Great Vocal Majority Podcast

PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND TRUMP: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Let's start with Barack Obama. To begin with, he's not really an American. I don't mean to say he was born in Kenya. I don't believe that. I am referring to his life experiences. They are uniquely NON AMERICAN. He's got almost nothing in common with Americans of any stripe.

He's biracial, identifies as black, but his life growing up has almost nothing in common with blacks Americans outside of his skin tone. Obama grew up as a "red diaper baby." That is, his parents were either communists or radical socialists. He lived in Hawaii and Indonesia for much of his formative years and when he lived in the continental United States, from age 11 to 18, he was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a man so dangerous, the FBI had him on a roundup list of Soviet sympathizing communist subversives.

By contrast, Donald Trump grew up in an upper middle class Queens home of a New York real estate developer. From all accounts, Trump had a more or less typical childhood: brash, a bit rebellious, enough for his parents to place him in a military academy. Unlike Obama, Trump was not surrounded by anti-American radicals into adulthood.

Ever since he was a public figure, Trump has always been an outspoken critic of the failures of government to live up to it most basic obligations. Prior to becoming President, Obama was also critical of government, but for other reasons. Obama believed government failed to assume enough obligations and thus spoke out strongly for a more activist government. In other words, Trump believed the government wasn't adequately fulfilling its obligations it has already assumed, whereas Obama wanted government to assume new obligations it has not yet taken.

When assessing their capacity for sympathy or empathy, Obama was often far more inclined to display it for people who aren't Americans. He regularly blamed past and current policies of the United States for many of the world's problems. On those occasions when he demonstrated empathy for Americans, it often took on a divisive tone, as in "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon", or "if you have a business, you didn't build that." Trump was not apologetic to foreign audiences for past or current policies. Rather, if he was apologetic at all, it was to Americans for the failure of political leadership that created those policies. Policies, which often, as in the case of trade agreements, took its toll on working and middle class employment and incomes. When speaking to foreign audiences, rather than apologize for American policy, Trump was bold. He acted as an advocate for America, reminding our allies in no uncertain terms what America was doing for them and whether those allies were living up to their obligations to us. This was such a radical departure from Obama and previous Presidents, it had to be jarring to other national leaders.

The media elites are endlessly fascinated by both men in opposite ways. Obama's treatment was so mild, that the one news outlet which covered his Presidency with a note of skepticism, Fox News, was painted by the Obama Administration as "agenda driven" and "anti-Obama." But it's hard to argue that the media didn't have a virtual love affair with Obama and his Presidency. Both Obama's appeared regularly on entertainment programs and had one softball interview after another. Barack Obama was extremely sensitive to media criticism on those rare occasions he got it. Despite boasting of having the most "open and transparent administration in history", Obama hid more from the media than any President since the Founding. More FOIA requests were denied or delayed under Obama. More whistle blowers, leakers and journalists were surveiled or jailed under Obama. Maybe Obama was treated by the media with great deference, but he didn't return the favor. Still, in aggregate, the media adored him.

The contrast with the media treatment of Donald Trump is painful. It is 180 degrees opposite of Obama's. Certainly Trump's behavior in office can fairly account for some of the difference. Trump is given to exaggeration, embellishment, misstatements and untruthful comments in the same way as is just about every other politician. For his entire public life, however, Trump has been known to speak in superlatives much in the manner of a pitch man. This is where the news media began to show its open disdain for Trump.

When Trump was elected, the economy responded positively almost immediately. Obama and Clinton supporting economists such as Paul Krugman and Steven Rattner had predicted the economy would "crash and NEVER recover." The news media immediately leaped to credit Obama for the economic turnaround, despite failing to point out any policy accounting for it. What should have been obvious to any impartial observer was the country had just elected the most vociferously pro-business President in its history. Obama and his presumed successor, Clinton could never be characterized as pro-business. That anticipated change in direction is what accounts for the immediate turnaround in both markets and economic indicators.

The problem was, the news media really took it on the chin with the Trump victory and were staggered by it. They lost face and continue to lose it because the videos of them dismissing Donald Trump as a potential President will live on forever. Since his election, the same media outlets who thought Trump's candidacy was a joke, are now treating his presidency as if it were a crime. Their treatment of Trump is driven as much by an attempt to recover a loss of reputation, as much as it is partisan politics. For, if the situation were reversed and Trump were the heavy favorite and Hillary Clinton won in a surprise, it's hard to imagine the media reacting to the win quite the way they have with Trump.

Some in the Washington, D.C. media elites were perpetually perplexed and bewildered by Obama's behavior in office, judging him by a standard of governing set by his predecessors, which Obama clearly rejected. Obama sensed that a vast part of the media was willing to give him broad latitude. This enabled him to exceed his constitutional guardrails without consequence in the Congress and outside of Fox News, scarcely a whisper of protest. Obama overrode his authority with War Powers, bombing more countries than any President since the second world war. He rewrote black letter law on no less than 36 occasions with Obamacare. He exceeded his authority with the DACA EO and on many other occasions. All while doing this, especially during his first term, the media kept waiting for Obama to "track to the middle." He never did because he wasn't a centrist any more than Joe Stalin was a centrist compared to Leon Trotsky. Obama came to office promising change and he did it by growing government, making it more activist, more centralized, far more powerful over the lives of average Americans than ever before.

Donald Trump also confounds the Washington elites, but in a different way. Obama was there to drive change by empowering the central planners in Washington. Trump was elected to do precisely the opposite: disrupt their power. From the very start, Trump sought to pull back the reins on the centralized Washington power structure. He sought to accomplish this by eliminating regulations. Regulations are how the permanent government, ie., the federal bureaucracies exert their control over our way of life. This is not to say that all regulations are bad or that we should live in a regulation free environment. To Trump's way of thinking, regulations are a last resort, not the first option. Obama and the central planners suffer from a fatal conceit: that regulations are ALWAYS needed and it's always better to err on the side of having more than less.

The Obama approach to regulatory authority has led to bureaucratic abuses resulting in nearly two dozen unanimous Supreme Court decisions against the Obama Administration, striking down such abuses.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump may be diametrical opposites on the political spectrum. Their treatment by the media may be as different as black from white. But they are similar in ways, as well. Both are change agents, but for very different visions of America.

The Obama vision for America, is one of a very left socialist agenda. His idea of America would demand less individual liberty. Obama's view is that of radical egalitarianism where outcomes are determined by group identity. As a leftist, Obama sees Americans as a collection of tribes: in race: the white tribe, the black tribe, the asian tribe, the latino tribe, the native american tribe and on and on. This tribal view exists in all areas of life: economics, religion, and sexual orientation. Obama sees history as having created a preexisting condition advantaging a minority over a majority, necessitating government prescriptions to correct. The fact these prescriptions have been tried elsewhere and have failed miserably doesn't dissuade the committed leftist at all. That's Obama.

The Trump vision for America is quite different. Trump rejects the division of Americans along tribal lines. He believes that most of the problems in the country today have been caused by policies that don't accomplish what they were ostensibly set out to do. In other words, government has made itself the problem. In Trump's view, the best thing government can do is to first get out of the way of the People. This is manifested through reducing taxes and regulations, renegotiating trade agreements, holding allies and foes accountable and securing the border. Trump seems to believe in America to a greater degree than Obama, who has been accused of believing in a managed decline of the United States. Trump believes if America leveraged all of our natural resources in the right way, the United States would remain the world's leading economy, technological and military power well into the forseeable future and beyond. There does seem to be much evidence proving him to be correct.

What is the moral of the story here? Well, it's simple. Donald Trump REALLY DOES believe in America. He sees this country as the greatest and most unique country in all of human history. He is an American exceptionalist.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, believes more in his ideology than he does in America. He doesn't hate America, but he doesn't love it either. He sees us as having a largely unearned reputation, with power, wealth and influence greater than we ought to have. Obama is a GLOBALIST.

So, that is really what all this Trump bashing is all about. Much of the DC establishment is about the international Left pushing for a GLOBALIST agenda, that will look a great deal like the USSR or Communist China to the average person, should it ever happen.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."  Napoleon, the Pig, Animal Farm, by George Orwell

Freedom of the press is precious.  It is axiomatic.  It's platitudinous.  We all say we want a free press.  But we must first define what that means.

Does a reporter have a 1st Amendment right to ask a politician a question?  If the 1st Amendment carries any meaning at all, it means ANY American may ask questions and demand answers from government officials.  The public has every right to know the answers to questions asked and it is only under very special circumstances that answers to questions may be withheld.  Whether or not a government official provides a satisfactory answer to the question is another matter entirely.

The duty of a free and independent press is to ask those questions and report on the answers.  Editors, commentators, and pundits can ruminate the adequacy or inadequacy of the answers, perhaps leading to more probing questions.

Are there any obligations requires in order for the 1st Amendment to be honored?  The Constitution doesn't explicitly say, but generally accepted public manners and decorum are widely recognized and understood, even if not explicitly stated.

When CNN's Jim Acosta participates in press briefings, he has the right to ask any question he'd like to ask.  He's under no requirement to ask his questions in any particular way.  He is simply free to ask questions.  That is his right.

It is the President's right to answer the question however he chooses to answer it.  That's his right.

In the case of Jim Acosta, there have been countless instances where he has monopolized the microphone and engaged in arguments, debates and lectures with Trump Administration officials as well as the President himself.

The 1st Amendment does not guarantee the right of the free press to disrupt news media briefings.  On numerous occasions, Acosta begins by asking a question and then arguing with the answer.  The briefing room in not a place where arguments are supposed to take place.  That's the function of editorial columns, opinion pages, or commentary programs.

When any member of the media disrupts a press briefing, bringing attention to themselves, the public and the 1st Amendment are ill served.  These distractions mean other news agencies will not have the opportunity to ask their questions.  It sensationalizes and controversializes these briefings as footage depicting the "principled journalist holding the powerful accountable to the truth" makes its way into the news cycle.  The media itself should NEVER be the news.  When it becomes the news, as in the case of Jim Acosta, it is shameless, selfish, self-promotion.

Does Acosta have a 1st Amendment right to be in the briefing room if he is going to behave in such a disruptive and self-promoting manner?  It would seem not.  He may have a 5th Amendment right to due process before he is booted, as a court appears to have decided, but a 1st Amendment right?  No.

And how could it be otherwise?  If the Constitution guaranteed Acosta's right to be a member of the White House Press Corps, that would mean every American shares that same right.  If they don't share it in equal measure, then we truly have reached that moment in Orwell's Animal Farm where some are more equal than others.

The Trump Administration suspended Acosta's access to the White House.  In response, CNN filed a lawsuit against the White House on 1st Amendment grounds.  The White House is arguing there is no 1st Amendment right to be in a White House briefing to ask questions.  They are arguing that the President has the right to block or admit any reporter or news agency he wishes.  This is probably true in a strict legal sense, but would be politically unwise to carry out in practice.

Having said that, the White House has to make judgments every day with respect to access in the Briefing Room.  While Acosta has no 1st Amendment right to the press briefing personally, and the Constitution does not mandate that the President meet with the press regularly or even at all, there have to be terms and conditions for access to a briefing.

There is nothing wrong, in fact it is altogether fitting for the White House to have ground rules for such access, which if they are violated, take reasonable steps to discipline the violators.  This is at the core of Acosta's suspension.

When CNN filed for Acosta's reinstatement citing the 1st Amendment, the claim is frivolous, despite being supported by other news organizations, including Fox News.

By joining in the lawsuit, Fox News made it very clear that they support disruptive behavior.  Bad idea.  The Fox News decision appears to be due to a group think mentality within the DC press corps.  Fox bowed to peer pressure, circling the wagons around Acosta in an expression of professional solidarity, wrapping themselves in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which doesn't even apply to this case.

Fox News and the rest of the DC press should be ashamed of themselves.  The President doesn't have to hold daily press briefings.  But when he does hold them, he has a right to include anyone he wants.

PELOSI AND THE CBC

 

Different polls have shown an unmistakable trend.  Black voters are beginning to show signs of leaving the Democrat Party.

During the 2016 campaign, the Quinnipiac Poll showed Trump with just 1% of black voters supporting him.  It was well within the margin of error, so according to Quinnipiac, Trump's support could actually have been zero.

Since becoming President, however, Trump's approval among blacks has steadily increased across several different polling organizations.  Recently, the NAACP funded a poll and found 29% of blacks approving of Trump's job performance.  Other polls since then have shown Trump's approval among blacks at 36-38%.  It's been a very long time since a Republican had approval numbers like that among blacks.

What could account for this turnaround?  Especially since the media and Democrats have spared Trump little and have accused him of being a racist over and over.  These are tangible reasons why Trump's approval is going up among black voters.

THE DECLINE OF BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT

When Barack Obama entered office in January 2009, black unemployment stood at 12.7%.  By the time he left office in January 2017, it had fallen to 7.8%.  A 63% decline over 8 years.

By October 2018, Trump further reduced black unemployment to 6.2%, an historic low.  Under Obama, the black unemployment rate increased until it peaked in 2011 at 16.5%.  The decline did not get into single digits until 2015, falling to a 7 year low.  Over Trump's first 22 months in office, the black unemployment rate fell 20% from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Trump managed to accelerate the reduction in the unemployment rate.  How was this possible?  There are several possible answers, but the most likely one is that Trump's election slowed the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

Illegal immigrants are generally low on skills and education.  When they enter the US looking for employment, they compete with Americans who are also low on skills and education.  The population of unemployed in the US is disproportionately low skilled and low education.  Furthermore, that population is also disproportionately black.  In other words, fewer illegal immigrants competing for jobs meant more opportunities for employment for the unemployed American citizens who were disproportionately black.  Among other factors, this could account for Trump's popularity increase in the black community.

While Democrats strenuously deny Trump has any foothold in the black community, their actions reveal how they really think.

The Democrats have been playing the race card and a racial agenda very hard under Trump.  It is possibly an indication that they suspect a deterioration in black support and are resorting to their old playbook: playing on fears of the re-emergence of openly hostile white racists.  Democrats do this while pretending two full generations of Americans never grew up in the post Civil Rights era.  They dismiss the impact of their own monumental achievements as having had a negligible impact on the disposition of white people all across America regarding race.  They pretend that left to their own devices, white people in America would reinstate the same racist preferences that were overturned more than half a century ago.  Preferences overturned by the grandparents and great grandparents of those Americans who grew up after the Civil Rights Act was passed into law and only know an America marked by integration and racial reconciliation.  Resorting to the race card in our current day is intended to terrorize black voters away from Republicans as if they are Klansmen without the hoods.

When the Democrats play the race card as they are with Trump despite the fact that blacks are doing better under his policies, it is a hint that they believe those polls showing blacks warming up to his presidency.

If the Democrat Party were to lose 20-30% of the black vote to Republicans, it would spell catastrophe on a national scale for them at the ballot box.  It would open up districts with heavy black populations all over the country to races that are competitive between Republicans and Democrats, where they aren't today.

This is a doomsday scenario for Democrats and it can explain, at least in part, why they are so bullish about illegal immigration:  they realize it will become increasingly difficult to hold on to the black vote and want to import a new underclass that will vote for them.

But improving job approval numbers for Trump among blacks doesn't mean it will translate into votes for Trump or other Republicans.  A transformation of the black vote from a solid Democrat block into something more diversified may be underway, but a lot more needs to happen in order for that transformation to be confirmed.

It can all be summed up this way:

"Something's happening here.  What it is, ain't exactly clear." Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION MYTHOLOGY

Believe it or not, there are still people who believe Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. It's astonishing given the growing list of experts and commentators all in agreement that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has both failed to make public any evidence pointing to it, but more importantly, does not seem to be closing in on any kind of a Trump-Russia connection the Democrats and the Left are hoping for.

Still, it's not all that surprising when one considers how people get their news and information today. More often than not, people gravitate toward the news outlet that reflects their political sentiments. Conservatives prefer Fox News. Liberals prefer CNN and MSNBC. The programs on these networks is a mix of commentary and straight news, where the line is often blurred between the two.

Social media and regular real life day-to-day interactions with people regarding political topics often reveals where they are getting their information. People tend to repeat what they heard if it resonates with them and that's usually the telltale sign of where people are getting their information. That is a fact that can be used as a weapon when media turns from impartiality to partisanship.

When news media organizations lose their impartiality, they can weaponize their news coverage toward a specific purpose. Recent media bias studies at Harvard's Shorenstein School of Journalism has shown how organizations like CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post and The New York Times have overwhelmingly negative coverage of President Trump. They can accomplish 90% or more negative coverage several ways:

1. They can ignore positive news altogether. 2. They can cast positive news in a negative light. 3. They can focus on negative news to the exclusion of all other news.

Of these three, the most insidius is ignoring positive news. What the news editors decide not to report is bias by omission. News channels are limited to approximately 40 minutes of programming per hour. Controversializing one story could easily take up an entire broadcast hour of news. If the goal is to run negative coverage of President Trump, the task is made easier by stirring controversy.

This was made evident very early in President Trump's term in office when he bragged how his inaugural crowd was the "largest ever." It was obvious to everyone that it wasn't true, but the news media fixated on it, controversializing an irrelevancy, ignoring the fact that Trump is a notorious exaggerator. For weeks, left leaning news outlets spent airtime arguing with Administration officials over the President's characterization of the size of his inaugural crowd. An "issue" relevant only to Trump and his detractors.

Now, with everyone gathering their news from partisan sources today, it's had a very damaging effect on how well informed the public is. To quote Mark Twain, "If you don't read the news you're uninformed. If you do read the news, you're misinformed."

In a previous podcast, I critiqued the case against Trump made by Allen and Vandehae in Politico. Fifteen points made by Allen and Vandehae were refuted point by point. Chief among the flaws in their argument was that none of their 15 "facts" coalesced into a cogent explanation of the supposed collusion. If you're interested in seeing their alleged case of 15 disjointed "facts" check out Volume 58 of the Great Vocal Majority Podcast, "The Case against Donald Trump?"

What makes the Russian collusion story so preposterous is how Special Counsel, Robert Mueller has been conducting his investigation for nearly two years and there has never been an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by the President. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any criminality at all relating to the campaign or Trump. In fact, Mueller was never authorized to investigate a crime that had occurred. He was authorized on suspicions alone, assigned with looking for a crime. At this point in the Watergate investigation, Nixon had already resigned and President Ford was in office for three months. But in Watergate, a campaign office was broken in. There was a crime. Investigators unraveled how that crime came about and the investigation led to President Nixon. Mueller's task is to find a crime. After two years, he's pressured and intimidated people by charging them with making false statements. Through it all, it doesn't seem Mueller is getting closer to President Trump. Remember, by this time in the Watergate investigation, Nixon was long gone. Still, once suspicions are aroused and while bitterness lingers from 2016, the American public is being manipulated and encouraged into entertaining these suspicions. Without any evidence for so long, lingering suspicions have no factual basis, but are entirely resulting from suspicions, intuition and guesswork. Those suspicions will rise or fall when Mueller issues his final report. But Mueller has had some pretty dramatic failures. Chief among them, the Anthrax attacks.

Is it still possible that Trump colluded with the Russians? Yes, anything is possible, of course, but still, to this day, there is no evidence of anything relating to collusion. All that exists are disjointed exchanges with Russians and their close friends, which doesn't really prove anything. It only arouses more suspicion. All of this makes it extremely unlikely that Robert Mueller will conclude that Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians to overturn the 2016 election.

MEDIA MANIPULATION

If you only watched MSNBC or CNN, you would come away believing the worst human being on the planet is Donald J Trump and anyone who voted for him is every bit as bad or worse.

Keeping in mind, we are talking about half of the country, you'd have to think are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigots. Half of all Americans. In other words, when Hillary Clinton referred to "half of all Trump supporters in a basket of deplorables", if that resonated with you, you're not tethered to reality and here's why.

The same country just elected and re-elected America's first non-white President. Millions of people who voted for Obama, also voted for Trump. When did they become racists? Were they racist when they voted for Obama twice? Did they become racist by voting for Trump? How does that math work?

Is the country only post-racial only when it elects a non-white Democrat? Is America doomed to never be post-racial? When non-white Democrats lose elections, is the reason always racism by default?

Half of America isn't racist. Nor are half of Trump's supporters racist. The LEFT, which tribalizes the country along lines of race, class and gender, is where this bigotry is primarily sourced. They are the ones balkanizing the country.

Not conservatives. Not Republicans. Not independents.

Trump is not a militant. Demanding stricter border enforcement is not a militant idea. Expecting the media to treat him better is something he has in common with ALL of his predecessors in office, including the most recent one who was beloved by nearly the entire media. Obama never received the kind of criticism Trump gets all the time. Even when Trump exercises his clearly defined Constitutional duties, Trump is criticized, whereas Obama violated those Constitutional guardrails regularly and the media either whitewashed it or ignored it entirely.

Presidents should expect to be criticized. Nothing but criticism is nothing but advocacy.

What happens to a person who subjects themselves to a constant barrage of media propaganda designed to assassinate the character of President Trump?

What happens when you are told every day that the President of your country: is a tyrant a law unto himself a dictator just like a racist a sexist a homophobe a xenophobe a white supremacist a Nazi.

What happens to a person when they are CONSTANTLY told, "You must hate this President in order for you to be a good American."

What happens when you are told consistently that you must confront people who differ from you politically? Even physically confront them?

What is the proper response of people who are convinced they need to fight a President and his followers who are "just like Hitler and the Nazis"?

Because that is the message being sent every day, all day on CNN and MSNBC.

When you tell people they may only talk a certain way, and then tell them they may only think a certain way, is it any surprise that those people will also be instructed there is only a certain way to behave.

It would have to affect your thinking. Constant repetition of the lie is how you grow to believe it. Isn't that what Joseph Goebbels told Hitler? And didn't Saul Alinsky tell all of his followers to accuse the opponent of the very thing you are doing. That's happening here, too.

If you really, truly believed the media agiprop that Trump is a maniacal, traitorous, white supremacist dictator with genocidal impulses ala Adolph Hitler, would an extreme response to that be altogether unwarranted?

If all you watched was CNN or MSNBC, you might just pick up an SKS rifle, head to a baseball practice and try to murder 20 Republican Congressmen and their staffs as a Rachel Maddow admirer did named James Hodgkinson.

Through their own militancy, CNN and MSNBC have demanded and have gotten the most predictable and logical response to their hyperbolic rhetoric: physical assaults against Trump, his family, administration officials, conservative media figures and their families, as well as the President's supporters.

CNN and MSNBC have thus far been reflexively protected from the Trump Administration's harsh reaction to the conduct of CNN and MSNBC's "journalists". It's understandable. The press needs to be independent of government influence and control. But the media bears responsibility, too. When impartiality leads to partisanship, then advocacy and ultimately militant opposition and subversion, we are no longer talking about a news media outlet, but a political organization using the patina of a free and independent press to cloak its biases.

Progressives have played the race card so often, it's become a crutch. Today, it holds almost no influence at all. But the left continues to use it more than ever.

When Laura Ingraham voiced her commentary on her Fox News broadcast regarding America's lack of a rational policy on immigration and especially illegal immigration, the Left attacked her for being indistinguishable in her rhetoric from a Nazi.

When the race card stops working, maybe the left thinks it's time to use the Nazi card?

DEMOCRATS AND RUSSIANS

It's July 2018 and the mainstream media has been on fire for over 18 months with allegations that President Trump "colluded" with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election. So far, we have seen very little in the way of evidence that Trump or any member of his campaign had anything more than a conversation with the occaisional Russian. Still, whatever "new information" the media learns, they feverishly connect dots which have no business being connected.

As a student of politics and history, I have found the behavior of the media as well as Democrats to be appalling. What I hope to do for you in this podcast is to give you some idea of the history that exists between Democrats and Russians. At the end of this podcast, my hope is you will understand why I am appalled at the current behavior of the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party.

The Russian Hoax by Gregg Jarrett

This story begins in Russia, with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Bolshevik takeover of Russia was the first successful Marxist revolution and it sent shock waves around the world, particularly in Western countries. European and American intellectuals were swept up in the excitement of revolutionary change and what it could mean for the future of the world.

Violence and Terror in the Russian Revolution

Remember, in 1917, Marxism had never been attempted as a governing philosophy. Russia would be its first laboratory. The intelligentsia had a rooting interest, hoping for its success.

The early days of the Russian Revolution under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin were bloody in the extreme. Anyone opposing the new Bolshevik government under Lenin was deemed a "counter-revolutionary" and typically met horribly cruel deaths, often by starvation. Although Lenin died in 1924, he was succeeded by Joseph Stalin, who was even worse.

Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust by Miron Dolot

While this was going on in Russia, in the United States, fear was growing. It was fear of the "Red Menace" or the "Red Scare." Many Americans feared a Marxist revolution would come to America. New immigrants from Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Italy were often receptive to leftist propaganda. The leftists, however, never really gained a foothold because the rise of organized labor blunted the revolutionary fervor. In short, American businesses adapted. Still, on university campuses around the U.S., the cutting edge of political thought centered on the great collectivist experiment going on in Russia.

To bring Americans a bird's eye view of what was happening in Russia, the New York Times assigned a journalist named Walter Duranty to cover the progress of the Russian Revolution. Duranty filed news accounts accentuating the positive and to his everlasting discredit, all but ignoring the negative. The trouble was, the negative Duranty either played down or ignored entirely was so monstrous, it was clear he was acting as a propaganda tool for Stalin.

Crimes of the Bolsheviks

Duranty ignored the deliberate and intentional starvation of as many as 11 million Kulak peasant farmers, an atrocity rivalling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry in its immensity. The New York Times still displays Duranty's Pulitzer Prize in its headquarters offices in New York City. The prize was awarded before it was learned that Duranty was a fraud.

Duranty's reports from Russia were followed closely by academics, who were excited to know of the revolutionary progress and successes. Although viewed with hostility in the halls of American government as a subversive ideology, antagonism toward Russian Marxism faded completely when the United States found itself allied with Russia after Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941.

Who was Walter Duranty?

At that moment, many of those left wing university intellectuals as well as others who were just plain, old, pro-Russian Marxists, found their way into the US government in various roles to help defeat Nazism. Immediately after the defeat of Nazi Germany, the US found itself with tons of pro-Russian Marxists all throughout the institutions of government, placed there by the FDR and Truman Administrations. These were people who were favorably disposed toward Stalinist Russia and many of them were current or former members of the Communist Party of the United States. Others were recruited as spies. But all of them were Democrats.

Almost immediately after the war ended, Russia and the United States became Cold War enemies. In 1948, a former American communist and spy for Russia, Whittaker Chambers, revealed that a vast network of Russian spies existed in the United States. Richard Nixon, a California Congressman at the time, listened to what Chambers had to say and what he said was explosive.

Chambers accused a Truman Administration official in the State Department, Alger Hiss, of being a Soviet Russian spy. The accusation mattered a great deal because Hiss accompanied FDR to his meeting with Stalin and Churchill at Yalta, where the construct of post-war Europe was being discussed and decided. Truman also appointed Hiss to draft the UN Charter.

The accusation that a Soviet Russian spy was that close to the President of the United States caused a political earthquake, resulting in an avalanche of cries of partisanship and character assassination directed at both Chambers and Nixon.

Knowing this was political dynamite, Democrats began to line up in defense of Alger Hiss's loyalty to the United States. Among those Democrats attesting to Hiss's loyalty were two sitting Supreme Court Justices, one past Democrat Presidential candidate and one future Presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson.

The Democrats went to the mat for Hiss, sealing Nixon's reputation as one of the worst and most cynical villains in US political history for condemning an "innocent man" as a disloyal American. Except, there was one problem. IT WAS ALL TRUE!

Hiss was indeed a spy for Russia. Although the question of his guilt remained unsettled and was debated for decades, after the fall of the USSR, old KGB documents revealed Alger Hiss was indeed a spy for Russia. The damage to the Democratic Party did not end there. Subsequent to the Hiss Affair, Senator Joseph McCarthy held hearings in 1954, accusing many dozens of State Department officals along with many prominent people in business and entertainment of being Communists, loyal to Russia. Although McCarthy did accuse many people later shown to be totally innocent of any disloyalty, while holding leftist or even Marxist political views, those same KGB documents, made available in the mid-1990s, also confirmed that dozens and dozens of those he accused, all of whom were Democrats, were indeed spying for Russia.

The Venona Secrets

US News & World Report: Declassified Docs reveal KGB Spies in US

Even to this day, the news media refuses to tell the entire truth about Hiss or McCarthy. To this day, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence of Hiss's guilt, Democrats playing on the ignorance of Americans, continue to defend Alger Hiss and condemn Whittaker Chambers, Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy, who were guilty of only zealously defending the United States, showing great courage and patriotism.

Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans

Witness by Whittaker Chambers

At this juncture, it is fair to point out that the Democratic Party is not pro-Russian, per se. What I hope I am making clear here is that the Democratic Party has been a home for those harboring pro-Russian sentiments. From the 1920s through the 1950s, those sentiments were clearly ideological. But in 1960, America elected a vehemently anti-communist and therefore, anti-Russian President, John F Kennedy, who was a Democrat. He was a true profile in courage, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, it's rather ironic that his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine, who turned Communist, defected to Russia, marrying a Russian woman, returning to the United States, where he murdered President Kennedy. It now seems almost like COSMIC KARMA for the Democratic Party.

As we moved through the 60s, 70s and 80s, left wing, pro-Russian, pro-Soviet extremism became prevalent on both college campuses and in the media. For example, during the 1960s, much of campus rioting was instigated by pro-Russian groups aligning themselves with the Democratic Party. This also carried on through the 1970s. Political parties in the US, which at least tangentially aligned themselves with the Democratic Party had Russian sponsors and were aligned with the policies of the Soviet Union. One example: The Socialist Workers Party, which got its orders directly from Moscow. Russian involvement with Democrats became more pronounced during the 1980s under President Reagan.

While Reagan was President, Russian sponsored movements like "No Nukes" came to fruition. It argued in favor of the Russian position regarding the placement of Pershing II nuclear missiles in Western Europe. Also, the burgeoning environmental movement was secretly funded by Russian interests as a way to keep the US out of the market as a supplier of oil and natural gas, two commodities Russia needs and depends on greatly. Then, of course, there was Ted Kennedy's appeal to Yuri Andropov, the leader of the USSR at the time. Kennedy was hoping to enlist Andropov's cooperation in defeating Reagan in the 1984 election. Kennedy's outreach was an act of treachery, but Reagan won re-election easily, taking 49 of 50 states.

All of this was done to undermine the power and influence of the United States and in every case, found its most vocal support in the Democrat Party.

Soviet Influence on Peace Movement

Newsweek: Putin is Funding Green Groups to discredit natural gas

Russian-funded environmental group gave millions to anti-fracking groups

 

It should disturb every American when a foreign power, be it friend or foe, attempts to insinuate themselves into our electoral process, but it should not be altogether unexpected. The United States is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. We should be prepared for others to interfere in our elections.

But before they can interfere in our elections, we should take note of how they are interfering in our political system in other ways as I have outlined here.

Russian interference didn't begin in 2016 and it won't end in 2018. Questions regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton's relationship with Russians remain unanswered. The approval of a deal sending 20% of America's uranium ore and the timing of a $150 million "contribution" to the Clinton Foundation, along with vast sums for speeches given in Russia, deserve as much or more attention than the strained effort to find collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians. If links exist, let us see the evidence. But if we are left with only our suspicions in the absence of evidence, then we ought to have the courage to leave those suspicions wanting.

The Democratic Party for nearly 100 years has never been so ferociously anti-Russian as they are now. It is obvious that their ferocity is fueled by political expediency more than it is by a search for the truth.

Just as it was for Walter Duranty. Just as it was for Alger Hiss. Just as it was for Ted Kennedy.