Bossie Was Correct. Limbaugh Made A Permanent Difference. Getting Your Wish!

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

This is where Trump needs to back off from his more aggressive stance and what turns people off.  I understand,being a New York Real Estate Developer, you cannot be a "pussy cat" and have to contend with the toughest, meanest, often corrupt bureaucracies, but he needs to curb some of his excesses as president. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bossie was correct.(See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Limbaugh has made a permanent difference. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bernie signed an agreement that should he be the nominee he would run as a Democrat.  Does this mean the Democrat Party is now America's Socialist Party and it's platform includes free public education, free health, and free whatever you want and the wealthy, who are fleeing New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California because of high taxes, will stay in America and continue to be fleeced because they were successful?

Democrats have been moving left for decades and now that they finally reached the edge of the cliff because the biggest leftist of all, excluding Pocahontas, is likely to be their nominee are frightened and upset?.

Apparently they became worried because they got their wish. Like the adage, be careful what you wish for you might get it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Racism’

Everyone’s piling on unfairly, including President Trump.

By The Editorial Board

Trump has felt the sting of glib and unfair accusations of racism. So it’s a pity he would level one of his own against fellow New Yorker and potential presidential rival Michael Bloomberg. In a now-deleted tweet, the President wrote “WOW, BLOOMBERG IS A TOTAL RACIST!”

The President was reacting to the release of an audio snippet from a 2015 Aspen Institute speech that may have been leaked by a rival Democratic presidential campaign. Mr. Bloomberg was defending a police tactic called stop, question and frisk, which helped drive violent crime to record lows during his time as New York City’s mayor.

The issue is more politically complicated now because Mr. Bloomberg recently apologized for stop and frisk before he announced his run for President. In a statement Tuesday, he noted that he had cut stop-and-frisk searches 95% by the time he left office but again apologized for not having done it “faster and sooner.”

President Trump shouldn’t have piled on with all the identity-politics liberals calling Mr. Bloomberg a racist, and Mr. Bloomberg never should have apologized for a practice that, as he used to argue, took many illegal guns from criminals and helped save many African-American lives.

In their imperious insensitivity, the remarks are vintage Bloomberg, whether he’s talking about how you could hand cops a Xeroxed description (“male, minorities, 16 to 25”) to fit 95% of the city’s murder cases—or saying “the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them.”

But as politically incorrect as it may have been, Mr. Bloomberg was basically speaking the truth that New York City’s minority neighborhoods were among those with the highest crime rates, and that by sending cops there it inevitably meant minority citizens were more likely to be stopped and arrested.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Trump’s Smart Play for African-Americans

His share of the black vote in 2016 was respectable. Even a small increase could put him over the top.

By  Jason L. Riley

If his State of the Union address and Super Bowl commercial are any indication, President Trump is serious about increasing his support among black voters in November. He may or may not succeed, but we’re a long way from his cynical “What the hell do you have to lose?” pitch to blacks in 2016.

Mr. Trump outperformed John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 among black voters, as administration officials never tire of reminding us. But that had less to do with Mr. Trump’s personal appeal and more to do with Barack Obama’s absence on the ballot in 2016. In recent decades, GOP presidential nominees have averaged around 12% of the black vote. Mr. Trump won only 8%, which is the worst performance of any Republican presidential candidate since 1976, except for Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney.

The best black outreach is strong economic growth, and the president is right to highlight the low unemployment rates and steady pay increases that have redounded to black workers’ benefit during his administration. Last year, median wage growth among blacks was higher than it was for whites. There is no denying that black Americans on balance are better off economically today than they were four years ago or at any point under the previous administration. If presidents deserve credit for such developments, give Mr. Trump his due.

Among other things, the president’s pitch to blacks includes touting his bipartisan criminal-justice reform and support for school choice. My guess is that the former won’t hurt him but that the latter could pay higher dividends at the ballot box. On Twitter and MSNBC, blacks might obsess over the defects of our criminal-justice system. But outside those progressive bubbles, most black voters understand that the underlying problem in poor black communities is crime, not policing or the length of sentences handed down to lawbreakers. Black families care far more about safe neighborhoods and functional schools, and Mr. Trump’s push for more education choices is very much in line with those priorities.

According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 67% of charter students are nonwhite and 58% come from low-income families. Nationwide, five million students are on waiting liststo attend charter schools, which had strong backing from the Clinton and Obama administrations. Yet Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other leading Democratic presidential candidates seeking the endorsement of teachers unions have vowed to curb the growth of charters. Richard Buery, an executive at the nation’s largest charter network, KIPP, told the New York Times last year that this new Democratic opposition to charters is “a reflection more broadly of the lack of respect for black voters” in the party. “These are folks that should be champions of black children and allies of black educators,” said Mr. Buery, who is black and described himself as a Democrat.

Nor is education the only area where Mr. Trump could exploit the disconnect between black voters and the Democratic candidates who claim to represent them. Polling has shown, for example, that a majority of blacks oppose Medicare for All, which would eliminate private health insurance for millions who are happy with their coverage. And you would be hard-pressed to find a critical mass of blacks who want to decriminalize illegal border crossing and pay higher taxes to cover the cost of providing free health care to poor immigrants.

If the president is serious about courting blacks, the changing demographics of black America might also aid his efforts. Black people of a certain age, by which I mean anyone who still takes organizations like the NAACP seriously, are probably lost to Republicans. But the black population is younger than the white population, and black millennials have proved to be more persuadable than their elders. While black seniors will likely vote Democrat or stay home, there has been a weakening of black attachment to the Democratic Party among younger blacks and black men. Exit polls showed Trump winning 13% of black men in 2016, and the most heavily black neighborhoods in the country voted more Republican than in 2012.

Black newcomers from Africa and the Caribbean provide yet another opening for the president. The black immigrant population has more than quadrupled since 1980, according to research by Sharon Austin, a political scientist at the University of Florida who has studied black voting patterns in several major U.S. cities. Many of the new arrivals are Haitians and Jamaicans. Both groups are far less likely than blacks in general to vote Democrat.

Does any of this amount to Donald Trump running away with the black vote on Election Day? Of course not. But the president has already shown that he can win without much black support, and Democrats are deluding themselves if they don’t think he’s capable of improving on his 2016 performance. Black voters have far more to lose today than they did four years ago.

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

3)Limbaugh: A Genius at Radio

His ‘army of one,’ inspiring millions who’d been ignored, changed the political landscape.

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Genius is often defined in myriad ways. One trusted criterion is the ability to do something extraordinary in a field where others could not — and doing something that perhaps will never be done again by anyone else.

By that measure, Rush Limbaugh certainly is the genius of talk radio, a genre in which he not merely excelled but that he also singlehandedly reinvented as something entirely different — and entirely more powerful and instrumental in American life — from what was imaginable pre-Limbaugh.

Even stranger still, his ascendance coincided with the presumed nadir of radio itself. It was supposedly a has-been, one-dimensional medium, long overshadowed by television. Even in the late 1980s, radio was about to be sentenced as obsolete in the ascendant cyber age of what would become Internet blogs, podcasts, streaming, and smartphone television.

Stranger still, Limbaugh has prospered through two generations and picked up millions of listeners who were not born when he first went national and who had no idea of why or how he had become a national presence.

He certainly did not capture new listeners by adjusting to the times. While tastes changed and the issues often metamorphosed, he did not. He remained conservative, commonsensical, and skeptical of Washington and those in it, as if he knew all the predictable thousand faces of the timeless progressive project, whose various manifestations reappear to mask a single ancient and predictable essence: the desire of a self-appointed group of elites to expand government in order to regiment the lives of ordinary people, allegedly to achieve greater mandated equality and social justice but more often to satisfy their own narcissistic will to power.

It was Limbaugh who most prominently warned that lax immigration enforcement would soon lead to open calls for open borders, that worry about “global warming” would transform into calls to ban the internal combustion engine, and that the logical end of federal takeover of health care would be Medicare for All.

The Left — and many too who would later become the Never Trump Right — thought that Limbaugh’s worst moment finally came after Obama’s 2008 victory, during the post-election euphoria and just days before the January 2009 inauguration. It was a heady time, when the media would go on to declare soon-to-be Nobel laureate President Obama as, variously, a living “god” and “the smartest guy” ever to assume the presidency. His supporters often compared him to iconic wartime presidents such as FDR and Lincoln. Americans had been lectured on Obama’s divinity even as a candidate, and the evidence had ranged from the mundane of Platonically perfect creases in his trousers, to the telepathic ability to prompt spontaneous electrical impulses in the legs of cable television anchors.

In answer to Obama’s promise to fundamentally “transform America,” Limbaugh flat-out said he hoped that the new president would not succeed: “I hope Obama fails.” Outrage followed. Was Limbaugh rooting for the failure of America itself? In fact, he was worrying about how America might survive the first unabashedly progressive president in over 60 years, now empowered by an obsequious media, a House majority, a veto-proof Senate, and Supreme Court picks on the near horizon.

Limbaugh was the first voice to warn that what would soon follow the election was not the agenda that Obama sometimes disingenuously voiced on the campaign trail — Obama’s ruse of occasionally sounding concerned about illegal immigration, gay marriage, the spiraling debt, a rapid pullout from Iraq, and identity politics — but rather a move to the progressive hard-left.

What would ensue instead lined up with Obama’s senatorial voting record, his prior associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Father Pfleger, and his occasional slips on the campaign trail: “I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a knife,” and (in the pre-Netflix, pre–Martha Vineyard estate days), “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Once elected, Obama was unbound. He lectured the nation about the wages of the West’s sin: the Crusades, America’s prior role in the world, and its own domestic woes. He instructed Americans on when it was the time to profit and when it was not, the point at which people should concede they had made enough money. And he listed the various reasons that he could not, as some anti-constitutional “king,” grant unconstitutional amnesties by fiat — before he went on to do just that.

Prior to Limbaugh’s national prominence, radio talk-show hosts were not shapers of national culture or politics. Even the few local and regional celebrity radio hosts had little power to influence issues of the day. While local talk radio was more conservative than liberal, it was hardly seen as traditional conservatives’ answer to the liberal biases of the major national newspapers, network evening news, and public radio and TV, much less the aristocratic pretensions of the Republican Beltway hierarchy.

So, what was inconceivable in 1988 was not just that any one person could leap from local prominence to national dominance, but that he could empower (rather than replace) his legions of radio subordinates.

Far from making them irrelevant, Limbaugh energized talk-radio hosts. Once he became a national force, hundreds of others became far more effective conservative local and regional voices, partly through the art of emulation, partly through scheduling to lead in to or follow Limbaugh’s daily three-hour show, partly in the general renewed public interest in talk radio itself.

Call that coattails, or force multiplication, but in essence, Limbaugh redefined the genre as something more entertaining, more political, and yet more serious — an “army of one” antidote to the New York and Washington media corridor. How strange that after progressives achieved a monopoly in network news, public television and radio, the Internet conglomerates, Hollywood, and network prime-time programing, they sought to emulate Limbaugh by creating their own leftist version of national talk radio, Air America. Millions of dollars, dozens of talk-radio hosts, and Chapter 11 later, the venture collapsed in abject failure.

I wager that more Democrats listened to Limbaugh than to Air America, in the fashion of my late Democratic father, who used to sneak into my office on the farm and listen with me to Rush during the 1991 Gulf War.

How did Limbaugh do it?

No one really knows because few have been able to duplicate his success, despite a number of gifted hosts who have tried. For all the criticism that Limbaugh was crass, over some 25,000 hours of the syndicated Limbaugh show, there were few embarrassments. And in cases where Limbaugh said something he regretted, he later apologized. He certainly could grow animated but seldom shouted and yelled. He talked about having talent “on loan from God” but could turn self-deprecatory and compliment callers for insights that he found original and noteworthy, saying, “I hadn’t thought of that.”

He mocked identity politics but at work and in life often surrounded himself with talented people who were not white, and he seemed oblivious to any significance of that fact other than that he’d found friends and employees who were competent and whom he liked. He was a self-made multimillionaire many times over and proud of it, and yet felt and acted more comfortable with those of the Midwestern middle classes with whom he’d grown up.

Perhaps the best clue is that Limbaugh was never just a talk-show host at all. Or rather, he redefined the talk-radio three-hour format into something far more expansive than the critical arts of editorializing and answering impromptu listeners’ calls. In his prime role as unyielding conservative explicator of the daily news without the filters of the Washington and New York commentariat, he combined the jobs of entertainer, stand-up comedian, psychologist, impressionist, satirist, provocateur, therapist, and listener to the nation.

Yet ultimately his audience listened because he differentiated between two worlds. On one hand, he saw, with a skeptic’s eye, the cosmos of progressive and liberal translators who selectively edit the day’s events and massage their supposed importance to Americans, to present the news in line with liberals’ preconceived agendas — under the guise that such reporting was beyond reproach as professional, disinterested, and entirely based in facts. Limbaugh exploded all those pretenses.

But he also saw the other world that was never reported. He did not claim to be a traditional journalist or even an opinion journalist. Instead, he proudly assumed the mantle and collective voice of a conservative Everyman. Or maybe, more dramatically, his listeners saw him as an atoll of traditional sanity in a turbulent sea of postmodern madness. His forte was explaining why nominal conservatives were infected with a fatal virus of wanting to be liked by the “mainstream media” and the cultural elite — and thus often “grew” in office, moving leftward, as if they had become smarter and more sophisticated than those who had voted for them.

People tuned in because they knew in advance that Rush would not weaken or deviate, much less “transcend” them. There would be no faddish Limbaugh who renounced his prior personas and positions. So his listeners were reassured each day that they were not themselves crazy to express doubt about what the nation was told or instructed.

The New York Times story picked up by their local paper, the NPR segment they heard in the car, and the commentary of the ABC, CBS, or NBC evening news anchors were rarely if at all the whole truth and anything but the truth. Limbaugh reminded them that what was purportedly the news was increasingly the output of a rather narrow slice of cocooned America between Washington, D.C., and New York City, offered up by affluent progressives (the “drive-bys”) who had come to believe that the media’s role was not to report events per se, but to do so in a way that would not only educate the otherwise blinkered American masses but would also improve them morally and make them redeemable spiritually.

Limbaugh did all that, day in and day out, without any sense of monotony or boredom, but with almost adolescent energy and excitement about just talking to America each day. He never dialed it in. And his audience knew it.

Limbaugh himself knew his listeners, not just by class or locale, but through a shared skepticism about the values of coastal America and its inability to show any correlation between proven excellence and an array of letters after one’s name or name-dropping on a résumé. Does anyone think that a professor of journalism, a Washington pundit, a network anchor, a Senate elder, a president, or even a late-night TV host could host 30 hours of the Limbaugh show without losing most of the audience?

He was the Midwestern college drop-out who had bounced around among jobs before he found his natural place. Through that experience, he posed an ancient Euripidean question, “What is wisdom?” The answer was found in many of his targets: academics, editorialists, celebrities, journalists, government functionaries, and politicos whose bromides Limbaugh made ridiculous, and he instructed millions on how and why their ideas made no sense in a real world beyond their enclaves. Rush was hated by the Left supposedly for his politically incorrect -isms and -ologies; in truth, it was because he so often made them look ridiculous.

Limbaugh sounded sane when giddy Stanford grad and Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow enthused about Robert Mueller’s daily walls-are-closing-in bombshells — much as farmer and Cal Poly graduate Devin Nunes wrote the truth in his House Intelligence Committee majority report while Harvard Law graduate Adam Schiff’s nose grew in his minority-report reply, and in the way that supposedly idiotic wheeler-dealer Donald Trump energized the economy after Ivy League sophisticate Barack Obama said it would require a magic wand.

In response to Rush Limbaugh’s announcement that he has advanced lung cancer, millions voiced sympathy, support — and shock. Last week, millions asked, “What are Rush’s chances?” The correct answer might be, “Not good — if it was anyone but Rush.”

Yet one who can create national talk radio ex nihilo can similarly beat toxic malignancy. His listeners seemed worried not just over Rush’s health but about their own equally ominous future of the day’s events without him.

May that day be far off.

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