October 19, 2016 at 2:16 p.m.
Fighting the coup d'etat
Fighting the coup d'etat
The Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and the nation's media establishment have all decreed that Hillary Clinton shall be our ruler, and so in October they have engaged in an obviously coordinated plan to destroy Donald Trump.
It appears to be working mighty fine, thank you very much. The latest polls show Hillary with a daunting 6-10 point advantage, depending on the poll; barring a game-changer, the election seems to be effectively over.
Let's be fair, everybody knew it would be coming. Donald Trump is the only true outsider ever to win a major party nomination, and his election would threaten the political and economic riches that transnational corporations and globalist elites in both parties have piled up at our expense.
And so one would not expect them to just let Trump waltz into office, which he would be doing were it not for October's coordinated attack. First, there was the Trump tape that NBC has had since 2005, then there was the shock - SHOCK - expressed by the Republican establishment, and their subsequent repudiation of Trump, and then there has been the constant carpet bombing day after day by the globalist media.
Lost in the fireworks is any talk of serious issues, such as immigration, the national debt, Obamacare, Supreme Court appointments, the use of executive orders, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade, job creation, inner cities, foreign policy, terrorism, ISIS or Syrian refugees. You know, the issues that will decide the future of our country.
Also lost in the media mayhem about Trump's lewd language is the Wikileaks dump of emails that confirm everybody's worst fears about the lawlessness and corruption, the globalism and pathology of Hillary Rodham Clinton. By any reasonable standard, the woman is unfit to be president.
By any reasonable standard, Hillary Rodham Clinton should be facing a jury, especially after the Wikileaks email dump. As Green Party candidate Jill Stein observed this week, the Podesta emails confirm that Clinton suppressed 55,000 emails from Congress in violation of a subpoena.
"How much more evidence does the government need to press charges?" Stein asked.
Stein and Trump blame the corporate media for the astounding pro-Clinton bias. So, is there any truth to the charge that the media is, as Newt Gingrich put it, basically undertaking a coup d'etat?
That requires three conditions to be met.
First, there must be reasonable proof there is egregious bias. Certainly, that's the easiest standard to meet because essentially all the major media corporations have proudly proclaimed that their mission is to abandon neutrality to take down Trump.
But discernible bias is everywhere beyond their own claims. While NBC revels in releasing the Trump tape, it isn't releasing the full unedited tape it has of an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of rape. The unedited tape puts Hillary Clinton's role in confronting Bill's accusers front and center, say investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, who covered the Clintons for NBC, and others.
"NBC has the full tape of the original Lisa Myers interview," Isikoff said at a recent forum. "NBC ought to check its archive and run the full interview, as long as they're now culling their archives."
More seriously, the damaging information in the Wikileaks releases has barely been covered by mainstream media outlets. To cite just one night of coverage on the nightly news, for example, Fox reported that, on Oct. 13, CBS devoted 5 minutes to the Trump accusations, but only 31 seconds to Wikileaks information damaging to Hillary.
Over at ABC, it was nine minutes for Trump accusers and 37 seconds for Wikileaks; at NBC, it was 7 minutes, 40 seconds for Trump. For Wikileaks information about Hillary? That would be zero.
Again, none of that is unexpected but, given the egregious nature of the Wikileaks emails, it is compelling evidence of bias.
Those emails show Hillary fessing up that Saudi Arabia and Qatar give cash to ISIS, that she takes public and private positions - and Wall Street should listen to the private ones - that she "dreams" of open borders and hemispheric common markets (in a speech to Brazilian bankers that netted her $225,000), that she hopes Obamacare unravels so she can institute single-payer health care, and that the State Department coordinated with the Clinton campaign, among other things, including the brazen pay-to-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation.
Of course, the cable-news watching public knows little of this because the media don't report it.
The second standard to be met: Is there really a corporate oligarchy that controls the flow of news to the public?
Again, that's a no brainer. As late as 1980, the national news media market was fragmented among 50 different media companies. Today, it's five. And, make no mistake, these companies have an agenda, and it turns out to be the globalist agenda.
To cite just one example, a study by the liberal group Media Matters found that in the 18 months between Aug. 1, 2013, and Jan. 31, 2015, a search of transcripts of the CBS Evening News, ABC's World News Tonight, and NBC's Nightly News found not one mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The matter came up only twice on MSNBC, owned by one of the Big 5, Comcast, save for the Ed Schultz show, which the network canceled.
The bottom line? The globalist media exists, it controls the news most Americans get daily, and it fashions its editorial coverage and its presidential coverage around its globalist agenda.
So there's no question a pro-globalist and powerful corporate media exists, and they have been behind the attempt to destroy Trump. After GOP leaders failed to heed the call of The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and others for them to stop Trump before the nomination, the media have taken matters into their own hands.
Finally, its one thing to control the flow of information, but can they really swing an election?
The "how" part is easy. Their 24/7 harangue against Trump isn't aimed at engaged voters; it's aimed at the millions of low-information and elderly voters who receive all of their news via the major networks and cable outlets. These are also the most persuadable voters. These people decide elections, and they will access only one side of the story.
It's debatable whether the media can pull it off. They arguably did against Mitt Romney, though some say Romney gave up after thinking he had it won. Still, there's a couple of strong indications that the media is in fact the controlling power in our national elections.
A question: How can it be that, in a country where Republicans control both houses of Congress, in a nation where Republicans control 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -the highest number in the party's history - in a nation where Republicans control 31 governorships, in a nation where the Democratic Party has collapsed and almost imploded at every level except one, in such a country how can that party dominate presidential elections?
Another question: In Gallup surveys, only 29 percent think the country is headed in the right direction. That's the same number as four years ago, and the Gallup survey shows the blame is put by most at the federal government's doorstep.
So why then does the nation keep electing a president who promises more of the same?
There's only one way to explain how a party without a sound infrastructure of state and local support and whose leaders promise more of the same policies Americans say they detest can win, and win every time, and that's the national media.
The national media can sway a national election but they don't have the ability to intervene in local races to the same degree, and local media are more fragmented and less influential. But the media's national muscle and platform in national elections pay big dividends, and it's the only rational explanation why there is such a disconnect between presidential outcomes and other voting results and voter feelings.
Rigged: That's the only way to explain how the ultimate insider could prevail in the year of the outsider.
If this analysis is right, voters who so overwhelmingly voted against the establishment in both parties may well be faced with the prospect of the ultimate establishment government - Hillary Clinton as president and the globalist Paul Ryan as leader of the "opposition."
If this happens, a serious question must at least be asked: Is the election process so rigged that it can no longer be considered a viable and effective way for the people to elect their government?
We must likewise ask: At this point, can a government of Hillary Clinton even be considered legitimate, or is it constitutionally void?
Is it time in America for "pitchforks and torches," as Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke said last week. On Fox News he explained what he meant:
"I meant the same thing Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, said, when he said the institution of slavery is an institution of brute force and it must be fought with its own weapons," Clarke said. "I meant the same thing when Barack Obama in 2008 - in July of 2008 at a fundraiser in talking about how he would deal with Republicans when he said, 'When they pull a knife, we'll pull a gun.'"
One way or another, the coup d'etat must be fought.
Comments:
You must login to comment.