.jpg)
The devil is always in the details and he now resides in The White House!
===
Thoughtful e mails I could not resist posting it. They came from very dear friends and fellow memo readers in response to my own thoughts regarding the recent episode in North Charleston: "Dear Dick,
I would like to add my praises to you, along with those of J----, for the outstanding letter you wrote in reference to the tragic incident in North Charleston. Your letter should not only be printed in the "Savannah Morning News", but should also spread throughout our country so that all
Americans, black and white ,must learn how a potentially explosive situation can be handled peacefully without rabble rousers coming to incite tensions. Thank you for expressing so well what we all want---peace with dignity. B==="
"Thanks for putting this out. It shows leadership on your part and your willingness to bring people together peacefully.
Well done.
H-----"
Another response to my comment about Grandma Hillary: "Dick...Will your next announcement report that Jed Bush is throwing his jock strap into the hopper? Y---"
My response: "Either that or his sombrero!"
"You make a good point. I would also emphasize more how the government carried out the law in a way that inspired confidence among the people. This stands in contrast with Ferguson.
I also commend our local government in how they responded to the shooting of the hand-cuffed man in the police car. They immediately turned the case over to GBI, provided a place for people to rally peacefully, confiscated the weapon, and announced in full transparency the name of the police officer. As a result, the black community in Savannah protested peacefully. I credit Van Johnson with this leadership.
The point is the leadership in our government either conveys trust or not, and this affects the way people respond. This is not to say that when the government acts foolishly that it excuses bad behavior of the people, which is your point.
Did you hear about Chief Justice Breyer and Stevens testifying before congress about the brokenness of our criminal justice system?
Shavuah tov, R----"
Another response to my comment about Grandma Hillary: "Dick...Will your next announcement report that Jed Bush is throwing his jock strap into the hopper? Y---"
My response: "Either that or his sombrero!"
===
Comments from a mil-lineal which parallel my own when it comes to a variety of topics he addresses. Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 1 below.)
===
The Democrat Party apparently has chosen to engage in more of a coronating nomination process connoting either a certain paucity of candidates or something inexplicable considering the baggage their sole candidate, Hillary, will be lugging throughout the campaign.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a plethora, a super abundance, of candidates running. Some seemingly less qualified but enough valid candidates so that their party is truly offering American voters a real choice and thus, Republicans should portray themselves as vying for the job rather than assuming, as Democrats appear to be doing, viewing the presidency as an entitlement.
Considering the wreckage their current president has done, one would hope the press and media dolts would finally come clean with American voters and shuck their bias. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Based on the outpouring castigating responses to Messrs Cruz and Paul, such seems a distant hope.
"(Bruce Walker has a point. Turn voters onto the biased leftist media and press. Make them become the red meat and point out that you voters have been duped by them for decades. Don't fall for their false reporting again. (See 2b below.)"
Based on the outpouring castigating responses to Messrs Cruz and Paul, such seems a distant hope.
"(Bruce Walker has a point. Turn voters onto the biased leftist media and press. Make them become the red meat and point out that you voters have been duped by them for decades. Don't fall for their false reporting again. (See 2b below.)"
Thus, it remains for the Republican Party to get its own act together, not rely upon the press and media to be balanced and make sure that whomever they nominate is not so damaged, from fellow contestant arrows, they are able to mount a solid campaign. They have a lot of legitimate Hillary peccadilloes stretching to sizable and nefarious misdeeds they can present to voters which the press and media will obediently by pass.
"Walker has a point. Turn voters onto the biased leftist media and press. Make them become the red meat and point out that you voters have been duped by them for decades. Don't fall for their false reporting again. (See 2a below.)"
"Walker has a point. Turn voters onto the biased leftist media and press. Make them become the red meat and point out that you voters have been duped by them for decades. Don't fall for their false reporting again. (See 2a below.)"
Furthermore, Hillary will expend very little should she go unchallenged, and will have most of her campaign resources available for the final round.
If the Republican candidate pulls off a Romney and fails to fight back and sling back the dirt, constantly thrown at them, they will prove, once again, they are more interested in spending enormous sums of money than winning.
Winning may not be everything, though in terms of 2016, it might mean arresting our Republic's certain demise if we continue along the path the radical Obama left has in store for us, but fighting to win sends a signal to voters you are at least serious and have the gumption it takes to meet the challenges of those who mean us harm.
Finally, if Far Right Republicans, once again, sit on their hands because the Party Choice is not fully acceptable they will lose no matter how effective their candidate may be. Half a loaf is better than none and if the myopic breed of the party believe Hillary is better then Republicans deserve to lose.
===
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Is More Regulation a Barrier to a Future Crisis?
In conversations with other Millennials, I often encounter the Occupy Wall Street narrative of the Great Recession. This version of the crisis focuses exclusively on so-called predatory lending, and its proponents do not seem to believe that government policies contributed in any way to the housing bubble. As a result, they express a frightening degree of confidence in the ability of omniscient bureaucrats to rein in greedy bankers and thereby save us from future crises.
In order to understand why this line of thinking is problematic, it is necessary to examine the mistakes our government made in the years leading up to the financial crisis. To begin an explanation of the crisis with "predatory lending" is to obscure the economic mismanagement that caused the rush into housing.
Neither the Great Depression nor the Great Recession would have been possible in a free economy operating with a stable currency. As the unit of economic measurement that forms the basis for the rest of the world's currency markets, the dollar is the most important price on the planet. The U.S. Treasury sat idly by as the dollar depreciated during the early 2000s, prompting a flight to "real" assets like gold, oil and housing. Unprecedented mortgage origination was simply the private sector's response to conditions created by the government, which in our mixed economy bears responsibility for the value of our currency and creates artificial incentives for capital to flow to "social goods" like affordable housing.
The idea that enlightened regulators would have steered banks clear of problematic mortgages in the early 2000s is inconsistent with the pro-housing mentalities of these would-be saviors. Top government officials explicitly encouraged banks to devise the sub-prime mortgage products that served as catalysts in the financial meltdown. In 2004, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told banks, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage." A year earlier, Barney Frank assured us, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis...The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." While the crisis itself consisted of mal-investment enabled by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, Frank deserves blame for directing valuable resources away from entrepreneurial activity that creates growth and into (unaffordable) housing. In light of his failure to anticipate "any kind of a crisis," should we now feel safe because the entire financial system is regulated under several thousand pages of legislation bearing his name?
Increased regulation since the crisis has led to several notable developments: Higher compliance costs, a sharp decline in the number of new banks, less credit available for innovative businesses, and a fear of personal liabilitythat has deterred highly qualified individuals from joining boards of directors. In a recent speech, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer warned that, "stronger regulation of the banking sector...could lead to greater complexity [that] makes it more difficult for market participants to understand the risks arising from their exposures." Unsurprisingly, Fischer advocates more extensive regulation as a counterbalance to these unintended consequences produced by strong regulation. Perhaps it is time to return to first principles, and to ask whether our government might be more effective at reducing systemic risk if it focused its limited resources on prosecuting real fraud and protecting the value of our dollars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Thinking the unthinkable about Obama's Middle East Policy
I am not generally given to doomsday fantasies, but I'm starting to get unnerved by where I see President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy taking us.
Either by incompetence or design, our community organizer has created a Middle East power vacuum with truly dire potential consequences
We will never be able to fully comprehend our President’s sociopathic narcissism, since his brain may have been damaged by inhaling so much Maui Gold as an adolescent. So predicting his motives and subsequent actions, should this doomsday result, is full of hazards. But, as his former chief of staff, the current mayor of Chicago, explained, a basic operating principle is to “never let a crisis go to waste.”
2b) Make the Leftist Media the 2016 Issue
The enemy of conservatism in America is the leftist establishment – the leftist-controlled institutions of news, education, and entertainment. Take away these big, fat incestuously connected institutions, and the left in America is a circus sideshow and nothing else. Democrat “leaders” like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and Reid are slow-witted, mean-spirited, and narrow-minded sock puppets filled by the chubby hands of the leftist establishment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to understand why this line of thinking is problematic, it is necessary to examine the mistakes our government made in the years leading up to the financial crisis. To begin an explanation of the crisis with "predatory lending" is to obscure the economic mismanagement that caused the rush into housing.
Neither the Great Depression nor the Great Recession would have been possible in a free economy operating with a stable currency. As the unit of economic measurement that forms the basis for the rest of the world's currency markets, the dollar is the most important price on the planet. The U.S. Treasury sat idly by as the dollar depreciated during the early 2000s, prompting a flight to "real" assets like gold, oil and housing. Unprecedented mortgage origination was simply the private sector's response to conditions created by the government, which in our mixed economy bears responsibility for the value of our currency and creates artificial incentives for capital to flow to "social goods" like affordable housing.
The idea that enlightened regulators would have steered banks clear of problematic mortgages in the early 2000s is inconsistent with the pro-housing mentalities of these would-be saviors. Top government officials explicitly encouraged banks to devise the sub-prime mortgage products that served as catalysts in the financial meltdown. In 2004, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told banks, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage." A year earlier, Barney Frank assured us, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis...The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." While the crisis itself consisted of mal-investment enabled by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, Frank deserves blame for directing valuable resources away from entrepreneurial activity that creates growth and into (unaffordable) housing. In light of his failure to anticipate "any kind of a crisis," should we now feel safe because the entire financial system is regulated under several thousand pages of legislation bearing his name?
Increased regulation since the crisis has led to several notable developments: Higher compliance costs, a sharp decline in the number of new banks, less credit available for innovative businesses, and a fear of personal liabilitythat has deterred highly qualified individuals from joining boards of directors. In a recent speech, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer warned that, "stronger regulation of the banking sector...could lead to greater complexity [that] makes it more difficult for market participants to understand the risks arising from their exposures." Unsurprisingly, Fischer advocates more extensive regulation as a counterbalance to these unintended consequences produced by strong regulation. Perhaps it is time to return to first principles, and to ask whether our government might be more effective at reducing systemic risk if it focused its limited resources on prosecuting real fraud and protecting the value of our dollars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Thinking the unthinkable about Obama's Middle East Policy
I am not generally given to doomsday fantasies, but I'm starting to get unnerved by where I see President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy taking us.
Now that Israel’s Prime Minster Bibi Netanyahu has been re-elected, with Obama’s knife is still firmly lodged in his back, we can reasonably expect the long anticipated Middle East regional wars to become a no-holds-barred slugfest.
Just to recap, we have the Saudis already bombing the hell out of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Egyptians are bombing ISIS jihadists in Libya who slaughtered Coptic Christians. There are credible reports of Iranian troops massing near the Israeli lines in the Golan Heights. Thousands of suicidal Hamas fanatics, modern day troglodytes, are once again digging tunnels in Gaza and being re-armed by Iran. And Iran’s bootlicking spawn Hezb’allah, among the foremost virulent Jew haters on the planet, eagerly waits for orders to launch an estimated 40,000 well-entrenched surface-to-surface missiles into the Israeli population centers. Plus, Hamas desires Abbas’s untimely demise, and ISIS is out-tweeting Iran for bragging rights as the radical Islamic state most likely to restore a 9th century theocracy.
The Saudis most likely have already acquired a half a dozen or so tactical nuclear weapon as payment in kind for bankrolling the Pakistani nuclear development program. And conversely, it is reasonable to assume that Iran has also acquired a handful of tactical nuclear weapons from North Korea.
The Saudis and Egyptians are praying five times a day for Israel to use its nuclear weapons to stop Iran. The Israelis would love that the Sunni world, led by the Saudis, would strike Iran first, and then the IAF could follow up with precision strikes on the centrifuges. Be assured that just as the US continues its geopolitical insanity of capitulating to Iranian nuclear ambitions, so too Israel, Egypt, and the Kingdom likely have held extensive talks on joint military action to stop the Shia-centric expansion in the Middle East.
Oh yeah, did I mention that our twice-elected community organizer has successfully conspired and orchestrated this Middle East power vacuum? Just ask the Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Libyans, Iraqis and Afghanis how Obama’s deceitful policies hooked and then gutted them like a rainbow trout.
With the worldwide collapse of America’s political and military support for the post Cold War order, we stopped being the planet’s cop and morphed into a starry-eyed sycophant for all those evil and abhorrent regimes. This power vacuum, magnified in the religious and ethic labyrinths of the Middle East and Muslim controlled Africa, has created inevitable and catastrophic consequences.
What consequences could those be?
Our species has a decent probability of unleashing a limited nuclear war within the next 12 months. There would be mega deaths from the initial detonations, radiation poisoning, starvation, lack of drinking water, and inadequate medical assistance for the injured, children and elderly. A limited nuclear exchange ultimately could easily result in the horrific deaths of up to two billion souls, around a fouth of earth’s human population. Or more.
That huge figure is because even a limited nuclear war would cause the cessation of deliveries of Middle East oil to Asia, the EU, and North America, unleashing massive worldwide economic disruptions that would adversely affect food production, transportation and manufacturing for every person on the planet.
And this economic depression could continue for the next decade
Either by incompetence or design, our community organizer has created a Middle East power vacuum with truly dire potential consequences
We will never be able to fully comprehend our President’s sociopathic narcissism, since his brain may have been damaged by inhaling so much Maui Gold as an adolescent. So predicting his motives and subsequent actions, should this doomsday result, is full of hazards. But, as his former chief of staff, the current mayor of Chicago, explained, a basic operating principle is to “never let a crisis go to waste.”
Such chaos could enable Obama to “temporarily suspend” the 2016 national elections, declare and implement an iron-fisted martial law, and transform himself into the America’s First Oligarch. There would be an obvious national emergency, a severe crisis to respond to, to use as the excuse to finally abolish our Constitutional Republic.I have been wondering why Valerie Jarrett made all those secret visits to Tehran. Just to share her tahdig and fesenjan recipes with the wives of the Revolutionary Council?
I realize this may seem far-fetched. It does to me, too. And I hope to God that it is but an idle fantasy of a worrywart. But the seeds of a catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East are being planted.
2a) The Left, Both Here and There, Betraying Israel
Well, the facts are all in, and we know what Obama is about.
Obama’s betrayal of this country and the world did not start with his worthless “agreement” with the mullahs, a pure kabuki shadow play. The war-priests of Iran already have all the makings for nukes, and the ICBMs to land them on your front door.
Obama’s betrayal started before the start of this administration. Since then, Jarrett has carried on secret “negotiations” with Tehran, ending in the suicidal surrender plan we see today. Obama and Jarrett started six years ago or earlier, because the left began its death-to-Israel campaign a long time ago, and Obama’s friends are all in the radical left.
Today Obama is boasting about this fabulous “chance of a lifetime” – to surrender the world to the mullahs. But today is just the culmination of decades of warmongering, paid for by Wahhabi and Khomeinist war cults, better known as the Saudis and the Iranians, in criminal collusion with the raging left in the U.S. and Europe.
It becomes obvious when you know what to look for. Eight years ago, before Obama made his way to the presidency, this news item showed up in the Jerusalem Post, quoting David Landau, then the editor in chief of Israel’s biggest socialist newspaper, the New York Times of Israel:
[Ha’aretz editor in chief] David Landau told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a recent private dinner that Israel "wants to be raped by the US" … Landau, who was seated next to Rice, reportedly referred to Israel as a "failed state" politically that needed a US-imposed settlement. … Landau reportedly "implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted 'to be raped' and that it would be like a 'wet dream' for him to see this happen." In response, Landau told the New York weekly that this description was "inaccurate" and "a perversion of what I said," and that he had expressed his views with "much more sophistication." But, he went on, "I did say that in general, Israel wants to be raped - I did use that word - by the US, and I myself have long felt Israel needed more vigorous US intervention in the affairs of the Middle East."
Please understand that what leftists say in public is only a pale reflection of what they rant about in private. And please understand that you don’t become the editor in chief of the biggest socialist propaganda rag in Israel without telling your real thoughts to thousands of other lefties. David Landau wasn’t just a lone fruitcake. He represented the old socialist establishment in Israel, which controlled Israel’s media for years. Today they hate Netanyahu because he is a democratic, free-market conservative. They hate conservatives because we dissent from the Party Line.
And finally, don’t forget that the left talks only to itself.
David Landau talked to other radical socialists in the U.S. (like Bill Ayers) and Europe (like George Galloway), who also happened to be suborned by Muslim oil money and blackmail in the last four decades.
People like Landau and Ayers founded the left-Islamofascist Axis that now corrupts our universities and media.
Landau signaled his personal rage and hatred to the very Muslim priesthood that is getting nuclear bombs today, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama, who spent two decades “sitting at the feet” of hate preacher Jerry Wright, who started his career as a Muslim, before he made it big in Chicago by preaching racial revenge to the left. You can trace it all to the sources, if you want to bother.
Obama explained in his autobiographies how he picked radical left friends in high school and college. It seems that for decades Obama never talked to anybody who could pinpoint all the fallacies and delusions in the Party Line. This is how the Jim Jones suicide cult developed – by ordinary people sitting at the feet of Rev. Jim Jones, who made damn sure they wouldn’t listen to anybody else.
Cults are just people reinforcing their delusional opinions to each other. If you shut out dissent, everything becomes totally clear, and wrong.
Obama is still confused about anybody who dares to disagree with him today, because he’s never met a sane person who disagreed with Obama. You’d have to be evil to disagree with Obama.
The late David Landau was a major hater and preacher of hatred against his own country, but he also reflected a real and treacherous political current in Israel, which has been allowed to agitate and – let’s use the word – to literally betray Israel in wartime.
Other nations would call this treason and prosecute it as a major crime, but Israel still has a court system stacked by the left. Socialists were among the founders of Israel, and when their aging and corrupt establishment was voted out by Likud a couple of decades ago, they turned into a cult of rage and hatred.
Look at Obama’s closest buddies if you want to see how the same thing happens here. Check out Jerry Wright’s YouTube sermons. Or Louis Farrakhan. These people all indoctrinate each other, and they do not tolerate dissent. They create cults, and if they are hate preachers, they create warmongering cults.
The left’s loss of power in Israel has driven them over the edge. As a result, Obama feels righteous while trying to rape Israel, with the happy cooperation of the mullahs, because he knows some real fanatics over there who validate his delusional beliefs. Remember, they talk only to each other.
The left begins with delusional assumptions, and anybody who can see reality therefore becomes an enemy to be destroyed.
If you indoctrinate a kid to believe that peace on Earth forever and ever is just one little flip of the coin away, and that only Those Evil People are keeping it from happening, because they are wicked and greedy, all your idealistic intentions turn to hatred very quickly.
Your real enemy is the violence and gullibility of human beings, including the left itself, but your deadly hatred is directed to the messengers – the people who remind you of that reality.
It has to be their fault. Let’s hate on Sarah Palin, because we care so much about women. Let’s hate on Jews and Christians who want Israel to survive, because we care so much about Jews and Christians (as long as they obey orders). Let’s hate on Republicans, because etc., etc.
And don’t forget: let’s hate on Justice Clarence Thomas and Dr. Ben Carson, because we love the black folks of this country.
That is why the radical left turns into a murderous lynch mob, every time its adherents get into power. They must destroy what they cannot tolerate.
Genocide is in the known character of the left and of Islamofascists. The left has always had a yen for genocide – look at North Korea, at Karl Marx himself, at Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot: 100 million human beings murdered in the 20th century alone, according to Marxist historians, who analyzed the records in a project sponsored by the French government.
As for Islamic fascists, the history of Muslim genocides goes back to Mohammed in the desert. Mohammed was a desert raider who did all the things desert raiders did: kill and rape the weak, and maybe trade with the strong if you had to. Preying on the weak is one of the oldest professions, and it’s not limited to Arabs.
Still, the Koran is the only surviving warmongering scripture in this age of nuclear weapons. Warmongering beliefs are not unique in history – but just try to mix holy warmongering with nuclear weapons, and you’ve got a clear and present danger today. With the nuke-loving mullahs, Obama’s left is now making sure the killing won’t be confined to some faraway country in the Middle East.
But don’t blame Barack Hussein Obama – or not Obama alone. He could not do what he is doing without tens of thousands of leftist “activists” in the U.S., at the U.N., in Europe, and in Israel itself.
Eurosocialist support for Obama’s latest suicidal brainstorm is more than enough evidence of Europe’s collusion with a second Holocaust of the Jews. Eurosocialists are deeply delusional. Reality is just not their thing.
Obama’s ideological treachery is not limited to the United States and Israel. This time all the civilized peoples of the world are in lethal danger if he gets his way. As we can plainly see, ISIS is killing Christians wherever it can find them – children, women and men – just because they are Christians and will not renounce their faith.
The left in the U.S. and Israel has known this all along, in direct and culpable collusion with Islamic fascists.
The September 11 attacks were a Saudi war-cult act of terror. All the hijackers were Wahhabi suiciders, just following their holy instructions. The murder of almost 200 US Marines and French peacekeeping troops in Beirut in 1983 was an Iranian act of terror. Same theology, just a different brand. But the president of the United States today will not speak the words “Muslim terrorism” in public.
Until we elect a rational president, the United States and its allies will be in great danger.
2b) Make the Leftist Media the 2016 Issue
The enemy of conservatism in America is the leftist establishment – the leftist-controlled institutions of news, education, and entertainment. Take away these big, fat incestuously connected institutions, and the left in America is a circus sideshow and nothing else. Democrat “leaders” like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and Reid are slow-witted, mean-spirited, and narrow-minded sock puppets filled by the chubby hands of the leftist establishment.
Indeed, the leftist establishment prefers empty vessels as nominal political leadership of the Democratic Party. Defeat the establishment, and the battle is won, but as long as the establishment luxuriates in unmerited respect, the values we treasure face constant peril. Winning elections, particularly the 2016 presidential election, will help advance our policy issues, but an even greater benefit can come if we use this election to discredit the leftist establishment.
This leftist establishment is already losing much of its cachet. Viewers are shunning films and new television programming made by Hollywood leftists. Parents, students, and conservative media are exposing the leftist totalitarianism in classrooms. The leftist establishment media is losing audiences in a steady decline, motivated in large part by conservative disgust with its slavish following of the party line.
In the 2016 election cycle, which includes the battle for the Republican nomination and then the battle in the general election, Republican candidates ought to publicly announce that they will decline interviews with news organizations patently hostile to conservatives, that the Republican nomination debates will exclude these as well, and that this ban will extend throughout the general election.
This would be an overt campaign to de-legitimize this corrupt gaggle of leftist organizations as serious news organizations worthy of the attention of America. The left would howl, of course, but so what? No serious conservative ought to be talking to those hostile “gotcha!” outlets anyway. So we ought to treat these leftist news outlets as the ideological hacks that they are and deny them the chance to make Republicans look bad or silly by “gotcha” questions.
Isn’t this precisely how the left operates with conservative media? How often have we seen Hillary or Harry or Nancy or Barry give interviews to Human Events or National Review or Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin? We are so used to leftist sock puppets like Hillary ignoring questions from conservative news journalists (while our guys feel compelled to treat leftist news hacks seriously) that we assume that this must be the natural state of things in American politics.
So how will Republicans candidates communicate with voters? There are reputable cable news outlets, like Fox News, which are not overtly hostile to conservatives. There are many conservative talk radio programs to which any interested Republican can tune in. There are dozens of internet news outlets (e.g., American Thinker). The print media still exists, and local newspapers, especially, would welcome exclusive interviews, hosting debates, etc.
Attacking the establishment leftist media is attacking the real enemy of conservative values and policies. Openly attacking the leftist media establishment also places these giant corporations in a real bind. How will CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the sibling leftist news corporations react? Attacking the Republican Party validates the conservative argument. Combined attacks by these notional “competitors” would expose the monopolistic nature of leftist media collaboration in suppressing conservative news stories and proposals.
In fact, it is this very lack of ideological competition, this collusion by vast news corporations that are supposed to provide protection for the news consumer by actual competition, that could become the major campaign issue for Republicans. The left wants to attack big corporations, while actually Democrats are completely in bed with big business – and especially with the leftist establishment news media, which has vast power over politics in Washington.
It is hard to imagine a single conservative in America who could not understand and would not enthusiastically support this sort of campaign, and it is hard to imagine a single leftist who would not squirm at having to defend these entrenched corporations. Making Big Media the issue could, in fact, be precisely the means to truly energize conservatives and, by making Democrats the obvious toadies of Big Media, to deflate the left in 2016.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment