Received a call the other day from one who, having just watched American T.V.’s first installment on the Congressional Committee’s investigation into the events of Jan 6, was absolutely hysterical over the disgusting behavior of the “insurrectionists.” While I in no way tried to defend them, I sought to point out that the very fact the hearings were being televised in prime time by the major U.S. networks was perhaps an indication not only of the unconscionable bias of the committee but of the mainstream media itself. The response I got was: “Don’t want to hear it…..Not going to listen!” End of conversation! How many other Congressional inquiries have been televised in prime time by all the major American networks? Is it a mere coincidence that the target of the inquiry is the very same “populist” demographic relentlessly belittled by more or less every outlet in the States save for Fox?
The committee is made up of 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans. The latter, both approved by Nancy Pelosi, are Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, each a harsh critic of the Trump administration. What is parading as a fair trial clearly has a rigged jury! Republicans in general see the committee as grossly biased and in no way interested in an objective appraisal of the events in question. Significantly, ironically, Pelosi ridiculed a 2005 commission consisting only of Republicans selected to appraise the government’s response to hurricane Katrina, as a mere sham! As always, the hypocritical double standard.
Media attempts to blame Trump for the invasion of the Capitol inevitably include his request that his followers “fight like hell” for the future of their country. That he specifically invoked them to protest peacefully and lawfully in his Save America rally before the “insurrection” began, is conveniently ignored. Ought not a full disclosure of the facts rather than the cultivation of a narrative be the first obligation of an honest press?
A major factor in the media’s disdain for Trump is his insistence that the 2020 election was stolen from him. That his suspicion might be the product of no more than his self-evident narcissism is certainly possible. Yet a number of inquiries in a number of states have produced feasible evidence of voter fraud. Why then does the media insist on dismissing that possibility as The Big Lie? Hillary Clinton has claimed repeatedly over the years that the 2016 election was “stolen” from her. Has she been vilified in the press for continuing to make that claim? There is significant evidence that she played an active role in the 2016 attempt to prove Trump guilty of “Russian collusion,” an effort which the FBI aggressively supported though it apparently knew the information behind the charge was highly suspicious. Has the mainstream media ever thoroughly explored the possibility that Hillary tried to rig an election or the even more worrisome fact that institutions such as the FBI which need to remain above politics, would seem to have acted on behalf of one particular political party? Has the bias which has come to infect the mainstream media also infected the U.S. legal establishment which, for the sake of its Democracy, must remain objective?
We are constantly reminded of the “deadly” impact of the events of Jan 6. Two Trump supporters died of heart attacks. While the N.Y. Times initially reported Rosanne Boyland to have been trampled to death by fellow insurrectionists, it turns out she died due to the massive amount of drugs in her system. The Times also erroneously said officer Brian Sicknick had been viciously struck over the head with a fire extinguisher while his autopsy showed no sign of such trauma but simply that he had died of a stroke. The only person whose death might actually require legal investigation was that of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed, 35 year old military veteran shot by a Capitol officer as she was climbing through a shattered glass door. Yet the Dept. of Justice not only chose not to pursue charges against the officer in question, it refused to reveal his identity. Why, one wonders?
In August, 8 months after the fact, Michael Byrd came out as the officer who had killed Ashli Babbitt. While it seems obvious to me that he need not have done so, I am no legal expert and am in no way suggesting he ought to be behind bars. But why no public hearing? Why hide his identity? Could it be because Byrd is a Black man? Imagine the unending media furor had a White officer shot an unarmed Black woman as she was climbing through that door, only to be exonerated of any wrongdoing by the Dept. of Justice. Imagine the hysterical charges of systemic racism had that Dept. sought to hide his identity! However deluded Babbitt may have been in her convictions, and that is certainly open to debate, she clearly came to the Capitol with the best of intentions. The profound conclusion of The Washington Post, however, was that anyone suggesting she was a martyr for her beliefs was a White Supremacist, alt-right fanatic, etc., etc.. Not a lot of sympathy for Ashli from the “compassionate” Left! Nor much in the way of journalistic integrity either!
Western Civilization over the last 50 years has become increasingly infected with “progressive” [Neo-Marxist] assumptions which do not stand up to rational scrutiny. Those so poisoned are literally incapable of confronting reality with any degree of honesty. Trump says he offered Pelosi the services of the National Guard to deal with any possible disruptions on Jan. 6. Pelosi says he is lying. The mainstream media of course agrees. I frankly don’t trust either one of them. But isn’t it interesting that former head of the Capitol Police Steven Sund says he implored officials at both the House and Senate six times on the day of the “insurrection” to allow him to bring in the National Guard, only to be rebuffed each and every time? Has either the media or indeed any official commission investigated the scandalous fact that the breach of the Capitol could very well have been prevented but for the decisions of the powers that be? Was Pelosi involved in those decisions?
To me the obvious antidote to the regime of B.S. by which we are being assailed is the Freedom of Expression afforded by the Internet. Yes, there may be some unconscionable nonsense posted there, but the vengeful attempt both in Canada and the U.S. to censor all who do not share the inane biases of the Left is no more than a fascistic attempt to stifle Free Speech itself.
Some nut recently approached the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the intent to kill him. Bill Maher, sane as always, asked why the mainstream media had devoted so little time to the event, his implication being that if some Trump supporter had sought to kill a “liberal” Justice, the media would have exploded with outrage. Whether he would be willing to admit it or not, Maher’s rationalism is an accurate expression of the rationalism that informs my “conservatism.” But as public discourse in our Western democracies has been poisoned by what is little more than a form of religious dementia, honest, rational accounts of the sort of complex affairs cited above are hard to come by. Hence the Washington Post’s sophisticated conclusion that if you feel any sympathy for Ashli Babbitt, you are obviously an alt-right degenerate! Sadly, millions of “progressives” such as the caller cited in my opening paragraph, accept such mindless edicts with nary a doubt!