Who Are The Real Threats To Our Democracy?

The Friday New York Times editorial, "Mr. Trump's War on the Truth," ties in with their Sunday hit piece on President Trump by former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright. That piece starts on the first page of the Sunday Review section of the paper, and is entitled "Fascism on the March." The premise of these articles is that Trump is a threat to democracy. Let's see where the threats lie.

In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!

This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.

Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.

Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."

Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?

The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?

I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?

Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.