If left-wing revisionists have their way—and they often do—then the demonstration at the US Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6 will be a watershed moment in defining whatever lies ahead, be it the decline of the American Empire or the rise of the New World Order.
In reality, the scaffolding has long been set. There’s no reason to believe that thousands of pro-Trump supporters were in on the take, but there is good evidence to believe that there were Antifa instigators embedded, just as there have been in dozens of leftist riots over the past half-year.
Some anti-Trump subversives, such as radical Utah-based activist John Sullivan, were later outed for their involvement.
EXPOSED— ANTIFA was littered throughout the Capitol yesterday.
A THREAD:
— Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) January 7, 2021
That, in turn, sent fake-news outlets scrambling to spin the narrative.
But it was just one of many brazen lies being perpetuated by what is now a full-fledged propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, bent on using patent falsehoods to prevent any further challenges to the Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi hegemony that they desperately depend on for their survival.
Here is a rundown of some of the most shameful examples of disinformation:
1. ‘No Evidence’ that Leftists Were Involved
For all their talk of wanting to use face-recognition software to hunt down anybody who dared enter the so-called People’s House illicitly, Democrats in reality would likely regret what they find.
In response to reports of left-wing infiltrators, some media outlets plugged in the Left’s go-to disclaimer, “no evidence,” as if saying it served sufficiently to debunk the empirical reality.
Case after case of Democrat humiliation has shown that the throw-away phrase typically means nothing more than that the journalists were too biased and/or lazy to adhere to their ethical obligation to pursue the truth.
As was true in the vote-fraud saga, which the Left also has continued to ignore, both eyewitness accounts and documented evidence belie their disingenuous denial.
Some media coverage trumpeted a preliminary FBI statement denying that it had been aware in advance of potential violence or Antifa plans to infiltrate the crowd. But that, too, has since been debunked by an FBI bureau’s acknowledgement that it was aware.
Moreover, word broke on Thursday that another high-profile detainee, Aaron Mostofsky, is a registered Democrat. Mostofsky is the son of a New York judge, who is also a Democrat, according to RedStateNation.
As for the aforementioned John Sullivan—evidence showed him actively participating in the vandalism, joking about the death of Capitol Police shooting victim Ashli Babbitt and making online threats to “rip Trump from the White House.”
Naturally that prompted a rehab effort from phony fact checkers like PolitiFact and the utterly loathsome former music mag Rolling Stone, still licking its wounds from its 2014 libel scandal involving a fake gang-rape at the University of Virginia.
The magazine—which also triggered ridicule and contempt for putting Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover in a rock-star-style portrait—hailed Sullivan as “a civil rights activist and crowdfunded video journalist.”
According to its account, he “donned a bullet-proof vest and … scrambled up scaffolding and repeatedly weaved through a crush of rioters to record clashes between the mob and law enforcement.”
Several right-wing activists have since taken the cue from Sullivan to maintain that they, too, were members of the press involved in wholly journalistic enterprises. And given the loose standards of the so-called press, that line is easily blurred.
2. BLM Comparisons Are a ‘False Equivalency’
“The GOP has become the party of false equivalences,” phony Rutgers University academic James Jones told the Associated Press recently.
In one sense, gaslighting leftist such as James and CNN’s Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo—who deny that the form of violent protest they vocally supported was anything like the one they vocally oppose—are not entirely off the mark.
After all, the dueling protests are not equivalent but share more of a cause-and-effect relationship.
Months of riots nationwide that used a supposed social justice grievance to justify massive destruction and criminal conduct, often with total impunity, were gradually building all along to the inevitable conservative backlash, which got its point across quickly and was cleared in a matter of hours.
Moreover, the conservative tipping point was bound to be tied to the dubious election outcome after Democrats unconstitutionally changed or refused to enforce election laws, claiming as their pretext the coronavirus.
But while the two forms of civil disobedience may well be a strained comparison, the fraudulent justifications currently being made for the earlier riots add a tinge of absurdity to the claims.
The Associated Press’s Julie Watson, for instance, offered the following editorial masquerading as a news piece:
“The mob at the Capitol was fueled by baseless conspiracies propagated by Trump that the election was stolen from him through massive fraud. The rioters acted on the president’s direct urging to ‘fight like hell.’ They attacked police with pipes and chemicals and planted bombs. They were met largely with restraint by law enforcement,” Watson claimed, without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever.
On the other hand, “The unrest that followed [George] Floyd’s death included vandalism, arson and looting, but the vast majority of demonstrations were peaceful. Some of the worst violence was in Portland, where thousands of protesters turned out nightly for weeks. Some hurled fireworks, rocks, ball bearings and bottles at federal agents, and a member of a right-wing extremist group was gunned down by an antifa supporter,” she said.
“But prominent BLM activists repeatedly distanced themselves from provocateurs and brawlers,” Watson speciously continued, while utterly disregarding the countless Trump supporters—including the president himself—who repeatedly repudiated the Capitol violence.
It seems, ironically, that making a false-equivalency between the two “events” is entirely appropriate for the Left, but only if it advances the absurd narrative that BLM and Antifa did nothing wrong and were treated way worse by authorities than, say, 14-year Air Force veteran Ashil Babbitt was at the Capitol.
3. It Was an Inside Job
There is a certain allure to false-flag conspiracy theories, and indeed both sides have engaged in them.
The Capitol Police put up suspiciously little resistance, although the reason may simply be—as some have acknowledged—that they weren’t expecting a MAGA rally, normally peaceful and orderly, to get out of hand.
Theoretically, it would be very useful to Democrats to have another “serious crisis” to capitalize on, thereby claiming some sort of moral high ground as they seek to assume total, unfettered control of the government.
In fact, such a strategy has been highly successful before: Adolf Hitler used the same principle to pin the burning of the German Parliament, the Reichstag, on his political adversaries in 1933, allowing him to secure a stranglehold on power for the Nazis.
Because they lack an obvious motive, Democrats’ conspiracy theories about the Capitol are a bit more far-fetched.
Were they not so dangerous, the claims being levied by Democrat members of Congress—and seriously reported by the media—suggesting that their GOP colleagues were involved might otherwise seem comical.
A letter from 30 Democrats to the interim House sergeant-at-arms asked for a probe into “reconnaissance” missions that GOP congressmen may have led on the Tuesday prior to the protest, even though members of Congress routinely offer tours for their constituents.
The rationale, the paranoid Democrats claimed, was that they noticed unusually large groups on the day in question, not just the stray family unit.
In other words, after seeing swarms of tourist coming into town for a massive, well-publicized event, these elitist elected officials found it suspicious that American citizens might also want to stop by one of Washington, DC’s most famous public landmarks.
Meanwhile, firebrand Squad member Karen Ayonna Pressley took partisan finger-pointing to the brink, claiming that Republicans had given her husband the coronavirus and had stolen all the panic buttons from her office before the “siege” began.
But the circumstances appeared to suggest under scrutiny that, if anything, she might be the one logically implicated by both accusations.
4. Trump Allies Are Jumping Ship
With nothing standing in their legislative path, vindictive Democrats showed no hesitation in sending off President Trump by making him the first president to be impeached twice.
Never mind that both attempts have forever tarnished the significance of what was designed as the ultimate check on executive power, instead turning it into a cynical strategy for partisans to campaign upon and rally their base with minimal political risk.
But for the sake of legitimacy, this time the stakes had to appear to be even higher—blocking Trump from ever again holding office—and “bipartisan” support needed to mean more than just Mitt Romney.
House Democrats found their champions in 10 GOP members, mostly either ambitious congressional freshmen who saw a way to put their names in headlines or disgruntled neocons who had a personal score to settle.
Likewise, in the Senate, there may be a few Republicans who are more shrewd than loyal and see a post-presidency conviction as an opportunity to neutralize the GOP’s most domineering presence.
But, by and large, Trump backers are standing with him, not because of a particular allegiance to the man—apart from his being the duly elected president—but because of Trump’s commitment to the MAGA mission.
There is no reason any rational-minded conservative who sees through the veneer of falsehoods should turn against Trump simply for losing an uphill political battle that was rigged from the outset.
Still, fake news has hyped up unsupported claims that Vice President Mike Pence was considering invoking the 25th Amendment, followed by claims that out-going Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was giddy over the prospect of impeachment, and most recently that Trump intended to stiff Rudy Giuliani over the (admittedly exorbitant) legal bill for his efforts to challenge the election.
Pence and McConnell—both of whom were publicly chastised by Trump over recent policy differences—may indeed bear personal grudges. But both know that a betrayal—stabbing Trump in the back on his way out—would undermine all that they represent and have worked for. Neither of the skilled political veterans would see anything to be gained by caving to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s scheming to destroy the popular party leader.
As for Giuliani, reports indicate that he may yet be on board to represent Trump at the upcoming impeachment trial, although some Trump-backers may be less-than-thrilled about that, given his underwhelming track record in the vote-fraud cases.
5. A Monolithic Expression of White Supremacy
The tired trope of a “white supremacist” boogeyman, reincarnated from the skeletal remains of the Democrat-dominated Ku Klux Klan, ordinarily would not merit further comment.
But since the incoming president and vice president wantonly exploited the Capitol protest—an event where race was entirely immaterial—in order to promote a pre-existing social-justice agenda, this ploy is a special kind of contemptible.
Soon-to-be president Joe Biden has repeatedly been denounced for using the tragic 2017 clash in Charlottesville, Virginia, to engage in similar blaxsploitation by promoting a false narrative.
Although the event drew unsavory and unwelcome representatives of the extreme right, Biden and others have often mischaracterized Trump’s statement that there were “very fine people” on both sides, which he made as part of a broader condemnation of violence and racial hatred.
Likewise, at the Capitol protest there were Confederate flags present and reports of nooses, suggesting a racial antipathy among some attendees (or, perhaps, simply a middle finger to the growing threat of unconstitutional censorship and cancel culture).
But the diversity of Trump’s support base is a testament to his leadership. People from many different walks of life and cultural backgrounds gathered together under one common cause, a shared vision for making America great, while respecting the free speech rights of others—be it those they agreed or disagreed with.
Conversely, as it always is when white liberals (like Biden) invoke race and make overgeneralizations about minorities, his claims about a double-standard in police response came off as tone-deaf, divisive, exploitative and insulting to the non-white Trump supporters in attendance.
If nothing else, the 2020 election revealed an eroding base among many demographic groups whose allegiance to Democrats has long been taken for granted but who agreed that Trump’s populist appeal was a better reflection of their values.
As consequence, attempts to use racial dog-whistles interchangeably with left-wing political virtue-signaling come off more than ever as hollow, mindless buffoonery.
Although Trump-backing minorities sent a clear signal to the Democrats that race-baiting rhetoric has outlasted its welcome in the political discourse, the Left’s refusal to heed the warning, and to rely on utter nonsense as the cornerstone of its platform, eventually will come back to haunt it.
