 Donald Trumps momentum has nothing to do with his ability to articulate his positions or his policies. He won't win any personality contests or debates. His demeanor may be imposing and his New York brashness may put off people, but what The Donald has going for him is way bigger than he is.
What is carrying him to the White House is what he rightly described last night in the debate. It is a Movement. He said it almost as a throw away line, but it is the truth: He said to Hillary, "Why didn't you do anything about all these issues before this movement came along?" Once again, the man who has blown up all of the traditional campaign templates, who defies the pollsters, and who is for all intensive purposes a bigot, racist, arrogant and selfish real estate developer who has ripped off thousands of his employees, and a man who degrades and uses women, has once again surprised the pundits by surviving his TV confrontation with Don Hillary. Why? It is the Movement that is providing the wave Trump is riding. The Movement of voters who have decided they simply will not stick their collective heads out, to accept the empty promises of the Washington Elites, only to have the Establishment chop off their hopes... Again. Social movements, like teams that play above their talent level, are a phenomena. They can be unexplainable, because they are made up of entirely unique elements of timing and history that may never be repeatable. Trump never set out to be a politician, let alone the President. But he sensed a need, paddled in the direction of the swell, and BOOM, he dropped right in to a wave that seems to be building toward the shore. The rest of the political surfers can only watch from outside the break.  I remember the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention and the riots that evolved from protestations about the Vietnam War. Just like the racially charged rioting breaking out around the country in this presidential campaign season, those disturbances were designed to benefit the designs of the leftist elements of the Democratic Party. They were orchestrated to stir up minorities and altruistic lefties to generate hatred and antipathy towards the police, to discredit capitalism and to get out the vote of anyone with an axe to grind with authority. This is a strategy Hillary Clinton learned early in her political career. Bill Clinton was referred to as the 'First Black President,' now Hillary, trying to transfer that handle from President Obama, panders to the most radical element of African American voters, assuming their vitriolic hatred of conservatives will bully moderate black Democratic loyalists to come out strongly in her favor. It is no coincidence that there is a long history of urban unrest just before hotly contested elections. And the collaboration by their useful idiots in the media is stronger now than ever. When a Trump rally is interrupted by protesters and conflicts occur, the media always characterizes them as 'violence inspired by Trump,' excusing the provocateurs behaviour and then projecting the cause onto Trump. The media narrative is that Trump supporters were 'looking for a fight,' and the anti-conservative agitators were just innocently interrupting his freedom of speech, openly baiting his supporters by desecrating our flag, and exercising their right to patriotic protests. These anti-nationalist tactics are not new. In fact, the Black Bloc movement started almost 40 years ago in Germany. The tactics have been used in France, Brazil, the UK and Egypt. The mostly out-of-town rioters wear all black garb to hide their identification, giving them leeway to trash businesses and to loot. The same tactics have gained popularity in anti-Middle East war, anti-Wall Street and anti-globalization protest riots across the country, starting in 1999 in Seattle where three days of riots disrupted the World Trade Organization conference and caused millions in damages. The nearly identical scenes have occurred in St. Louis, Baltimore, and now Charlotte. Ultimately these kind of outbursts polarised voters, separating the law and order rightists from the anti-authority leftists. Will the Charlotte North Carolina violence bring out the black vote for Hillary? Most likely it will bring out equal numbers of reticent voters from both sides, effectively muting the effort. In the meantime, hundreds of businesses are damaged, and people's lives are destroyed, and confidence in our form of representative government and its ability to maintain peace is eroded. And racial instability increases. There is one thing about leftists that is undeniable; their long term goal is to destabilize America, not to unify it. Deplorable
Despicable Disposable "At this point, what Difference does it make?" <Deny Hillary>  While touring the 911 Memorial Museum I spoke with many docents; people who were personally involved in that fateful day and who have dedicated themselves to sharing their experience with visitors to the Ground Zero exhibit. I was affected by them, as it was easy to tell they were speaking from the heart, a heart that was broken but anxious to make people aware of the true impact the attack had. One was relating the stories of some of the pilots who were scrambled to chase Fight 93, the airliner that was ultimately brought down by the heroic passengers. He told of a little known fact that one of the fighter jets was piloted by a woman. She was the first fighter pilot to reach the point where she could take the hijacked airliner down, which she had been ordered to do. The most amazing part of the story is that she had no idea why. She was unaware of the events in New York. Her orders were simply to make sure that Flight 93 was terminated, passengers and all. She was only given information on a need to know basis. Of course she was conflicted. But what is even more disturbing is that she knew her fighter jet was unarmed, and she also knew her Commander knew that fact when he gave her the order. In the end, when she reached the intersection point, Flight 93 had already crashed, but she was fully prepared to crash her F-16 into the nose of that airliner if the opportunity presented itself. If I were consulting Trump, here is how I would have him respond to Hillary Clinton's incredibly stupid comments about the millions of voters supporting his candidacy: "Calling my supporters 'deplorables' is hate speech. Plain and simple, it illustrates her bigotry. Placing millions of our fellow Americans in a blasphemous 'basket' is unacceptable behaviour for someone aspiring to the nation's highest office, or for any political office for that matter. Using such a pejorative description of a broad cross section of our fellow citizens from all walks of life is the epitome of arrogance and condescension. She is suggesting that we are all ignorant bigots. This is narrow-minded, slanderous hatred. Her suggestion that 'you could put them all into a basket' is an ad hominem attack on millions of Americans, people who work hard, try to support their families, to follow the rules, to participate in the democracy we all enjoy. It is guilt by association, classifying her opposition as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it" is no different than generalizing that all Muslims are terrorists. There is no excuse for a person with her level of education, experience in public service and social policy to exhibit so much hatred for fellow Americans who disagree with her politically. Finally, I challenge our Fourth Estate, the news media, to recognize this soft bigotry for what it is; to report this transgression accurately without their usual spin. I have to wonder, if I had said, "Mrs. Clinton's supporters are despicable", what would have been the mainstream press' response? Every one of the millions of voters who cast their vote for me in the primaries can only imagine how vehemently the press would have called for me to drop out of the race. Of course we can expect a reaction from these comments; the press and the Democrats will use moral relativism to suggest that her idiotic accusations are no worse than my recommendation to vet all Muslim immigrants until we can determine who they are and what their motives are for coming to our country in an era of international terrorist attacks on innocent citizens. The difference is I can back up my security recommendations with facts. Hillary is simply spewing personal animosity for those that disagree with her policies. That, my fellow Americans, is bigotry defined." |
Rick Elkin
|
RSS Feed
