BALTIMORE, Maryland, Tuesday, February 28, 2017 and Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - Here we are, a week or so after Donald Trump's pronouncement that the Ultra Left Mainstream Media is, without any doubt, the "Enemy of the People." That's right, here we are. What has actually happened in America since that prodigious pronouncement that was said to have shaken America to its core?
To suffocating praise in the mainstream ultra left media, the Democratic National Committee chose Thomas Perez to be its new leader. Perez, a committed leftist - give the man credit here, he does not try to hide his political beliefs - immediately named the number two finisher in the balloting, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, to be his top deputy and, for all intents and purposes, co-leader. The reason for this move, both Perez and Ellison explained, was to ensure that the Democrats were united in the their battle against the very bad Donald Trump. Both Perez and Ellison's politics make their predecessor, Debora "Blabbermouth" Schultz, seem like a conservative, and Schultz, a top lieutenant (as it turned out) in Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for president, is no conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (By the way, the "Blabbermouth" tag is not mine, that is what she was called by many conservatives).
I should tell you up front that I was stunned to learn that anybody really argued about the idea that the Press was anti-Trump.
The "Media," as that term is understood by most Americans, is, in this this second decade of the third millennium following the birth of Christ, strictly a foot-soldier and tool of the Ultra Leftist Elites who run the Democratic Party.
It is possible that if you live, say, in Europe or in Africa, Asia or South America, you might not be following events in America close enough to understand this. You should not doubt the truth of this reality. Few in America do, although those still trundling about in the haze of life on the Ultra Left may not have been able to come clean with the the image in the mirror.
Another absolute truth that only those on the Ultra Left still have not come clean about is the trash about Russia affecting the outcome of the fall elections. I am not about to go into another round of spoon feeding here. Just remember this as you go forward. Trump won the fall Presidential Elections by winning, with relative ease, in the United States Electoral College. Russia had nothing to do with this victory.
Rush Limbaugh, expert as always in interpreting the meaning of events, says that Trump's victory will have one certain impact on the Ultra Left that it has, perhaps, not come to grips with just yet. The fact that the Left is out of power to a certain extent, will require it to show its policy choices and its politics much more publicly and much more plainly, than it is comfortable doing. Now, Limbaugh, says, the policy choices the hardcore Ultra Left favors will have to be put on the table. All of America will see exactly where the Ultra Left wants to take America.
I believe that Perez and Ellison are well aware of their situation and have already begun to deal with it. The coming together of Perez and Ellison immediately after the balloting shows how 'desperate' the task of avoiding a splintering of factions is to any chance they have of being successful. Ultimate success, Perez and Ellison said when they spoke jointly later Saturday evening, is winning back elected positions at both the state and national levels. It is truly mind-boggling to see how far the Democrats have fallen during the Obama years. Obama's re-election in 2012 apparently disguised the free-fall the Democratic Party was in during this time. At the national level, Obama took over in 2008 with the Democrats holding majority positions in both houses of Congress. When he left the White House just a few weeks back, the Republicans were firmly in control of the House and still in control of the Senate despite the inter-party brawling that marked the fall campaign.
At the state level the situation for the Democrats is far worse. The GOP is in firm control (by firm, I mean at both the Executive and Legislative levels) of 34 states, while the Democrats have firm control of only 4 states.
Even the Democrats' media lap dogs have been forced to concede this sorry state of affairs.
If there were real actual reporters interested in portraying the actual state of things to American voters, some of the questions they might pose to Perez and Ellison would be centered around the kinds of tactics that should now be considered mainstream and acceptable to attain and hold power in America.
We are coming out of an election cycle in which Democratic operatives right up the ladder to Ms. Clinton thought it was perfectly okay to disguise hired thugs (or, mercenaries, if you are more comfortable with the description) as Trump supporters and to use these disguised thugs (or mercenaries) to start stunningly violent confrontations at quite a few of Trump's campaign appearances (and before anybody tries to divert the subject matter by arguing about how many different appearances the thugs started violence, even one such episode is beyond the pale and should outrage all Americans. If you were a Hillary supporter, just imagine a future campaign in which such tactics were used against your candidate and his or her supporters). . Nobody, least of all the mainstream ultra left media, has inquired about an apology for those responsible, or indictments, for acts that would have been thought outrageous and far out of the mainstream just, well, eight years ago.
Instead - and if you give this any thought at all you will realize how completely shocking it is - the media has been perfectly content to forget all about this all-but-acknowledged thuggery and continue with business as usual. Does this mean that such acts are now not only tolerated but both encouraged and expected by both sides.
Following these events to the logical conclusion, the use of hired mercenaries instigating and participating in street violence has to be considered as fair game going forward. Some will say, why worry, only the Democrats do this. For how long?
And if we don't come to grips with these facts now, we will reap the benefit of our complicity sooner rather than later.
Eight years ago - before Obama - the Ultra Left was not in power. Ultra Left thuggery and fascist politics were deemed outrageous and un-American. There is a real question in 2017 about what America will stomach these days. Its something worth thinking about because nobody on the Democratic Side has even hinted that they apologize for the thuggery or discard the use of similar tactics. How can I say this? Betsy Devos is being guarded by U.S. Marshalls. Violent confrontations have followed Trump across America. When anyone other than an Ultra Leftist has a speech scheduled on college campuses, thuggery breaks out. In Congress, the new ideas of the Ultra Left do not exist. Their one and only contribution to the current political debate is to do everything they can to keep Trump from having his cabinet. That might play well to college age radicals, but it won't play well at all to American voters. And just imagine what will happen if, God Forbid, there is a real terrorist incident. You don't think the Ultra Left will claim responsibility? Have they come that far? I hope that these last two rhetorical questions are my idea of a bad joke. Trump's win left those In the camp of Hillary Clinton and Barack-El Obama with quite the conundrum. These would be leaders (a possibility that was so distasteful to millions of Americans that they went to the polls in droves to make sure it did not come to pass) faced a choice: come clean with the people in the Democratic Party and admit that they ran a badly flawed campaign and their candidate wasn't nearly as wonderful and, more importantly, electable, as they had told everybody, or, in the alternative, they would have to come up with some other explanation for President Trump's victory. These Ultra Leftists live in a never-never land anyway, so their decision to take the second door - the so-called alternate explanation - really isn't that surprising.
Remember, these are people who say that the seas will be boiling within five years if Hillary isn't running America. It seemed perfectly reasonable to these Ultra Leftist ding dongs to scream that the Russians stole the election from Hillary. At first, a bunch of ill-informed liberals bought into it. But when it came to providing a tad of evidence to back up this fairy tale, well, there hasn't been even a shred of such proof to be had. Anyone with an ounce of logic knew that right from the moment this absurdity made the rounds of the mainstream far left media. The proof would be in the evidence. But there wasn't any evidence.
The straight and easy to comprehend truth is that this lie isn't at all funny. The other night, all of the world's insomniacs were treated to more than an hour of sobering discussion about the Ultra Left's Russian Jive. Stephen F. Cohen, a Professor of Russian Studies and History, Emeritus, at NYU, and Professor of Politics Emeritus at Princeton University, who is also among the most distinguished scholars of Russian history in the United States, discussed the Democratic Party's efforts to convince people that the Russians stole the election from Hillary with George Noory, the host of Coast to Coast AM, the nation's most listened to overnight radio show. Cohen had just penned an op-ed piece for the New York Times on this very subject. To say that Mr. Cohen is exasperated and put-out about the DNC's campaign of lies is an understatement. He broke down the DNC's "argument" into six component parts, and looked for evidence that any of the six parts had a factual underpinning. He found none.
Mr. Cohen is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. But there he was, on a national radio hook up, saying in no uncertain terms that the DNC is trying to take Trump out with a story that just isn't true. If you have been paying attention, Mr. Trump calls what the DNC and the media, together, are doing is called Fake News. It is Fake News. Trump won the election with relative ease for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the terminal weakness of the Democratic Candidate, the complete lack of answers to the nation's profound economic problems (you can only tell people about the wonderful economic recovery that took place under Barack-El for so long when, in fact, there was no recovery), and the DNC's backing of policies that are totally contrary to the nation's best interests (when gruesome terror attacks are happening everywhere, the idea that the USA has to admit millions of unvetted immigrants from the part of the world where most of the terrorists get their training is just downright stupid. Yet Obama and Hillary kept saying that we had to, just had to, admit more and more potential terrorists, or we were bigots).
The Russians had nothing to do with Trump's win. The Kremlin might want the rest of the world to believe their espionage and cyber capabilities are great enough to pull something like this off, but (A) their espionage and cyber capabilities are not that great, even against managers as inept as the ones the Obama regime had in charge of their American counterparts; and (B) the Russians never made a serious effort to pull off anything so Herculean as changing the American Election results. If the Russians were to decide to change such an outcome, or even influence such an outcome, it would come in an election where the result would profoundly affect the way the Russian nation would fare in the subsequent four or eight years. In this election, the outcome would profoundly change the fate of the American nation, because either America's rapid free fall would continue if Hillary won, or the free fall would bottom out, finally, and start to improve, finally, if Trump won. Either way, the long term effect on Russia won't be all that dramatic in the near term no matter who won. Thus, the Russians would be extremely reluctant to play their big cards in an election that will not affect them all that much in the near term.
The mainstream media reacted to Rush Limbaugh's interview with Chris Wallace recently as if Limbaugh said something that was a new and completely novel idea, that no one in their right mind would or could ever think that they were the people's enemy. If you are just stupid, let me spoon feed it to you. (I know I said I wouldn't do this again, but here I go). Obama said up front that he'd change America. He did. The media described these awful changes as good things. They described how wonderful it was to have a vastly weakened military at a time when our enemies - Russia, China and Iran chief among them - were expanding and beefing up their military might as fast as they possibly could. The Leftist Media ecstatically wrote about the mindless anti-American deal that will bring nuclear weaponry to Iran. And when Obama and Frau Hillary did the quadruple massacre in Benghazi, they covered it up, keeping obvious facts from the American Citizenry for years. They knew what happened in Benghazi but they sat silently when Ms. Rice went on national TV a few days later and told bald faced lie after bald faced lie. How about that stupid debate when Candy "I love that Barack!" Crowley actually helped Obama answer a question he was stuck on. Real reporters were kicking in their TV screens, but you didn't hear about it because in reality, there are very few of these people still around. Where once there were reporters, now there are stool pigeons. Are they the people's enemy, these Tass Wannabes? They damn sure are. Case closed.
Most Americans are either conservative or conservatively leaning moderates. It doesn't bother me to say that even though I was a liberal for most of my life. I was so comfortable with conservative folk because most of the people in my family were conservative. It was people like John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, Martin Luther King and Woodward and Bernstein who got me to thinking that conservative politics weren't the road ahead for These United States. Today, the people who have taken over these roles show no inclination whatsoever in pursuing the Democrats who voted for Trump. Do they think there are no voters to be recruited to take their place?
I don't get it. I wonder what this means for the Democratic Party moving forward. Is there another way back to power for the Democrats that the two new leaders know about?
No comments:
Post a Comment