Look up any story about the storming of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters, and you will find it described as a “deadly riot” that killed five people.
Worse still, one of the deaths was that a police officer who – the story goes – was killed by rioters after getting hit in the head by a fire extinguisher.
Then there is the story of the protestor who “carried Zip Ties into the Capitol,” which led to accusations that the protestors intended to take hostages.
There have also been endless media descriptions of the event as an “armed insurrection.”
And there were stories claiming that, as Reuters put it, “Capitol rioters meant to ‘capture and assassinate’ officials.”
What is common about all of these media-fed narratives?
Not one of them is true. Not. One.
Let’s take each claim in turn.
The “fact” that five people were killed is false. Only one person is known to have been killed inside the building. She was a protester who was shot at close range by a police officer. (Had she been a minority, there would have been riots in the streets over police brutality.)
But what about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who was, we’ve been told repeatedly, killed by a protester who threw a fire extinguisher at him?
There’s other evidence to show that the media had it all wrong. ProPublica reports that Sicknick texted his family Wednesday night to say that “he had been pepper-sprayed” (he didn’t say by whom) and “was in good spirits.” CNN later admitted that investigators have been “vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death.” More tellingly, a Capitol Police statement said Sicknick returned to his office after the melee and only later went to the hospital. So what caused his death? Nobody knows, but it clearly wasn’t caused by a hell-bent Trump mob.
Why is this important? As Greenwald explains, “Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters.”
The press has recently tried to increase the death count by including suicides that occurred weeks later.
That guy who supposedly “carried Zip Ties into the Capitol” (suggesting he intended to take hostages)? Turns out he found them on a table inside the building and grabbed them to keep the police from using them on the protesters.
The “armed insurrection”? There’s been no evidence that anyone carried firearms into the Capitol, except the police.
The report that protesters planned to “capture and assassinate” officials? The Department of Justice says “there is no direct evidence at this point of kill-capture teams and assassinations.”
The only reason this story has and continues to be grossly exaggerated by the press and by Democrats (but we repeat ourselves) is to sow fear in the public, portray conservatives as violent extremists, and justify more ferocious attacks on anyone who isn’t a left-wing Democrat.
Which is why the media will never come clean about their role in misleading the public. And why Pelosi’s “truth” commission can be counted on not to tell the truth about any of it.
When a video of an assault on a 91-year-old Asian man went viral, the media and civil rights groups were quick to blame President Trump for using the term, “Chinese Virus”.
“We stand with our Asian American & Pacific Islander community against the rising tide of racism and hate crimes that have been stoked to a fever pitch, much of amplified by the actions of our last president,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted another false accusation.
But when the perpetrator was arrested, he turned out to be Muslim.
Yahya Muslim had allegedly attacked a 60-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman the same day. His arrest told a larger story about why Asian people are really being attacked in Oakland.
The legacy media has spent the last week repeating the nonsense that Trump supporters travelled to Washington D.C. last week in a coordinated attempt to overthrow the government. It’s a lie.
On January 13, 2021, The National Pulse called the almost ubiquitous, false reporting about the events at the Capitol on January 6 “The Insurrection Lie.” This was contrary to some other conservative media outlets, such as National Review, which published a piece on January 17 calling the events at the Capitol “impeachable.”
Our view, groundbreaking at the time, has been vindicated in the ensuing month. Tucker Carlson last week called the media’s reporting on the events a “lie.” Following is an update to our coverage based on recent disclosures.
On January 13, we reported:
A Capitol Police officer died of a stroke the day after the riot; but it is not known what may have happened during the melee that would provide a causal connection. His brother stated that he had communicated with the officer after the event: “He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape.” Sometime after the riot, he returned to his division office and collapsed. It has been reported that the Capitol Police initially issued a statement denying that a police officer had died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. Based on available facts (which may change) it is speculative to say at this time that he was murdered or slain. His family has made a plea that the death not be politicized.
Update: The National Pulse has since reported that early reports Officer Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher were false, and the New York Times has backed away from the claim. Revolver has done a deep dive into these events, raising further questions about the cause of death.
Based on available facts, it is reasonable to conclude that Sicknick’s death was not caused by the protest. Nevertheless, against the family’s wishes, the death has been used politically. Sicknick became only the fifth person to receive the distinction of lying in honor at the Capitol Rotunda. Alarmingly, this was done to ritualize the unsupported claim that he was slain by rioters. Democrat House impeachment managers alleged an “armed insurrection” based on the false assertion that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher. The United States Capitol is surrounded by razor wire and secured by military units on the premise that its previous security was breached by armed insurrectionists who murdered a police officer.
It is a lie.
With convenient timing, the media discover the anti-Trumpers aren’t all they were cracked up to be.
Using a political campaign as a vessel for personal financial aggrandizement, thriving on the oxygen supplied by an endless succession of ratings-hungry television hosts, deploying a rare knack for nasty personal and vituperative rhetoric, and in the case of one of them, allegedly indulging a voracious appetite for sexual predation—if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, these guys must have idolized Donald Trump. As with most self-conscious ideologically pure movements in history, they’ve wound up like the revolutionaries in “Animal Farm”: You look from the troughing Trumpers to the guzzling Never Trumpers and find it hard to spot the difference,
The real import of the brief history of the Lincoln Project, though, is not the familiar one of venal political consultants and hypocritical partisans, but the complicity of the media in facilitating their racket. Stories were already circulating last year about some dubious aspects of their enterprise: how much of the money they’d raised was funding their own lucrative businesses; rumors that one of them had a penchant to proposition unsuspecting young men by dangling employment opportunities.
But it wasn’t until last month that news organizations that proclaim themselves pursuers of the truth without fear or favor began to publish damaging stories: the Associated Press weighed in, then the New York Times and others.
The significance is the timing: It wasn’t until the election was over and Joe Biden safely on his way to the presidency that our media vigilantes finally decided it was time to tell the darker side of the people those same vigilantes had bathed in light for so long.
In a quiet but stunning correction, the New York Times backed away from its original report that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by a Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher during the January 6 melee at the Capitol building. Shortly after American Greatness published my column Friday that showed how the Times gradually was backpedaling on its January 8 bombshell, the paper posted this caveat:
UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.
The paper continued to revise its story within the body of the original January 8 story: “Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.”
The account of Sicknick’s death was reported as fact, not speculation or rumor. Further, it appears that the anonymous sources were not law enforcement officials but people “close” to the police department—which means they could have been anyone from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inveterate liar U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to the Democratic mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser.
Not only was the Times’ untrue story about Sicknick’s death accepted as fact by every news media organization from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, political pundits on the NeverTrump Right also regurgitated the narrative that Sicknick was “murdered” as did lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15, according to citizen journalist John Droz Jr., a physicist and environmental advocate in Morehead City, N.C.
Droz thus reports that Trump has won two-thirds of the cases fully adjudicated by the courts.
Three of the 15 cases whose rulings were favorable to Trump were filed on or after election day, Nov. 3.
Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6.
Source: Epoch Times
For more than five years, every attempt to take Trump down involved trying to sever him from his base. Democrats think the bond is emotional, missing that conservatives do not choose their leaders based on emotion. They choose the people they will support based on facts and reason:
1. The Mueller investigation focused on Russia because Democrats think Trump-supporters still have a Cold War mentality and assumed they would abandon him if he had been connected to Russians. Supporters saw that the facts did not support that he was a Russian sympathizer.
2. The Access Hollywood “Grab them…” tape was an effort to link Mr. Trump to behavior that Christians would hate. They forget that Christians are noted for forgiving past indiscretions when a person has shown a change in behavior.
3. The Ukrainian impeachment was appealing to conservatives’ opposition to seeing justice manipulated for personal gain, but conservatives saw that Trump did not manipulate justice and that it was a specific Democrat who gained personally.
4. The emoluments clause attack was an attack on Trump’s allegedly unfair business and earning abilities because Democrats thought that would appeal to conservatives’ sense of fairness in business. Conservative knew, however, that Trump’s businesses had been damaged because he was president.
5. The Charlottesville attack was intended to accuse Trump of being a racist to tar his supporters as racists. Conservatives know they are not racist, whether systemically or by privilege.
6. Not accepting the outcome of an election was to appeal to conservatives’ support for legal processes, but the evidence quickly began to accumulate that maybe there was a problem with the process.
7. Democrats used a pandemic to make Trump look unscientific and dangerous. Conservatives, however, examined the sometimes contradictory information that was coming out and couldn’t fault Trump.
8. The Democrats tried to sever conservatives’ support for the police by provoking in them the fear that they are living in a police state. Conservatives noted that local leaders were supporting the rioters and pushing back against federal intervention — and that Trump was content to avoid turning the federal government into a police state.
9. The latest effort is to make Trump into an insurrectionist, something a conservative would never be. Trump-supporters, though, know that Trump never urged violence against the government and that he offered National Guard troops whom the mayor and congressional leaders did not want. A person does not lead an insurrection by bringing in forces to fight an insurrection.
As I’m sure you know by now, gentle readers, protests in Washington, DC have turned “mostly peaceful.” As I’m sure you also know, the media is absolutely untrustworthy. The narrative, as this is written, is “Trump supporters” went wild. Of the photos I’ve seen, most of the individuals being so labeled are dressed in the traditional black of BLM and Antifa, appear to be anarchists, or are other assorted idiots—such as a guy in a horned helmet, apparently an escapee from a 4th rate Wagnerian opera company–looking for attention. What I suspect we’ll discover in the days to come is more or less that. What I’m not seeing, in the video and photos thus far, is the kind of wanton destruction and mayhem that is the trademark of the paramilitary wing of the D/S/C Party.
View original post 1,209 more words
That recent Time article I’ve already discussed ( in this post ) is the gift that keeps on giving. The more you think about the article, the more it seems to reveal and/or suggest. For example, take this excerpt [emphasis added mine; additions in brackets mine]: Election night began with many Democrats despairing.
A second odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”
In a way, Trump was right.
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”
That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
Source: Time Magazine
It was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it.