By David Prentice / AmericanThinker.com
This nation has faced many a crisis, but not since the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, ginned up by the Hearst media empire, have we had crisis of the current magnitude powered by fake news.
Within living memory, in 1968, the Democratic Party had its convention in Chicago, Hubert Humphrey was their nominee, and there were riots in the streets. Groups “demonstrated” against the Vietnam war, against the war’s escalation, and against the party itself for the ways of choosing its nominee.
Events that happened that year were staggering, unprecedented, and tragic. Anti-war protests were everywhere, Eugene McCarthy had led a successful insurgent campaign, and the Democratic Party was reeling from Lyndon Johnson not running for reelection. Even worse, the country was trying to recover from the assassination of Martin Luther King ,along with the assassination of Robert Kennedy, events that were shattering the faith many Americans had in their institutions. Mayor Daly and the Chicago police were striking back against the protests with violence, many severe beatings by the police were caught on camera. America was on edge.
The parallels in the American psyche back then and now are strikingly similar. There was and is a widespread divide in America about how to overcome our differences. There was and is ongoing violence, ongoing protests, and a potential loss of confidence in our institutions.
There is one huge difference between what is happening now, and what happened back then. In 1968, there was a culmination of real events that actually affected America. In 2017, there are no real events causing this, just narratives made up from nothing by a leftist media that is more divorced from reality than anyone thought possible.
The Russians colluded with Trump.
Trump is Hitler. Stupid. And evil.
Obama was wonderful, transparent, brilliant, perfect, and fully competent.
Trump’s tax returns will show he is unfit.
He is a racist that wants to ban all Muslims.
Kellyanne Conway is a ditzy uninformed waste of a woman.
Hillary Clinton is a pure and honest heroine fighting for good.
Virtually 24/7, these and other very unreal narratives are being played to the American public by our pathetic left wing media.
In 1968, the news had a reality component. Yes, there was liberal bias in the news, but at least the events happened. And now? There is little more than collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media to make up narratives to advance their leftist agenda. They have been pretending that Russia hacked (stole) the election, in collusion with Trump. They feign outrage. The real events that happened they think should outrage us all? Hillary lost. Trump won. Saint Barack has a legacy that hardly exists. At least for anything good. The Democrats are currently powerless. Those items should be the real news, but it’s not and hasn’t been.
Should we expect different from the partisans in the Democratic Party? Oops, I meant to ask what should we expect of the “unbiased” media? Well, we should have expected a lot more than what they have been offering. Such as reporting on real events.
Consider the primary fake narrative that has dominated news coverage since December: The Russians. They did it. Hacked the election. Colluding with Trump. And all the Presidents’ men (and women). Newscasters and editors breathlessly report this stuff every day, all day long. And have for almost four months. With zero evidence. Zero! No newsworthy event such as the Tet offensive, or an assassination happened. No facts. It’s worse than much ado about nothing. Yet there they go, reporting as if something happened that should outrage us all. Again.
Damn those Russians….
The effect this is having on the left is a marvel. I have yet to witness a group more delusional. I have taken part in enough casual liberal conversations to observe just how close they are to losing their minds. They do this after watching news anchors and other liberal heavyweights hysterically ranting about such things as treason, treachery, selling out our country, and calling the Trump administration puppets of Putin. Likewise, the many interviews of Democrat officials, highly prominent people trying to sell this same narrative of Trump colluding with Russia. They too, do so in the most hysterical manner, trying to engender outrage in those who are listening. I have seen only one correct response to all of these interviews, and that was done by Tucker Carlson. He laughed. Nicely and derisively at the same time. Which has been better than my response lately. A lot better.
I find myself alternately yelling and snarling at the TV now when I see this kind of interview. I don’t normally do that. Ever. But this bizarre narrative, with no evidence, that has gone on for so long, has finally become too absurd to do anything else. These smarmy Democrats should simply be ashamed of themselves. They have to know their taking points are nothing but political propaganda of the worst kind. Likewise, the “journalists” who are using these points on the major news channels — their shame should have no end. People like Jake Tapper, Scott Pelley, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper — the vast majority of them have fallen into a pit, and curiously have no interest in regaining any form of respectability. Narratives uber alles (for their cause).
Frankly, their narrative totally falls short. Why in the world would Putin want to change the perfect pliability of the Obama/Clinton pushover axis? Obama was recorded on a hot mic telling “Vladimir” he would have more flexibility after the 2012 election (and boy did he). Obama/Clinton let them take Crimea and Georgia without a peep. Obama/Clinton apparently (allegedly) signed over 20% of America’s uranium for some huge donations (said to be over 100 million dollars) to the Clinton Foundation plus mega dollars for Clinton speeches that were of no value. The botched Russian reset button, the drawdown of our military, the total feckless weakened foreign policy of Obama/Clinton, and more; the list of reasons for Vladimir to love Clinton are legion.
Occam’s razor: Given all those facts, why in the world would Putin want to change from the easy marks he had to a bulldog, a fighter, a man of accomplishment who ran on toughness, a man who wanted to reassert America’s greatness, a man who promised to build the strongest military in the world, a man who wanted to vie, compete and beat Russia as a player in the energy markets?
Why indeed? Putin had everything he wanted in a feckless woman who could have won. The idea that he wanted Trump is fatuous and just plain laughable. At best.
What’s not laughable are the stooges of the Democrat/media complex. Yes, they are making fools of themselves. Daily. But they are also ginning up a dangerous hysteria. It may not be the fear that arose across our country in 1968. Most of us on the right are laughing at their attempts (or yelling at the TV!). But when I witness the damage being inflicted on the leftist voters, when I see their crazy Facebook posts and their rants on other social media, I know there is a consequence. And it’s not good. Enabling rage over nothingness can never be good. The left is on the brink. God help bring sanity to enough of them before something terrible happens.
Our elected officials on the right have not dealt with this nonsense well. I get it, Stockholm Syndrome is hard to overcome, but for goodness sake, stop taking this narrative seriously because it’s not. It’s a modern version of The Emperor Has No Clothes, and nothing more. Stop pretending it’s a charge with any credibility just because they repeat it over and over again. Bringing our country back will be a long battle, one of ideas, of the law, of civilization, none of which are present on the left. Giving these leftists anything but laughter and derision on this “Russian” narrative is the equivalent of allowing a “kick me” sign on your back in high school.
GOP: It’s time to take the sign off, and start being strong with the truth.
More great articles here: http://www.americanthinker.com
Sean Spicer: No Evidence of Connection Between Trump Campaign and Russia
State Dept. Photo
by Kristina Wong31 Mar 20170 31 Mar, 2017
31 Mar, 2017
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERWhite House Press Secretary Sean Spicer ripped into the media on Friday for continuing to ask questions about a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, noting that there’s been no evidence of that.
“Everyone who’s been briefed on this subject, from Republican to Democrat to CIA — former Obama administration’s [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper, [CIA Director John] Brennan, you name it — all of the people come back with the same conclusion…that there’s been no evidence,” he said at the White House press briefing.SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Spicer said if anyone was trying to engage with Russia, it was Hillary Clinton.
“It was Hillary Clinton, who was the architect of the last administration’s failed reset policy — she told Russian state TV that it was designed to strengthen Russia. That was their goal: to strengthen Russia,” he said.
“She used her office to make concession after concession, selling off one-fifth of our country’s uranium, paid speeches, paid deals, getting personal calls from Vladimir Putin. I think if there’s — really want to talk about a Russian connection and the substance, that’s where we should be looking,” he added.
Spicer was referring to how in 2010, then-Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine to sign off on Russia’s purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One, an international mining company headquartered in Canada. Around the same time, a Russian investment bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech.
“When you talk about connections to Russia, the only connection that anyone’s made with President Trump is multiple years ago he hosted a pageant there and he’s — some of the — you know, he owns condos around the world and some of them were sold to some Russians and I think he sold a house to one several years back. That’s his connection,” he said.
“So when you compare the two sides in terms of who’s actually engaging with Russia, trying to strengthen them, trying to act with them, trying to interact with them, it is night and day between our actions and her actions,” he said. “And yet no one questioned what she was doing or how she was handling it.”
Critics of President Trump have argued that his campaign aides colluded with Russia to help him get elected.
While intelligence officials have assessed that Russia tried to interfere in the U.S. elections in favor of Trump by hacking into the Democratic National Committee and Clinton aide John Podesta and leaking embarrassing emails, there has been no evidence that Russia affected the outcome of the election or that there was collusion with Trump campaign officials.
The FBI is investigating the matter, and the House and Senate intelligence committees are also investigating it. But Clapper told NBC News on March 5 that no evidence existed that showed any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“Not to my knowledge,” he said, when asked if any evidence existed. Clapper said there could have been information found since he left the government on January 20, but as of then, “We had no evidence of such collusion.”
During Friday’s White House press conference, Press Secretary Sean Spicer once again was fielding questions about President Donald Trump’s supposed connections with Russia, when he pointed the finger at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when it came to who truly had the deeper relationship.
Upon being asked about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russian interference during the 2016 elections, Spicer once again asserted Trump’s innocence.
“As we’ve said before, when you talk about Russia in particular, everyone who has been briefed on this subject, from Republican to Democrat to CIA, former Obama administration’s Clapper, Brennan, you name it, all of those people come back with the same conclusion and I think that’s important that there’s been no evidence of the president’s campaign and Russian officials.”
But not stopping short of that, Spicer listed the amount of times Clinton had dealings and ties with Russia.
“It was Hillary Clinton who was the architect of the last administration’s failed ‘Reset’ policy. She told Russian state TV it was designed to strengthen Russia. That was their goal, to strengthen Russia. She used her office to make concession after concession, selling off one-fifth of our country’s uranium, paid speeches, paid deals, getting personal calls from Vladimir Putin. If you really want to talk about a Russian connection and the substance, that’s where we should be looking, that, not there.”
The uranium deal that Spicer is referring to is explained by a 2015 article in the New York Times, concerning major donors of a uranium mining company contributing money to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton, during her time as Secretary of State, approved the sale of the company to Russia. Simultaneously, cash began flowing into the Clinton Foundation from the Chairman of the Russian owned company.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.