Imagine it's 2008. Barrack Hussein Obama has been elected president. A day after his victory, protests erupt in major cities. Movie stars warn they will flee to Canada. The opposition party trashes his character. The media denigrates those who voted for a political novice.
If this sounds far fetched, then just substitute the name of president-elect Donald J. Trump for Mr. Obama in that opening paragraph. There would have been moral outrage from all quarters had President-elect Obama suffered the same slings and arrows.
Mr. Trump has not even taken the oath of office and the vicious attacks have begun. Do you recall Republicans rioting in the streets after Mr. Obama's election? Did the media seek out Mitt Romney supporters distraught over a black president? Were whites fleeing to Canada? Crickets.
After the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary Clinton were thoroughly rejected by voters, the media narrative is that white racists, misogynists and homophobes are responsible for Mr. Trump's triumph. He won because he appealed to Americans' base prejudices.
We have that on the authoritative word of election expert Mr. Obama, who has jetted around the globe trying to poison foreign relations by worrying out loud about the direction of one nation under Donald J. Trump. Does anyone remember George W. Bush embarking on a similar tour? Crickets.
Electoral College members are being harassed by Clinton loyalists to ignore their state's voters and back their flawed candidate. The Green Party and the Clinton campaign have joined forces to demand recounts in several states in a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
As a reminder, during the presidential campaign Ms. Clinton excoriated Mr. Trump for his comments about a rigged election. "Anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a threat to Democracy," she thundered at a campaign rally. Her own words now convict her.
Meanwhile, George Soros-funded faux activist groups are flooding the streets with paid demonstrators in cities across the country. A compliant media covers the protests as if these were spontaneous reactions to a Trump presidency. The outcry is nothing more than propaganda.
Democrats are lining up on liberal media expressing their concerns over Mr. Trump's cabinet, while he still fleshes out his choices. The media is howling that Mr. Trump is dallying, although it took Mr. Obama six weeks to announce his first choices to serve on his Beltway team.
Every one of these incidents is part of a clandestine orchestrated effort by Democrats and their accomplices to render the Trump presidency dead-on-arrival. They used the same tactic against Mr. Bush, calling him an illegitimate president after his narrow win in 2000.
In an attempt to impugn Mr. Trump's victory, the Democrat Party-controlled media has reminded Americans that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to the current tally, she has a 1.4 million vote lead out of 123 million ballots that were cast in the election.
That means the margin is barely one percent. To put that in perspective, Ms. Clinton beat Mr. Trump by nearly four million votes in California. Without that lopsided margin in a single state, Ms. Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the electoral count.
Another fact you will not read in the mainstream media: Mr. Trump won 3,084 out of 3,141 counties stretching across America's heartland. Ms. Clinton rolled up big vote margins in an elite band of 52 counties located on opposite coasts of the country. The remainder of America was a sea of red.
Democrats have a lot more to worry about than Mr. Trump. Since Mr. Obama ascended to the White House, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships. With the exception of narrow slices of the East and West coasts, Republicans are dominating elections.
Instead of using their resources to declaw Mr. Trump, Democrats would be better served to figure out why the electorate has turned on their party. Their constant harping about Mr. Trump and his supporters won't win them any converts. Hillary Clinton tried that tactic and was drubbed.
But Democrats can't help themselves. When they lose, they blame the dumb voters and brand the winner as an unlawful pretender to the presidency. This time no one is listening but their dwindling base of voters.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Grandchildren: Giving Thanks For the Little Ones
When Thanksgiving arrives each season, it is a reminder there are few treasures in life to be cherished more than grandchildren. They tug at our crusty hearts, induce wrinkled smiles and love us even if we are creaky, old-fashioned and smell funny.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Monday, November 7, 2016
What Trump's Election Means
Political insiders, pundits, well-heeled lobbyists and pollsters were dead wrong. They were certain Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in an epic landslide. Americans would never elect Donald Trump, a man they spent 18 months dismissing as unfit to occupy the Oval Office.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
Media: The Biggest Losers This Election
The 2016 presidential election has once and for all unmasked the mainstream media as nothing more than Democrat Party apparatchiks. There no longer is even a pretense of journalism or fairness. Most "news" organizations have coddled Hillary Clinton, while lambasting Donald Trump.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)