The Mainstream Media’s Bias Exposed (2)


Investors Business Daily: The mainstream media’s open hostility to President Trump may be starting to backfire, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll.

Yet the mainstream media remains a potent force, for they still control the primary channels through which information flows.  Thus there are many people in the nation who, though not hardcore Progressives themselves, receive only the perspective of that cohort when they watch CBS, NBC or ABC or read the New York Times, the Washington Post or the LA times.

This dynamic creates an information discontinuity.  For while consumers of more conservative news sources are well aware of both sides of the debate (because conservative media is built on responding to the Progressive position), mainstream media consumers don’t know the conservative (or libertarian, etc.) positions because they are ignored.  By this means the opinions of millions of otherwise reasonable people can be manipulated to the clear benefit of the elite Progressives.

In spite of this powerful advantage there remains a large segment of the population who ultimately will not support the Progressive positions on climate change, gun control and abortion, among others.  This fact is infuriating to an industry that is built on the ability to influence, if not direct, public opinion.

Much of the depraved psychodrama that we see and read in the mainstream media can be traced back to this fact.  What we are witnessing is the public face of a private crisis of confidence.  The fact that Donald Trump (or any Republican) could have been elected President in spite of the full force determination by the mainstream media to drag Hillary Clinton across the finish line is a shattering blow to their perceived position and prestige.

maddow-squirrel2Unfortunately for them, the more that they expose their hateful bias and deranged behavior the less they are respected by millions of citizens.  It’s even likely that many people who believed the absurd lie of Russian collusion for the three years prior to issuance of the Mueller Report have lost confidence in the mainstream press.  And finally, even the Progressive true believers likely now have less respect for the press given their failure (to date at least) to destroy and remove President Trump from office.

We can hope and pray that the mainstream media comes to their senses and reforms their industry.  We should encourage them towards this end by rejecting their deceitful narratives and convincing more Americans to do the same.  For this soulless cadre apparently knows only the motivations of power and prestige.  As they hurtle towards the absence of both perhaps a miracle will occur.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (4)


One source of the Progressive totalitarian impulse

Final Thoughts

A primary driver of practical Progressive political action is the maintenance of that presumption of moral and intellectual superiority built on the theoretical / ideological foundation.  That is, Progressives have a burning compulsion to impose their presumed superiority on the world.  And, the only means of accomplishing this end is the acquisition of power: both political and social.

Progressives seek and then wield that power with a brutality that intimidates the opposition.  This in turn creates an environment in which their expansion of power appears to be inexorable.  However there are many millions of citizens who, though cowed, burn with anger at those who demand their submission by brute political and social force.  These people may appear to be defeated or even in support of the Progressive project.  But they are actually looking for a vehicle through which they can express their internal sense of rejection.

Our contemporary situation is the practical flowering of this conflict.  There is no way to predict which side will prevail.  However the result will likely determine if this nation remains a Constitutional Republic or is transformed into a nation of Masters and Serfs.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (3)


This is the stark, binary choice that has been presented to us by the Progressive Left in the 2020 election.

The Binary Choice

The choice being presented to the citizens of the United States is simple and stark:

  1. Vote in the Democrat Presidential Candidate and he/she/whatever will view their victory as a mandate to implement the Republic destroying ideas that they campaigned on.
  2. Vote in Donald Trump for a second term and, while the civility of our political discourse will continue to suffer, we will still likely have a Republic in 2024.

Back in 2016 I was deeply concerned that Donald Trump was simply a mirror image of the Progressive political corruption that exploded under Barack Obama’s presidency.  He has rather, in spite of withering, unrelenting resistance by the Democrats (and many Republicans as well), pursued the very Conservative economic and social policies that the “conservative” political establishment (now the “Never-Trumpers”) claimed they supported.  He is also seeking to extract the United States from the seemingly unending, un-winnable wars that have sapped our nation’s morale and strength.  He has kept his campaign promises to a degree that shames most recent politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.  Perhaps that’s another reason that they hate him so.

Make no mistake, if the Democrats win in 2020 under their proto-totalitarian platform, there will likely be little holding back this time.  Expect:

  • a Progressive packed Supreme Court, with 11, 13, however many justices are required to ensure uniform Progressive decisions (or they may simply remove and replace President Trump’s appointees);
  • the Justice Department (including the FBI) and Intelligence Services to become politicized to a far greater degree than they were under President Obama and thus a far greater threat to our civil liberties;
  • by unConstitutional means, for the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments and the Senate to come under withering attack;
  • our nation’s boarders to be erased, resulting in massive migration from any country by anyone who for whatever reason wants to get in, and, once in, supported by the U.S. taxpayers;
  • an economy devastated by the aggressive deployment of Socialist policies and environmental regulations;
  • the media, social and mainstream, to become even more aggressive and cruel in their assault on any and all people who disagree, or even don’t agree with sufficient fervor;
  • the vicious, murderous physical attacks on and intimidation of non-Progressives by the Progressive proto-Fascist shock troops (i.e., Antifa) and random mobs/individuals will dramatically increase.

One other point.  For all his crudity and bombast, Donald Trump must be one of the most honest men to have attained the Presidency.  The entire apparatus of the Federal Government, Democrat Party and Mainstream Media have been out to find something (anything!) by which to destroy him since at least 2015.  All they have been able to come up with are bogus Dossiers and Whistleblower complaints.  They continue hyper-Ahab-like pursuing their Great White Wale.

The Progressive elite have revealed themselves to be utterly corrupt, incompetent, infantile, narcissistic, self-serving and deceitful.  No self respecting free person should want to be ruled by this cohort of self-lobotomized collectivist ideologues.  And now, for better or worse, it has fallen on Donald Trump to stand between us and their desired proto-totalitarian goals.

As things stand now I will vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (2)


A reader of this blog will know that I have not been enthusiastic or even supportive of Mr. Trump.  You will also know that in the 2016 Presidential Election I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump (or any other presidential candidate).  However, I have been willing to be convinced that Mr. Trump could earn my support.

In this he has both made progress and fallen short.  His appointments to the Supreme Court, choice of Mr. Barr as the Attorney General, roll-back of overweening government regulations, confrontation of Communist China, support of Israel, insistence on the rule of law at our boarders and in general, and aggressive defiance of the Progressive Left’s assault on our nation’s institutions and founding principles have all been helpful in gaining my support.  However, Mr. Trump’s use of incendiary language can sometimes push our discourse further down the road to perdition and his policies are often changeable from hour to hour when they are not impossible to understand in the first place.

However the decisive contribution to clarifying what is at stake has been made by the elite Progressive Left.  They have staked their claim to eternal power on their having achieved temporary power.  Yes, they have come to dominate virtually all of our national institutions from our classrooms to our boardrooms, from our news sources to our permanent governmental power centers.  And yet, having achieved this power they have demonstrated a level of craven self-dealing, dishonesty, incompetence and contempt that has utterly devastated their credibility as leaders of a self-respecting republic.


Masters and serfs in Medieval feudalism, and the future the Progressive appears to promise to us.

What they offer to those whom they seek to lead is in effect serfdom.  What they claim as their divine right is lordship.  The citizens of this Republic do not, in the elite Progressive Left’s opinion, have the right to elect someone to the Presidency who opposes their interests and policies.  Our so-called democracy is a sham in which the populace either votes to confirm the Progressive Left’s anointed candidate or has their wrong choice vetoed and removed by the power elite.

Now that this nation’s citizens have made such a stupid error (in the Progressives’ “enlightened” opinion) by electing Mr. Trump to the Presidency the elite Progressive Left has lost all confidence in them.  Therefore the foundations of our Republic must be demolished so as to prevent such idiocy from reoccurring.  The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution must go.  The Electoral College and Senate must go.  The fact that there is virtually zero chance that these demolitions can be accomplished by Constitutional means is irrelevant.  The elite Progressive Left will somehow impose them by exercise of their raw power.  They have promised as much to their rabid collectivist base.  They will either deliver or face their unhinged wrath.

This shocking position by our Progressive elite class has created a binary decision election that will be discussed in the next post.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (1)


Framing the Question

There has been so much drama and so many accusations over the past four years that it’s difficult to identify let alone assess just what’s at stake in the 2020 election.  For many citizens who have only a modest interest in politics it might seem that our nation is teetering on the brink of something vaguely bad.  But bad in what way?

Also, just why almost a year away should anyone be paying attention?  After all, there are so many issues pressing in upon us like our family life, work, social events and media, entertainment, etc. that it may seem premature to ask this question.

However, I believe that precisely because of the sheer volume of events it is already possible to determine what’s at stake.  For the election of Donald Trump has ripped the thin veneer of faux consensus off of our politics.  What had previously appeared to be a gray, impenetrable fog of posturing by Democrats and Republican politicians with unspoken assumptions and ill defined goals is now out in the open.  If we care about the future of this nation then it’s vital that we look at the two distinct and irreconcilable visions that are now contending for political primacy.

One vision contends that the nation’s institutions of power should be populated by that cohort of people who self-identify as Progressive elites.  And, the nation’s citizens should commit to follow the lead of this elite cohort regardless of the consequences to these non-elite’s interests.

The other vision contends that the elite cohort who occupy our institutions of power have abandoned any real allegiance to the nation and rather pursue self-serving policies.  And, the nation’s citizens are therefore obliged to correct this defect by exercise of their democratic power.

The elite class sees this populist push back as an existential threat to their power and well being, so their response has been visceral.  The unhappy citizens, seeing the raw exercise of power and ludicrous behavior of the elites, have lost virtually all respect for this self-appointed clique.

The elites are banking on the hope that there are enough people in the voting public who still respect their opinion that an electoral majority can be constructed that will throw out the populist President (and his supporters).  The populists hope that the behavior of the elites has destroyed enough respect or allegiance in the general population to ensure their electoral defeat.

I have no ideal whose hope is better founded.  I do contend that the chasm between the elites and citizens has become un-ignorable and un-bridgeable.

For the past couple of generations the nation has papered over the stark difference in vision between those who call themselves Progressives and those who (for a variety of reasons in a variety of organizations) oppose them.  This “papering-over” consisted primarily in the assumption that we all shared similar goals but differed on how to achieve them.  The realization that this assumption no longer holds is driving the nation towards a binary choice between preserving or destroying our republic.  This new reality creates a new dynamic in our politics, both in who runs and how voters choose.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (2)

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg speaking at the United Nations

I’m happy to report that there is at least one adult alive who dares to correct Greta Thunberg’s ignorant presumption.  Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago.  In an open letter to Greta Thunberg he provides a scathing rebuke to this girl and to her enablers.  The following short excerpt provides a sampling of his position.

You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena. You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show. You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era. Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

There are a few things that we, the rational adults of the world who are not bowing to you like guilt-ridden obsequious Babbitts need to say to you, Greta.

First, we did not rob you of your childhood or of your dreams. You are the legatee of a magnificent technological civilization which my generation and the one before it and several others preceding it all the way to the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, bequeathed to you. 

I contend that this response is not only appropriate, but also absolutely necessary.  For it is by our willingness to silently suffer fools that the ideology of fools is legitimized and advanced.  Were I to meet a young person spouting the opinions of Greta in normal life I would not respond in the scathing manned of Dr. Hill.  However, I would politely but firmly make it clear that I disagree and explain the reasons why.  And, if they responded with angry attacks on my character for having accosted the fragile feelings of a youngster I would explain that they’s better grow thicker skin if they hope to succeed in this world.

On the other hand, when the United Nations gives an international platform to a young child from which she spews contempt and idiotic bromides we are operating at another level entirely.  Here the consequences of gentleness or even embarrassed silence are great.  For Greta at the U.N. assaulted the very foundations of civilization.  What young person observing adult cowardice in the face of this assault did not respond with increased contempt for their elders?  What obsequious Socialist wouldn’t interpret our craven silence as an admission of guilt?  And what power hungry Progressive wouldn’t conclude that we don’t have the courage to oppose their project of power accumulation by any means necessary?

So, regardless of who is pushing Socialist ideas it is long past time that we respond appropriately; sometimes with gentle but firm disagreement and others with the aggressive questions and answers necessary to turn back this latest assault by a wicked, stupid and failed ideology.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (1)


One of the great mysteries of life is why the supporters of Socialism continue to be afforded the presumption of moral and intellectual superiority while supporters of Fascism are uniformly condemned as carriers of utter evil.  While the latter conclusion is certainly true and just, the former is a great and wicked lie.

This question has become increasingly relevant as we observe the Millennial Generation embracing Socialism as a means of social advancement, and the Democrat Party increasingly presenting itself as the vehicle by which this end can be accomplished.  It is therefore long past time that a few pointed questions be posed to these people who pose as our betters.

Once we pierce the wafer-thin, fragile shell of presumption that protects Socialists from objective scrutiny it’s shocking to discover how pathetically weak are their claims.  As my previous four posts on this topic demonstrate it is only by the force-field of presumed moral and intellectual superiority that these ignoramuses (and far worse) avoid the fate of the few remaining Fascists.  That is, they are enabled by the power of intimidation through use of social power due to Progressive domination of most of our key institutions.

But there is also a secondary though still potent defense against criticism, that being pity and/or good manners.  Here I have in mind the sweet aged church lady or the earnest young man who spouts Socialist ideas in obvious and embarrassing ignorance.  It would certainly be cruel for those of us who know better to publicly accost such people with the purpose of causing them embarrassment.  And yet it also would be cruel to allow their ignorance to continue by false affirmation or studied silence.

This situation could be reasonably designated the “Greta Thunberg Effect.”  You likely already know that she is the young Swedish girl (born in 2003) who became a famous activist on climate change.  In 2019 she crossed the Atlantic Ocean (from Plymouth, U.K., to New York, U.S.) in a 60 foot racing yacht equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines, thus making it “zero carbon emissions.”  Once in the United States she addressed the United Nations in a scathing speech.  This young girl presumed to be the final judge of all living adults and all human civilizations, and, the font of ultimate wisdom by which the planet could be saved.  And, in spite of her appalling ignorance and presumption most adults  shirked any responsibility to push back.  For to do so would embarrass her and open the criticizer to accusations of child cruelty.

However an unavoidable consequence of this silence is the assumption that we accept the legitimacy of this little girl’s moral and intellectual claims.  Thus we become complicit in the advance of ideas with which we don’t agree and, if implemented, would drive us back to the stone age where human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

I’ll complete my commentary on this situation in the next post.

Progressives Declare Mob Rule (2)


Top: Loretta Lynch, John Brennan and James Clapper.  Bottom: Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.


Rep. Steve Scalise near death and Progressive billboard

Although none of the above incidents ended in violence, this was not always the case.  A

Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, in 2017 carefully planed and then conducted an attempted mass murder of Congressional Republicans.  He came within a hair’s breadth of achieving the greatest political mass murder in American history.  After Steve Scalise survived near death from the shooting a Progressive PAC proposed a billboard with the message “Take out Scalise.”  

Nor should we overlook the brutal from behind surprise attack by Senator Rand Paul’s neighbor, also in 2017.  With regard to the physical attack itself:

The Associated Press story described how injuries like this “can lead to life-threatening injuries,” with pain lingering for “weeks or months.”

Sen. Paul’s attacker “was a socialist who frequently fought with neighbors about health care policies and other liberal issues.”

rand paul attacked

Senator Rand Paul after brutal surprise attack

A contemporary Rip Van Winkle, awakening in 2017 would have assumed that these near catastrophic events would give Progressives pause about their violent rhetoric.  But nothing of the sort happened.  A year later, undeterred by these violent events, Maxine Waters was declaring Progressive mob rule without the slightest concern about where it could lead.

The mob rule mentality isn’t limited to public confrontations and violent language.  No, the institutions of our federal government were transformed into weapons by which opponents to Progressive rule could be discredited, destroyed and imprisoned.  In particular:

  • The IRS, the most feared department in the U.S. government, was used to harass, demoralize and delay citizen groups seeking to exercise their Constitutional right of free political speech.
  • The Justice Department used an unverified political opposition research document from one Hillary Clinton’s campaign to obtain secret warrants to spy on the other Donald Trump’s campaign during an election.
  • The FBI’s top leadership and investigators intervened in an election on the side of Hillary Clinton to discredit Donald Trump.
  • A Special Prosecutor’s office was created by bureaucrats appointed by the Obama administration not to investigate a publicly defined potential crime, but rather to search for a crime (i.e., “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.“).  That office used its virtually unlimited power to capriciously destroy the lives of individuals from one the Republican party for “process crimes” (e.g., claims that they lied to the FBI or Congress) while utterly ignoring these same crimes in the Democrat party.
  • The nation’s spy agencies, the CIA, NSA, etc. were used to spy on not just American citizens (totally illegal), but also Donald Trump’s campaign (anti-democratic and also totally illegal).  They also, when Trump won, massively leaked sensitive national intelligence information to discredit the new President.
  • Ex high ranking Obama Administration officials traffic in emotionally explosive rhetoric against the next duly elected President.
    • Ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch made a video that was distributed by the Senate Democrats that claimed without a shred of evidence that “our rights are being assaulted” and the only remedy is street protest up to and including blood and death.
    • Ex-CIA Director John Brennan tweeted that President Trump is “treasonous” and “in the pocket of Putin.”
    • Ex-DNI James Clapper claims that President Trump is a Russian asset (i.e., a Russian spy) on national cable television.
  • The drive to impeach President Trump by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is being conducted outside any pretense to due process.

The mentality that justifies this resort to mob rule is on the move and growing in power.  For those of us who believed that the foundations of our republic were generally sound this development has come as a terrible shock.

We need to get over it and acknowledge the truth.  The Progressive Left is attempting to impose mob rule in this nation.  If they are successful then the next step will be the disenfranchisement of all citizens through destruction of at least their First and Second Constitutional Amendment rights.  Beyond that will be the permanent establishment of a soft police state dedicated to the continuance of Progressive elite power.

Only the utterly disinterested or willfully blind among non-Progressives can doubt what is currently at play here in the United States.  If we don’t peacefully defeat this movement in public debate and at the ballot box then we may be forced to face the possibility of an actual civil war in our streets and homes.

Progressives Declare Mob Rule (1)


“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Representative Maxine Waters, June 2018.

When Congresswoman Maxine Waters spoke to a crowd of Trump Administration “resisters” in June 2018 her words amounted to a declaration of mob rule.  She called for Progressive activists to identify administration officials out in the public square and then to form mobs that would drive them out.  Although Rep. Waters didn’t explicitly call for violence there could be no reasonable assumption that an angry, hate filled mob would never reach that end.

This call to assault has been heeded on numerous occasions.  The Washington Post in a July 2018 article identified Trump administration officials Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Vice President Pence, Sean Spicer, Scott Pruitt, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen as victims of verbal assault and personal threats.  A waitress at a high-end Chicago bar spit in the face of Eric Trump.


Kathy Griffin, ISIS like, holds up the mock decapitated head of President Trump.

The list of politicians and celebrities who have deployed violent language or imagery against President Trump is long, including ex-Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Corey Booker, Robert De Niro, Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, George Lopez, Moby, Rosie O’Donnell, Mickey Rourke, and Larry Wilmore.  In New York City a Shakespeare in the Park production of “Julius Caesar” depicted a Trump look-alike being brutally murdered to the applause of many in the audience. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump in prison.

But these public assaults are not limited to members of the Trump administration.  Senator Ted Cruz and his wife were driven out of a restaurant by a mob.  Senate Majority Leader Mich McConnell has had angry protestors outside of his home on numerous occasions (including one where a mob member said that McConnell “should have broken his little raggedy, wrinkled-(expletive) neck” and another holding a voodoo doll yelled “Just stab the m—– f—– in the heart.”).  A journalist suggested that Sen. Susan Collins deserved the death threats she has received.


Antifa rioters beat up a person who got in their way.

Nor are private citizens immune from this riot mentality.  Outspoken conservatives Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens were driven out of a Philadelphia restaurant by an aggressive mob.  Tucker Carlson of the Fox News Channel has had aggressive demonstrations outside his home while he was out, terrifying his wife and children.  Antifa mobs have rampaged through the streets of multiple cities destroying property and beating up anyone who gets in their way.

The scope and depth of this Progressive mob mentality far exceeds even these appalling examples, as will be discussed in the next post.

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (4)


Two radicals elected to the presidency, two completely different reactions by their opponents

The Radical Difference Between Our Two Most Recent Presidents

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the citizens of the United States elected of Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate, to the office of President.  Many of the almost sixty-million who voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate, consider Mr. Obama to be the most radical Progressive politician ever elected to the presidency.

For example, it was indisputable that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had been for decades members of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ whose senior pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.  Pastor Wright was a public supporter of Louis Farrakhan who is a virulent anti-Semite and hater of the United States.  After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the Rev. Wright gave a fiery sermon in which he gleefully yelled that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!”  In another sermon the Rev. Wright said “God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Mr. Obama considered Pastor Wright to be his spiritual advisor and the good pastor officiated at Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s wedding.  Before Senator Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright he said “I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community.”


Bill Ayers stomps on the United States’ flag in 2001.

Many also knew that Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois state Senate was launched at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn.  The 1995 event was a fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign.  These two individuals are utterly unrepentant about their previous lives as leaders of a domestic Marxist terrorist organization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that being the Weather Underground.  When provided the opportunity to apologize for the murder and mayhem of his terrorist group in 2001 he responded by saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 2007 Senator Obama was designated to be the “most liberal Senator” by the National Journal.  In 2008 Louis Farrakhan endorsed Senator Obama, leading Senator Hillary Clinton to criticize the


This photo was hidden from the public until 2018.

implied ideological commonality. During the 2008 campaign Senator Obama chose to denigrate tens of millions of American citizens when he made his “bitter clinger” comments.  Five days before election day candidate Obama said in a public speech that his purpose was to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

My purpose is not to relitigate the 2008 presidential election.  Rather I’m pointing out that those who opposed an Obama presidency had very good reason to fear the consequences of his victory.  And yet there was no coordination among the George W. Bush Justice Department, Intelligence Agencies and State Department to investigate the Obama campaign as possibly infested by traitors.  There was no fraudulent “dossier,” funded and created by the McCain campaign using foreign (primarily Russian) sources to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy or to destroy his presidency after his win.  And after Mr. Obama won the election there was no outpouring of demands for “resistance” by outgoing Bush high ranking officials.

There were no Republican calls to impeach Mr. Obama from the moment he he was declared the election winner.  There were no attempts to convince Electors to vote for Mr. McCain even though a majority in their state had voted for Mr. Obama.  There were no claims that Mr. Obama’s victory was illegitimate due to foreign (primarily Russian) interference and even vote count changing in the election.  Celebrities didn’t speak about blowing up the White House, ask how long it’s been since an actor assassinated a president or pose with a mock decapitated Obama head.  Elected Republican officials didn’t call for Obama administration officials to be hounded out of the public square.

No, the people in opposition to Mr. Obama accepted that the nation had legitimately elected the most radically Progressive man in its history to the Presidency.  They weren’t happy about this development, but had no intention of being a disloyal (to the nation’s will and its Constitution) opposition.

And yet, when in 2016 the nation chose to elect Mr. Trump to the presidency all hell broke loose.  All the things that hadn’t happened to Mr. Obama did happen (and then some) to Mr. Trump.  

As a result the nation hasn’t been this divided since the 1960s Vietnam War era.  A credible case can be made that our contemporary division is worse since in the 1960s it was a foreign policy issue over which we were divided as opposed to now when the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions are under attack.

What this nation has been experiencing since election day 2016 is nothing less than a wild Progressive riot in our streets, our government agencies, our mass media, our educational institutions, our states, and our federal legislatures and courts.    The riot’s purpose is to overturn the 2016 election results, thus disenfranchising the over sixty-million citizens who elected Mr. Trump to the presidency.

This situation represents a radical break in our nation’s culture and institutions.  This blog seeks to explain how we arrived here and where we could be going.  By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.