Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Bellwethers and Blinders
Photo Credit: Emilian Robert Vicol
This past November 10th, my wife and I were in a small, country diner having breakfast with our friend, a Cold War Intelligence hero. He had served under President Reagan, so we were keenly interested in knowing his thoughts on the presidential election of two days before. However, as our friend was regaling us with his analysis, something happened, a bellwether; an exceedingly unsettling one.
A couple of tables away from us sat a man. He was accompanied by an elderly gentleman who was wearing a WWII veteran cap; the elderly man was obviously under this younger man’s care. Overhearing our conversation, the younger man decided to make us aware that he approved of neither the election results nor of us happily discussing those results in front of him. He began speaking, loudly and with agitation, apparently to the elderly gentleman, but really to us. His comments were racially tinged and clearly meant to intimidate: Clinton won the popular vote; Trump doesn’t represent people like me, he represents people like them over there. He continued in that manner for some minutes.
It was a situation that bordered on the surreal. Here I was, in a room with my wife, two elderly, legitimate American heroes, and a guy, radicalized by Leftist narrative, who was quickly becoming unhinged. Further adding to my discomfort was the fact that I was both armed and blocked from being able to quietly leave and stow my weapon in my car.
Thankfully, the situation defused without incident, but I was left rattled. I began to ask myself: If someone could behave this irrationally over the election, with a WWII vet in his care, in mostly conservative Wyoming, if the Left’s current propaganda narrative of electoral illegitimacy and Popular Vote vs. Electoral College could be so effective here, then what must the rest of the country be like?
With this concern in mind, I relayed the event to a few political peers. I added to the telling the growing political fear of mine that the Democrats were planning to sow as much social unrest as possible before the handover, and in doing so, were possibly giving Obama an excuse not to do the handover.
The responses I received were discouraging: One of my peers dismissed me outright as delving into conspiracy, another engaged in abject ridicule. And yet, what I found far more discouraging was watching the weeks and days leading up to the inauguration unfold pretty much exactly as that bellwether in the diner had led me to fear.
The Democrats and their media, frantic for a narrative that would resonate, bounced from “Popular Vote” to “Fake News” before finally landing on their most effective narrative: “Russian hacking.” And with each narrative push to delegitimize Trump’s electoral victory, the Democrat base became more agitated. This agitation eventually began bearing rotten fruit, as America evidenced in horror when they watched news reports of a mentally disabled man who was tortured for hours on a Facebook live video stream because his torturers assumed him to be a Trump supporter.
On the same day as the Facebook torture video, after eight years of Russian foreign policy highlighted by a ridiculous “Reset” button and a live mic admission, “After my election, I’ll have more flexibility;” after a constant barrage from the Democrats and their media that the Russians had “hacked” a United States Presidential election; after having ejected 35 Russian diplomats as spies only five days earlier with Russian hacking cited as the reason, Barack Obama moved US Special Forces to the border of Russia.
Describing Obama’s actions as an “outrageous provocation” is an understatement. And describing that as an understatement is itself an understatement. But, when you consider that Obama pulled this little stunt with only seventeen days remaining until the inauguration, perhaps a more “conspiratorial” description is justified.
And then, just six days later, BuzzFeed published a now debunked report that, while in Russia, Donald Trump hired prostitutes to engage in a session of passive-aggressive urinary revenge-kink against Barack and Michelle Obama, and that he was covertly filmed while doing so.
Of course the Democrat base, now agitated beyond any semblance of reason, believed every absurd word of all of it. So much so that the very next day on Twitter, which was already flush with tweets to an #AssassinateTrump hashtag, Hollywood elite Rosie O’Donnell tweeted her demand that martial law be imposed to “delay” the inauguration.
But, despite all of the Democrats hysterical accusations, blatant agit-prop, and ham-handed militaristic stunts, in response to them Russia did… nothing. And now, as a delicious satire that the Democrats themselves wrote, they have to come to grips with their own malfeasance come back to bite them: i.e., Russia actually was instrumental in securing the Presidency for Trump, because Putin wasn’t stupid enough to take Obama’s and the Democrats’ outrageous bait to war.
But now, unfortunately, the rest of the country as well has to come to grips with the aftermath of what the Democrats have wrought in their obscene temper tantrum, a tantrum which had and has not yet ceased:
- Two days before the inauguration, Wolf Blitzer on CNN pondered, “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?” as an introduction to a CNN piece on how an Obama cabinet secretary could become the next President.
- During his speech on the day of the inauguration, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, identified himself with, and quoted at length from, an American Civil War soldier, about to die in battle and vowing to never give up his fight.
- The day after the inauguration, while addressing the purported half million protesters who attended the D.C. “Pussy March,” Hollywood elite Madonna Louise Ciccone confessed to having fantasies of “blowing up the White House.”
- And over the inauguration weekend, up to 230 anarchist agitators (possibly paid for) smashed windows and set fires in D.C. and are now facing charges of felony rioting with prison sentences of up to 10 years.
However, I think one of the most telling tantrums is the one that focus group guru Frank Luntz experienced over the inauguration weekend. He was assaulted in the lobby of a D.C. hotel. A screaming protester threw glitter at his eyes: because tiny, jagged pieces of metallic plastic in an eye socket make for a laugh riot. Seriously. Try it sometime. And here’s what Luntz had to say about the incident on Fox News:
These protests are out of control … and to have to face this personally … I never thought this would be America. I never thought that this would happen in this country.
Unfortunately, Mr. Luntz, some of us did. But that’s the thing about bellwethers: A bellwether doesn’t appear often or to everyone, and if you don’t have your blinders off, you’ll miss it, and if you miss it, then you’ll probably find the report of one unthinkable.
Regardless, this is who and what the Left are now: once beyond parody and now apparently beyond conspiracy. And, thanks to them, this is what our country is now. As such, I’d like to suggest that maybe the day has past when one can glibly dismiss another’s fear concerning the Left as silly conspiracy simply because one considers that fear to be “unthinkable.” Just ask Frank Luntz, I suspect he might agree. Just as I suspect that he’s started to realize that tin foil can be fashioned into any number of items: not just hats, but all sorts of blinders.
This post was originally published on Jan. 29, 2017.
Published in General
Well done.
The passiveness of the Bush Administration to the Left is a big reason why Trump was elected in the first place: the Leftist were led to believe that they could get away with more and more outrageous claims and behaviors.
Personally, I think it’s that they’ve been propagandized to believe that they are moral in their correctness, and anyone opposed to them is evil, not just wrong.Their belief in this moral correctness is impervious to reason. There is a religious fervor to their outrage.
A few years back, before we moved from New England to Wyoming, my wife and I were driving around the New Jersey shore area. I misheard the GPS and took a wrong turn. We ended up driving by Jay and Silent Bob’s Quick Stop.
I do. Each day the Trump implements his agenda, I’m heartened that he understands exactly what’s going on. He’s going to rhetorically and politically crush them.
Welcome, KG.
I’ve been seeing claims that Soros funds the anarchists that regularly disrupt meetings of the World Bank, etc., for 15 years or more. Seems like maybe as far back as the Clinton administration, but definitely during the Bush years.
I’ve never seen any evidence — just Internet rumors.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true. But it might just be a conspiracy theory. Back in the ’90s, I used to trawl through some of the kookier libertarian and survivalist sites, where you can find lots of claims of super-rich internationalists pulling strings all over the world (free-masons, the Skull and Bones Club, Council on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller family, etc.). This Soros-funding idea seems similar enough to those that I’ve always taken it with a grain or two of salt. But again, it wouldn’t surprise me either.
If anyone knows of any evidence, please chime in.
Thanks Terry! That helps a lot.
I agree that lots of things are possible in a crazy world where there is a lot of money to be thrown around…I’ve been seeing (maybe…) an uptick in the Soro’s explanation used as a knee-jerk response to Trump protestors. I went to a really liberal university so I get a lot of social media stuff from actual protestors and A) regardless of if I agree with them they all seem to protest in a really reasonable way B) they definitely aren’t paid… I realize my connections are a little slice but you know…I guess I just always feel like eye-rolling when I see the automatic “Soros is doing it” stuff online…
Looking forward other information that might be out there!
Not certain about this, not sure how much evidence I can provide, but Glenn Beck used to follow a lot of this stuff back when he was on Fox, starting with groups that were part of the ANSWER coalition that was formed to protest against the war in Afghanistan (before it actually started). He would track the individual groups and then show where they were being funded directly or indirectly by Soros or other groups that he supports.
There are a couple of organizations that Soros puts major money into. When there is some outfit that is acting in a way that people on the right would find objectionable, it is entirely common to find they are funded by one of those Soros funded groups. It’s a messy exercise in ‘follow the money’.
@kgwashington, your questions about Soros and accusations about his involvement (or non-involvement) in American politics would make an excellent introductory post. Dive in.
And, thanks for reading.
One that already has a lot of leg work done, especially on David Horowitz’s “Discover the Networks” site. However, perhaps that discussion is best saved for a future post by @kgwashington.
Thanks for reading, JM.
A couple pieces I’ve seen recently, here and here.
Thanks @judgemental. A quick follow-up:
The problem with pushing back against the unhinged and increasingly violent left is that . . . well they are kind of asking for it. They kind of want to become martyrs because then that will prove that Trump is Hilter.
So Trump has to be really careful to stay focused in spite of the crazy protesting and not be goaded into overreach.
Meh. We’ve had 30 years of Republicans that were careful to not overreach. All we got out of it was death by 1000 cuts.
Maybe I’m too cavalier about this because I don’t particularly like Trump, and have become so disillusioned by the GOP that I don’t feel any allegiance to the party as a whole, either.
Do they still count as martyrs if it’s in response to their own violence? I’d argue no, but I’d also guess the media would say yes.
Oh yes. That’s how martyrs are made. They start rioting and looting and beating people up. One cop takes one out, fatally. He becomes a martyr. No matter how justified the cop was.
We’ve already seen that, haven’t we, during the Obama years? Make-believe martyrs for a racial cause? Same thing, except writ much, much larger.
My left-wing friends are having multiple freakouts daily about Trump. I admit to some concern about Trump, but I’m far more worried about what left-wing kooks whipped up by the permanent outrage stance of the media might try to do.
I was hoping that voting for him, even if he lost, might cause some introspection amongst those who opposed him. It’s looking now like that was one of my more forlorn of hopes.
It’s a little early to tell for sure. Not everything has to happen according to the TV schedule.
It’s like when the Democrats shut down the government. The Republicans ratings fell because the leftmedia blamed it on them. But by the time of the next elections, the Republicans did very well. So, patience. The new President has been in office for only a little over a week. There hasn’t been enough time for outrage weariness to set in.
Trump is moving fast. Possibly too fast. Though as mentioned somewhere on the interwebs, this is how business leaders move. Quick, decisive decision-making.
The speed with which he is making his changes is causing the 24/7 freakout.
I don’t want him to stop. Maybe to slow down a little. But only because I worry about how the left — the violent, radical left which now controls the Democratic Party, the news media, and entertainment industry — will respond.
It feels like something’s gonna blow.
Am I wrong to worry. And worry more about the left’s overreaction more than the President’s overreach.
Your fear is not for the explosion but the uncertainty of the outcome. If we could be assured that pushing the left to a complete meltdown would discredit and disqualify them for 100 years — then full speed ahead. But if we can’t be assured that the left would be defeated then it would be a real risk to push them. But I am willing to take that risk because we know what happens when you accommodate them just a little bit, then a little bit more, then a little bit more…etc.
It never dawned on the left that Hillary might lose? It appears so. They are not to be taken seriously in a discussion, and it seems they know that, so on to the physical threats of unrest and dining assault.
I think part of the strategy might be just to keep the left off balance. Before they can fully ramp up their outrage on one issue there is a new one to contend with.
Remember how the left is used to operating: Pick a topic, treat it like it’s the worst thing to ever happen, then keep the pressure on until the hapless Republican makes a kinda sorta maybe semi-apology for something he didn’t do.
Trump is showing that you don’t have to bother with defense if you just control the ball and stay on offense.
Moderator Note:
Please avoid profanity, even obliquely. Maybe just call them lunatics?These [redacted] are out of their [redacted] finds.
Be careful what you wish for.
We’ve gone beyond “protests” to the violent actions of the Antifa wing of the Democrat Party. Chuckie & Nancy own it now.
I wish. Being on the left means never having to take responsibility.
They may not take it, but we can assign it to them anyway.
This is only part of the thesis that I don’t like – because it is wrong. I know.
In fact, U.S. special operations forces have been operating in the Baltic states for years for training exercises with their Baltic counterparts and so forth. I am almost certain they are here right now.
I don’t know why it leaked to the New York Times in January after the election – it would depend on the source; whether it would make the Obama administration look tough, or whether it was to make Russia look like an aggrieved party (despite the fact that the Baltic states are among America’s most fully democratic allies and have the right to invite whoever the heck they want into their country). It is no conspiracy by the Obama administration, and is more related to America’s NATO commitments to its allies and Russia’s reckless annexation of vast swaths of neighboring countries since 2008. It didn’t seem to need to be here before then.
What doesn’t rise to the level of a New York Times headline that Russian special forces operate in the Baltic states as well – uninvited. Although the kidnapping of Eston Kohver, an officer in the equivalent of the Estonian FBI did makes some headlines internationally – he was snatched and grabbed inside Estonian territory and spirited to Moscow two days after Barack Obama visited Tallinn, there are other incidences that haven’t, such as a Russian drone operating over Ämari Air Force Base, a short-range version that could only be operated locally by a Spetsnaz unit close by, or a dummy cell phone tower discovered near Pärnu to collect mobile phone traffic while a NATO exercise was taking place in the area.
These incidents stretch over years, and have been covered in the local and some of the European press. But not, as far as I can tell, in the American media. And those are just incidences in Estonia. I could go on about Latvia and Lithuania.
Those are provocations, just not the one that is being alluded to here.
I’m trying to understand this. Why, if there is a potential conflict, would you want to disarm yourself?