BYE BYE KAMALA

Kamala Harris‘s presidential campaign has come to an embarrassing end. In January she was seen as a rising star of the Democrat strategy to defeat  President Trump. By this date in December (4th) she departed in abject defeat.  But the real embarrassment comes from who vanquished her.  She lost to  a diminutive  no experience kid-candidate, mayor of  a small Indiana college town: a 77 year old frail and gaff-prone, glad-hand typical politico accused of using his position to enrich his family ; a 70 year old school marm type with “give away” impractical ideas about “free stuff” and health care,; and a 78 year old inveterate socialist.

Kamala Harris in comparison had it all, she came from a big populous  state, is young, black, (a little bit), a female,  she was— it seemed— tough, intelligent and pragmatic and thus became the immediate darling of the Democrat establishment.  Kamala is the Jeb Bush the 2016 election cycle,  the choice of the establishment  dumped by the people.    Why did she fail ?

She seemed ready and willing to play ball with the establishment.  As a senator she grandstanded like the best of the politicos.   In the Senate cabinet and Supreme Court hearings, she showed herself to have a killer instinct as she verbally sliced and diced  Kavanaugh, Barr and Sessions.  It was  a show for the powerful Democrat donor class she would need for her planned campaign.  She seemed a shoo in for the elites.

 She verbally sucker punched  Joe Biden about school bussing in one debate. And was hit hard by Tulsi Gabbard on her own hypocritical reputation as state prosecutor of California.  The black voters never cottoned to her and she struggled on with falling poll numbers.

But play acting in the Senate chamber and posturing  in front of TV cameras is not the real test of a candidate. It is the campaign trial  which forces these politician to come in contact with  real people. For a politician  the campaign is analogous to  the challenging SAT test for college aspirants.    If you are not academic material and are slated to be a college dummy, you can’t hide it—you get a dummy’s SAT grade.  Kamala revealed all her weaknesses on the campaign trail.

Thus after a few months exposure Dem voters were not convinced she would play the same “ball game” with voters as she would with the big shots in DC.  She never sparked any enthusiasm in the Afro American voters.  Rank and file Democrats saw Harris -as one they were not so sure of.  Harris could not achieve that sense of honesty and genuineness that comes so easy to Sanders.  People are sure of what he believes. No one knew what Harris’ core beliefs were.

After this debacle of an embarrassing loss  her future as a candidate registers as a big question mark. .  She will surely be challenged for her Senate seat come 2022.

 That’s a good thing for California.

TRUMP AND MACRON SPAR OVER NATO

Today (December 3, 20190 I read about a tense interchange between President Trump and President Macron of France at the NATO summit meeting in London.   Trump has been attempting to get the EU members who belong to NATO to step up to the plate on their defense budgets.  There has been some success, but the changes have been only  incremental .  Today, at the summit President Macron made a nasty remark about NATO being “brain dead”.  Was he referring to President Trump?  Perhaps not.  NATO is the existential safety net for the EU and the French. Were  the USA to phase it out —Mr Macron and Mrs Merkel of Germany would actually have to start spending some real money on their own defense.  They are not prepared to do that.

While traveling in  Europe, I often blithely marveled at their sophistication and their sumptuous and graceful  life styles.  The French,  Germans and even Italians live life to the full. They have excellent free health care, longer life spans,  twelve weeks of paid vacations annually, travel in luxury high speed trains, and enjoy exceptionally fast WiFi.  How, I wondered, do they do it?

It never dawned on me that it was the fact that they can enjoy all that by getting a free ride on defense.  Every independent world nation has to foot its own defense costs.  In our dangerous world those costs could be quite high.  But somehow the Europeans managed to shunt those expenses off onto our tax-payers.  Yes, the poor hardworking American taxpayer who has a shorter and more brutal life and who toils away many longer hours per day and more days per year  than their European counterparts actually foots the bill so the Germans, French and the rest of the EU members can live the stress-free luxurious good life.

The fact is that we spend between one-third and one-fourth  of our annual revenue on military/defense costs that include protecting Europe from feared Russian aggression.   Those “defense” expenditures in our budget make it near impossible for us to have free health care, spectacular infrastructure, long vacations, and high speed rail traffic.   Our military outlays  are about 1/20th of our $20 trillion dollar economy or close to $1 trillion dollars annually (OK actually about $700 billion) .  Much of that money goes  to protect Europe and the rest of the world.  In terms of our GDP we spend about about 3.5% of GDP on defense.

Mr Macron who made the nasty “brain dead “ remark heads a  government that spends less than $42 billion  annually (viz our USA  $700billion) out of a $2.7 trillion dollar economy,  or less than 1.5% annually, while the Germans spend even less, or about 1.3% of their GDP on their own defense.  So in terms of GDP we spend more than two times their exspenditures.   Without the USA taxpayers money a  real military response from Europe would be unthinkable.  They are getting the proverbial free lunch.  Any EU government that proposed more military spending —which would clearly mean less spending on “free stuff” would be voted out of office liktysplit.  The rotund German and the sleek French would have to give up their specail lifestyles.

So do you get it?  President Trump is valiantly attempting to level the playing field for the American worker and taxpayer.   Why should we be saddled with the defense of the affluent Germans and the French who live longer and live better than we do?  Once you get the picture you can understand why Mr. Trump is rightly angry with the French and Germans.  Like the rest of the world they are taking advantage of us. They need to be reined in.

USA A CHRISTIAN NATION ? YES !! MERRY CHRISTMAS!

The Christian Underpinnings of Our Nation 

The season is upon us.  The War Against Christmas is here.  The PC warriors come out in force,  ironically during the most Christian of seasons.  They fight tooth and nail to prohibit siting a lovely, uplifting  nativity Crèche in a town property or public place.  They agitate  to edit out glad  Christmas tidings into pablum like: “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” to gut the origins and deeper meanings of the event.  They attempt to rename a traditional “Christmas Parade” as: a chilly, cold “Winter Parade”.  We are too easily bullied by the PC police into compliance, perhaps  frightened to speak out, in fear we will hurt someone’s feelings,  or be considered some kind of troglodyte or “irredeemable”.   

Those on the fringe left who favor the erection of a “Chinese Wall” between church and state would have us ignore our religion, our history and our heritage. They attack those traditionalists who profess faith, deriding  it as ignorant fiction, claiming that it is harmful to the nation’s well-being and to the minority of non-Christians in our midst.  They prefer to ignore the actual historic roots of our nation’s Christian beliefs and values or—-as products of strictly secular educations these agitators have no knowledge of it. Thus the left—as if our Christian ethics and our Christian traditions have the potential for harm—they seek to submerge the origins of  of our nation’s character and value system for their own secular purposes.   

Yes we are a Christian nation.  As are most of the modern, advanced nations of the western world.

I want to state here, my belief that the Christian message  of Jesus Christ— was and remains a watershed moment in human history which —leaving aside its strictly religious elements —transformed the western world’s concepts of how to behave in society, how treat each other, and how to live free, well and  harmoniously.

From early as the 4^th Century AD, Roman Emperor Constantine I, (337 AD)  issued the Edit of Milan, which protected the Christians in the empire.  Christian values, and ethics transformed the west.  The growth and importance of these ideas and values  continued on through Charlemagne (9^th Century) and then on through the Middle Ages, and into the present time Christianity modified and humanized western civilization.   It is the Christian nations of the world—what we now call the “West”— which formulated basic rules for human interactions,  raised the world’s standards of  jurisprudence, formulated patterns  for international relations, all of which have resulted in the greatest most advanced civilizations—(yes my anthropologist colleagues, we can say that)  that  man has ever known.  The west is a world based on and dominated by Christian values.  So all of us have prospered — Christians, Moslems, Jew, Hindu, etc. etc!   All have a debt to pay to Christianity. 

 OK yes these other traditions and faiths (particularly Judaism) have all contributed, as well in some small way.  But the main thrust and impact has always been from Christians with Christian values,  

So no need to hide your Christian faith under a basket.!

And yes, let us discuss the obvious, our own nation, perhaps the greatest of the West.   Those of the left who have us deny our Christian heritage and claim that our Founders and our institutions and our early documents were secular in origin,  But to make that claim one has to ignore history.   There is no question that of those characteristics which have contributed to our greatness there are none which could come close to the fact that we are a Christian nation.  Those who flocked here brought with them their Christian faiths.  

In the south, the first permanent settlement in North America —St. Augustine, Florida bought Roman  Catholics from Spain.  First Jesuits and then later Spanish Franciscans based in St Augustine  set up missions all through the south,  as far north as present day Virginia, long before English colonization.   In the north, Protestant sects from England, the Pilgrims and the Puritans, escaping religious persecution in their homeland settled the rocky inhospitable land.  By the 18^th Century our 13 colonies were staunchly Christian.  

It was in this land where our Founding Fathers,  late 18^th Century authored a series of documents that would become (and remain) the ultimate, the epitome, the hope of how government, politics and society should be.  The Founders, using their Christian heritage, Christian  sources formulated clear and  simple statements which enshrined the world’s ideals of human rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that only the consent of the governed give the legitimacy to govern; and our right to free speech and to resist tyranny by all legal means. 

Where—specifically— did these—earth shaking, watershed — ideas originate?   They did not spring from the hard rocky soil of New England or the deep loam of the Virginian coastal plains,  Nor did they arise from our Native American predecessors,  The ideas enshrined in our historic documents and the basis of our heritage originated with Christian thinkers and philosophers from Europe as well as the immigrants, colonists and settlers who carried their faith in their hearts, and their Bible in their hands to the New World.  The ideas and values that made us what we are were derived from the Christian Bible and the minds of devoted, practicing Christians using and reworking the these social ideals and concepts to develop a new paradigm of the social contract for new circumstances in the new world. 

Our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Samuel Adams, John Adams and others were all if not strictly practitioners, were adherents of Christian traditions, ideals and beliefs  Many were well educated and conversant in religious doctrine.  Those  who formulated our historic documents were well-versed in the philosophers and political theorists of that time.   One of the individuals most frequently claimed as the primary  source of concepts which were included in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution was a Scottish theologian, physician and  philosopher: John Locke. 

John Locke (1632-1704) was an influential Scottish-English physician, philosopher, theologian and writer who is often credited by American scholars as one of the prime influences on the Founders of  the Republic and who was especially important as a source for Thomas Jefferson who in large part composed the Declaration  of Independence. 

Locke’s religious beliefs and political convictions are often considered as intimately interrelated. Though he was one of the most influential secular empiricists and Enlightenment thinkers who developed the social contract theory and a rigorous political philosophy, he was also a devout and practicing Christian. It is significant that Locke’s political views were largely if not entirely based on Protestant Christian beliefs. 

Locke was a Calvinist, a member of the Protestant sect, which followed the preachings of John Calvin. Calvin  affirmed the sovereignty of God and the belief that God predestines individuals to salvation. Locke also held that the Bible was the literal word of God, and that its text was in agreement with human reason.   Locke derived his fundamental philosophical concepts from the Bible, including: Genesis, Letters of Paul the Apostle, as well as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5: 1-7:29 and Luke 6:17-36).    It is clear that  throughout his life he was a devout. committed Christian. 

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other Founders studied and internalized the Christian based  philosophy of Locke. Many phrases and ideas which appear in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence first appeared in the writings of John Locke. 

So let’s give credit where credit is due.  Our origins, our ethics, our political development and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and yes our ascendancy in the west as the most successful and powerful modern nation, developed from Christian roots, which has nurtured our polity and our leadership from the very beginning and has continued in operation as we prospered  and developed with those concepts and ideas as guides.  Where we have abandoned them, we have suffered.    We should have nothing but pride for our Christian history and those of our devout ancestors who nurtured and passed on these ideas and values.

Ask yourself,  where would we be in this world if it wasn’t for the coming of Christ with his message of hope, peace, salvation,  and  redemption? Our form of government—emulated and admired around the world—could not have developed elsewhere. Not in Asia, Africa, or even the Middle East the birthplace of the Christ. 

So say it with assurance and pride—it’s American as apple pie! : Merry Christmas! 

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.