UNTIL recently the sanity of anyone suggesting that the Wuhan virus could have come from a laboratory was put in issue, something I learned over a year ago. It is fascinating when reality catches up.
Recently I heard on local radio a US-based commentator, of no strong political views, nonchalantly using my long-standing formulation of the US mainstream media as “the propaganda arm” of the Democratic Party.
How long before he describes BLM and Antifa as their paramilitary arm or says that the only reason conservative judges would not hear cases on the 2020 election was because they were afraid.
The question is not whether the Wuhan virus escaped from a laboratory, nor whether the regime knowingly allowed it, without warning, to be spread across the world.
The only outstanding question is whether the virus was deliberately leaked. This column is not arguing this, but some are and with such a brutal regime, it is quite possible.
The only question is whether the virus was deliberately leaked … and with such a brutal regime, it’s quite possible.David Flint
Nor do we know the full involvement in all this of American establishment figures, not least Anthony Fauci.
Not only did he lift the 2014 ban on “gain-of-function” research — making viruses more lethal — without telling the Trump White House as well as indirectly directing taxpayers’ funds to the notorious Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Now, Australian investigative journalist Sharri Markson has tracked down Fauci’s arguments defending such research in a 2012 paper in a scientific journal. It seems inconceivable that Fauci would have been unaware of communist military interest in this type of research.
One thing is clear. President Trump was right. Indeed, evidence is mounting that Trump’s policies at home and abroad were what both America and the West needed.
At the same time, the conclusion that the Biden family indulged in a longstanding enterprise in the sale of access and influence into the very heart of Washington has been confirmed by Miranda Devine’s recent discovery of evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop
This is that Joe Biden, as Vice President, met with Hunter’s Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakhstani clients at a dinner on April 16, 2015, in a Georgetown institution whose catchphrase is: “Where the world’s most powerful people go”.
As leading radio commentator Mark Levine concludes, this means that not only did Joe Biden lie during the election debates but that the mainstream and social media covered for him, especially during the election campaign. Biden is fatally compromised by Beijing.
There are clear facts here to justify impeachment hearings. On this Mark Levine has recently raised a question that previously concerned this column. Why has a special counsel not been appointed to investigate this? It is no surprise the mainstream media are not asking, but why is not Congress?
Knowing that until Marxism came to influence the White House the US would not tolerate a communist takeover of Taiwan, Beijing had long accepted the status quo, provided Taiwan did not formally declare independence.
But Xi Jinping no doubt sees himself as another Mao, even inserting an approving reference to his “thought” into what passes as a constitution. He clearly wants to do to Taiwan what he is doing to Hong Kong in flagrant breach of Beijing’s solemn treaty undertakings.
Clearly Joe Biden’s term is seen as a window of opportunity; if electoral fraud can be neutralised, Donald Trump is likely to be the next president.
Despite long ridiculing Trump’s views on the virus’s origin and one of his first acts being to close down Trump’s investigation into the virus, Biden, sensing that he will be exposed for misleading the nation, on May 26 asked intelligence services to agree on the origin within 90 days.
And now Facebook has decided it will no longer liquidate, electronically, anyone who dares suggest the laboratory is the likely source.
Nevertheless, Facebook continues to act as an imperial Ministry of Truth, so arrogant it actually believes it can gag an “elected official” of a friendly power on a fabricated charge of “misinformation”.
They thus took away Craig Kelly’s ability to communicate with over 100,000 people merely because he dared repeat respectable medical opinion concerning treatment of the Wuhan virus, opinion which was being suppressed by the corrupt US mainstream media in its anti-Trump campaign.
Following an opinion expressed here that this was a flagrant breach of privilege, Craig Kelly raised this in Parliament. Interrupted by the Speaker who indicated he would consider the matter, Mr Speaker’s eventual ruling was that Mr Kelly did not have even a prima facie case.
Speaker Lenthall, immortalised at the State Opening of Parliament for his defence of the House of Commons and especially the Five Members against King Charles I, would be saddened. So why is there not outrage today at what is being imposed by this juggernaut from afar?
Fortunately, Mr Speaker does not have the last say.
A trial before the Privileges Committee and the House could be a world-wide turning point: the beginning of the end of out-of-control social media.
It would encourage a review of American law and practice, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act which excuses them from editorial liability, the forcible breaking up of their monopolies under the Sherman Act and a review of the Supreme Court’s public figure defence which licenses the media to libel with impunity. (That was probably what Prince Harry meant as “bonkers” and not the First Amendment as such.)
Meanwhile the much-maligned Clive Palmer seems to have as his mission the advancement of liberty and freedom.
His 2019 federal election advertising helped many Labor voters know how they would suffer under Labor policy, a factor explained twice in this column.
His campaigns for constitutional observance, for justice for Israel Folau and in supporting Craig Kelly’s defamation case and his re-election are all most commendable.