Trump is back in favor with the party that stabbed him in the back, and Washington is back to business as usual. I only took a month.
The latest porkulous bill, proposed at $1.9T, is being delayed. Democrats in Congress want to use budget reconciliation to double minimum wage across the nation. Rules of the Senate say “probably not”, though the vice president has the final say on rules, but two Democrats in the Senate also disagree, giving them the last say that matters. Without this theater on minimum wage, the porkulus lawmaking process would go more quickly, Americans would get their measly $1,400 more quickly, and other people would get bigger checks more quickly.
The Senate’s requirement of 60 votes to pass a bill is meant to protect the minority. Now, Democrats in Congress call this tyranny from the minority. Since when did Democrats side against minorities?
And, since when did Republicans in Congress support Trump? Why would Conservative voters trust the party that ignored their wishes at state legislatures?
America is past the point of insanity. Conservative and Liberal voters agree on so many things. But, they only use petty differences to scorn whoever sits opposite the fence. They never try to win peace or persuasion to overcome the many problems on which they agree. Now that the RNC has an enemy to complain about, and now that they can pretend to support the president they wouldn’t defend from dubious election stations, Republicans on Capitol Hill are as happy as pigs in their own poop. But, some Americans are waking up to what’s going on. Some are awake.
The conclusion of the current media analysis of Trump is clear: the Democrats and media sing in unison. Their song is one of contradiction—that Obama’s routine use of executive authority and the Clinton’s scandals should have been ignored—but not Trump, who uses executive authority to obey the Constitution to defend the nation’s borders when Congress will not. His dedication to obey the Constitution is his crime, the lesser-than Obama-Clinton scandals are just the means of punishing him for doing what is right.
At a time when America’s enemies make threats, the people have a president who won’t play the “surrender” role expected by the “great surrenderers” of society. The Russianewsgategate fiasco is about to hit the fan and spray mud all over the Left. Media criticism of the president’s speech at CPAC makes no sense. He celebrates heroes, explains the inside baseball of trade, listens to the wisdom of our military’s generals, and gave the microphone to a young man who was punched in the face for his beliefs. The news media is being seen more and more for the villain it is—and the people know all about it.
Because haters are allowed to hate, certain things need to be said.
This is not any endorsement of pedophilia nor any recommendation that pedophilia laws be loosened.
This is a prediction.
Anything bad will increase when it is confronted with hate. Secretary Flynn’s conversations were reported to Trump the wrong way, by both Flynn and the press. He lost his job, some major networks were uninvited to an unofficial press “gaggle”, the same work continued, and unified complaints of the press and the dissidents backfired into more support for Trump and Flynn’s work. This week, the same media sought to make headlines concerning Milo Yiannopoulos.
The video version going viral (seen on The Providence, but also others) makes accusations about “protecting” a criminal by not giving a name. The same presumption—in the video, in the media’s response, and in what happened with Flynn—is that “telling the press” is how to report a crime. Actually, “protecting a criminal” involves withholding names when asked by police. Informing the public through the press before informing the proper authorities of a crime could suggest defamation or even interference with police work. Milo can’t accuse anyone of a crime without proof. A small press interview is not the place to ask for a criminal to be named—unless the interviewer wants to obstruct the due process of law.
Many sex crime cases are difficult to prove in court, even with evidence. And, even with evidence, telling the press can lead to a mistrial. Telling anyone about a crime without evidence can lead to defamation charges. Milo wasn’t “protecting criminals” merely on account of not giving names to a curious podcast host, no matter how many podcast hosts might like to think so.
Over the last few weeks, the press has demonstrated a flamboyantly inflated view of itself, even in other areas. Mainstream voices in the news media think they are the authorities on anything they talk about. Take Chris Wallace’ interview with Reince Priebus for instance. No one is trying to tell the media what to do, but the media consistently tries to tell the country what to do—they try to boss everyone, from the voters to the president. When the president turns away press agencies with declining viewership, at unofficial meetings, the press cries about the country being under assault. The country is under assault, the question is, “From whom?”. The problem runs far deeper than a red-blue color pallet can render.
Back to Milo and pedophilia—exploiting Milo’s bad remarks in this way will ripple a dangerous effect. He did make overly-sexualized remarks, as he often does. He did come across as if his story motivates his attention-grabbing manner. As a journalist and senior editor attempting to explain many sides of a big problem, Milo dispassionately attempts to introduce the complex problems of sexual relations—a topic that encyclopedias couldn’t contain; there is no way that can’t sound like an endorsement to people who are largely unfamiliar with the horrid things that happen behind closed doors. He was careless, crass, and should have been more aware of how people would react. But far more importantly than the right or wrong of Milo’s character assassination, as we saw in this past election, all press is positive press.
Shock-value reporting of sex outside marriage preceded rampant sex outside marriage. Shock-value reporting of homosexuals preceded legalization of homosexual marriage. This time, the press is reporting with shock-value a discussion on “endorsing pedophilia”. Guess what is going to eventually happen anyway, no matter what is said about what is said anyway.
“Coming out of the closet” as a homosexual has nearly reached its peak of headline-power. Now, when people announce that they are homosexual, the presses don’t stop anymore. But, the press loves to stop for the capital “P” word almost as much as people love to hate to read it in headlines. Thanks to this “whatever-we-call-it” gaggle episode with Milo and CPAC and resigning from Breitbart, the new thing to talk about won’t start with an “H” or an “L” or a “G” or a “B” or a “T” or a “Q”, it will start with a “P”.
Many people will identify with Milo, in both his past and how he is a spicy-sweet blend that can never be perfectly understood. His support will grow. His new media group will take off. His re-negotiated book, with likely extra chapter, will sell more copies. Many people will announce that they have secretly had the same thing happen to them, but were afraid to speak out, until now. Children will learn another new word at an early age. And, eventually as unfortunately, from the topic getting such attention in the press, pedophilia will unfortunately increase to a point where, unfortunately, sex laws could be changed by a popular vote.
And, the press’s hunt for hate didn’t help to stop the spread. The remaining question is whether the press is just ignorant of its unbiased power to endorse everything it reports as good or bad, or if the eventual outcome was what agents of the press wanted from the beginning. Changing laws about sex sure has sold a lot of newspapers. But, only God knows the intentions of the heart. That’s true of the press, just as it is true of us all.
