It really is quite ironic that Al Gore popularized the phrase “An Inconvenient Truth,” and that irony is not only due to his own private jet-setting behavior coupled with nonstop lectures on carbon emissions to the rest of the world. It is also ironic because a wide variety of inconvenient truths continue to afflict the leftist narrative, including the false narrative that Trump caused the Capitol Hill riots.
On the contrary, Trump recently revealed steps he took in advance to secure Capitol Hill and D.C. in general on the day of January 6, only to have his efforts thwarted by … Democrats.
“I requested, I said this rally will be bigger than [anyone] thinks … Everyone said we’ll be at the rally. It was, I think, the largest crowd that I have ever spoken to before. I have spoken to big crowds, hundreds of thousands of people, more than that, but hundreds of thousands of people.” [Source: News Max]
In other words, Trump foresaw that any potential event could occur with hundreds of thousands of people present, particularly given the rather well-publicized scuffles between Trump supporters and anti-America proponents. Seeing this potential issue well in advance, Trump made a typically common sense decision to bring in thousands upon thousands of National Guard members.
Only to be blocked by Queen Pelosi herself, as also revealed by Trump, after he provided the Department of Defense with the appropriate number of National Guard members needed.
“They took that number, from what I understand, they gave it to people at the Capitol, that is controlled by Pelosi, and I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good.” [Source: News Max]
Furthermore, Trump himself did not confirm the asinine rejection of several thousand National Guard members, he is also backed up by Mark Meadows, the former Chief of Staff at the White House. In an appearance on “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo,” Meadows asserted that Trump definitely issued a “direct order” for up to 10,000 daily troops.
However, Paul Irving, the then-House sergeant-at-arms, otherwise known as someone responsible for protecting Capitol Hill, apparently refused to have that many National Guard members present due to “bad optics.”
News flash, Irving: Having zero attendees and thousands upon thousands of National Guard members present at Biden’s inauguration also does not represent the greatest use of “optics” either.
Unsurprisingly, Irving, along with others, resigned shortly after the Capitol Hill riots.
What is surprising is the fact that the National Guard continues to lurk around Washington, D. C., for apparently no reason. Or no reason that the Democrats will identify, anyway.
One clearly identifiable aspect of the ongoing National Guard presence includes the fact that the cost of this insane level of security is estimated to be at nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money (just imagine how far that half a billion would have gone towards stimulus for American households …)
In light of highly publicized news reports that the National Guard may remain present in the United States until the fall, some Americans eventually woke up to the fact that Biden’s administration is not exactly ground in unity, which meant that some self-serving politicians woke up, if only to preserve themselves.
According to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the National Guard members will apparently remain in D.C. until “only” mid-March.
“We don’t have an additional requirement or request from another federal agency to provide them support … We don’t have any additional requirements beyond the one that we just talked about.” [Source: Fox News]
Austin also gave himself a convenient out by stating that the National Guard very well may stick around beyond the target day of March 12, if “lawmakers” feel it is necessary.
“My plan is to not keep them one day longer than is necessary … Having said that, they know and understand that if our lawmakers need help, they need protection, they stand ready to provide that protection.” [Source: Fox News]
Rather convenient CYA.
Now, another question remains: Will Liz Cheney, along with many more, bother to rectify their previous positions on Trump’s impeachment?