-ha, depending on who you ask.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

Andrew Klavan is the host of The Andrew Klavan Show at The Daily Wire. A popular political satirist and Hollywood screenwriter, Klavan is also an award-winning novelist. His newest novel is A Strange Habit of Mind, book two in the Cameron Winter Mystery series.

The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Michigan’s highest court is considering a rule change that would require judges to refer to attorneys and litigants by their preferred pronouns.

The Michigan Supreme Court sent a notice on January 18 that it was considering an amendment to Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules to force courts to comply with attorneys’ and parties’ desired pronouns in speech and in writing. Now, over a dozen Michigan judges and attorneys have expressed concern for what the rule’s implications would mean for free speech and religious liberty.

“Parties and attorneys may … include any personal pronouns in the name section of the caption, and courts are required to use those personal pronouns when referring to or identifying the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing,” the proposed rule states.

Michigan judges and attorneys are writing to the court and speaking out about the problematic amendment. In an eight-page response to the proposed rule, William R. Bloomfield, general counsel for the Diocese of Lansing, said that it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

“In brief, requiring courts, i.e., judges, to use a person’s own designated personal pronouns is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and free exercise of religion,” he wrote, adding, “And as vital as the interest in free speech is for ordinary citizens, or groups of citizens, it is perhaps even more important for judges to be free of any compulsory speech.”

Michigan religious liberty attorney Timothy Denney told The Daily Wire that “this proposed preferred pronoun rule would violate the compelled speech principle.”

“The Michigan Supreme Court’s proposed rule to force judges to use attorney’s preferred pronouns violates the First Amendment,” Denney said. “The First Amendment prohibits government from compelling public officials to make statements contrary to their beliefs.”

Denney pointed to Meriweather v. Hartop, a case where the Sixth Circuit ruled that a public college could not force a professor to use the preferred pronouns of a trans-identifying student. That court’s decisions are binding in Michigan.

Twelve Michigan Court of Appeals judges signed a letter opposing the proposed rule change and pointing out the potential legal problems such a rule would cause, such as “bad faith actors” using the rule for “strategic reasons unrelated to the merits of a case.” The judges also questioned if the rule could result in a judgment being reversed for the petty offense of mistakenly using the wrong pronoun.

The judges also mentioned other states such as New York, Massachusetts, and Utah that have addressed the issue “in narrow, prudent ways.” Massachusetts and Utah require parties desiring to be called by their preferred pronouns to inform the court through a “Notice of Pronouns.”

The proposed rule change is another example of the Great Lakes State’s highest court catering to the demands of the LGBTQ community, even when those demands challenge the free speech and religious liberty protections guaranteed in the Constitution. Last summer, the court ruled in a 5-2 decision that the state’s civil rights protections preventing discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to sexual orientation and gender identity, targeting small businesses in the state that are not already subject to federal workplace laws.

The Michigan Supreme Court is receiving comments on the proposed change to Rule 1.109 through May 1.