BloggeRhythms

Much of yesterday’s posting related to Rush’s working on a new “theorem” that as far as the left’s agenda is concerned, “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.”  

As one who spends considerable time each day reading, reviewing and analyzing the material Rush is referring to, this writer certainly agrees with Rush’s conclusion above. 

However, what’s most remarkable is that, in spite of the media’s enormous efforts to advance their disguised leftist agenda; the one’s heading their party, holding office and the agenda itself are so weak, irrational and out of touch with reality that they still can’t attract any others than their existing hard core base of voters.     

And what’s more, their Republican rivals most often become beneficiaries of backlash arising as eventual truth's dispel fabrications and distortions the MSM presents to the public while trying to promote their leftist political favorites. Several items in today’s news support that premise clearly.   

The first is an article by Rich Lowry @nypost.com, recommended by both US Representative Pete King, and Rush as well. 

Mr. Lowry’s column begins: “The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels. 

“How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geo-political foe? 

“All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by President Barack Obama.” 

From there, Mr. Lowry takes the issues in order: “He re-set with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic. 

“The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine “lethal” weapons to defend itself from Russian attack. 

“Finally, Obama cut US defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels — a policy that Russia welcomes, since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.” 

“Put all of this together, and it’s impossible to conclude anything other than that Obama was a Russian stooge — and not out of any nefarious dealings, but out of his own naïveté and weakness.” 

In closing his piece, Mr. Lowry puts the situation into a comparative perspective with today’s implication’s regarding the new POTUS by writing: “No matter what conspiracy theorists might say, there’s nothing to suggest anything untoward about Obama’s relationship with Russia. But based on the record alone, you might have suspicions.”

The article’s quite interesting. Here’s a link: http://nypost.com/2017/04/10/turns-out-obama-was-the-real-russian-stooge/

Stepping away from what the MSM tries so diligently to do in assisting their leftist cohorts in Congress create a case of Trump/Russia collusion, here’s the truth of the matter as written by Michael @wnpjournal.com today:

“The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Russia an ultimatum. Side with the US and like-minded countries on Syria, or embrace Iran, the militant group Hezbollah and Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

“As he left for Moscow following the urgent meetings in Italy with some top diplomats, Tillerson mentions that it was unclear whether Russia had failed to take seriously the obligation to rid Syria of chemical weapons, or had merely been incompetent. But he said the distinction “doesn’t matter much to the dead.” 

“We cannot let this happen again,” Tillerson said. 

“We want to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people. Russia can be a part of that future and plan an important role, or Russia can maintain its alliance with this group, which we believe is not going to serve Russia’s interest longer term.” 

While the administration's Russian position is certainly quite clear and unequivocal, Michael Sainato relates @observer.com, that the Democrat fabricated attempts to tie Trump and Russia together are nothing more than an attempted political smear.  

“Allegations of Russian election interference have grown from an inability to provide substantive evidence to corroborate the claim that the Russian government hacked Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s emails to sensationalizing any link between Trump officials and Russian officials as evidence of a sinister plot to get President Donald Trump elected. The Democratic Party is using the Russian narrative as a public relations strategy so that it can unify its base around the perceived enemy of Russia without having to make any policy concessions that would offend its base or network of donors.

“On March 9, BuzzFeed reported that Senate Democrats—who chose to remain anonymous—are starting to acknowledge that their hysteria over alleged Russian election interference has been mostly political theater. “Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives,” wrote BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins. “Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.”

"The mainstream media and Democratic establishment have received immense attention for inflating claims of perceived links between Trump and Russia. This latest report signals that some Democrats are starting to express frustration that there is no evidence to substantiate their hysteria about Russia.”

The Russian fictionalization by the left, assisted by the MSM, is by no means the only attempt to distort truth’s for their own betterment. Samuel Chamberlain wrote @foxnews.com today: “Kansas state Treasurer Ron Estes held off a stronger-than-expected challenge from Democratic civil rights attorney James Thompson Tuesday night as the GOP won the first special congressional election since President Trump's inauguration.” 

“The election was held to fill the House seat vacated by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a former three-term representative of Kansas' 4th district.” 

While reading that “Ron Estes held off a stronger-than-expected challenge,” would lead readers to believe the race was quite close, actual results show that Republican “Estes won 53 percent of the vote to 46 percent for Thompson.” 

Thus, although the article’s author might think that a 53% to 46% win is a squeaker, its highly probable that any Republican would gladly take those same results any time, any place, for any race ever entered.  

Along the same lines of favorable poll results, new numbers from rasmussenreports.com show the POTUS’s popularity rising.  

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.” 

However, aside from the overall indicator: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the president’s decision to launch a major airstrike against the Syrian military airfield responsible for a chemical weapons attack on civilians.  Thirty-two percent (32%) are opposed to that attack, while 11% are undecided.”

Meaning that, once again, despite overall job performance ratings remaining lower than what the new POTUS might like to see, when polled about specific key issues the results indicate voter satisfaction continually. And therefore, he’s doing what most voters want him to.   

Bringing us to a far more subtle indicator that is much like a poll in a different format, whereas it reveals individuals preferences by their spending habits.   

According to Caroline Leaper, Fashion News and Features Editor @telegraph.co.uk: “Ivanka Trump’s fashion label has defied its critics, posting a 61% increase in wholesale revenues despite a turbulent year in the press and a boycott from consumers backing the #GrabYourWallet campaign. 

“G-III Apparel Group, the manufacturing firm behind the First Daughter’s company, as well as other fashion brands including Calvin Klein, DKNY and Tommy Hilfiger, has released its annual statement, noting that sales of Ivanka Trump licensed products rose to $47.3million in the year ending 31st January 2017. 

“This performance contrasts dramatically with statements released by department stores such as Nordstrom, one of many big names to drop Ms Trump’s products, citing weak sales. Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, also dropped the label, and Trump’s merchandise was relegated to clearance bins. It is still stocked by Macy's, Bloomingdales and Dillard's in the US.” 

All of which goes to reinforce the point that when it comes to choosing between irrational theorizing versus the practical realities of plain, simple everyday real life, those on the left pick the wrong one each and every time. 

Bringing us back to Albert Einstein who by now should be the left’s poster boy, whereas he said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios