With a new administration, let the Covid debates begin!

Given that “democracy dies in darkness,” it’s time to belatedly shine some sunshine on the bogus claims made by the world’s obtuse and crooked ‘experts’ and ‘authorities.’

At his confirmation hearings, RFK, Jr. might want to engage in an important public debate, but this is not going to be allowed to happen. This book probably gives a strong hint to the treatment he’ll receive from half his questioners.

News junkies will soon get to witness confirmation hearings for individuals nominated by President Trump to lead departments of the Federal Government.

For “Covid Contrarians,” the two most interesting hearings will be the confirmation hearings of RFK, Jr. (nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services) and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health).

These hearings will probably constitute the closest thing to real debates the public will get to hear from officials offering myriad critiques of the world’s coordinated response to the “threat” of Covid-19.

For American citizens unconvinced national leaders pursued the correct policies the last five years, these hearings should qualify as “must-watch” viewing.

Alas, clear-thinking citizens know these question-and-answer sessions will be nothing but political theater.

That is, no real debate will happen and, indeed, the format will be rigged to prevent real, substantive critiques.

For example, we know from a few House hearings on Covid response (and Censorship) that speakers will probably be allowed only three minutes to respond to Senators’ questions, which usually aren’t “questions” but five-minute speeches/attacks intended to denigrate the person invited to speak at said hearing.

A few members will ask important questions, but many of the issues are so complex, there’s no way even RFK, Jr. could make his most salient points in a 3 to 5-minute response, even if he’s not constantly interrupted.

Also, invariably, the most important questions - broaching the taboo or potentially thermo-nuclear issues - won’t even be asked.

The above points illustrate the warped state of American “democracy” in 2020-2025.

In a real democracy, the public is supposed to hear all sides of important issues in “public debates” and then make their own conclusions as to which side makes the most compelling or persuasive points.

One should also point out that those on the political Left incessantly rail about the “dangers to democracy” posed by MAGA supporters, “science deniers,” “anti-vaxers,” “conspiracy theorists,” etc.

Indeed, the Censorship Industrial Complex was ramped up to Orwellian dimensions to suppress and thwart the reach and influence of large groups of “contrarians” who simply wish to participate in debates which should be a vital feature in a genuine democracy.

Congressional “oversight” hearings - allegedly held in the “people’s houses” of Congress - rarely if ever offer substantive debates on issues of supreme national importance.

But, a work-around exists that would allow real debates to occur …

It occurs to me that any presidential administration should posses enough power to propose, sponsor and then host a series of legitimate national debates on topics of great national importance to our “democracy.”

That is, (hypothetically) nothing is stopping President Trump or RFK, Jr. (if he’s confirmed) from creating and publicizing a series of real debates on Covid topics.

If censored experts don’t have enough time to make their best points in Congressional Hearings - or don’t get asked the most-important questions - these speakers could develop these arguments more fully in real debates held at forums across the nation over a period of several months or weeks.

These would be authentic debates as “experts” who hold opposite views would be invited to participate and would be allowed equal time to make their own points.

The public could then decide who made the most impressive arguments and reach conclusions on which speakers “won” the debate.

“Democracy” in its purest sense could perform its magic.

“Bill, I didn’t know you were this naive …”

Of course, I can already hear my readers pounding their keyboards and identifying the most obvious rebuttal to this non-radical proposal.

“Bill, nobody on the ‘other side’ is going to accept an invitation to participate in these debates.”

Exactly. No pregunta.

However, this almost-certain truism simply confirms that approximately half the country - including the vast majority of its most-influential “leaders” - do NOT support genuine debates and, thus, do not support genuine democracy.

In fact, these people and organizations are terrified of genuine public debates and maintain their power, control and wealth because such democratic debates do not occur.

Still, nothing is stopping some agency of government or the Trump administration sponsoring a series of “Town Hall” debates around the country.

Aside: In thinking about this proposal, I thought of the Clinton Administration, which once sponsored a series of “Conversations on Race.” I simply envision a series of “conversations” on the Establishment’s “Response to Covid,” which was/is the biggest story/issue of our times.

If and when all the experts who supported the Covid response decline these invitations, the public can make its own determinations about which side is chicken shit (and doesn’t really believe in real debates or “democracy in action.”)

I’d still hold these forums simply to illustrate the above point.

For example, the first “debate” might be held at Ohio State University in the American heartland (if Ohio State’s leaders even allowed the Trump administration to use its tax-paper-funded facilities - a big “if.”)

At the beginning of the event, someone could tell the audience that A, B and C were invited to participate (and defend the Status-Quo programs) and “declined this invitation.”

The fact the architects or most-avid defenders of the government’s Covid response refuse to engage in a pubic debate would, thus, be “duly noted.”

Or, maybe this proposal would generate a few takers …

Of course, it’s possible organizers could recruit a few speakers who were willing to debate the “science deniers.” (Maybe these debaters would appreciate the opportunity to grow their national brands among the “Your-Local-Epidemiologist” market?)

However, if even one or two debates actually took place, one wonders how many national media “news” organizations would even cover these debates.

Here, my assumption is the “gatekeepers of the news” would know the “Covid Contrarian” speakers would rout the Status Quo’s speakers in said debates and, thus, would not want to let the public reach this possible conclusion.

I’m confident making my “news black-out” prediction because I remember that no mainstream news organization covered the series of hearings Sen. Johnson held with dozens of whistleblowers who offered “other viewpoints” on the toxicity of the official Covid response.

I also remember that the “Censorship hearings” in the House of Representatives were … censored.

Still, the point that the “watchdog, democracy-defending” news media won’t even cover important real debates would also be duly noted.

Democracy actually does die in darkness …

The Washington Post uses the marketing slogan that “democracy dies in darkness.” However, The Post never acknowledges that it’s one of hundreds of prominent “news” organizations that have conspired to keep the views of “dissidents” in the darkness.

The Post’s preposterous marketing slogan, again, illustrates the perverse brand of “democracy” supported by the Fourth Estate.

I should also point out that numerous highly-intelligent and accomplished individuals who share my views have been proposing a series of high-profile national debates on Covid topics for years.

Steve Kirsch, who has more than a quarter million subscribers at his Substack, is perhaps the best-known writer or “citizen researcher” who’s tried to make this happen. Also, Joe Rogan famously tried to host such a debate on his show and found no takers. (Even the carrot of large sums of money doesn’t work).

These declined debate offers reinforce that only one side is afraid to debate. The other side has long been pleading for such debates.

*** (Unleash the power of the Share Button.) ***

I’ve even volunteered to take on the experts …

I’m just an obscure freelance writer from Troy, Alabama but I was confident enough in my debating abilities to propose such a debate.

In Alabama, our state’s leading “news organization” is the website al.com, which is the former Birmingham News, Mobile Press-Register and Huntsville Times, all three newspapers now effectively deceased or 100-percent captured.

For many months, one of al.com's well-known content-providers hosted a weekly podcast on Covid issues. This journalist routinely asked readers/viewers for suggestions on future episodes.

In at least three emails, I told this journalist al.com should produce a segment that highlighted the views of people who do not necessarily accept the claims made by the Covid experts.

As a journalist who’s spent years researching and writing about these topics, I volunteered to present these views. I also mentioned that I’d be happy to debate either himself or any pubic health expert he could find who would participate in a debate on all the claims I think are bogus.

In my emails, I made several points I thought were excellent. For example:

• al.com readers would appreciate this news organization at least doing one podcast segment that presented “balance” or other viewpoints. This would show al.com appreciates the societal value of real debates (and doesn’t fear or censor such debates).

• Furthermore, I opined a segment on this topic would probably produce record ratings, which presumably would make this news organization happy.

• Thirdly, I pointed out if my views are so outrageous and indefensible, the fact I would presumably lose such a debate would reinforce the narrative that those who hold such views are “wackos” or disinformation spreaders.

That is, my humiliation would ultimately harm my side (and benefit the podcaster’s side) by proving the points of the Covid Contrarians were clearly wrong and dangerous, etc.

That is, if our side’s claims are so preposterous, this would be easily proven in a real debate.

It goes without saying that my debate invitation/podcast suggestion was declined. In fact, I never even received the courtesy of a reply.

It also goes without saying that nobody in the “Joe Biden” administration proposed such a series of debates. In fact, they did everything they could - fair or unfair - to block such debates.

However, on Monday a new sheriff will arrive in town.

I say let the real debates commence … “Late,” or belated, is indeed “better than never.”

One-time Ko-Fi donations greatly appreciated!