BloggeRhythms

Throughout the presidential campaign, the ensuing election and now the first three weeks of the Trump administration, regardless of any and all topics involved, constant hostility’s arisen from the Democrat party and its ally the MSM. 

At the same time, however, what the election results have proven, along with significant feedback from the voting public, is that long-held traditional mindsets are no longer extant. In fact, roughly 40% of voters now consider themselves to be “Independents.”

As a result, therefore, of voter’s more often taking positions of their own on the myriad issues facing the nation and themselves, traditionally revered and respected news outlets are no longer held in the same esteem. That point was illustrated clearly yesterday, where a large group of astute reader’s comments directly refuted biased verbiage in an article from the Wall Street Journal regarding the resignation of Mike Flynn.    

And now today, its déjà vu all over again as the Journal hammered at the subject once more.

According to Devlin Barrett and Carol E. Lee @wsj.com: “Federal agents questioned then-National Security Adviser Mike Flynn in January, shortly after the White House denied he had talked about sanctions with a Russian official, according to people familiar with the matter.”

The authors then make the point that the legal stakes for Mr. Flynn have been raised while adding to the political pressure on the White House. That’s because presidential spokesman Sean Spicer, “at a Jan. 23 news briefing, said Mr. Flynn didn't discuss U.S. sanctions with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.” 

However: “At that point, U.S. intelligence officials had already intercepted conversations between the two men in which they discussed the sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter. 

“Mr. Flynn’s departure generated more questions Tuesday about what Mr. Trump knew about Mr. Flynn’s activities and why it took weeks for Mr. Trump to push him out.” 

After describing what’s taken place to date, the authors go on to drive the point home that while it’s “unclear what Mr. Flynn told the FBI agents, or whether his account during the interview was contradicted by intelligence intercepts,” the “very act of undergoing an interview is potentially significant for Mr. Flynn because it is a crime to lie to the FBI; charges have been filed against senior officials in previous administrations for lying to investigators.” 

Thus, the authors have themselves concluded that Flynn is likely guilty which in the past would have been accepted as gospel by most. That's because the source is the Wall Street Journal a revered and respected purveyor of reliable information, whose integrity was not often, if ever, disputed.   

Yet, once again, reader’s commentary reveal that as Bob Dylan sang in 1964, “The Times They Are a-Changin,” for the MSM and traditional politics, as well.  

Reader Cynthia Crites wrote: “I see all of the "Alinsky -ites" are out in force: Rule 13 - “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. He would be so proud of all you mindless followers and especially Obunny....” 

That struck home whereas Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is oft cited here as playing a significant role in the previous POTUS’s political strategies.  

Rene Mathis followed with a suggestion: “Alright President Trump.  Give up Flynn and capture the others.  If they tapped Flynn, they must have tapped many others.  Who are they?  Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry?  The list could go on." 

David Langley opined: “But the very act of undergoing an interview is potentially significant for Mr. Flynn because it is a crime to lie to the FBI"  -  Really?!?! Why is Hillary not getting grilled about her lies to the FBI? Until we know what Flynn said, to who and when, all we can do is take these criminals and liars at their word. Not a great position to be in as the people responsible for electing our leaders and protecting our Republic.” 

Paul Rinderle suggested: “Use FOIA/tapes/whatever and obtain all Obama's communication particularly after the election as "his fingerprints are all over this."

Paul Angelchik brought up a complex comparison: “Meanwhile, in August 2014, Michael Ledeen, a former consultant to the National Security Council and U.S. Defense Department, penned a column at PJ Media stating Obama opened a back-channel to Iran during the 2008 presidential campaign. Ledeen said the back channel went through retired Ambassador William G. Miller, who also led the 1979 negotiating mission during the Iran hostage crisis. 
Ladeen wrote that Miller confirmed his back-channel involvement to him. 

“Ledeen wrote: 

“The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign. 

John Harris commiserated with Trump: “I commented earlier on this article and mentioned that Hillary lied to the FBI and no one cared and in this article, It's a felony. Well some guy commented that it was Trumps fault because he didn't go after her. The guy can't win.

Brian Young responded to John Harris, writing: “I'm not sure she lied to the FBI, but she did lie to Congress and the American people and she did break the law having a personal computer/server with classified information on it.” 

Then the next three addressed legalities of the situation: 

Paul Angelchik began: “Meanwhile we have no factual indication that anything Flynn said or did was illegal. Lots and lots of stories rife with speculation. Where are the facts?”

Douglas Tornese replied: “FACTS Paul?  Do you think Pelosi, Schumer, and everyone on the Left who write here actually care about the facts?"

Then Paul Angelchik underlined today’s major point by responding: “I don't  think the politicians care. But the WSJ should. The establishment media resembles a Sham Wow! infomercial these days.”  

And then Dave Fortin presented one of the most truly pertinent points: “From what I'm reading in various news outlets the FBI is not accusing Flynn of any crime based on the conversations picked up by our intelligence community.  As far as I can tell, Flynn lied to Pence (not a crime) and that's why he resigned (or got fired). 

“According to the same FBI, Hillary lied to the whole country on multiple occasions, regarding multiple issues. How is she any better than Flynn?” 

So, here again today we have compounding evidence indicative of a major trend among intelligent individuals to not only filter information on their own, but to logically refute that which they find incomprehensible or erroneous. Regardless of the source. And it’s that growing group that is able to increase awareness among others, because they’ve gone out and done the homework, after which they make their findings public. 

All of which means that while the Democrat party and the MSM will almost certainly continue their joint campaign to undo Trump’s administration, the huge swath of Middle-America that put Trump in office are not only going to refute every iota of it, but have a very good time in the process. (Just like what happens here.)

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios