Democrats in need of reality

A recent editorial headline in the Wilmington StarNews (print edition) caught my attention: Democrats in need of a new strategy. (Link below) The Editorial Board made some good points, but in my opinion they missed the main one. Democrats don’t need a new strategy they need a reality check. Their party no longer represents the majority of Americans or traditional American values. Certainly not in North Carolina.

Editors write, “We believe the state (North Carolina) functions better when there are at least two viable parties debating ideas on a level playing field and—in an ideal world—occasionally compromising with one another.”

Several problems with this: Democrats have shown they do not have a “viable” party (refer to my next to last sentence in the first paragraph); their representatives and supporters are incapable of “debating ideas” (they have no worthwhile ideas); there is no such thing as a “level playing field” in politics; we don’t live in an “ideal (Utopian) world”; and you can’t “compromise with irrational people who hate you.

The StarNews Editorial Board: “The Dems are in sad shape, statewide and nationally.” True. “They’re locked in an interminable debate over message.”

I think they have a “message” problem because most people are tired of hearing their worn-thin social justice messages: they speak only for tribal groups who they represent as victims; Republicans oppress minorities and want to take away their “rights” and government benefits–even illegal aliens; Republicans want to suppress voting – by you-know-who—with limiting early voting, requiring voter ID and drawing election maps.

Dems have an attitude and thinking problem. They look at opposition as enemies— and they are not common sense thinkers; they operate on emotion. Republicans bad; Dems good.

Most of our urban areas are controlled—I use that word loosely—by Democrats; areas where the greatest poverty and criminal activity occurs including frequent murders and riots. Democratic operating policies are destructive and unworkable. Worse, they are often immoral and hypocritically operating under the guise of Christianity.

The second website below illustrates how “social justice” groups in North Carolina work to attack Republicans in this State.

Dems do not accept the reality of the human condition. Nor do they understand or promote the vital virtues of self-discipline, responsibility, work, courage, perseverance, honesty, loyalty, and faith; much less the critical importance of traditional family relationships to a stable society. In short, Dems have no principles.

Rather than develop positive messages with honorable strategies, they wage war on the opposition party and most of the American people. For example, here in North Carolina the State Democrat Party’s tactical effort is called “Break the Majority.”

That tells us all we need to know about why the Dems need a reality check and why they are largely unfit to represent the majority of Americans.

***

http://www.starnewsonline.com/opinion/20170722/editorial-july-22-democrats-should-focus-on-ballots-not-protests

http://christianactionleague.org/news/rev-barber-prayer-and-social-justice/

Posted in Irrational Political Views | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Who fights for us?

The following essay (slightly edited by me) by Evan Sayet published at Townhall on July 13, 2017 is worth reading for those who think our current president  lacks “docorum.”

Mr. Sayet reflects my feelings; the hell with decorum we’re in the fight of our political and cultural lives against vicious, nasty, violent, no-holds-barred Leftists–we need people who will fight back, even if they use some of the Left’s own tactics.

***

 

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”  Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.  I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.  I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.  Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s (Yes, the 1860s).   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors…

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch.  In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank.  But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting.  And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”  That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.   It is a book of such pure evil that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.

First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN.  He made it personal.  Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”

Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.

Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position.  With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat.  They need to respond.  This leaves them with only two choices.

They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.

The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.  It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN.  This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”

This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do.  The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious.  Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media.

And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes.   Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly.

Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNN using their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme.  This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family — a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him.  If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public.

Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated.

This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.

So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?  Of course I do.   These aren’t those times.  This is war.  And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting  without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.

 

By Evan Sayet, from Townhall, July 13, 2017

Posted in cultural corruption, Irrational Political Views, National Politics, Press Bias | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Liberalism and internal wars against Americans

Some American history scholars may dispute this assessment, but in my lifetime we’ve had at least two periods of internal warfare: a Civil Rights War in the 1960s and a Cultural War during the 21st century. Actually, it appears that these conflicts have morphed into a gigantic clash that has split Americans into at least two ideological camps; Traditional and Anti-American (mistakenly called “progressive”).

I use the term war to identify the events when conflicts result in destruction of property, personal injuries and death by large violent street mobs, or individual and small group assassins and terrorists. Clearly, we are at war with radical Islamists—or, more accurately, we don’t know what we are, but they are at war because of their hatred of whatever we are, instead of Muslim.

Astute and honest historians trace our splintered society back to “The Lost Cause,” what I call Lincoln’s war against the Confederate States of America. And after, the vengeful period called “Reconstruction.” Richard M. Weaver was such a historian.

Richard Malcolm Weaver was born in Ashville, North Carolina in 1910. In 1953 he bought a house in Weaverville, North Carolina—a town named for his ancestors—for his ailing mother and other family members.

He died prematurely in 1963 of a sudden heart attack in his apartment near the College of the University of Chicago. Weaver taught undergraduate courses in composition and rhetoric in the English department. He wrote scholarly books and essays about conservatism and Southern history and culture.

In 2000 Ted J. Smith III (no relation) edited many of Weaver’s shorter essays in a book titled, “In Defense of Tradition.” Smith’s Introduction to this work provides details of Weaver’s life and literary accomplishments. He notes that “Weaver is now widely recognized as one of the most original and perceptive interpreters of Southern culture and letters.”

Prof. Weaver’s works were published in a wide variety of outlets including National Review. It is the next to last of his essays published in Smith’s book that I find relevant to my comments above. “Reconstruction: Unhealed Wound” was published in a February 1959 issue of National Review.

Weaver thought the “Civil War” was a “failure” because “there was no sense in its lasting so long…Instead, it turned into a struggle of some twenty major battles and a final war of attrition in the Eastern theater (not to mention the deaths of more than a half-million Americans and the total destruction of Southern farms, homes and cities). The Lincoln administration, though determined on its course, was ignorant of war,” he wrote.

After the shooting-war ended and Lincoln was killed, Congress (mostly from Northern States) took charge of settling scores with the South they hated (They “fought and vilified” President Andrew Johnson “at every step”). Weaver writes, “They saw in their section’s victory an unparalleled opportunity for vengeance, economic exploitation, political domination, and the other attendant benefits of conquest.” Weaver refers to these malicious people as “plotters of Reconstruction.”

He also noted that the “plotters” were shortsighted, not to realize that “if the Southern people were to be forcibly kept in the Union, the rest of the Americans would have to live with them on some terms and might even one day need them.”

Weaver cites a book titled, The Angry Scar by Hodding Carter (“a well-known Southern Liberal”) retelling the story: “He relates the Carpetbagger invasion, the story of the kangaroo governments which were set up in the Southern states, the fury of the Radicals in Congress, and the bleeding of a section (of America) already left bankrupt by the war. The oppressions, knaveries, thefts and debaucheries of Reconstruction were so numerous and so awful that even the unimpassioned historian must present a vivid set of facts.”

In Carter’s book, the Southern resistors to this oppression were called “Redemptionists,” (a religious term) “Conservatives,” and “Bourbons” (sociopolitical reactionaries).

But Weaver thought he missed an important reality: “…people do not behave, nor are they expected to behave, under a state of duress as they do in a free and unforced condition. In times of war, even deception is recognized as a legitimate weapon, and Reconstruction was hardly different from a prolongation of the war. The Ku Klux Klan was a ‘lawless’ organization.” (So was the Union League founded by Northern carpetbaggers to promote hatred of Southern white people by the Negroes.)

Weaver refers to the KKK as the “Confederate Underground.”  It was a resistance movement and a counter force to the Union League terrorizing Negro and white Democrats in the South.

This brings me to a conclusion and today. Weaver sums up his critique of Carter’s thinking, that fifty-eight years later is still relevant when Anti-Americans have turned their irrational wrath on Southern people and their symbols. And it helps explain the roots of why we are still deeply divided as a nation.

Weaver:  “It has been suggested from more than one quarter that a Liberal is unfitted by his presuppositions to understand the tragic aspects of existence and indeed really to deal with the problem of evil…Liberalism is a kind of abstractive process which takes out whatever is unmalleable and fashions the remainder into a dream world of wishful thinking.”

And so, where modern Liberalism persists the internal wars against Americans will continue.

Posted in American history | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Historical ignorance and bias

An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.

__ Credited to Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne begins a recent commentary with some patriotic platitudes and ends with arrogant impatience. He writes, “we (Americans) are as badly fractured in approaching history as we are in confronting the present.”

Actually, I would say that we are seriously split on facing the present because of our lack of understanding history—or, more precisely, because of our ignorance of American history.

Mr. Dionne tries on his patriot hat: “…put aside our divisions to celebrate (July 4th) a shared love for our country (but only his part of the country); …we need to nourish this capacity for empathy (but only for certain people he approves of); …rally around the core idea of the Declaration of Independence (but only the idea as it relates history to his current biases).

Then, Dionne lurches into historical mythology. “We fought the Civil War over the question of who was included in the (Declaration of Independence) phrase ‘all men are created equal.’” He is, however, correct to preface this statement with, “But this is precisely where our disagreements about (this) history start.” Yes, they do.

This unnecessary war was vastly more complex than Dionne’s simplistic, misguided thinking reveals: It was about radical, violent abolitionists; new States admitting slavery; high tariffs proposed on Southern trade; excessive central government power; invasion of sovereign States with military force; and a long history of disputes over rights of State citizens versus the growing abuses of federal government.

Many books by independent historians and Southern scholars have been written explaining these and other causes of Lincoln’s war on the Confederate States of America.

Notice that Confederates also considered themselves Americans, but free and independent of the original Union because of its totalitarian abuses against them. Most important, they fought bravely for years against an enemy that waged war on civilians and destroyed everything in its path, including the homes and livelihoods of Negros who were presumed to be “emancipated,” but who Yankees cared little about. Lincoln wanted to ship them all back to Africa.

Dionne went to New Orleans to celebrate Mayor Mitch Landrieu taking down Confederate monuments. He wanted readers to learn about Landrieu’s “exposition”—underscoring “how important it is to see history accurately and not how we might wish it to be.”

Of course, that’s exactly what Landrieu did. He has disdain for Confederate leaders who, even Northerners respected until at least 100 years after the war. He and Dionne believe the Confederacy was “a cult.” Its goal, they say, was “to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.” And they are on the wrong side of history.

To their distorted thinking Confederate monuments prove their “truth”—“The Confederacy brought back to life as a so-called noble cause to rationalize the post-Reconstruction regime of white supremacy.”

Applying these modern views to long ago conditions, values and culture is a serious error in rational thinking. But, of course, they can’t get past the idea of slavery, so bitterly embedded in their irrational thoughts that they aren’t able to accept it in context with the humanity of the times. They lack humility and respect for fellow Americans.

It’s pitifully sad that people such as Dionne and Landrieu are so vengeful and hate filled as to want to deprive others—who have done nothing to them—of memories of their ancestral American heroes and history; and even their American flags.

Posted in National Disunity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Climate science and politics

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light….

___Max Planck, German physicist

An OP/ED commentary recently sent to the Washington Post and reprinted in the Wilmington, N. C. StarNews accuses President Donald Trump of “willful ignorance on the science of climate change.” Ben Santer, the author, is credited with being a “climate scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.” He’s also caught up in a political agenda.

After a dramatic opening paragraph about falling into the darkness of a glacial crevasse in France, Santer now, 40 year later, finds himself “in a different kind of darkness—the darkness of the Trump administration’s scientific ignorance.” See, Trump is his problem not his flawed theory.

One wonders if in past generations it was appropriate for scientists to publically accuse people skeptical of their favorite theory of being ignorant. I trained and worked with scientists most of my adult life, and this attitude would have been thought unseemly and unethical. It also indicates that scientists who demean and try to delegitimize those who question their unproven theories know they are on shaky ground—their case is weak or untenable.

Instead of making their case with irrefutable evidence produced by scientific methods (so far unavailable) “warmers” desperately go about accusing the skeptics of being “climate deniers” and ignorant. There is much ignorance about climate science, but honest scientists admit it.

The dishonest and politically motivated ones declare the theory of manmade climate change caused by CO2 is “settled science”—we must accept it because they say so. Yet no scientific theory is established until it is proven.

Worse it’s almost criminally irresponsible to speculate on great climate catastrophes years ahead and raise unreasonable alarms without proof. Manmade climate change has nothing to do with science and is everything about the politics of Marxism transferred to the religion of environmentalism.

Recently, I’ve noticed that the media promote a flurry of nearly hysterical articles by writers who condemn legitimate skepticism about manmade climate change theory. It’s as though they realize that many people are becoming suspicious of their wildly ignorant claims and are desperate to discount it: (The Trump administration) “fiddles while the planet burns,” writes Santer. No rational person believes that.

The primary reason for us all to be highly suspicious of warmers’ claims—aside from the fact that thousands of physical scientists are also skeptical of those who promote irresponsible fears about CO2 and climate change— is when they become political.

Santer writes about himself: “You speak not only to your scientific peers, but also a wide variety of audiences, some of whom are skeptical about you and everything you do (they have good reason). You enter the public arena (my italics), and make yourself accountable.” Accountable to whom?

Finally, Santer offers another clue about his priorities for the political arena rather than science. “But for my part, I don’t intend to spend the rest of my life in darkness or silently accepting trickle-down ignorance.”

I expect we’ll be hearing more from Mr. Santer and his media promoters—helping us ignoramuses “see the light.” But, remember, it won’t be about science, it will be about politics.

Posted in Global Warming Propaganda | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why “toxic partisanship” can’t be detoxified

A prominent article in the “Review” section this past weekend in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye. Amanda Ripley of the “Emerson Collective” wrote under the headline, “America, Meet America.” The subhead read, “How can we get past today’s toxic partisanship and political segregation?” I could end this commentary right here by stating—we can’t. But allow me to elaborate.

Ms. Ripley is a senior fellow at the Emerson Collective and an author. Scanning the EC website I note that this is another “social justice” group. Apparently they follow the thinking recorded by that Yankee preacher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist and poet. Emerson was maybe best known for his promotion of Individualism; rather incongruous, it seems to me, with the concept of collectivism. Collectivists have no use for individuals. But I’ll leave expounding on that for another time, although that “toxic” relationship is related to this subject: our commonality, or lack thereof.

Regardless propaganda from multiculturalists, we’re-all-immigrants, and assorted anti-American groups tearing down the history of this country, it was founded by people from the British Isles educated in Western Civilization; Christianity was their religion and English their native language. That’s where we started. But, of course, that was hundreds of years ago. Over the decades the country has expanded into an empire and devolved into tribal groups—now too big and diverse to be considered a unique culture with common values that everyone accepts.

Even when my ancestors seceded from the English King’s oppressive government, many Americans didn’t want to break the connections with their culture; they escaped back to Britain or fought as “Loyalists” against the “Patriots.” The cultural ties that bind are powerfully strong.

Ms. Ripley suggests, “We Americans have a new enemy, and it is ourselves.” She writes that researchers find that for thousands of us “partisan animosity can now exceed racial hostility.”

I take issue with the mantra that every conflict in America is related to race. Our conflicts are related to cultural differences not race. Race is a red-herring to cover the failures of promoting multiculturalism and the damage it has done to our society. The most stable countries in the world are those of a single culture with shared language, religion and other values. I believe that our partisan animosity has been caused by cultural hostility.

During the past decade we have seen accelerated hostilities because of cultural contentions. Many of us with traditional American values have rejected the Marxian, pro-Islamic, anti-American views and policies of the previous federal administration.

During the 2016 presidential campaign the leading Democrat candidate called us “deplorable” because we believe in armed self-defense, law and order, traditional marriage, Christianity and protecting our borders against illegal invasions. Her followers cheered her and jeered at us.

We saw our candidate of choice for president treated unfairly by the media; protested at peaceful rallies by violent, nasty tempered disrupters; and he and his family constantly demeaned and harassed by activists on the Left.

There is no “coming together” with hostile and vindictive people who believe you are an enemy. Some of them have even carried out murderous attacks on our representatives simply because they affiliate with a political party. In urban area they have assassinated many of our police, looted stores and burned buildings. Large numbers of left-leaning people in America have mental problems.

How can we reconcile with irrational opponents with violent tendencies? What do normal American citizens have “in common” with these people?

Ms. Ripley naively suggests “cultural exchange programs” on the theory that if we “really knew each other” we would be more tolerant. But we do know people by listening to what they say and observing their actions. We know what they believe and what policies they support by observing their political representatives—and we don’t like what we see.

It’s too late to change our cultural views. Generations of children have been indoctrinated with disdain for our history in government schools by anti-Americans. Marxists and totalitarians have taken over our liberal arts universities. Our courts are dominated by subversive judges who attack our traditions and history, and ignore the Constitution. Democrat politicians publicly stir hatred and fear claiming that “millions will die” because of Republican policies.

We cannot overcome this by staying in other people’s homes, sharing meals and stories together, as Ms. Ripley suggests.

She writes: “The country has been weakened by our mutual disdain and shared ignorance”; and admits the reason…“we share very few cultural traditions.”

Ripley and many others in our population don’t seem to understand the irreparable damage done to our society. By undermining our traditional values the people responsible have created chaos, instability and confusion about who we are. In my opinion, toxic “social justice” projects have set us on a course of perpetual conflict and cultural chaos.

Subversive activism against our culture includes “Toxic Identity Politics” by the Left in America. Newt Gingrich uses this title in Chapter Six of his book, “Understanding Trump.” Gingrich observes a truism that applies to many of us who grew up with traditional American values: “Candidate Trump had consistently underestimated the depth of genuine hostility from the Left.”

Their visceral hatred of us is stunning and impossible to comprehend.

***

Gingrich writes:

(The) Left opposes assimilation and instead aspires for a country in which all subgroups of Americans (and non-Americans) –defined by their race, nationality, religion, sexuality, and so forth—never shed their differences to become one people. It is a recipe for the balkanization of America—for conflict, not unity.

Over the last twenty years, the Left has shifted from being antisegregation and prointegration to championing new desire for racial identity and the new segregation.

(President Obama) pursued what I described in an earlier book as a “secular-socialist” agenda that alienated key segments of the people who had voted for him in 2008.

The Left, and the Democratic Party apparatus that is its vehicle, decided a permanent Democratic majority could be built mainly on the strength of blacks, Hispanics, college-education women, sexual identity politics, and young liberal voters….

This “core coalition” turned out not to be a massive voting bloc of minority voters. It was ‘an alliance between black voters and Northern white voters.’

Rather than finding unifying fights that attracted broad-based support based on mutual self-interest and common values, the Left obsessed over race and gender issues. The Democrats embraced Black Lives Matter, put gay marriage and transgender issues front and center, and painted those who disagreed with them as haters.

Finally, and most destructively, Democrats adopted a conscious strategy of delegitimizing the concerns of Americans who rejected Obamacare and other policies of the Obama administration as evidence of racism against a black president.

***

  Mr. Gingrich explains a faulty theory “behind the Left’s attempt at coalition building through identity liberalism.” It’s called ‘intersectionality’—the idea comes from the concept of “white privilege.” This theory “builds coalitions by getting different minority groups to recognize that their griefs all have common, intersecting causes. In practice, it breeds division and resentment among the coalition it is trying to build… Intersectionality replaces the call to recognize our shared humanity and the common goal of equal rights with a compulsion to divide us into smaller and smaller groups.”

All this factional activism, and much more, results in contaminating the once American “melting pot”—a toxic and coagulating societal brew for which there is no antidote.

Posted in Cultural Deterioration | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Media Thump on Trump

Media people can’t believe that a New York City “salesman…showman…hustler” has bested them. But they just can’t help themselves; they continue to criticize and attack him, stupidly like a kid repeatedly hitting a hornet’s nest with a stick.

Recently, I was surprised to see a bold, black headline, TRUMP WINNING WAR ON MEDIA, on a full-page feature story—complete with a picture of the President sneering at reporters in the Oval Office—in the Wilmington StarNews INSIGHT Section (C).

The subheading, of course, told more nearly the real story: “President’s refusal to play by the traditional rules working in his favor.” Clearly, these petulant posters’ aren’t going to give in for the last word.  The media have always controlled the rules and the political messages; they deeply… bitterly resent that Mr. Trump consistently beats them at their own game.

Actually, the article by a Washington Post typist, Philip Bump, was filled with plenty of rehashed criticism of President Trump—another hit-piece, as I see it.

Mr. Bump started throwing brickbats stating that much of Trump’s presidency has been spent “covering up the fact that he can’t…do everything and do it quickly.” Yet Bump begrudgingly admits, that the media keep “learning (not really) a painful lesson. There’s not much we can do about it,” he types.

Then, Bump goes about equating Trump’s offensive tactic with “asymmetric warfare,” military strikes employed by “insurgent groups and under-powered forces”—Islamic terrorists. I don’t recall any media operative ever recognizing the Obama administration’s blatant anti-American, Marxist-driven agenda. But they apply different “rules” to leftist groups—and the president’s culture.

Another criticism leveled at Trump, intensely galling to the media, is its claim that he refuses “ever to admit he was wrong.” Thus, writes Bump, the President “built a stunningly robust defense” against them. And he cites CNN as to “how it’s supposed to work. Self-correction. An admission of error and a pledge to do better.” CNN had retracted an article alleging a link between a Trump advisor and a Russian bank. #Fake News. The network “quickly acknowledged that its editorial process had broken down”—the Devil made us do it.

Most of the remainder of this article desperately tries to make Trump seem untrustworthy and dishonest. To balance that claim for fairness, I suppose, Bump wrote that Hillary Clinton wasn’t trusted either.

Finally, Bump wrote about Trump’s campaign claims that he could handle any of the problems our government faced, but when in office “admitted that the job was more complicated than he thought and mused out loud that health care was more complicated than anyone might have figured”—making false the claim that Trump refuses “ever to admit he was wrong.”

In a preface to Chapter Five, “The Propaganda Media,” Newt Gingrich in his new book (2017) “Understanding Trump” explains why President Trump finds it necessary to defend himself against his declared enemies in the American media:

During the 2016 campaign, and now in the presidency, one of the continuing surprises to President Trump has been the willingness of the elite media to lie. Initially, he would be shocked and uncertain how to respond. Despite all his experience in fighting with the New York City media (arguably the most aggressive and confrontational in the country) he was simply unprepared for the brutality and depth of dishonesty of our national media. To this day, he is surprised when reporters repeat various stories—even when it is clear how false they are.

Well, who can we trust? I side with Trump. His confidence, courage and “can-do” attitude is all-American. Since Ronald Reagan, we’ve had enough weasely, deceitful, incompetent and even subversive rascals in the White House. It’s time for a real American alpha-Male who bites back against the constant media thumping.

Posted in Press Bias | Tagged , | Leave a comment