By Erik Rush
There’s a story that was largely ignored by the establishment press (an oddity, I know) this past spring which should have been one of the biggest news items of the year. In America these days, the press typically has one reason for ignoring or spiking stories, of course: If it doesn’t fit the narrative of the political left, it isn’t covered.
The particular nature of this one, however, speaks volumes as to why it was glossed over and why the one buried mention mischaracterized the item entirely.
In April and May of this year, citizens of the nation of Iceland essentially overthrew their government, establishing a new constitution and a citizens’ oversight framework intended to check the actions of their government in the future. The impetus for this was a major banking scandal that emerged in 2008 and whose repercussions have carried through to the present. This involved the collapse of all three of the country’s major privately owned commercial banks following their inability to refinance their short-term debt and a run on deposits. It is said to have been one of the worst aspects of the global economic meltdown that had its roots in the machinations of radicals in the U.S., complicit lawmakers and unscrupulous mortgage banking officials.
Now, the Icelandic banking scandal itself did come to light and was widely reported, but the ultimate result – the government being ousted – was not. In fact, a New York Times piece on the uprising (the “buried mention” to which I referred) framed the Icelanders as ingrates for disrespecting the political factions that had graciously navigated them through that turbulent period of time. It also did not cover the Tahrir Square-style demonstrations that gave rise to the subsequent elections.
The reason for a lack of American press coverage of the situation in Iceland is fairly evident. In a time in which we have prominent retired military personnel calling for the forced resignation of the president, his Cabinet and key congressional leaders, and some of the president’s most ardent supporters calling for his recall (though there is no provision for a recall of sitting presidents in the Constitution per se), it is likely that this stemmed from the political left’s wish to avoid giving Americans any ideas.
Read more at WND.com