JON STEWART: "I want you to admit that there is such a thing as white privilege. That's all I want I want to do—"
Jon Stewart was interviewing Bill O'Reilly when he revealed his ulterior motives; he wasn't interested in what O'Reilly thinks or how he has become so successful or how he viewed the election or anything other than advancing his self-absorbed, Marxist/Progressive template that America is a racist nation and that all minorities are victims of an indigenous form of white racism by virtue of historic 'privilege'.
This mental fixation on dividing Americans into racial and intellectual tribes, of asserting broad excuses for those who have been unable to gain economical and social assimilation, of culturally realigning our diversity into a monolithic baseline of mediocrity, and of stereotyping 'white' as some sort of evil institutional force, is illustrative of why fly-over voters rejected Obama, Clinton, Kaine, Colbert, Stewart, O'Donnell, SNL and the entire leftist media and political propaganda-machine that inundates us daily.
Stewart, like most 'Progressives', is suffering from the Cuba Syndrome.
The Cuba Syndrome mimics Down's Syndrome: sad, frightening, unexplainable and difficult to manage. Unlike the ravages of Down's, Progressive's Cuba Syndrome symptoms are self imposed. They display unapproachable smugness, misinformed certitude, self absorption and irrational reasoning that can only be 'explained' by other victims of the disease, who speak in prescribed dogma, in an Orwellian language customized to fit their political template. Where most of us see oppression, they see liberty, where we see totalitarianism, they see revolutionary nobility. They live in a collective ideological bubble.
There is a fine line between insanity and arrogance:
The sad part is that people like Stewart will never have the honesty or humility to look in the mirror and ask themselves, is it possible I am wrong? Is it possible that the lessons taught by Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Fidel Castro were wrong? Or will they, like so many of the die-hard believers in a Communist Cuba nirvana, continue to cling to the irrational, elitist view that a Castro-style Communism is the best organizational scheme for managing people who are, in their condescension, too dumb to manage themselves?
What Donald Trump accomplished is going down in history as a phenomenon. It is so over the top when you look at the odds, the opposition and the energy it took a seventy year old man to do what NO ONE thought possible.
I would compare it to pitching five major league no hitters, no, five complete game no hitters, in a row.
First, he was self funded in an era that everyone agrees it takes at least a billion dollars to properly wage a Presidential campaign. Second, it takes the support of one of the two major party's, right? Or does it? Finally, his pedigree, a well known reality TV blowhard, a nattering nabob of local politics of New York, and a super rich highrise builder who is known to be abrasive and narcissistic, placed him in rare air where he would find few loyal supporters and big money contributors.He would have to go it alone. And finally, he has zero experience running for any office, let alone the most powerful position on earth.
How could he even think he had a chance, especially running against a female who had paid her dues, been a part of a White House Family, been a senator from New York, and traveled the world relentlessly, acting as Secretary of State for the popular young black President, Barack Obama? A political icon who, according to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, 'deserved' to be the first woman President in American history?
So it would be an impossible task, right?
Virtually everyone thought he was delusional. But when he discussed the idea with his family, his immigrant wife Melania said, "You know if you run, you will win."
So as the years go by, and as this transformative moment in time fades into the history books, I predict that textbooks will still be trying to understand how this man did what he did. How did he bypass the mainstream media, that for all intensive purposes were out to take him down? How did he reach all of those groups that traditionally vote Democrat, the minorities, the immigrants, the college students, and women? How did he drive the conversation, dominate the headlines, and handily dispatch no less than 16 formidable, polished and qualified Republican challengers? How did he brush off the avalanche of personal attacks about his treatment of women, of veterans, of handicapped, and of immigrants?
By being honest. By dropping the pretense of being a politician. By simply focusing his attention, and the attention of the media that normally directs the news to subjects they select, and by pointing out the otherwise obvious, that everyone who was opposing him had ulterior motives. He exposed how the establishment of both parties were clearly owned by special interests, and that the only ones who stood to gain by continuing the traditional path of big party, big government, big business, and big money were those same 1%'ers who have been driving the bus for the past couple of decades.
He simply kept asking 'How has that been working out for Americans?"
While simultaneously promising to revive the spirit of Americanism that made this country great in the first place. He did it by trusting the American people to make the right choice to lead the world again, to champion freedom, to dream big and to never settle for anything less than the best.
The academics will be looking at this, in utter amazement, for years. Those of us who supported him are no less amazed. We all should be. No matter what you think of his politics, what the man just did is no less than a political and cultural miracle.
This is a term the media uses with reckless abandon. I heard it daily during the campaign, much of the time it was misplaced. Trump's campaign was consistently defined by most of the talking heads as 'divisive.'
I would challenge that assumption because I cannot find any references in his speeches, his media interviews or in the debates where Trump declared one voter group as irrelevant or unqualified to participate in the process. In fact, I remember Trump pointedly asking the Republicans at the RNC to open up to LGBT voters, to respect them as fellow Americans, much to the chagrin of many of the convention's traditional establishment delegates.
As for Mexicans, he made sure to separate 'illegal' immigrants from those that respected our laws. So is it divisive to exclude 'criminals' from our democratic process? This is really a law and order issue, but Progressives hate the idea of holding people accountable for their actions.
Trump challenged those that insist on maintaining their hyphenated connection to their heritage, wondering if that indicated some reluctance to fully embrace Americanism. This is a legitimate question that even the left asks about men; at what point do men leave their sexuality behind with regards to public policy? Some Progressives suggest that men should have no say in the abortion debate, even though they have a vested interest in the unborn child.
Media people said "Trump campaigned against women." There is absolutely no credible evidence of that charge. Did he say he was pro life? Yes. Is that an anti-women stance? No. It is a pro children policy position. It supports the right of unborn children, both males and females, to be represented.
Did he say some crude and offensive things about women? Yes, but that is not a campaign issue. I would argue that many men consider women as an irresistible attraction, that they are well aware of their psychological weakness to connect their attractions to sexual impulses. And they also know most of it is simply fantasy and braggadocio. And I think the results of the election show that many women feel the same, knowing relations between men and women will forever be differentiated by the sexual restlessness of human beings.
Did Trump talk about minorities and specifically blacks, as victims? Yes. Is that divisive? Only if you look at that group as a monolithic block. Trump suggested that minorities have been used as a political tool, and that is by nature, abusive. He asked "What do you have to lose by giving the alternative a try?" That is only divisive if you are part of the Democratic cabal. It attempts to peel off voters that the Democrats have taken for granted.
If he was dismissive of any group, it was the news media. I would argue that the corporate dominated news media was in an all out assault on Trump, so it is wrong to assign the divisiveness to him. He was simply defending himself, pointing out how insincere and duplicitous the media was to feign nonpartisanship when they were so transparently biased.
The Wikileaks revelations, once again, proved Trumps instincts were correct. They demonstrated that the media colluded to portray agitators at Trump rallies as evidence that he was pushing violence. When the truth was revealed that those agents were hired by the DNC, the press suddenly went dark on the subject, never stopping their false narrative that Trump promoted violence.
As the above definition suggests, are we to believe that when a candidate introduces a discussion of a divisive issue (such as abortion or immigration), that deems that candidate to be 'divisive'? If that was true, how can we Americans engage in vigorous debate if we can't even mention contentious issues?
In hindsight, the whole picture painted by the DNC and the sycophantic media was an illusion, a false media creation better described as digital propaganda. And the message, that Trumps entire world view was divisive, dark and threatening to peace and stability, was simply another effort to influence voters to put Mrs. Clinton, and thereby the increasingly left-leaning corporate establishment, back in charge of the country.
I am not a billionaire playboy or a New York hotshot real estate developer, or an owner of some of the most iconic buildings and resorts on the planet, or a TV superstar of one of the most enduring and iconic reality shows in the past decade. No, I am none of those things.
I am a little different, but in some very important ways Donald Trump and I are brothers.
I am extremely passionate about what a great country I live in, and how fortunate I am to have been born in America. How our hard earned freedom and culture is so uniquely conducive to my ability to live my dream. I have always felt that I should give back to my fellow Americans.
So I do what I can, I write. I write to inform and to entertain. I write to make people think, about the kind of things we should consider when we go into a voting booth. My writings are my properties, my brand. I try to share them and to develop them. In my own literary way, I am a developer like Trump.
For several decades I have watched my country, my friends and fellow Americans, go through really tough times like we haven't seen since before WWll. And as I watch historic events unravel the tranquility of the entire world I sense that most of our problems are self imposed. That our leadership is incompetent. That too many of our elected leaders are really in over their heads. That the enormity of the job of managing the Frankenstein Monster that is America, was simply overwhelming to most of them.
I ask myself, what can I do to help my country? I wrote a book. I did what I am capable of doing. I had this idealistic idea that I could make a positive impact, get people re-engaged and excited about their Americanism.
Turn Right At Lost: Recalculating America, explores my concerns that the country has lost its bearings and needs to make some course corrections, soon. It is no textbook like Trump's The Art of the Deal, but is comes from my heart, and it offers insights from someone other than professional talking heads and pointy headed intellectuals.
My book will not save the world, but I didn't stand by and ignore the tragic deconstruction of my country. I stood up and asked to be counted.
Exactly what Donald Trump did.
He didn't have to run for President. He didn't have to put himself and his precious family in harm's way. He doesn't need anymore attention, money or approval, so he volunteered to do what he does well, to rebuild a property that has fallen into disrepair.
Trump comes off as pompous, as self absorbed, as impetuous, even profane. But those shortcomings don't make his fears for the health, security, and the future of our country, any less legitimate.
He stood up and asked to be counted.
Do you know how demanding it is to run for President? Trump is a multibillionaire in his seventies, who has the option to spend the rest of his life golfing the greatest courses in the world, or traveling or making reality TV shows. To suggest that his Presidential ambitions are self serving is insulting and illogical.
His name is an iconic brand, he employs thousands, he manages an incredibly complex dynasty of companies and investments. To suggest that a man with a portfolio like that would subject himself to the crushing scrutiny and media pressures of running for the Presidency just because he craves attention ignores reality.
What if.... Trump and myself both genuinely cared about America? That would mean we, and millions of Trump supporters, are all trying to give something back to the country we love. That our effort to elect a leader is not a selfish conspiracy to enrich ourselves, to disenfranchise other Americans, or to create a racially homogenized Arian nation, but to rebuild the iconic multifaceted rich culture of liberty and world leadership that has served the entire planet well for most of the 20th century.
How dare anyone challenge our motives! We are both doing what we can to help our country. It just so happens he can do a lot more than the average citizen can. Donald has already spent over $50 million of his own money. He is putting his money where his mouth is to help save a world that is sliding into disarray. In a way, it amounts to an enormous charitable contribution!
When you see someone close to you acting erratically, in a self destructive spiral, searching for ways to help them is noble, isn't it? Isn't it the duty of family to help each other in times of need?
So I caution my fellow Americans, do not challenge the intentions of people like Mr. Trump and myself, because if you do, you are suggesting that a fellow American citizen should think twice about being proud and protective of our common American DNA. You are indirectly suggesting that concerned fellow American family members should stop caring about you.
Our political family is caught in crisis. Our leaders are are addicted to overspending, the Middle East is on fire, our infrastructure is crumbling from neglect, nearly 100 million Americans are out of the workforce and our ability to unite over social and civil issues has all but been abandoned. Robots are rapidly replacing middle class jobs, and millennials think capitalism is unfair and socialism may be preferable. Women feel under siege, as do most men. Our business community is leaving the country as are our jobs. The rapidly expanding dependency class is growing restless, and all the politicians can recommend is to throw more of the 'richest Americans' tax money at it.
The list of challenges is endless, so much so that the establishment, on both sides of the isle, recommend we turn it over to one of those career politicians who got us into this mess in the first place!
Isn't that the definition of insanity?
Donald Trump thinks so, and he is leading the charge to intervene, to stop the country from it's descent into self destruction. So the establishment is screaming that Trump is unqualified to be President.
Just what 'qualifies' a man or woman to be the leader of the modern world? Is it political experience? If so, how did Dwight Eisenhower get elected? Is it charm? Dick Nixon was elected twice, so I don't think that criteria is important. Is it intelligence? According to Democrats, it can't be because they lost to George Bush twice! Is it expertise in a certain area such as foreign policy? Nope, because no one knew what Barack Obama stood for regarding that when he ascended to the Oval Office in 2008.
For example, in a conversation between prominent journalists Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose recorded in November 2008, just a few days before the election of Obama, the men admitted they knew little about the Democratic candidate, his policies on China, terrorism or the Middle East, or what he thought about NATO or Iran. They admitted that the press had all but ignored those issues, instead they were focused on the idea that a black man could actually win the Presidency.
The point is, in the history of our country, the diversity of the candidates for the Presidency has been fairly homogenous. They have been near unanimously former legislators or Governors. They have been consummate insiders, establishment operatives, part and parcel of the system. Even with his brief political history, other than a stint as an Illinois Congressman, Obama was essentially a community activist and organizer. He is highly educated and very articulate, but his worldliness was non-existent. He had no military experience, no management experience, and some would say no business background. Only his brief term as an Illinois senator, and the fact that he was black, gave him the huevos to even consider running for President. Hillary has experience in the Senate, and has worldly exposure as the Secretary of State. But she has no business or financial background, other than amazingly accumulating nearly 100 million dollars since leaving the White House, while working primarily as a public official and heading a non-profit foundation.
Trump, on the other hand has built an International business empire. He owns and operates some of the world's most premium resort and business properties. He has interests on several continents, and has negotiated contracts with all variety of governments and cultures. He has interests in multiple industries from food, travel, sports, entertainment and publishing, and is considered a genius in branding. He has operated his companies with thousands of employees, all over the globe, but primarily in the multicultural and politically diverse milieu of New York. He has successfully navigated every extreme form of political regimes known to America, from Dinkins to Bloomberg, Cuomo to Giuliani to Pitaki to de Blasio, Trump has thrived.
So along comes critics, George Will for example, who says the idea that an outsider should even consider running for the presidency, would ruin the delicate balance of our representative style government, wreck our ability to lead the world, to preserve the peace and to provide security and an environment conducive to economic expansion and improved opportunity for everyone on the planet. Aren't those the exact qualities we were promised eight years ago?
How has that worked out?
The question is, if that were true, why are millions of people so anxious to see Trump succeed at 'Making America Great Again?' Trump is telling anyone who will listen that our leaders are not doing their job. That in fact, they are incompetent and dangerous. Sometimes, within a family, the hardest thing one member can do, is to tell another member that their behaviour is out of line. During an intervention, that individual is not going to roll over and quietly give in, because they are so much a part of the problem, so consumed by their disease, they must be given a push by someone close, someone willing to risk their relationship, in order to save them from themselves.
Someone with a lot of gaul.
Trump is recommending an intervention, and the career politicians, the embedded establishment of autocrats in Washington, don't want to hear it. They are so invested, no, addicted to the beltway bureaucracy, to the power and control they have become so comfortable wielding, that they don't know, or at least refuse to admit, that they are sick and out of control.
November 8th is the day. Can we see this through?