Shutting Down Trump: Falling into Soros’ Trap

We all know by now what happened on Friday, March 11, 2016, in Chicago at a Trump rally.  A highly organized effort by MoveOn,  acting through and with a few other grassroots organizations, shut down the rally by swarming it with anti-Trump people, the majority of whom appeared to have been Bernie supporters, whose purpose was essentially to shout Trump off the stage and prevent him from speaking, which raised protest to the level of direct street conflict and violence.

Let me play that tape back.    A candidate now widely recognized as having a strong constituency was prevented from meeting with that constituency because another group of voters do not believe he should be allowed to run for the Presidency.

This occurred at an institution of higher learning, the University of Illinois at Chicago, or UIC, where the ideal of an intellectual exchange of ideas is a principle value and usually held above all other values.   But here we have a group of people who would like to prevent Trump’s views from being heard,  largely because they are perceived as racist and xenophobic, that provoke hate and violence.  Should we call this a self-fulfilling prophesy?  MoveOn in fact hosted a petition asking the university to bar Trump from speaking there, and when that was not successful, mooved on to more drastic measures.

It is curious to me how many people equate protest with democracy.   When you can protest, THAT’S called democracy.   But no it isn’t.  Protest is a liberty which has been won through the existence of democratic process and the right of people to express their opinions through the ballot box.

Protest itself tends to crop up where democracy has failed.  When the people say, No More War, and the government continues to send troops to foreign countries,  the function of protest is obviously quite legitimate.   But protesting against an actual candidate for president and preventing him from exercising his presumptive right to run for office takes on an entirely different color.

It appears that democracy is fine until someone appears to be winning whom we don’t like.  When protest is used to shut down components of democratic process, such as holding meetings in order to present one’s views, democracy has been stood on its ear, and protest is no longer protest but a use of force to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights.    Mob rule becomes a substitute for majority rule.  The loudest voice in the room attempts to dominate discourse, shutting out those whose opinions differ.

I don’t agree with this entire proposition. In a democracy, the choice is supposed to be at the ballot box, not in the streets.  Interfering with candidates and their ability to get their message out is a direct interference in the election process and in my opinion a clear violation of constitutional rights.  Trump’s views and attitudes certainly stand for themselves.  Bigotry, or an intolerance for the views of others, is not defeated with bigotry, however.   The entire purpose of the democratic structure, however limited it is, is to preserve peace while sorting out our differences through dialogue and civil process without ugly confrontation, injury and death.

It appears that some would prefer to circumvent that process.  It appears that ugly confrontation and even injury are preferred to voting itself.   Attempts to prevent Trump from being a viable candidate and expressing his views diverts attention away from the fundamental issues at stake, and makes the co-opting of that platform central to the discussion.

Protesters say that in a democracy they have a right to be heard.  After all, Trump is getting his voice heard.  Why can’t they?   I can hardly agree that shutting down, or shouting down, someone else’s free speech is free speech.  We might as well approve of Erdogan’s recent shutdown of an opposition newspaper.

Protest by voting for someone different.  If democracy isn’t working out for you, then it calls for a different strategy, which I have long believed in, anyway.  Let’s get rid of democracy or give it exclusively to Sanders supporters. Right?  To hell with anyone else.

But this is not just show business. Think Ukraine and George Soros, the National Endowment for Democracy and other actors in that little play.   What we have here has all the markings of something quite similar.

According to the New York Times, Soros is currently behind a $15 million-dollar effort to get Latinos to the polls to channel anger at Donald Trump into Democratic votes.  But I’m not sure that such actions as these are going to achieve that.   We’ll see come Tuesday what the impact of this is on the primaries.  Trump is in everyone’s headlines constantly, and very often, particularly for him, negative publicity works just as well as positive.

Through MoveOn, as usual, Soros is trying to channel anger into street violence and riots.  He is obviously quite notorious for his financing of dissidents in other countries which have led to revolutions in which oligarchic rule has become the substitute.   I seriously question whether this billionaire, who feeds off the carcasses of people who bet against him, should be taken seriously as a leader of progressives.  And talk about money in politics.  It’s not ok for big money to finance candidates, but it’s ok for big money to finance the opposition?

Advertisements

The Demon Among Us

Eastland Mall in the Detroit area was forced to close not once but twice yesterday morning because unruly crowds attempted to rush the store where Kids Foot Locker was selling the highly anticipated release of the Girls’ Air Jordan 12 Retro Vivid Pink shoe,

I think fashion has always been around, Madison Ave or not. Air Jordans have apparently taken fashion to an almost surreal level, however. They’ve practically reached the level of a medium of exchange. It’s just that dollars don’t smell nearly as bad after they’ve been traded a couple of times.

Fashion usually originates through some item associated with someone we admire greatly. But we have this phenomenon in which a whole industry can spring up out of nowhere in modern society that actually farms the fashionable. It grows it in some design studio and then unleashes it on the public like the Zika virus and leaves a bunch of shrunken heads.

When people live on the absolute edge of having the latest and greatest, and they rush out enmass to get the latest release, it looks very choreographed, and it probably is. it’s like marketing is a sort of demon spirit that possesses them collectively.

We need to be examining the possibility of enacting laws that reduce our exposure to this kind of manipulation. This is embezzlement This is like a woman falling in love with her rapist. How is it possible that a society that celebrates freedom so much sanctions public psychosis so that you can be taken over at your very roots?

Why Hillary Might Win

by Paul Barrow

3/3/2016

What is the likelihood of a Clinton Presidency? Rather good, in my very humble opinion.  Barring any scandal from emails,  people showing up dead in unexpected circumstances,  or Bill spending too much time at the polls influencing voters,  she now appears to have the edge over Sanders.   The game is very rigged, obviously.

So how can she beat Trump?  And what will help put her in the White House?

The Republicans, of course.

Aside from a huge budget committed to negative advertising in Florida against Trump  right now, the Republicans are scheming also on how to block a Trump nomination through a brokered convention, in which, if there is not an overwhelming majority of delegates for Trump, delegates would not be held to their commitment to any particular candidate, and they would, among themselves, nominate someone from a whole slew of potential candidates. 

Probably any nomination besides Trump would lose to Ms. Clinton, because we would have a large block of Republican voters totally pissed off.  However, the likelihood of Trump not getting the delegates he needs to win overwhelmingly doesn’t look great.  

Convention machinations failing, which is a good possibility, the Republicans’ next option would be to simply cross party lines and vote for Hillary in November, not because they want a Democrat in office but because she would not rock the boat nearly as much as Trump would, nor would she cause a total meltdown of the Republican Party.  

Hillary is, in fact, a much more attractive candidate to Republicans than Trump, probably because she out-Republicans Trump, but primarily because Trump is not an interventionist regime change artist that we know of.   The Republicans are tied to the corporate war machine in ways the Democratic Party is not.  Hence, anyone who wants to keep the war going, create no-fly zones, etc., and assassinate Assad is certainly much more attractive than someone who looks at the United States as a giant corporation that needs to straighten out its financial priorities and become profitable.  Why would any bank want that?  Then who would they loan money to?  Hillary would maintain the banking and corporate status quo, while Trump is too much of a wild card.

it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Obama’s Legacy: A Divided Country

by Paul Barrow
3/2/2016

The elections are outrageous this year.  Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens, we appear to have a choice between Trump’s demagoguery (his playing to the appeal to bigots) and Hillary’s militarism.  I don’t know which is worse.  Sanders is the left’s response to the disappointment in Obama, his ties to Wall Street, things like the NDAA, his sellout of single-payer universal health care, and his wars, which Hillary has been a big part of. They both tacitly accept Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians, which doesn’t encourage me about his being of any help for Kashmir.  He lied to the left about how left he was. 

Trump, I believe, is the fundamental outcome of the distortions the Republican Party have been saying about Obama being a Muslim, a communist or socialist, and someone who wants to destroy white America.  Trump is the end result of eight years of propaganda, and I think it’s worked.  In that sense, Obama is almost singlehandedly responsible, despite himself, for dividing America.  He has said publicly himself that America is more divided now than when he took office.  There’s a large portion of America that just wasn’t ready for him.  He pushed some people left, and he pushed a lot of people to the right.  There’s nothing left of the middle.  I think that’s very dangerous for this country.