The war on Trump rages on

By Norman Zanetti

Recently, sitting on my front porch, I  watched a breeze blow the Stars and Stripes to a beautiful horizontal. A short time later, a thought occurred to me — a scary “what if.”

What if an incredibly malleable electorate were to succumb to a systematic gutting of confidence in Republican initiatives and their leaders, especially an elected president?

The media continues to camouflage the benefits of tax relief, sensible border control with proper vetting, sanctions on terroristic regimes, job gains, reduction in the number of Americans on food stamps, the lowest unemployment rates for minorities, and renewed confidence in our economy by every consumer index that reports it.

The scariest contingency to contemplate is that Americans are taking all these muddling allegations of nefarious behavior without questioning where they come from and why. Those leaning to the ideological left are betting on American complacency.

The truth forthcoming will destroy mountains of lies. Skeptics are surfacing and reaching out to listeners.

They are working overtime to expose the chicanery and mudslinging against an elected administration, an administration dealing with North Korea, Russian provocations and trade imbalances — all while delivering on programs that got candidate Trump elected.

Prosecutorial overreach by implication has worn thin, and Americans sense it. It is being questioned and reversed by skeptics.

The mandarins in Congress and heads of news organizations will soon have to accommodate these new revelations being unearthed or lose total creditably.

If that comes too late, I can see our proud flag bellowing in the wind with teardrops and drooping in fatigue.

Remain a sophisticated skeptic in your own right. Americans voted in the millions for Trump. Not a single vote was cast for media heads who despise him, or prosecutors hell-bent on destroying him.

Norman Zanetti is a contributor to ResolveNC.blog.

Doer-in-Chief

While corrupt media outlets such as CNN promote their “White House in crisis” narratives 24/7, basking in the Mueller “investigation”, cheering Jared Kushner’s reduced security clearance status and Hope Hicks’ resignation, and staging town halls to exploit grieving and angry high school students from Parkland, Fla., Heritage Foundation staffers have been following an undeniable trend.

Working with Congress when possible (on tax cuts, principally), or through regulatory guidance, the Trump administration “had an extraordinarily successful first year.” That is the assessment of the Foundation’s Thomas Binion, director of congressional and executive branch relations.

The Heritage Foundation, a public policy think tank with a well-deserved reputation for holding politicians accountable, sets a high bar for incoming Presidents. It is known as the “Mandate for Leadership”, and it debuted in 1981 when Ronald Reagan launched his two-term presidency.

The Trump mandate is comprised of 334 unique policy recommendations, nearly two-thirds of which (64%) already have been adopted by Trump and his administration. Reports The Washington Examiner:

At this stage of his presidency, Reagan had completed 49 percent of the Heritage policy recommendations. “We’re blown away,” Binion said in an interview. Trump, he said, “is very active, very conservative, and very effective.”

While not all of the adopted policies received the fanfare of across-the-board tax cuts, or the successful nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States, they are squarely on Heritage Foundation’s radar. These are the major achievements, according to the Foundation:

  • Leaving the Paris Climate Accord: In August 2017, Trump announced the U.S. was ending its funding and membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
  • Repealing Net Neutrality: In December 2017, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman proposed ending the 2015 network neutrality rules.
  • Reshaping National Monuments: Heritage’s recommendation to prohibit Land Acquisition (Cap and Reduce the Size of the Federal Estate) was adopted by Trump when he issued two executive orders effectively shrinking the size of national monuments in Utah.
  • Reinstating the Mexico City Policy: This executive order prevents taxpayer money from funding international groups involved in abortion and ending funding to the United Nations Population fund. On Jan. 23, 2017, in his first pro-life action, Trump signed an executive order today reinstating the Mexico City Policy.
  • Increasing Military Spending: Trump’s budget calls for a $54 billion increase in military spending to improve capacity, capability, and readiness of America’s armed forces.
  • Reforming Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF):The Trump administration adopted and is in favor of strengthening existing work requirements in order to receive benefits.
  • Allowing Development of Natural Resources: The Trump administration opened off-shore drilling and on federal lands. Executive Order 13783 directed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to commence federal land coal leasing activities.
  • Reforming Government Agencies: Trump tasked each of his Cabinet secretaries to prepare detailed plans on how they propose to reduce the scope and size of their respective departments while streamlining services and ensuring each department runs more efficiently and handles tax dollars appropriately.
  • Withdrawing from UNESCO: In October 2017, Trump announced he was putting an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

These are but a few examples of what former Trump deputy assistant and strategist Sebastian Gorka characterizes as the Trump “revolution” playing out before our eyes. If Republicans will continue to embrace Trump’s ambitions to steamroll reform through Congress and deliver for his supporters, Gorka forecasts a dismal November 2018 for Democrats in the mid-term elections. Writing for The Hill, Gorka opines:

If Republicans understand just how revolutionary and system-smashing an event like the election of Trump was, and they hitch their future to his brand of anti-establishment leadership, there will be no hope for the Democrats come November.

Donald Trump has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to learn at the wheel. Now the question is, have the professional politicians learned and internalized just how revolutionary the times we are living in actually are?

 

Washed away

“For centuries,” writes our frequent RESOLVE contributor Walter B. Bull Jr., “rapid radical change has been designated as a sea-change.” In fact, William Shakespeare used the phrase as long ago as 1610 when penning a lyric.

American society is witnessing a dramatic sea-change that has been intensified by the election of President Donald Trump and the mainstream media’s intent to derail, if not end, his presidency. But the change, writes Bull, began toward the end of the previous century.

“Various electronic devices were developed to record, categorize, store and analyze large amounts of data at light speed. … At the same time, information delivery systems, mainly televisions, became available to most households for use as an entertainment gathering focal point.”

Radio and television changed the way we experienced historic, including tragic, events, such as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, the space shuttle Challenger’s mid-air explosion and, most chillingly, Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, in the era of Trump, news and analysis delivery, extending to laptops, tablets and smartphones, is being de-emphasized, replaced, Bull points out, by “brash claims or subtle messaging (Trump is mentally unstable) with an intent that goes beyond delivery of basic facts.”

The sea change playing out before us as 2018 begins is driven by two forces working in lockstep. The Democrat Party, now completely devoid of moderates, is lurching further and further into a state of frothing-at-the-mouth, radical progressivism. And the mainstream media, of similar mindset, questions nothing and gleefully advances the agenda.

These two camps, so obsessed with diminishing Trump, seem no longer to care they are diminishing themselves. The FBI and Justice Department, as evidenced by the existence of the phony “Steele dossier”, apparently are not afraid of being diminished, as well.

No single news story demonstrates the impact of the media-fueled Democrat agenda to obstruct Trump and the Republican Congressional majority more than the passage of tax cuts at year’s end.

The media’s forecast on corporate and household tax cuts looked like this: Tax-Reform Bill is Unpopular Because Media Mislead Americans (National Review, Dec. 20, 2017).

It’s very clear that the tax bill passed by both the House and Senate (Dec. 19) is indisputably unpopular among Americans. But the reasons for that unpopularity are much less clear. Left-wing bias in the media likely has a lot to do with it.

National Review further pointed out that formerly reliable wire service Associated Press reported passage of the bill via Twitter as providing “steep tax cuts for businesses, the wealthy”. Talking points, not journalism.

As we move into mid-January, about a month after the bill’s passage, most media outlets are straining to avoid almost daily evidence that tax cuts for businesses are having the effect Republicans forecast all along (even as polls reflected a skeptical public). Thankfully, the Washington Examiner shared what its reporters learned when they reviewed a meticulous bit of tallying by Americans for Tax Reform.

list of 40 firms offering millions of employees bonuses and customers fee cuts has surged to 164 in just 10 days as the likely financial benefit of President Trump’s tax reform has started to settle in.

Perhaps, retorts the media’s mainstreamers, adrift in their turbulent sea. On to other narratives they turn even as Americans rejoice in economic liberation. Trump is a racist, an insane one at that.

And, of course, Russia, Russia, Russia.

Still a blood sport

In 44 B.C., when Marcus Junius Brutus plunged his dagger into Julius Caesar and the dying leader of the world’s major civilization muttered “Et tu, Brute?” politics was clearly identified as a blood sport. Public assassinations, quiet coup d’état take-overs, declared civil wars, street riots and many sinister activities to gain political power were and are characteristics of a blood sport with profound consequences.

While daggers, poison and various lethal devices are used in other nations to create political change, the 21st century has brought us a new weapon — modern communication networks. The weapons are words and the methods are profound. Today’s Brutus may be your nightly TV news anchor, a college professor, or a skillful writer presenting opinion via print media.

Yes, “the pen is mightier than the sword”, according to novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton. These words were written in 1839 for his historical play, Cardinal Richelieu. With modern TV screens, plus streaming images and photos generated by the citizenry at large on laptops and mobile devices, the pen is joined by unrelenting audio and images created to mold people’s thinking.

Most public opinion regarding public policy can be segregated between the extremes of an ideological spectrum, either right (conservative) or left (liberal), and the middle has a tendency toward one or the other. Give and take cracker barrel discussion has been smothered by passion. Opponents today are unyielding with the certainty that there is no merit whatsoever to opposing viewpoints.

Wikipedia notes that the Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, and founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to “prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values.”

Not so fast, retorts the left. In response its supporters have organized The Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 as a left-leaning think tank. CAP sponsored the organization of Media Matters for America in May 2004 to combat the conservative journalism sector. The force behind the information is David Brock and his group has been funded by notorious billionaire George Soros, a dedicated globalist.

Fabrication, distortion and outright lying make up much of the progressive message. Brock put a couple of notches on his belt with a takedown of notable personalities, beginning with New York radio icon Don Imus, who was off the air for months after insensitive comments about black female athletes from Rutgers University. Heavy hitters such as the late Roger Ailes, creator of Fox News Channel, and former FNC show host Bill O’Reilly, eventually run off the air by a New York Times report followed by advertiser boycotts, are among those who have endured the effects of the Brock smear machine. Media Matters frequently targets FNC host Sean Hannity, who has endured multiple advertiser boycotts.

Just like the gladiators in a Roman arena who are trying to kill each other for the entertainment value, today’s combatants have few rules and no ethics. Ask Bernie Sanders, a naïve socialist with gobs of popular support, if he ever had a realistic chance to win the recent Democrat party nomination. In today’s political world his answer will continue to be politician-speak double talk. But it was Bernie’s blood on the floor when all was said and done after the 2016 nomination season.

Political blood sport has a new chapter in the conflict as the laws of our nation are used against opponents by an investigator (“Special Council”) commissioned at the highest level of the Federal justice system. To the public, that individual has a stated objective of finding truth. The designee is granted extraordinary powers as well as unlimited funding and the media seems to delight in the process. Special Council Robert Mueller’s investigation into so-called Russian collusion was launched following a recommendation by the Department of Justice that followed months of speculation about Russian hacking of Democrat party data and possible foreign influence on the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Caught in the “investigation” can be many second- and third-level individuals, who can be charged with inconsequential process crimes that carry long prison terms. These folks are encouraged to “cooperate”, which means they will testify under oath about a higher up in return for a slap on the wrist by the Court. Blackmail, for sure. The nonspecific statute is a mighty tool in the prosecution toolbox.

The public quickly forgets pop culture star Martha Stewart’s and Bush 43-era White House official Scooter Libby’s jail time. The FBI can lie to an interviewee during a meeting, but the subject goes to jail for a false statement to the agent. And to prove a point the government can bankrupt an individual through defensive legal fees, ruin careers and with a shrug walk away when the process is finished.

Now that politics is defined even more so as a blood sport, predicting the future is uncertain. Reason and rationality are cast aside (thus, we see current Democrat members of the House presenting baseless articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump). Wisdom in the collective opinion of the people might be the only way to counter the destructive nature of political blood sport.

If not, well, Et Tu, Brute.

– Walter B. Bull Jr.

 

Eclipsing liberty

Rush Limbaugh is perceived by the liberal left as a dangerous figure because his radio audience is vast and multigenerational. Democrat/Socialist politicians firmly believe that average American citizens are complete idiots (exhibit ‘A’ was the infamous admission by MIT economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that the “stupidity of the American voter” assured Obamacare’s passage). They are convinced that Rush listeners are willing sponges, anxious to absorb whatever he says, and that Trump’s appeal, and victory, was driven by the Limbaugh Effect during the eight-year Obama era.

Conversely, there are substantial numbers of moderate Republicans, centrists and so-called independents (typically Democrats who are label averse) who dismiss Limbaugh as a bombastic entertainer, not someone to be taken seriously. Continue reading “Eclipsing liberty”