NYT Foreign Bureau Chief Covering DNC: “Trump Supporters ‘Less-Educated White People'”

thEUAUOVRK

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.- Ronald Reagan.

Declan Walsh is the Cairo Bureau Chief for The New York Times.

The former leader in American Journalism decided that it would be a great idea to send Walsh to Philadelphia to cover to Democratic National Convention as a foreign correspondent in much the same way he would cover an overseas event.

His summary of yesterday’s debacle of the first day of the DNC, proves one thing: The only individual snottier and more condescending than an  American Liberal Reporter…is a Foreign Liberal Reporter.

Pay attention to how he describes supporters of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump.

My first sight of this week’s Democratic convention had nothing to do with the party’s nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. 

At a bus stop in Philadelphia on Sunday night I passed people clutching placards for Mrs. Clinton’s vanquished rival, Senator Bernie Sanders — a sign of the bubbling passions that have animated every argument in this extraordinary election year.

By Monday morning, those passions had erupted into open divisions, even before the convention had officially started, when Mr. Sanders’s supporters jeered and booed Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee who organized this convention and who has promised to resign.

It was not the start that Mrs. Clinton wanted. In the wake of last week’s bitterly divided Republican convention in Cleveland, chuckling Democrats promised that their own meeting would be a paragon of party discipline and unity. “I can tell you we’re going to have a very different kind of convention,” Mrs. Clinton told supporters on Monday. 

But the publication of 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails by WikiLeaks this weekend provided a disastrous prelude to the convention. The emails revealed concerted efforts by senior party leaders, including Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to undermine Mr. Sanders’s campaign, reopening the wounds from the primary contest.

Come Monday afternoon, Mr. Sanders’s supporters amassed outside the convention hall, shouting, “Hell no, D.N.C., we won’t vote for Hillary!” Inside, they booed at every mention of Mrs. Clinton’s name. And Ms. Wasserman Schultz had announced that she would not, as tradition dictates, strike the gavel to open the convention later that day. 

It is a sign of the fevered change roiling American politics that the normally staid party conventions have become spectacles of confrontation and division where insurgent forces are on display, often to the dismay of traditional party leaders.

It started during last week’s Republican convention, a four-day spectacle of red-meat, hard-core conservative politics in Cleveland where delegates openly clashed over the candidacy of the billionaire Donald J. Trump. On the final night, Mr. Trump delivered a dystopian address that presented America as a fearful place, surrounded by darkness and besieged by enemies. The atmosphere in the hall was strange and electrifying, punctuated by chants of “U-S-A!”

This is my first time covering a campaign in America, and a far cry from those I remember as a child in Ireland, where my father was active in local politics for Fianna Fail, then the governing party. At home, political reporting involved a tour of what was sardonically known as the “chicken-and-chips circuit,” named for the dominant catering choice at campaign events across the country.

In Cleveland, news organizations and tech firms rented out restaurants near the convention arena, providing open bars and free food to journalists, political operatives and corporate types. The Washington Post, CNN and Twitter had their own hospitality setups at restaurants on East Fourth Street, a pedestrian walkway thronged by people and hawkers selling campaign paraphernalia: T-shirts that read “Hot Chicks for Trump,” and pins denigrating Mrs. Clinton.

The media circus also offered an irresistible opportunity for other Americans, of every persuasion, to push their own causes. In front of the NBC studio, which overlooked the street, people waving signs jostled for space, trying to edge into the shot during a live panel discussion. One evangelist held a sign that read “REPENT: Fear him who has the power to cast you into hell” while another yelled into a bullhorn. A mustachioed young man was promoting a T-shirt company. And a diminutive woman, standing on her tiptoes, held a sign warning of the dangers of something call gadolinium.

 “The world’s watching,” she said. “I can’t allow another person to die.”

It felt like more like street theater than politics. But the more salient issues of the American campaign were never far. The shooting of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on the eve of the Republican convention highlighted the heady mix of guns, race and policing that has played prominently in the presidential race.

In Philadelphia, America’s wider malaise is playing big. Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly young and, like their Trump counterparts, angry at the traditional establishment of their party. The weekend email dump by WikiLeaks seemed to confirm their suspicions that the party establishment was allied against them.

The difference is that the Democrats hope to unite their warring factions by reaching for more optimistic notes. In a speech on Saturday, Mrs. Clinton’s running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, garnered some rave reviews for his sunny and measured tone.

Apart from chicken and chips (that’s French fries to American readers), Ireland of the 1970s produced its own controversial political figure in the form of Charles J. Haughey, the leader of Fianna Fail. Mr. Haughey divided the Irish between those who saw him as a champion of the people, and those who viewed him as a self-enriching scoundrel. His lavish lifestyle — including a yacht, a mansion on an island and money stashed in offshore tax havens — was eventually exposed in the 1990s.

Mr. Haughey’s wealth was a drop compared to Mr. Trump’s, who boasts that his financial success qualifies him to run the United States, and is unashamed – and, thus far, politically undamaged – by some of his more questionable business dealings. His only fear, it seems, is being out of the news for long, which raises the question of how he will manage during this week’s Democratic convention.

The Cleveland convention, with its baying calls for Mrs. Clinton to be jailed and for the abnegation of civil rights movements, did Mr. Trump no harm. The latest poll published Sunday gives him a small ratings bump, and a modest one-point lead over Mrs. Clinton.

But pollsters and political veterans are skeptical he can maintain this advantage, and the efficacy of polls at this point in the campaign is questionable.

Mr. Trump’s support base — less-educated white people — is too narrow, the analysts say, and he faces too much opposition inside the Republican Party. In the heat of a hard-fought campaign, they argue, his improvised campaign will wilt under pressure from the well-oiled Democratic machine, which already enjoys majority support in key demographics: African-Americans, Hispanics, women and young people.

Last week Stuart Stevens, a Republican operative, likened Mr. Trump’s blustering confidence about his chances to that of a man who has jumped from a 100-story building. “He’s at floor 50, and he thinks he knows how to fly,” Mr. Stevens said.

Mr. Trump has defied the experts many times before — less than a year ago, one prominent expert gave him a 2 percent chance of capturing the Republican nomination. As he breaks and reinvents the political rules, Mr. Trump seems to have shown that it doesn’t matter what the experts say or what the story is — what matters is being in the middle of it.

This week, as the Democrats ready themselves for an unprecedented presidential race, Mrs. Clinton will try to show that she is the best story in town.

“Less – educated white people?”

You mean like Dr. Ben Carson?

Oh, wait.

Liberals overestimate the popular of their restrictive and hypocritical political ideology and myopic world view.

If you believed the avalanche of lies spewed forth in the first day of the DNC alone, you would believe that theirs is the largest political ideology in America and that the Queen of Mean, Hillary Clinton, is America’s version of Mother Teresa.

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of this year, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display in Philadelphia, ignoring their own scandalous behavior in their desperation to prevent Donald J. Trump from becoming the next President of the United States of America, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

So, anyway, here we are…with a bunch of paid and unpaid “useful idiots”, American and of Foreign Origin, telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again”

I have heard this garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus, that seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

What we are witnessing at this year’s Democratic National Convention Mirrors what  we have been bearing witness for the last couple of years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like their imperious President, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as they attempt to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party, whom as found out through WikiLeaks, encouraged and helped to bring about staged protests, in a failed attempt to try to block Donald J. Trump’s pathway to the Presidency.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, and Barack Hussein Obama’s own petulant, belligerent personality of a 12-year-old, has inspired these “protestors”, leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It gives the protestors at Donald  J. Trump’s Campaign Appearances that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by strong-arming their way into Political Rallies, or by blocking access to them, for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

And, it also gives the Liberals/Progressives/Alinsky-ites/Marxists who control the Modern Democratic Party the right to present themselves as a prevaricating, America-hating, disorganized bunch of idiots, like they did yesterday.

In conclusion, Liberals and newspaper reports (but, I repeat myself) have the same rgiths as we do under our Constitution.

However, to label supporters of the Republican Candidate as “less-educated white people”, when there is no evidence that they are, in order to try to cover for the rapidly-imploding Democratic Party and their rapidly-tanking Presumptive Presidential Candidate in order to keep Donald J. Trump from becoming the next President…is pathetic.

That is not “journalism”. That is “opinion”.

And, here in America’s Heartland, we call that “INTOLERANCE”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The “Obama Doctrine”: Ignoring History

Non-Negotiable-600-LIThomas L Friedman, of the New York Times, was recently invited to the White House to interview President Barack Hussein Obama.

Here is an excerpt from his subsequent article:

…What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.

“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”

Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be … sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”

Alright, you students of history…does the message delivered by the president, during the above-referenced interview, seem familiar to any of you?

It should. 

The speech, “Peace in Our Time”, was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt from that historic speech:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next: World War II.

In more recent times, United States President Jimmy Carter thought that he could negotiate from a position of weakness, also.

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis under President Jimmy Carter?

That’s what happens when you negotiate with barbarians.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Until He Comes,

KJ