ON DISEASE AND DEMOCRACY

Or The Source Vector For Trump Derangement Syndrome 

Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of the late Billy Graham,  claimed in a recent interview  (Nov 21, 2019) that vilifying the President of the USA —the all too prevalent goal of the main stream media (msm)—is almost “demonic” in character.    To many, that seems an apt description of the frenzied, fierce, irrational and, yes fiendish opposition to President Trump which seems to  some may suggest the action of some superhuman power. 

Sadly, we can not ascribe demonic possession to the editors of the NYT or Washington Post, though that would simplify the answer.  But excluding that reason, we can still wonder what does motivate them to such frenzies of hatred?   ( Think of poor Robert Dinero who has apparently descended into actual incarceration for psychosis).  Why do they abhor Donald Trump so much?  We must harken back to the now infamous 2016 election, to better understand the cause of this widespread mental state often diagnosed as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

President Trump won the 2016 election in an Electoral College landslide, turning the nation red by winning 33 out of the 50 states.  He took the votes of 63 million citizens,  or just about one half of the national electorate.  His election was an astounding shock to those in the government-industrial media establishment  who could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that they would ever lose  control over their system. 

Thus no demonic intervention, but the circumstances of Mr. Trump’s election, and the disruption of the status quo is what aroused the ire and brought on a Black Plague-like infestation of TDS in  the establishment, the media, the entertainment industry, academia, as well as much of the civil service corps in Washington and both the Democrat and Republican parties.

The disease symptoms first presented as shock.  Why?  Blame it on the pollsters.  Every pre-election poll (save one)  assured the Democrats that they would win handily.  But they were terribly wrong.  It was Mr. Trump who won—wIth a popular message of change, that  resonated in the hearts and minds of average working people—particularly in the rust belt states.  

In the campaign Mr.Trump was out-spent and opposed in every conceivable way on his journey to victory.  His only asset  was the 63 million voters —who doggedly—though secretly—supported him . (The Democrats won a few million more popular votes in their sanctuary states and cities and urban enclaves where our loose system of voter identification—more attuned to rural communities—can be easily circumvented in the densely populated Democrat-dominated immigrant communities where illegal immigrant voters often cast ballots with the “wink of the eye “ of voter registration officials.  These “other” votes  could have easily added up to the popular vote differential the Dems won.)  Even with all this against him— Trump turned much of the nation red. His win was spread broadly over our wide and diverse nation. ) The US system of elective representative democracy won handsomely.  The people spoke with their ballots and their candidate was elected.  

So what caused TDS?  I like to apply Newton’s. Third Law here—it functions in human interactions as well as in physics—“for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”—. The unexpected and shocking election results generated  a massive —reaction on the left—a sense of resentment in the corridors of  opinion, and politics.  These  elements, dispersed through the body politic like an anastomosing river system found themselves impotent and powerless (not to mention the loss of cushy jobs and contracts) as result of this revolutionary election. And what turned the knife in the wound—was that the winning votes were generated by a former Democrat demographic— the  ignored “irredeemables” in flyover country.  The Trump ascendency  also revealed the weaknesses of traditional media (NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN etc etc etc) which could print reams of paper, incessantly jabber and wail on TV all they want but in this case were powerless to change the course of political events to their liking.  The USA is a real democracy where the voters actually have power.  The establishment supporters of the status quo  were revealed  as toothless tigers—who in their magnificent high rise-buildings, wood-paneled offices and with their attendant high paid staff could be ignored with impunity, then turned aside by “irredeemable voters—in places like Wilson SC or Altoona PA.   

Trump turned all these fancy folks into  losers, impotent in the face of an aggressive candidate with a popular message.  The main-stream-media, the entertainment industry, academia, DC elites and all the rest felt the sting of the loss of power. Here then are  the vectors of infections for the TDS outbreak — the source of their demonic hatred.  Trump exposed them as unimportant.  Their response was an FBI “insurance policy” resistance through various attempts at delitgitmization, the 25^th Amendment,and even a palace coup d’etat.  For the return  of the status quo Mr. Trump  had to be delegitimized. His perfectly legitimate win had to be turned into —“the result of Russian collusion” —a laughable charge with little evidence to support it other than the fact that it was so appealing in that it provided a  excuse for the terrible loss.  

But a closer look at this charge exposes its weakness.  Both candidates and Congressional campaigns spent more than $5 billion dollars for the  2016 election, while estimates from the Mueller Report suggest the Russian effort (if it actually occurred) may have spent  $1 or 2 million dollars.  Assume it was the latter:  2 million/5 billion = 2/5000, or 0.0004, that is two dollars for every five thousand dollars we spent.  Try that idea on.  Go into a market place you with 5000 bucks and the other guy with 2 dollars.  Who comes out better equipped?  Another way to look at it: for every dollar we spent, the Russians may have spent 4/100^th of a penny!!!  I don’t call that significant.

Furthermore, the Russians had no “friends” in Washington DC.—any spies had been purged long ago.  It would have been in DC where they could have done some real damage.  On the other hand the Ukrainians—didn't have much money to spend, but they also were highly interested in the outcome of the campaign—they favored the Obama/Clinton administration which had conspired to make a “regime” change in the Ukraine. However, due to these same Obama foreign policy many Ukrainian-Americans, Ukrainian sympathizers and others with pro Ukrainian policies had become embedded in powerful positions in the government.  Just take a glance at the list of witnesses that Rep (D-Ca) Schiff placed in the public’s eye during his impeachment inquiry hearings.  No question necessary there.    Get the picture? .  

That operation, the delegitimization of Mr. Trump began the day after election  On that day—the FBI’s Strzok and Page put into play the “insurance policy” to deny Trump entering the White House or ejecting him if he did—and has continued to the present time. 

That is the source of Trump Derangement Syndrome plague,  the feeling of impotence in those who formerly wielded both political and public opinion power after an astounding loss.  When the plague of TDS is combined with the reality of modern electronic technology (iPhones)  which permits citizens to listen in on or read only those opinion pieces with which they agree—placing the person in a form of echo chamber which enhances and reinforces the message of hate—leading to chronic TDS and massive epidemics.  

To assuage these feelings the anti-democratic forces of the left dragged our nation through the phony trumped up charges of “Russian Collusion” investigated and debunked by the compromised  Mueller team.   That report—with frail, incoherent Mueller as its apparent figurehead only in place  to lend legitimacy to a cadre of Clinton establishment attorneys who spent $40 million to  to produce 442 pages of documents that could find nothing and had to consummate their efforts with: “no American colluded with the Russians”.  

On that very day of the release of Mueller’s report,—the second massive disappointment since the ‘16 election—a second attempt at a coup, or impeachment had its incubation.  That event occurred when President Trump made an official congratulatory telephone call to the newly elected Ukrainian President.  This second coup attempt —the Ukraine Telephone Scandal”—was hatched by a cabal of unhappy, disgruntled, coddled, over paid civil servants, many of whom had divided loyalties but strangely held elite positions in government.  One of these activists heard rumors concerning the  telephone communication between the President of Ukraine and President Trump, and with the aid of an Ukrainian-born interpreter (LtCol. Vindman) conspired and cooked up another phony charge against the people’s choice.   

Using the same shop-worn reasoning these conspirators attempted to assuage their bruised egos and pocket books as they colluded with members of the Schiff led Democrat Intelligence Committee.  They apparently conspired with Schiff or his close staff  to compose a message “whistleblower” complaint so as to give impetus to another impeachment attempt.  

The inquiry was based on almost laughable charges.  That the President by encouraging investigation into corruption both past and present in Ukraine was in some way benefitting personally.  Somehow asking for a “favor” to police your own nation prior to release of billions in US aid is  “personal emolument” for the President.   The Democrats in this matter are unwisely attempting to weaponize the legitimate impeachment powers of the House of Representatives—granted to the House by the Constitution to deal with “high crimes and misdemeanors—they debased for political purposes. 

This  scheme  for impeachment is simply another effort by the TDS suffering Democrats to engender means of exacting vengeance for the humiliating defeat of 2016.  This plan was in place since the day after the election in November 2016. 

So that’s a bit of history we should all be deeply concerned about as citizens of this nation.  It does not matter Democrat or Republican we are all threatened by this attempt at usurpation of power from within.  The Russians may have made some feeble attempts at affecting the election.  the Ukrainians with their 5^th columnists who operated inside the White House were probably more effective.  But it was the elite elements within the FBI, Justice and the Obama Administration and those in the the very halls of our own government who we must be the most fearful of.    Can we claim we are a “democracy” when these events have so clearly exposed the evil power of  the establishment elites who just happen to control the levers of power (but not the ballot boxes) and who want to disenfranchise a class of voters by means of impeachment because these hard working Americans  happen to “have no college”, have traditional ideas about family, sexuality, believe in God, hate the idea of killing innocent unborn, realize that the economy works when we limit government interference, and when we permit entrepreneurs to keep most the money they earn and invest it.   And when we don’t give up decision-making to a group of nameless, Ivy League-educated, “never-had-a real-job-in their life’, bureaucrats in Washington DC who think that they know better than 63 million American voters. 

Mi

ON THE NYT AND YELLOW JOURNALISM —‘FAKE NEWS”

It’s commonly claimed that we as a nation have lost our trust in main-stream media.  But it’s not Mr.Trump’s fault.  These corporate news entities have brought it on themselves.   The NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other major news outlets routinely manipulate the “news” these days for pecuniary advantage in a highly competitive  market in our highly politicized nation.  

Harking back to the late 19^th Century, when newspapers were our main source of information two major newspaper chains, owned by infamous publishers William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer vied for ascendency in the highly competitive market. These two magnate-publishers, determined to sell more copies than their competition engaged in what was termed “yellow journalism”.  The term characterized a form of journalism which—to gain market share—ignored ethics and descended into sensationalism. The practitioners of yellow jounalism operated by mixing news and opinion, used exaggeration, hyperbole, melodrama, and unfounded allegations, while ignoring pertinent facts and events that did not fit their preferred narrative—all to attract customers and seek copies. These papers—working for their “bottom line” were not functions for the good of the nation.  They are often credited with—in part— ginning up hatred for the Spanish and sentiment to support the Spanish American War.  Sound familiar?   Today, we are seeing a very similar trend toward a new form of yellow journalism, driven by profit motive, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and as equally bad for our nation’s well being.  Modern day practitioners are those listed above.  chief among them is the New York Times.  (President Trump calls this “fake news”) 

One glaring example of how the New YorkTimes practices this form of modern day  journalisme teinte jaune are its “news” reports corrupted by omission.   

The following two stories were published on the same day—one by The UK Daily Mail and the other by the NYT regarding a political rally in Georgia for Sen Elizabeth Warren—but give two radically different accounts of what occurred on that date and at that place. One makes a glaring omission of a newsworthy fact that clearly suggests an attempt to control the information the reader derives from the piece and a bias in reporting. 

The Daily Mail story is of a tense confrontation between Senator Elizabeth Warren-one of the three leading candidates for the Democrat nomination— and a group of black protesters who temporarily shut down her rally at an Atlanta black college.   The story was reported by Kyleann Caralle of the Daily Mail  November 21, 2019.  Caralle reported that Senator Warren was left shaken after dozens of protesters stormed her rally at Clark University’s Epps Gymnasium in Atlanta, interrupting her attempt to appeal to black voters. The protesters chanted  “we want to be heard” as they stamped their feet rhythmically on the gymnasium risers preventing Warren to speak. Sen Warren was forced to pause her speech and retire until Rep Ayanna Presley (D Ma) a black congresswoman and Warren supporter came to her aid, eventually quieting the crowd so that Warren could continue. That was news. 

But it was a completely different story as publishe by the NYT, on the same date —Nov 21 2019: The Times headline focused instead on what Senator Warren might have wanted publicized : “Elizabeth Warren makes pitch to black women in speech about racial inequality” (by A Herndon and T Kaplan ).  The reporters write that: one day after the 5^th Democrat debate, where Joe Biden continued to claim the support of black voters, Ms Warren who is Biden’s main competitor in many state polls took direct aim at Biden at Clark University —a black college in Atlanta— where she promoted the idea to a mostly black audience  that the government helped create the radial divide though state sponsored racism and that the government should fix it. 

The NYT authors made no mention at all of the violent protest and disruption in all of the 27 paragraphs of the column, or the fact that Warren’s speech at Clark University was halted by a group of black demonstrators who were only quited down after the intercession of  black Rep A Pressley (D Ma).  For the NYT this was not “news”.  

It seems to me that this was significant “news” that should have been reported.  It was certainly important.  But not to the NYT!   The roughing up of Warren may suggest that black support for Warren is very weak. That would make her potential for success In the election problematic or impossible.   Any Democrat candidate must garner a high percentage of the black vote to win.  Apparently these reporters did not want to report anything negative about Progressive candidates. Or perhaps that a major Democrat candidate was booed off the stage at a black college in Atlanta. 

Another news outlet reported that the protesters were black parents who support charter schools.  Warren opposes these “private” schools as a threat to the public school system (she needs union support).  Warren has claimed she sent her children to public schools,  as in several other matters —she lied about that. It was later revealed that this demonstration was against her misrepresentation about her own children and her stand against charter schools.  For the NYT this was not news.  

Why the omission?  Perhaps these “facts” did not fit into the pre-conceived story line  that the reporters (and the editor)  were in favor of?  Perhaps, their preferred narrative is  that Joe Biden is undeserving of the black support that polls have demonstrated he is favored with.  Or is it that —the opinion of these reporters and their editor is that they see Warren as the “more Progressive and more deserving” candidate for such support?  In any way —the news from the Times did not adequately or honestly tell the whole truth.  Furthermore, any reference about the protesters would have raised questions about Warren’s lies regarding her own children’s schooling.  

So please read or view your main stream media reports with a big Kosher grain of salt.  Much of it is sadly a modern form of yellow journalism—biased, exaggerated, manipulated to push forward an  agenda that appeals to the elite, coddled authors and ivory tower publishers. But the rest of us would like the truth the whole story  to be able to make our own minds up about issues.  That should be the primary function of the Fourth  Estate in a democracy —the facts.   We need an informed electorate—not a mind controlled electorate.  It is the latter which seems to be the goal of our present day corporate yellow tinged media.      

Let’s go back to rigidly separating news and opinion.  

 (After writing this I came across a great piece by Kyle Smith on media manipulation by disappearing news articles:  NY Post, Nov 20, 2019 “When the villain is Obama, not Trump news suddenly becomes not worth reporting” )

                     

ON TRUMP: OFFICIAL ACTS: NO PERSONAL GAIN

The Democrats are attempting to claim that when President Trump asked for a “favor” from President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate into the corruption surrounding the Biden affair in Ukraine he was attempting a “quid pro quo” (Latin: literally “this for that”) and that the “that” was “an investigation into a political rival” Joe Biden.  They claim that this request was “improper” because it  would benefit President Trump in the coming 2020 election.  Thus, according to their logic the President was “profiting personally” from a “favor”.  For them, this favor was a form of bribery, a claim upon which rests their impeachment argument. 

But they err grievously.

The Dems  are attempting to establish what the President  thought or what his inner motives were, by what he said during a long,  involved conversation.  That is not easy to prove. Perhaps it is impossible to prove, nor is it justified.  

But let us assume the President did want to get Zelensky to investigate the Biden affair.         (Joe Biden as VP and “point man” for Obama on Ukraine, has admitted (he publicly bragged) that he held up a billion dollar US grant to Ukraine until the Ukrainian officials fired the investigator who was closing in on Burisma Holdings, a company which had just hired the VPs son, Hunter into a very lucrative post.)  The clarification of the troublesome  Biden affair, and investigation into other evidences of Ukraine corruption as well its alleged meddling in the 2016 US elections (claimed as false by some) were both valid inquiries.    Any competent executive should have made such a request prior to giving over a $300 million dollar grant and other goodies.  President Trump had a perfect right to demand a clarification of these corruption charges prior to releasing US taxpayer’s money.  But in fact,  he did not even do that!  He asked for a “favor”,  a request with no expectation of return gift or payment in kind.  The favor was not honored, no investigations resulted, and the US money was not held back.  

Ignoring these facts,  let us go on to the crux of the matter.

If the President had said—“Look Zelensky,  if you put $ 1 million in my Swiss bank account I’ll sign over the military funds to you”. That would have been a “quid pro quo”. The President would have personally benefitted by using the leverage of his office.  That would have been bribery and corruption.  He did not do that.  (However, all facts seem to conform that Joe Biden did just that!) 

But based on what we know, what the President did was all within his just purview as the Commander in Chief and the CEO of the USA.  

When he asked for a political favor, he was asking as the President of the USA, as the only single person elected by the nation, by the @ 63 million voters who put him into office.    His political goals—his desire for investigation of corruption in Ukraine and  of an opposing domestic political party —do not advance him personally.  They advance his nation, his party, his foreign policy goals, which are those of his supporters as a whole.  He is our elected representative who holds the imprimatur from the people voting freely in a valid election.  He won a landslide election in the Electoral College and 33 of the 50  states.  He was asking for a favor for all those people who supported him and who would want him treated fairly in the last election, and in the coming one.  This was not a “personal” benefit. 

When the President is in office and acting in an official capacity, we can not ascribe to the President “a personal benefit” to his actions when he is formally acting as chief executive.  In those times, he represents the nation as a whole and those who elected him.  When he is out of office such behavior would be a personal one. But as President he represents us all.  

For those Trump-resistors who persist in questioning the legitimacy of our election in 2916 and tearing the nation apart and weakening the very foundations of our election system let me urge them that, they like the rest of us, are bound to wait for our quadrennial elections and chose another chief executive more to their liking. Don’t destroy the system! 

The Founders were clear.  They were well aware that an unruly mob of diverse elected officials —like the House of Representatives—could never effectively or safely lead a nation on their own.  They wisely instituted a powerful executive branch, and gave that individual leader great powers.  But they also made sure that this leader  must return to the people every four years to reestablishing his/her validity to lead.  The resistors have ignored this basic component of our political compact.  Seeing little or no passage to victory in 2020, the have rather decided on destruction.  

HOUSE MISUSES IMPEACHMENT POWER TO ADVANCE DEM 2020 PROSPECTS

SHAM INQUIRY—PERVERTS HOUSE POWER TO IMPEACH.  

INQUIRY—NOT TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE—BUT TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT FOR 2020

DEM HOUSE GUILTY OF USING OFFICE TO ADVANCE ITS ELECTION PROSPECTS

SAME CHARGE THEY ATTEMPT TO LEVEL AT THE PRESIDENT

The Democrat impeachment “inquiry” by the House Intelligence Committee is widely seen as a sham process with no hope of actually unseating the President. There simply is no “there there” (as FBI coup-conspirator  Peter Strozk once quipped about the false  “collusion with Russia” charges against incoming President Trump).  

Rep Schiff’s key “witnesses” yesterday (November 13, 2019) were not  “witnesses” at all.  They all had axes to grind and pet policies to support but had no direct knowledge of the so-called —criminal telephone call.   The testimony revealed each one with no direct knowledge of the President’s telephone call to Ukraine  President Zeleszky, no contact with the President and only heard about the call though other second or third-hand witnesses.   They had policy differences with the President.  

All they could claim to speak about was the fact that they disagreed with the President’s POLICY on the Ukraine.  But policy differences are not crimes.  These folks may have their “druthers” regarding policy regarding Ukraine,  but they WERE NOT ELECTED.  They serve at  the President’s pleasure.  They have no authority to make policy— the President does. 

So we must conclude—so far—that this process is not designed to impeach Trump-at all—only function is to weaken and slime him just before a national election. 

So what is going on here?  The Democrats are all aware that they will NOT throw this man out of office and disenfranchise the 60 million people who voted for him.  What they are about is a political conspiracy to  weaponize, corrupt, and pervert the House’s sacred Constitutionally mandated  power to remove a president from office for legitimate reasons—such as “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors”. Their obvious goal is political. Short term political opportunism that would improve their chances of success in 2020.

Thus this sham “inquiry” is the equivalent of the Steel Dossier, which was designed to slime and weaken a candidate,prior to election.  

The Pelosi/Schiff impeachment scam is understood by all to fail as an instrument of impeachment, but is rather a sinister instrument of base, illegal political shenanigans.  It is an attempt to weaken the President prior to election in 2020. 

What seems not to be registering with the press and the Democrat’s, befuddled as they are by with Trump derangement delusion, is the fact that the very charges that they are so ineffectively attempting to bring against the President—that he used his office to advance his political prospects in 2020–is what they themselves are doing. 

The House is perverting, misapplying, debasing,corrupting  the constitutional power of impeachment to advance their prospects of winning in 2020.  That is hypocrisy of the highest order.  They are attempting to charge the President with using his office to advance his 2020 prospects—but that is exactly what they are about.   

ON NYT: STATE DEPARTMENT DISSENTERS REVOLT

Again I read the  NY Times with sadness.  The “old gray lady” once had a reputation as the the newspaper of record.  “All the news that’s fit to print” as a proud headliner,  Now it prints scurrilous unverified allegations and rumors as “news”.  It’s readership once could be sure its stories were vetted and verified.  Now one approached it like they do the sensational rags you pick up at the supermarket check out counter.  What a comedown.

But back to today’s Times’ story.  “How the State department’s Dissenters Incited a Revolt then a Rallying Cry”.  Novermeber 10, 2019. 

STATE CAREERISTS IGNORE THE FACT THAT THEY DO NO SET POLICY

THE ELECTED PRESIDENT AND HIS APPOINTEES SET POLICY

NEW PRESIDENT —NEW POLICY  

The lead line is “Shock anger and sadness are giving way to pride among career diplomats that they are defending American ideas and holding the Trump Administration accountable.  The piece continues to praise these career diplomats in their “revolt’ against “the president and his top appointees” ...they complain about “policy being hijacked by partisan politics”.  

The Times’ authors go on to gleefully laud the “resisters” and those leading the “revolt” against the administration  who they report will go on to testify against the president in the public impeachment hearings next week. 

The thing that these young authors seem to have never learned in Gov 101 was that the State Department and its careerist employees DO NOT MAKE POLICY.   The 

State Department is an arm of the executive branch.  They are there to IMPLEMENT THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT.  

Elections have consequences.  The President has the imprimatur of the electorate.  He sets foreign policy goals and policies State Department officials may not like the policy changes but that is what elections are for.  We are a nation governed by the will of the people—not the State Department careerists who would like to keep doing what they were doing.  

The Times should have explained that to these whippersnapper, uniformed individuals who have ignored the basic principles of our representative democracy.  

  

ON THE BERLIN WALL (30 YRS AGO) SOCIALISM, SANDERS AND WARREN

ON THE BERLIN WALL, SOCIALISM, AND WARREN/SANDERS

Our youth forget or never knew of the Berlin Wall.  It is worth remembering. 

I read today of the celebrations in Berlin, Germany, on the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the wall that separated East and West Berlin.  The twelve-to-eighteen foot wall of concrete blocks was erected during the Cold War to separate the eastern (communist/socialist) sector of Germany from the western side.  The differences on opposing side of the wall were stark.  On one side a prosperous Germany with jobs, freedom, a free press, dignified human rights;  on the other side, political and social repression, Stazi spies, propaganda as “news”, coupled with  poverty and despair.  

Over the thirty years the wall existed (1961-1991) hundreds of people died attempting to cross the electrified. barbed-wire-strung, no-man’s-land guarded by vicious dogs, and AK47 wielding DRG soldiers. The troops were ordered to shoot to kill and then left their shot up victims hanging from the barbed wire fencing for weeks just to warn others who might make a similar try to leave the socialist state. In their efforts to reach freedom in the west, East Germans went to extraordinary means,   When crossing to the west was too dangerous—those seeking freedom resorted even to digging under-the-wall tunnels—dark, dank, airless crawl spaces, three feet wide and three feet high—rigged with long plastic tubes hooked to a vacuum cleaner to pump in fresh air.  These under-ground routes were often discovered and too often they collapsed on the diggers.  

The fact that the East Germans were so desperate to abandon their —equal pay for everyone socialism—to reach a capitalist system that they even dug tunnels and crawled through them to leave the socialist systems remarkable. Does anyone in Germany what to go back to socialism?  Not likely . There is no better example to understand the appeal of a free capitalism than the history of the Berlin Wall

Today Germany is united—both east and west thrive in the benefits of a robust capitalism.  But still people from less fortunate nations attempt life-threatening journeys to reach this place of freedom and prosperity.  Germany recently admitted more than a million war-refugees from the near east and North Africa.  In the USA as well, we are flooded with immigrants—both legal and illegal—from other less fortunate parts of the world who attempt similar death defying and dangerous crossings through deserts and across rivers to reach the benefits of our free capitalist system.

Yet today, on this day of celebration of  the fall of the Berlin Wall —the socialist doctrine of “free stuff”, “free for all health care” and “equal pay for all”, confiscatory taxes, open borders, cries of “down with Wall Street” , comments such as; “there should be no billionaires”, etc, etc.   seem to be attractive to a large portion of our (poorly informed) youth.  A recent national poll suggests that a significant  percentage of our young—(the millennials) “would favor a socialist system over capitalism”. 

In recent presidential debates many on the left have supported polices that indicate that they espouse what is in effect a socialistic economic system.  Some,  such as independent (VT) Senator Bernie Sanders are admitted proponents of socialism, while others, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, propose socialistic policies, but refuse to be identified as such—though that is the economics they favor.  

The facts are that the US Democrat proponents of this economic system have seen socialism only, as my mom would say: “a traverse le telescope” (through the telescope).  These politicians have given lip service to socialism from a distance (though Bernie did spend his honeymoon in cold and chilly communist Moscow).  Offering “free stuff” and confiscating taxes from those middle class and wealthy Americans was means of vote gathering for them.  The system they eschewed (capitalism) served and benefitted them and theirs very well.  They took  advantage of the system.  Bernie Sanders prospered and advanced himself and his family while talking up the benefits of socialism. Senator Warren also hypocritically took advantage of the capitalist system, claiming to be a woman of color to gain entrance to an elite  university and profiting from its freedoms, open educational system, the  financial opportunities she would deny to you and yours if her proposals were enacted.  

Today our youth should be reminded of this day of remembrance of the fall of the Berlin Wall and why it existed. They should be reminded that it was built to keep those who were trapped  under the socialist system from freedom and from fleeing to a capitalist system. 

Why?  Socialism is a failure as an economic system.  Yes capitalism has its faults. The profit motive does not solve all problems.  Uneven distribution of wealth does occur.  Market forces do not always arrive at outcomes that are the best long term solutions for problems.  A wise non-intrusive  government must step in at times.  

But give a free person a choice and they will always respond with their feet. They run, walk, crawl, dig their way, swim, embark in flimsy vessels all to reach a capitalist nation where hard work is rewarded, where government in not intrusive, and where freedom reigns.

Remember 1991 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.                       


PS. There is no relationship between out southern border wall and that of the East Germans  as some modern Germans leaders would like to suggest. The East Germans were trying to keep a people trapped in a suffocating economic system behind their wall.  Ronald Reagan called  for that wall rightly  to be torn down. Our southern wall serves to protect our people and our system from uncontrolled, illegal entry.  We welcome millions of legal immigrants annually.  Every nation must be able to protect its citizens from entry of those who might carry disease—(Ebola) or illegal drugs, or simply making unauthorized entry.  For the obvious well being of our own citizenry we must have control over who enters and who leaves our nation.  This is a simple practical border control—there is nothing sinister about it.  Those who would suggest such evil intent are simply uninformed . 

ON THE DEEP STATE, HUBIS AND ELECTIONS

 ON THE DEEP STATE, HUBRIS AND ELECTIONS 

We have elections to revise and redirect our government. A class of permanent civil servant who undermines that function of our election, and attempts to make policy,  strikes at the heart of our democracy. 

The recent feeding frenzy of our news organizations, our elected  officials and the “deep state” over the impeachment inquiry, related to President Trump’s August telephone call to President Zelensky of Ukraine, got me to thinking about our unelected and unaccountable cadre of coddled  civil servants in DC, their hubris—overweening pride and self centered assumption that they know best and how their actions are an attempt to undermine our national elections.  

The recent outing of E—- C———— as “The Whistleblower” in the impeachment inquiry has revealed to us all what a classic example of the “deep state” (species Civitas profundum) looks like .  This individual is —like almost all of his genus —a young, prep-schooled, Yale and Harvard  educated,  Democrat-registered, urbanite from the coastal fringe (Connecticut), who majored in Russian and Ukrainian studies and globalism.  He speaks several languages and is no doubt an intelligent and accomplished young man. With his advantaged background, he naturally migrated toward a career in government where young, white, male, Harvard-and-Yale-trained-language specialists seem to congregate.  There, he moved up the ladder with ease, becoming a CIA analyst, working closely with the elites of the Obama team, such as Brennan, Susan Rice, and Joe Biden. Somehow he was transferred to the Trump White House where he rubbed shoulders with other Ukrainian specialists and partisans including Colonel Vindman. It is clear where this young man’s ideas and precepts come from.  One can say with some certainty that he does not ever where a MAGA hat. 

These deep staters all hold sinecure positions. They are coddled with generous salaries and benefits.  They are domiciled together in the DC bubble where they often exchange ideas with each other. But such interchange functions server only to reinforce their existing set of precepts and premises, since they are all of one species and have all been trained in the same schools, and even dress, walk, talk, and act alike.  Few if any of them have ever had to deal with actual physical or  economic and difficulties of the real world such as job loss, economic and community decline and decay, violent crime, etc. etc.  common in the world outside of the secure bubble in which they reside.  This is their “deep state society”.  

These people are specialists and believe that they are “special” too.  They are convinced that they know better than hard working, average  Joe or Jane —because they are the elites. They view these good folks as “untermench” who do not count in their white tower calculations. They  are the wise leaders,  and thus, ergo it follows logically they should be making the nation’s decisions.

But sad for them, the facts are that we all reside in a representative democracy in which —they have only one vote like the rest of us and we have elections to decide on who leads our nation and what its policies should be.

One might ask them : Why have elections at all if the deep staters know exactly what our domestic and foreign policies should be?  Yes in a state controlled by a powerful and subversive cadre of civil servants who all tend to think along the same lines, we could do away with expensive, divisive elections— and just install “window dressing manikins” that would act as political “leaders” but who take orders from the nearest species of C profundum with the highest GS rating.  

We have elections because in this nation the power to govern comes not from a specialized class of coddled citizen who happens to reside close to the levers of power, but from the people—THE PEOPLE.  This is a nation of people power.  A phrase that the Democrats like to use and repeat, but sadly to which they only pay lip service—and seem to forget what it actually means.  

Our elections serve as a means of government to quadrennially revisit the needs and wishes of the citizens it serves. The airing of polices (and personalities of those elected) permit the executives of each new government to tailor its domestic and foreign policies to better serve its citizenry.  Elections are necessary to modify and redirect policy where needed. The new administration, after an election has a MANDATE for change, That change and mandate is the basis—the foundation—the underpinnings of our national democracy.  Without it we become what? An expertocracy?  With political manikins who mouth well used shibboleths. 

Those who would attempt to undermine the will of the people by undermining, ignoring or opposing the legitimate policies of  ELECTED OFFICIALs and attempt to impose on us instead their own (static, self-serving, ) policies are the epitome of a dictatorship of the experts and the elites.  They do no support but there’s ten our democracy. 

Thus, this class of deep staters are in fact a subversive class of civil servants  who would ignore the results of our elections, and the policy changes of a new government and in their opposition  disenfranchise the very voters of this expansive and diverse nation. These deep state experts  in their powerful but ill conceived attempts to  ignore and undermine the policies of elected officials (who hold the PEOPLE’S IMPRIMATUR OF POWER)  undermine the very nature of our democracy. 

These subversives in our civil service—who forget that they DO NOT MAKE POLICY  are the REAL threat to our democracy—not the Russians or the Chinese.    

A FAVOR, QUID PRO QUO AND THE HOUSE IDIOT CIRCUS

THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FOR A “FAVOR” 

NO QUID PRO QUO —HE ASKED FOR A “FAVOR”

Favor:   “something granted out of goodwill or justice not for remuneration or pay back in kind.”

The three ring political circus we are experiencing in Washington DC and in the media world is a replay of the events leading up to the jaw dropping release of the Mueller Report.  The left is presently in a hyper frenzy of expectation and anxiety.  Finally, after so many disappointments —the collapse of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and the  disappointment of the 2016 election, the failure of a palace coup via the 25^th Amendment, the anxiety and disappointment of hanging on every leak and cryptic revelation for two years only to become embittered and disheartened by the “no collusion conclusion” of Mr. Mueller’s $35 million dollar report. This new iteration of a coup attempt carries the heavy burden of the left’s drastically shattered hopes. Their desperation is disgusting and palpable.  

With this  new iteration of the McCabe “insurance policy”, known as the “Ukraine-telephone-call-whistleblower-impeachment investigation”  hope rises again in the heaving breasts of the Democrats, progressives, urbanites, the propaganda laced media, and the denizens of the deep state.  These obsessed and vengeful folk have convinced themselves that —this new “investigation” will achieve for them the “justice” (and revenge) they giddily dream of. It will result in overturning the valid election of 2016 and they will finally feel the uplifting satisfaction of  disenfranchising the 60 million plus “irredeemable”  voters of this nation who they think  had the temerity and stupidity to cast a ballot for Mr. Trump.

But their hopes are like that of the rock climber whose piton has just broke loose, his foot slipped off his last toehold, and raw fingers grip frantically for purchase on a tiny overhead ledge.  For this individual hanging precariously over the abyss, even a  rotted oak twig growing out of a fracture joint in the smooth rock face looks like salvation.  

But it ain’t. 

The Dems with Mr.Schiff in the lead schemed, plotted and conspired with a CIA-Brennan protege-hideaway-to generate a “whistleblower” complaint.  The scheme collapsed when the President actually released the transcript of his conversation which exposed the venality of the complaint and revealed that the plotters  are like our rock climber grasping at rotted twigs and straws. They have no case.   If they think that the truth-challenged, “we have the proof of Russian collusion”- Representative Schiff will lead them to their goal of taking down a sitting  President, they are indeed deluded as their rolling eyes, tremors and hypo thyroidal behavior suggests   

For the rest of us—we  need not pay a whit of attention to these phony and meaningless Schiff depositions and revelations or his malicious leaks.  Who cares what some ambassador, Joey Jones or Tom Smith thought about what the President wanted or what they thought he said?  

We have the actual transcript.  We know what he said. 

The President asked for a FAVOR from the Ukrainian President to investigate issues related to corruption in the Ukraine and in regard to an actual quid pro quo Biden event of the LAST election. 

To attempt to make an impeachable offense out of this telephone call is ludicrous. It will not fly.  If the Democrat strategy is to misuse (politicize) the sacred constitutional power of the House of Representatives to impeach a president—- by weaponizing that power into a cheap, phony political tool to attempt to gain some electoral advantage in the 2020 (one year away) election—that is truly criminal.   It is hypocrisy that such a perversion of the House powers would  be the same allegation of criminality  that the House is attempting to pin on the President.  Now that would be a real reason for impeaching  both  Mr. Schiff and Ms Pelosi.  

Mr. Trump will pass on into our history as our  45^th President as either a one or two term president. His story will be told.  But the  behavior and misbehavior of Mr. Schiff and the Democrat leadership in the House  are such an  embarrassment and threat to the nation and most seriously to the legitimacy and acceptance of our elections that they will live on in infamy as that of  a cabal of incompetent ring masters of the 2016-19 circus of House idiots—hopefully never to be emulated.