BloggeRhythms

As ramifications from the POTUS’s Syrian actions continue to develop, Rush presented the premise that significant numbers of, if not most, Syrians don’t want to leave their homeland. Desiring instead help in restoration of their homeland so they can remain there, which conflicts directly with efforts of the left to bring them here.   

Supporting his point, Rush played an interview from CNN where a Syrian, Kassem Eid, gave interviewer Brooke Baldwin an answer far different than what she was expecting. “Because her first question obviously is a lead-in to bash Trump in some way. And this guy came back at her and said (paraphrasing), “With all due respect, I didn’t see each and every person demonstrating after the travel ban. I didn’t see you three days ago when people were gassed to death, where civilized were gassed to death. I didn’t see you in 2013 when 1,400 people were gassed to death. I didn’t see you raising your voice against Obama’s inaction in Syria that made us refugees and get kicked out of Syria. If you really care about refugees, if you really care about helping us, please help us stay in our country. We don’t want to come to the United States. We want to stay in Syria. With all due respect, this is hypocrisy.”

Rush then noted that normally hypocrisy doesn’t stick to the left, “[b]ut the people watching this I guarantee you had to be stunned and shocked because of the way this had been prepped. It’s just another one of these incidents where they’re gonna end up cursing Trump left and right, ’cause every time they think they’ve got him, Trump turns the tables on them. And it’s primarily because of their arrogance and their condescending, snooty attitude, and it comes back to bite them frequently.” 

Next, Rush provided his opinion of why CNN “got fooled that way,” saying: “Folks, I think there’s a very easy answer. They end up believing their own BS. They create these narratives that are oftentimes just created based on prejudice and bias. And in this case, what’s the prejudice and bias? The bias is that everybody in Syria wants out and wants to come to the United States, but Trump is a bigot and is doing everything he can to keep decent, hardworking people who are being denied civil rights and human rights from entering the country. And that’s why they’re mad.” 

More dialog on the subject led to Rush’s opining that leftist interviewers never even think to ask about refugees desires when they “get ’em for interviews or precheck ’em, because their arrogance is such they already know what these refugees want because they, the smarter-than-anybody-else liberals and the biggest hearted, compassionate people in the world, these same liberals, they think they know what the oppressed want. They think they know what every victim wants, and everybody’s oppressed because of Trump and Republicans and conservatives, and they’re victims because of the same thing.” 

Then, after establishing his particular point, Rush used the scenario as a setting for a new “theorem” he says he’s working on, that “the media is driving this car and the Democrats are an arm, the Democrats are simply an extension, but the real impetus, the movement, the — well, euphemistically, the intellectual firepower of modern-era progressivism is all over the media. And they’re the ones driving it with their daily, 24/7 so-called media coverage. It isn’t media and it isn’t coverage. It’s the advancement of an agenda disguised as journalism, and the Democrats, the elected Democrats are the war horses that go out and win elections, that get elected to seats where the agenda can be implemented.” 

Rush’s theory certainly makes sense, particularly in its descriptive premise that the mere function of performing as an interpreter gives the media enormous power and opportunity to attain significant control of its audiences and their mindsets.

It was also remindful of scenes from Woody Allen’s movie Bananas in which he played Fielding Mellish who according to Wikipedia is a neurotic blue collar man who tries to impress a female social activist by trying to get in touch with a revolution in San Marcos. “Events lead to his becoming a revolutionary. When the revolution is successful, the Castro-style leader goes mad, forcing the rebels to place Mellish as their President.”

Eventually, Mellish arrives back in the U.S. to try and obtain financial aid and winds up in court. In a classic courtroom scene, Mellish tries to defend himself from a series of incriminating witnesses, but the court clerk, when asked to read back this testimony, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition. Mellish is eventually sentenced to prison, but his sentence is suspended on the condition that he does not move into the judge's neighborhood. 

Here’s a sample of the court proceeding: 

“Witness: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I've known Fielding Mellish for years and he's a warm, wonderful human being. 

“Fielding Mellish: Uh, would the clerk read that statement back please? 

“Court Clerk: "I've known Fielding Mellish for years and he's a rotten, conniving, dishonest little rat." 

“Fielding Mellish: Ok, I just wanted to make sure you were getting it.

“Judge: You're out of order! 

Which is very much the way that the MSM delivers news about Trump and everything about him today.

Bringing us to an item that’s presented because of the acuity of a reader’s insightful comment regarding the ideological split between leftists and Conservatives that followed an article by Jonathan Freedland @theguardian.com via Drudge.

Heading his piece “The new age of Ayn Rand: how she won over Trump and Silicon Valley,” Mr. Freedland proposes that high-powered, successful technology tycoons, along with other ambitious and driven business types, identify with Rand’s self-reliance philosophy.    

Mr. Freedland writes: “In those novels, and in the essays and lectures she turned to afterwards, Rand expounded – at great and repetitive length – her philosophy, soon to be taught to A-level students alongside Hobbes and Burke. Objectivism, she called it, distilled by her as the belief that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself”. She had lots to say about everything else too – an avowed atheist, she was dismissive of any knowledge that was not rooted in what you could see in front of your eyes. She had no patience for “instinct” or “‘intuition’ … or any form of ‘just knowing.”.

In response, reader Chuck Darney’s comment presented an acutely accurate summation of left/right philosophical premises.

“Just a slight tinge of left wing bias on the part of the writer...it can be difficult to convey sarcasm when writing. I don't know that I'll be around when liberalism is put in it's proper place as an ideology for the weak minded, over privileged and naive. The liberal ideology depends on people believing lies, because it will not hold up to facts.

“One lie is that all Conservatives are religious. There are many outspoken religious zealot conservatives but Ted Cruz proved that we don't need them to win. There are MANY Conservatives who are atheists, so stop perpetuating the lie that Ayn Rand was somehow the only one. I don't mind religion, people are free to believe what they want just as I am free to believe what I want. 

“Another lefty lie; Conservatives don't like the environment. It was a Conservative who started both the National Park service and the EPA. I drive a hybrid, I neither pollute nor litter. I recycle and I love granola. I don't hug trees, because I am not an idiot, but I do enjoy having them around. Clean air and water are awesome and thanks to Richard Milhous Nixon the water and air are cleaner than they were in the 1970's. It look a liberal to turn the EPA into a way to suppress political thought. 

“Conservatives don't like the minimum wage; this one is actually true...but not for the reasons liberal give. I don't want to be limited in what I should be able to earn, nor do I want to be made comfortable with being poor. The only two things that happen when the government controls the market are higher prices and shortages. If we continue to let the government artificially set the pay for some jobs the only result will be a shortage of jobs and higher prices for those who the liberals claim to want to help.”

Thus, from two perspectives today, Rush and reader Darney's, we have two definitive exposes of what media's pursuit of its own agenda is all about.   

Aside from reader Darney’s perceptive analysis, Mr. Freedland's article itself makes interesting reading, Here’s a link: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand-conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley
 
That’s it for today folks. 

Adios