The Common Man Gets What The Mass Media and Other Elites Do Not Understand and Reject. Black Father's Matter!

Sent to me by a dear friend neighbor and fellow memo reader:

"The head of the Joint Center for Political Studies, which the Washington Post describes as a “respected liberal think tank,” reacted to the election thus: “When you consider that in the climate we’re in — rising violence, the Ku Klux Klan — it is exceedingly frightening.”

Castro, still with us, said before the election: “We sometimes have the feeling that we are living in the time preceding the election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.”

Claremont College professor John Roth wrote: “I could not help remembering how economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism—all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our post-election state with fear and trembling.”

Esquire writer Harry Stein says that the voters who supported the president-elect were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”

Sociologist Alan Wolfe is up in the New Left Review: “The worst nightmares of the American left appear to have come true.” And he doubles down in The Nation: “The United States as embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, keeper of the “Doomsday Clock” that purported to judge the risk of nuclear annihilation, has moved the hands on the clock from seven to four minutes before midnight.

Oh wait, did I say this was the reaction to Trump?? 

Sorry; I didn't mean to confuse you. These comments are what the Left was saying the day after Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980.   Some things never change!!!"

and then: 

Black fathers matter: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszQelEQ2KY&feature=youtu.be"

+++++++++++++++++++

Doug Schoen writes about the Democrat Party and its march towards self-destruction. 

I believe Schoen has left the Democrat Party.(See 1 below.)

++++ 

A pleasant surprise.  (See 2 below.)

and   then: (See 2a and 2b below.)

======

I know people, particularly the mass media are, frightened by populism/nationalism because they believe it leads to Hitlerism/fascism. In societies that lean towards a monarchical type government, yield to a totalitarian type of leader I understand their concern and probably rightfully so but in America we may worship athletes but when it comes to politicians we remain pretty even headed. 

It is good when we love our presidents but seldom do we place them on  pedestals. 

So when it comes to Trump's appeal I personally am not as concerned as the anti-Trump crowd.

He may have many faults, he may lack a degree of sophistication but his appeals to the common man is healthy and that is something we have needed since Reagan. The mass media do not understand this.  They cannot even fathom this because they are elitists at heart and live in a bubble.  GW has some earthiness but the Iraq War and the lefties destroyed him just as they are attempting to do with Trump.  Over time GW 's place in history will rise a bit.

Schoen and Fein make sense to me.

Dick

+++++++++++++++++++

1)The dirty secret smart Democrats know (but won't admit) about Trump

By Douglas E. Schoen 

President Trump's shocking victory in November and the tumultuous beginning of his presidency have shattered many assumptions about American politics.

For many liberals and progressives, the weeks since Donald Trump’s inauguration have been filled with soul-searching and even confusion about their place in American politics.

Trump’s flurry of executive orders, coming in quick succession on matters ranging from federal employment and immigration to reorganizing the National Security Council, have driven deep division within the Democratic party. The reaction to Trump’s action have pitted pragmatic, center-left politicians against protesting activists forming “The Resistance.”

Many Democratic disagreements with Trump’s executive orders are valid and there is a clear opportunity for opposition to Trump on the basis of their faults and flaws.

However, if Democrats want to win back power they cannot do so by moving further left, resisting Trump at every move, and taking to the streets.

Put simply, the Democratic Party is on life support and there is a quiet, but ruthless, war being fought over its future.

While the Democratic Party is driven left by anti-Trump activists, protestors, and Senators such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, America itself remains a fundamentally center-right nation.

A fundamental belief in national sovereignty and individual responsibility, married to cautious skepticism of government and deeply held moral convictions, continues to govern how most Americans think about politics.

Trump's ascendance is rooted in America’s preference for center-right policy. As the Democratic Party shifted ever leftwards under Obama, it suffered net losses of 11 Senate seats, 62 House seats, and 10 governorships since 2010, as well as nearly 1000 state legislative seats.

The groups driving the Democratic Party to the left believe their only path to victory is mobilization. These forces are pushing the party away from the American public, which fundamentally is center-right, and channeling the concerns and priorities of the core Democratic coastal base. Indeed, fully one third of sitting Democratic congressional leaders hail from New York, California, and Massachusetts.

Recent public polling clearly confirms that Democratic dogmas and liberal litmus tests are far to the left of the national electorate, which remains center-right on issues ranging from immigration to tax policy to abortion.

A January 2017 Politico-Harvard Poll found that 57% of the general public believes that unauthorized immigrants currently in the United States are a serious problem, echoing a key Trump concern.

Further, 50% of Americans support banning future immigration from regions with active terrorist groups, as Trump has attempted to do with his recent controversial executive order.

The Politico-Harvard poll also found that when it comes to tax policy, 63% of Americans believe that lowering corporate taxes would be effective at bringing jobs and business back to the United States. Fully 53% believe that proposed Republican cuts on federal income taxes, which Democrats have pledged to resist, will benefit them personally.

A January 2017 Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll clearly shows the unambiguous center-right cultural and moral character of the electorate. Fully 74% of Americans—including 77% of women—support limiting abortion to at least the first trimester. 59% of the American public, including 59% of women, believe abortion is morally wrong. Yet Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was a featured speaker at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Abortion also represents a key policy area where liberal efforts to organize mass protests like the numerous “women’s marches” on January 21st may actually do more to divide women and drive voters to the Republican Party, rather than unite people around any particular cause.

Looking forward, Republicans are poised to leverage the Democrats’ failure to perceive the political character of the nation, and make considerable gains in the 2018 midterm elections.

In fact, of the 33 senate seats up for election in 2018, Democrats must defend 23 seats, whereas Republicans only need to defend 8 seats.

The remaining two Senators up for re-election are Independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who caucus with the Democratic Party.

Democratic incumbents in states that Trump won in 2016, like Senators Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Jon Tester of Montana, are at the highest risks of losing their seats.

Despite what the Democratic base wants, if these Trump-state Democrats fail to find opportunities to cooperate with Trump, or at least position themselves as centrists congruent with their constituents’ beliefs, they will lose to a more canny Republican candidate in the general election and increase the likelihood that Trump gains a filibuster-proof Senate.

While the Democratic Party's progressive and moderate wings clash with one another over their party’s future, Republicans are dismantling the blue wall and solidifying America’s status as a center-right nation.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel at 7 pm ET. He is the author of 13 books. His latest is "Putin's Master Plan" (Encounter Books, September 27, 2016). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

+++++++ 

2)

MELVYN FEIN: A businessman for president

• By Melvyn Fein
 

• During the presidential nominating process, several of my colleagues were adamant in their support for Trump. These folks were not sociologists; they were criminal justice types. Believers in law and order, they assumed that the Donald would deliver exactly that.

I, however, demurred. Trump was clearly a pompous fool. He was a narcissist who would undoubtedly wreck havoc if elected. Nonetheless, my coworkers persisted. So far as they were concerned, he would get things done.

For as long as I can remember, conservatives have touted businesspersons for the presidency. They have argued that these folks are natural leaders; that they are specialists in making things happen. What is more, successful executives have proven themselves by making a profit. Had they not been able to meet a payroll, they would have gone out of business.

This always struck me as a juvenile claim. What had business success to do with running a government or conducting foreign policy? This was apples and oranges. Making money and protecting a nation were not the same thing. Distinctions had to be made.

Now, we actually do have a businessman as president. Depending upon one’s interpretation, this may be for the first time. Trump is certainly our first billionaire real estate developer. So the question is: How is he doing?

In many ways, it is too early to tell. Trump has not yet put most of his policies in place; nor have we seen their consequences. Nonetheless, some things have come into sharper focus. We already know a lot about his governing style.

First, Trump is painfully inarticulate. Even when reading from a teleprompter, his words do not soar. When extemporaneous, he stammers and repeats a few favored phrases endlessly. The effect is to make him sound as if he knows less than he does.

Second, Trump is given to hyperbole. Everything is the best and the greatest. His programs will not only work, they will work better than anyone else’s. Moreover, they will take effect immediately. This propensity for exaggeration is probably a legacy from his days as a salesman.

Third, our president is agonizingly limited in his knowledge of government. He has been described as intellectually detached. That is probably true. Time and again, he simplifies the difficulties he must overcome.

That said; let us switch to the positive side. Trump has turned out to be a doer. In a few short weeks, despite relentless opposition, he keeps on churning out new initiatives. He also makes quick adjustments when necessary. In other words, he wants to win. He wants to get the job done.

Contrast this with Obama, who was a man of elegant language. Nonetheless, Barack accomplished almost nothing in his eight years. Indeed, his two major policy initiatives were arrant failures. As an incompetent administrator, both his stimulus plan, with its shovel ready jobs, and ObamaCare, with it lower prices, were bombastic disappointments.

Trump is also a people person. He talks to everyone. This includes politicians, business leaders and foreign leaders. Unlike Obama, he does not closet himself with close advisers and political allies. This enables him to learn from others and to enlist their cooperation.

Next, Trump has been straightforward. Although he is constantly accused of lying, the reverse seems to be true. Indeed, he appears to be a man of his word. What he has promised, he is obviously attempting to deliver. I, for one, am confident that a wall on our southern border will be built and that ObamaCare will be repealed and replaced.

The point I am trying to make is that, much to my surprise, I am finding Donald Trump a breath of fresh air. Despite his obvious limitations and political awkwardness, he is doing what a business man was alleged to do. He is attempting to make things happen.

Our last president was a man of words; our current president is a man of action. Obama sold us on towering ideals he could not achieve; Trump is more down to earth and pragmatic. I know which of these approaches I prefer.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D. is a professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University. He lives in Canton.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2a)

FLASHBACK: Democrat Ted Kennedy Asked Russia To Intervene In 1984 Election To Defeat Reagan

By Cristina Laila

The hypocrisy from the Democrats is astounding.
Ted Kennedy asked Russia to intervene in the 1984 election to help defeat President Ronald Reagan.

According to a report by Forbes:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/flashback-democrats-cheered-ted-kennedy-asked-russia-intervene-1984-election-beat-reagan/

2b)What more can I say  "An excellent Analysis"          

The Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION: Victor Davis Hanson

By 2008, America was politically split nearly 50/50 as it had been in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats took a gamble and nominated Barack Obama, who became the first young, Northern, liberal president since John F. Kennedy narrowly won in 1960.

Democrats had believed that the unique racial heritage, youth and rhetorical skills of Mr. Obama would help him avoid the fate of previous failed Northern liberal candidates Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Given 21st-century demography, Democrats rejected the conventional wisdom that only a conservative Democrat with a Southern accent could win the popular vote (e.g., Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore).

Moreover, Mr. Obama mostly ran on pretty normal Democratic policies rather than a hard-left agenda. His platform included opposition to gay marriage, promises to balance the budget and a bipartisan foreign policy.

Instead, what followed was a veritable “hope and change” revolution not seen since the 1930s. President Obama pursued a staunchly progressive agenda — one that went well beyond the relatively centrist policies upon which he had campaigned. The media cheered and signed on.

Soon, the border effectively was left open. Pen-and-phone executive orders offered immigrant amnesties. The Senate was bypassed on a treaty with Iran and an intervention in Libya.

Political correctness under the Obama administration led to euphemisms that no longer reflected reality.

Poorly conceived reset policy with Russia and a pivot to Asia both failed. The Middle East was aflame.

The Iran deal was sold through an echo chamber of deliberate misrepresentations.

The national debt nearly doubled during Mr. Obama’s two terms. Overregulation, higher taxes, near-zero interest rates and the scapegoating of big businesses slowed economic recovery. Economic growth never reached 3 percent in any year of the Obama presidency — the first time that had happened since Herbert Hoover’s presidency.

A revolutionary federal absorption of health care failed to fulfill Mr. Obama’s promises and soon proved unviable.

Culturally, the iconic symbols of the Obama revolution were the “you didn’t build that” approach to businesses and an assumption that race-class-gender would forever drive American politics, favorably so for the Democrats.

Then, Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat and the election of outsider Donald Trump sealed the fate of the Obama Revolution.

For all the hysteria over the bluntness of the mercurial Mr. Trump, his agenda marks a return to what used to be seen as fairly normal, as the United States goes from hard left back to the populist center.

Mr. Trump promises not just to reverse almost immediately all of Mr. Obama’s policies, but to do so in a pragmatic fashion that does not seem to be guided by any orthodox or consistently conservative ideology.

Trade deals and jobs are Mr. Trump’s obsessions — mostly for the benefit of blue-collar America.

He calls for full-bore gas and oil development, a common culture in lieu of identity politics, secure borders, deregulation, tax reform, a Jacksonian foreign policy, nationalist trade deals in places of globalization, and traditionalist values.

In normal times, Trumpism — again, the agenda as opposed to Mr. Trump the person — might be old hat. But after the last eight years, his correction has enraged millions.

Yet securing national borders seems pretty orthodox. In an age of anti-Western terrorism, placing temporary holds on would-be immigrants from war-torn zones until they can be vetted is hardly radical. Expecting “sanctuary cities” to follow federal laws rather than embrace the nullification strategies of the secessionist Old Confederacy is a return to the laws of the Constitution.

Using the term “radical Islamic terror” in place of “workplace violence” or “man-caused disasters” is sensible, not subversive.

Insisting that NATO members meet their long-ignored defense-spending obligations is not provocative but overdue. Assuming that both the European Union and the United Nations are imploding is empirical, not unhinged.

Questioning the secret side agreements of the Iran deal or failed Russian reset is facing reality. Making the Environmental Protection Agency follow laws rather than make laws is the way it always was supposed to be.

Unapologetically siding with Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East, used to be standard U.S. policy until Mr. Obama was elected.

Issuing executive orders has not been seen as revolutionary for the past few years — until now.

Expecting the media to report the news rather than massage it to fit progressive agendas makes sense. In the past, proclaiming Mr. Obama a “sort of god” or the smartest man ever to enter the presidency was not normal journalistic practice.

Freezing federal hiring, clamping down on lobbyists and auditing big bureaucracies — after the Obama-era Internal Revenue Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, General Services Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, State Department and Secret Service scandals — are overdue.

Half the country is having a hard time adjusting to Trumpism, confusing Mr. Trump’s often unorthodox and grating style with his otherwise practical and mostly centrist agenda.

In sum, Mr. Trump seems a revolutionary, but that is only because he is loudly undoing a revolution.

• Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++