Can Trump Overcome His Problems?

In politics on February 24, 2017 at 4:32 pm

Inside-the-Beltway Problems

Yes, President Trump speaks to his base in his rallies, speeches, and press conferences, but no more than the Democrats do to their base.

The problem, however, is that the majority of the media also speak to the Democrats’ base.

But that’s not the whole–or worst–problem.  The whole problem is much more complex because it involves former President Obama, George Soros, and the entire Democrat Party, including–and most dangerously for the American people–those bureaucrats put in place by Obama and other Democrats whose motivation is to cause disruption for the new president.

For example, even President Trump admitted and charged in his first press conference that the NSA and other Intel agencies leaked details of his private and privileged telephone conversations with world leaders, including the presidents of Mexico and Australia, as well as the conversation between National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn and Russia prior to the election.  Details of those conversations are classified, and therefore it is illegal, not to say treasonous, to make that information public by leaking to the media, which, in turn, has no compunctions about reporting it.

Why is classified information being broadcast?  Ask John Podesta or whoever is running the underground Democrat “dirty tricks” operation.

According to rumor, former president Obama is making it his mission, during retirement, to head up a leaderless Democrat Party and doing everything in his power to denigrate the effectiveness of Trump’s election. Reports speculate that Obama is staying in Washington in order to set up a shadow government to counter Trump’s policies and probably Trump’s daily tweets.  Certainly Obama realizes that the media wishes he were still in office and will do everything in its power to publicize his counter-attacks against Trump.  In short, what we are likely to witness is a mano a mano contest between Trump and the media, carrying water for the Democrat Party and Obama.

The Problem with Rancorous Rhetoric

A good argument can be made that Trump was elected president of all the people and, therefore, should reach beyond his base in his public speaking.  Because of Trump’s ongoing war with the media, however, he seems more inclined to bash the media than make new friends.

Trump’s defense of his reputation is understandable, up to a point.  But calling the media “an enemy of the people” is much too broad a counter-attack.  In fact, Trump might find more friends among the press if he employed more humor and less contempt.  Note: Trump insists he is only terming “fake news”—not the media—an enemy of the people.

His public absolutist remarks are sometimes too extreme and not helpful in generating diplomatic rapprochement or in calming domestic political rancor.  For example, his hard-to-fathom defense of Russia’s thuggish dictator Vladimir Putin leaves most people wondering what he has in mind.  When Trump was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly during the Super Bowl, the president indicated he hopes to get along with Putin.  When O’Reilly noted that Putin is a killer, Trump’s comeback was that America also has killed many people.  No doubt Trump was referring to wars, such as the Iraq war that he adamantly opposed.  Still the comparison is inept because American soldiers were killed fighting to defeat a dictatorship, while Putin allegedly murders his serious opponents.  In short, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Iraq war, America’s purpose was to free the Iraqi people from dictatorship, while Putin’s is only to protect his.

Update: The latest iteration of U.S. attitudes toward Russia indicates a definite change.  In Vice President Mike Pence’s latest remarks from Munich, he pledges America’s loyalty to its European allies and NATO.  Apparently the Trump administration has had a serious re-consideration of its relationship with Russia and is not pleased with that country’s hunger to swallow its Eastern European neighbors or its threatening gestures– buzzing American naval vessel, deploying a cruise missile, and planting its spy ship off the Delaware coast.  As counter-puncher Trump stated in his response to a question about these incidents during his recent press conference, “Not good.”

The Underdogs Identify with the Underdog

Still, there’s no doubt that Trump remains wildly popular with the core of his middle-class supporters, as noted during his recent Melbourne, Florida, rally that attracted about nine thousand supporters crammed together in an airport hangar.  There’s no question his base is rooting for him to overcome the antipathy spewed out daily by the media and entertainers who believe they are entitled to make political comments whenever they are in front of a microphone.  All of this negativity makes Trump look like he is being bullied by opponents who are unforgiving because he won the election.

The Daily Roller-Coaster Ride

There is no question that Trump, like every new president, must go through a period of adjustment in order to figure out how to deal with his cabinet, the bureaucracy, and Congress.  It’s an awesome and almost overwhelming task for any new president.  Still Trump’s outspoken, pugilistic style of communicating makes his everyday announcements contentious and headline- grabbing, which, in turn, make it seem his administration is on a roller-coaster ride, rather than, as he proclaimed in his recent press conference, running smoothly, like a well-oiled machine.

It remains to be seen how well Trump and his cabinet will work together, and whether Trump’s counter-punching will wear well.  Of course if Congress repeals and replaces Obamacare with a consumer-oriented healthcare plan and reduces corporate and individual taxes, millions of Americans will be grateful and the country should prosper.  Positive results will certainly help Trump’s popularity and give him bragging rights that may subsume the negative stories put out by the media.

If you want proof of the axiom that prosperity obviates personal peccadilloes, consider Bill Clinton, who was re-elected president after his “bimbo eruption” because the country was on a heady economic upswing.

 Media Amnesia

Amidst all the anti-Trump protests, which seem more like ambient noise than serious policy complaints, keep in mind that it was the Obama administration that kept taxes high, imposed regulations that impeded economic growth, and reset its relationship with Russia, emboldening that country to gobble up Crimea and enter the fray in the Middle East to aid its client, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

Where were all the protests about those devastating decisions?  And where were all the media slaps-in-the-face for Obama’s ACA lies, vanished red line in the Syrian sand and lack of coming to aid America’s ambassador in Benghazi and then lying to the families of the murdered military men, to the UN, and to the American people on Sunday news shows claiming the attack on the Libyan consulate was caused by an obscure YouTube video?

The simple fact is this: The media was ever polite to Obama, asking him softball questions, like what’s your favorite snack, rather than hard-driving questions about his wasting so much American tax money that the country is now twenty trillion dollars in debt.

Meanwhile the media delights in finding fault with the new administration for its style, rather than its substance, designed to correct the Obama administration’s job-killing policies and cowering diplomatic decisions.  Or, as Trump likes to put it, the “mess” he inherited.

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene. All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.

Are You Brainwashed Yet?

In politics on January 28, 2017 at 6:32 pm

If you saw “The Manchurian Candidate,” you know how insidious brainwashing can be, though of course that was fiction. Still, move to China today and find out how children learn to love the Communist way. That’s not fiction.

For that matter, why did Alger Hiss, an American who worked for the U.S. government, become a Russian spy?

What makes American citizens turn against their own country? What triggers the change inside a person’s brain that converts him or her into working against what most of us hold dear.

Suppose our country’s leading educational and communication sources have already been taken over and are disseminating anti-American propaganda that is undermining traditional American values and freedoms?

And what if those sources have been taken over by anti-American Americans?

Facts show our three primary sources of information and entertainment—the media, academia, and Hollywood—have for some time been overrun with anti-American influences that are tearing down the fabric of our society by defaming the liberties our founders fought against the British to achieve.

Avoiding Critical Questions

During Tucker Carlson’s program on Fox, widely respected news analyst Dr. Charles Krauthammer pointed out that the mainstream media has for decades been pro-left in its sympathies. However, media bias, according to Krauthammer, has veered dramatically leftward, so that today it’s hard to distinguish between objective journalism and political editorializing. Even such popular prime news programs as 60 Minutes editorialize by not asking the most important questions during what appears to be objective reporting.

President Obama was interviewed several times on 60 Minutes. Yet the interviewer never asked the questions many Americans wanted to know:

• Why, for example, did the president force the Affordable Care Act on the American people without bipartisan support?

• Why did the president lie to the American people about its benefits?

• Why did Obama tell the nation he could enact regulations with his “pen and phone” without pressing Congress to pass legislation representing national consensus?

In fact Obama ran his entire 2008 campaign with most of the media cheering him on instead of delving into his very shady past—which included Muslim and Communist influences—a past that Americans had a right to know a lot more about.

How Bias Sneaks into Your Newspaper

A recent Wall Street Journal report explained that a number of candidates for cabinet positions had views that differed from those of President Trump. The actual headline reads “Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Diverge on Russia, Security Issues.” That’s a pretty objective headline.

On the other hand, the Huffington Post ran a January 19th headline citing “The Ethics Problems Plaguing Trump’s Cabinet Have Sunk Plenty of Prior Nominees.” This is a slanted—if not biased–headline because it implies Trump’s cabinet nominees have “ethics problems” and might not be confirmed.

Just after Trump became president, Time Magazine reported that the bust of Martin Luther King had disappeared from the Oval Office, though it was still positioned where it had always been. When the president confronted Time about the obvious lie, the reporter replied that he “thought” it had been removed. That is not only unprofessional reporting; it is a pointed example of how the media will write almost anything that disparages a president it dislikes.

What is “Fake News”?

The disturbing problem with biased news is that it is opinion posing as news. Hence the current popular term “fake news.” Krauthammer defines “fake news,” as propaganda, meaning a journalistic report written to convince the reader of the writer’s point of view.

CNN recently reported what amounts to unsubstantiated gossip about Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Russia, then defended its report by stating the gossip was discussed with both President Obama and President-elect Trump by American Intel agencies and is, therefore, news.

CNN claims the public has a right to know. But the unasked question is: Know what? Gossip is certainly not news. It may, however, be presented as news in order to influence public opinion. In this case, it was used to cast aspersions on Trump’s reputation.

Reporting unsubstantiated gossip as news is using the First Amendment as a crutch, since editors should be able to differentiate between legitimate news and propaganda.

Leftwing Propaganda in the Schools

Academia’s dissemination of leftwing propaganda is worse than charges levied against the media, because it attempts to brainwash untrained minds—the same technique used in communist dictatorships.

To discover why educational institutions have become so dangerous to unfettered thinking, follow the money. Government—via the taxpayer—has become sole creditor of student loans. All student loan dollars pass from government to institutions of higher education. And when students default on those loans, guess who gets stuck with the loss?

But that’s not all. Higher education depends on grant money from government to fund its research departments.

Under the Thumb of Government

In other words, college administrators and professors are indirectly government employees.

Because the Obama government accepted global warming as a—if not the–pre-eminent threat to world survival, climatology departments, like feral dogs snapping up red meat, grabbed the dollars being dispersed and set up models to help confirm government assertions.

For example, the “hockey stick” theory, illustrating the rapid rise of global temperatures, published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and his go-along colleagues, has been roundly disproved, discrediting their phony theory as government propaganda.

Still, the censorship of scientists who do not toe the “global warming” line prevails. There is no tolerance for “deniers” within the academy or in scientific publications that refuse to accept articles that question “accepted science.” It’s as if scientific theory is now based on what the power structure decrees.

Teaching Fairness, not Capitalism

Why do so many colleges and universities refuse to permit conservative speakers to air their views on campus? Why do some professors insist socialism is fairer than capitalism? Both of these prejudices contradict higher education’s purpose: to foster open discussion.

Like too much of today’s journalism, college teaching has become a one-way street for leftist dogma.

Former President Obama’s concept of “fairness,” a euphemism for Marxist socialism, has reinforced the leftward bent of many institutions of higher learning.

Obama’s anti-capitalistic bias was a prime objective in his economic decisions and certainly agreed with and likely influenced the mindset of higher learning:

1) During the 2008 campaign, Joe the Plumber questioned Obama’s redistribution of wealth, and the candidate replied that redistribution was fairer [than what?].

2) As president, Obama criticized business owners by saying, “You didn’t build that,” demoting their initiative and hard work as secondary to government’s roads and bridges that led customers to their businesses.

3) Obama’s ideology emphasized keeping business in check with countless regulations and the world’s highest corporate taxes.

It’s not surprising Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was such a shock to academia. Students, professors, and administrators could not fathom how a billionaire capitalist could defeat a woman who wanted to pursue Obama’s policies of “fairness.”

Hollywood Loves Globalism

One may wonder what Hollywood might have in common with the left. Once Hollywood stars like John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Gary Cooper played military heroes on the silver screen. Many Hollywood actors had served in the military during WWII and were unabashed patriots.

In the late Forties and Fifties, Hollywood played along with the government’s attempt to investigate communists in government and entertainment. Those who didn’t were considered suspects, “pinkos.”

So what happened? Why did Hollywood turn so far left that it disdains anyone who does not adhere to its political bias? In fact, today Hollywood has no qualms about celebrating former black-listed screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo, who, in the recent movie about his life and times, explains to his young daughter that communism is like sharing your lunch with a little girl who has none. “What’s wrong with that?” he asks.

The fairness doctrine emanating from the media, academia, and government has become the mantra among the Hollywood elite, which includes virtually everyone in power or dependent on it to be employed.

Like the media and academia, Hollywood believes American values are not in tune with post-America globalism, which the chi-chi left thinks is intellectually fashionable, while disdaining American values as nationalistic and oh, so yesterday.

Thus the progressive policies Hollywood supports–environmentalism, transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, a Palestinian state, government-subsidized abortion, gun control, and open borders—are at odds with what many middle-class Americans believe.

Hollywood Hypocrisy

The joke, of course, is that Hollywood is a nothing but a honeycomb of capitalism. In fact, those at the top earn so much money that making fun of capitalism is cathartic, mitigating their jet-set excesses. Thus Hollywood’s plutocrats can join hands with other “limousine liberals” who give millions to the left, believing they are saving the country from conservatives who “worship their guns and bibles,” as Obama put it in a San Francisco fundraiser.

In Praise of the 63 Million Americans

In every case—media, academia, and Hollywood—transparent hypocrisy undermines whatever principle lefties think they are upholding. Even by controlling our news, entertainment, and educational institutions, the left has failed to brainwash some sixty-three million American voters who thought Trump the builder was a better bet than a former Secretary of State who assumed she was above the law and campaigned as if she had already won.

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene. All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.

Did Trump Steal the Election?

In politics on December 20, 2016 at 9:38 pm

From all the hullabaloo by the Democrats and their media allies, you’d think that Donald Trump must have stolen his victory over Hillary.

The Democrats and the media keep trying every day to find some reason to make America believe the “impossible”: How could the “evil” Trump possibly overcome someone as “wonderful” as Hillary? (Democrats always caricature Republican presidential candidates. Usually the GOP candidate is portrayed as “stupid,” and the Democrat as the “smartest person in the room.”  However, in this election Trump was portrayed as a clown and demagogue, and Hillary as experienced and inevitable.) Was it the Russians, FBI director Comey, or bad vote counting in the Midwest? Or was it voters who didn’t understand it was Hillary’s turn to become president?

According to Democrats, their unacceptable loss had to be about something other than Hillary’s being a lousy candidate who didn’t give a flip about the working people in the Midwest, either because she thought she didn’t need their votes, or was too lazy to campaign in flyover country.

It must be the Russians!
Now Democrats in Congress think they have found the quintessential reason: It had to be the Russians who stopped Hillary from becoming president. According to news reports, the CIA and the FBI confirm the Russians were hacking Democrat Party emails. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, however, refutes this claim and takes all the credit for broadcasting the tweets which made the Democrats look like what they really are–power-hungry knaves and cheats–simply by divulging their own emails, in which, for example, the Party schemed to take down Hillary’s only intra-party rival, socialist senator Bernie Sanders.

Think about that for a minute.

Wasn’t Hillary supposed to be crowned without any serious opposition? So how was it possible this virtually unknown, seventy-four-year-old socialist from the bucolic state of Vermont could seriously compete with the queen bee? The DNC’s concern over Sanders was, as it turns out, an early warning there was something seriously amiss in Hillary’s campaign.

Perhaps it was that she had no message, other than she was the only woman running and therefore gender-priviledged. That, as it turned out, was just one of her arrogant assumptions.

How Long Will Democrats Refuse to Admit Defeat?
On December 19th, Trump was declared the 45th president of the United States. So you may wonder why Democrats’ whining still fills the airwaves. One commentator described it as going through the five stages of grief–denial, anger–the current stage—followed by bargaining, depression, acceptance. But right now it seems anger may be the stage that lingers for the next four years.

Democrats have the amble-witted fixation of believing they are always entitled to win and thus refuse to admit defeat. Consider, for example, that they not only lost the presidency, they also remain in the minority in the House and Senate. Furthermore, over thirty states have Republican governors and legislatures. Democrats have only four. That not only spells “defeat,” it looks like a tombstone.

What’s also so curious is that Democrats keep bragging they won the popular vote. That’s like bragging you have a straight when your opponent has a straight flush.

Republicans won thirty states. In this election, the heart of the country belongs almost entirely to the Republicans. Look at a map of how the states voted, and the dominant color is red. Your eyes have to swivel from coast to coast to see any noticeable blue.

In fact, without California and New York’s leftwing voters, Democrats wouldn’t have a chance of winning a presidential election. Right now, in the House, one third of the Democrats are represented by only three states–California, New York, and Massachusetts.

The President thinks the Constitution is Passé.
Like a little boy who doesn’t know the facts of life, President Obama says the most empty-headed things. Recently he spouted off, saying the Electoral College is “a vestige” of an “older time” in America. (So is the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn’t make it any less relevant.) Of course the president, supposedly a constitutional scholar, has never given much credence to the restrictions imposed on the executive branch by the Constitution.

Obama cited Wyoming, a state with only about half a million people, as being somehow ridiculously entitled to the same number of senators as California, a state with almost forty million.

Surely Obama knows that the Founders, who ratified the Constitution, believed every state should have equal representation in the Senate to give every state, regardless of population, an equal voice in running the government.

Still the president shows little respect for the Electoral College, except, perhaps, when it votes for him. His argument against it is also specious since population does determine the number of electors in each state. Of course accuracy is never required in Democrats’ arguments. Emotion, rather than logic, is their guiding principle. Since emotion requires no proof, every Democrat has the right, apparently, to cry “foul,” even though no foul has been committed.

The fact is simply this: Whether Democrats like it or not, the Constitution is still the law of the land. Therefore, Hillary lost. Period.

Jim’s Daily Rant is owned and operated by James I. Greene. All rights protected by copyright from reproduction without permission.