Full Court Press
Maybe Divorce Court is where America is headed.
I wrote this in 2019, while then President Trump was under a Full Court Press by the Mainstream Media Cabal. It is more relevant now since the Beltway Brotherhood has it’s back to the wall.
Trump has made no secret of his disdain for “The Press”, but he is not specific enough. I believe he is referring to the element of the “Mainstream Press” that hold him in such low regard that they have dropped all pretense of nonpartisanship and journalistic neutrality. The attacks by radio and TV talking heads like Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe, Chris Matthews and dozens of others, are coordinated among newspaper columnists and editors, union leaders in education, municipal and federal employees, in nursing and healthcare services, and also among Progressive websites, academia and leftist think tanks and poling groups.
The evidence is hiding in plain sight. Just flip the channels or scan the web, and note the precise “talking points” that each of the appointed messengers deliver.
They all say exactly, word for word, the same thing, so it can’t be a coincidence!
Talking in syncopated, goose-stepping, pre-ordained talking points is not very “Independent Press” -like. That kind of coordinated effort to shape and define “news” is the definition of propaganda. So what Trump is referring to is those who follow that formula. Of course there are still vestiges of a free press left, but they are not making the news, they are reporting it. As opposed to the “Press”, they are the ‘Journalists.’
But the genesis of the issue is that too many “reporters” are no longer doing their job as journalists. They have morphed into a political force, an antagonistic army out to change the results of the 2016 election.
I like to boil things down to a simple analogy in order to make the larger issues more understandable. In this case, I look at the attacks on President Trump as politically motivated, not morally based. What has become known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is real. He gets blamed for everything because it is a fundamental strategy to undermine his support and his credibility.
According to some of the talking heads on CNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, et all, DJT is the reason America is so divided. In their myopic minds, we weren’t divided while Obama was in charge. Trump’s lying, his embrace of authoritarian leaders, his malalignment of women like Rosie O’Donnell, and his predilection to go on Twitter rampages, all testify to his incompetence, and make the case for his immediate impeachment.
It is so illustrative of Progressives to personalize such subjective “crimes”. Everything is about how they perceive things.
They suggest all of this behavior testifies to his incompetence. The problem is, incompetence, even if it were quantified, is not an impeachable offense. All of the above mentioned issues were vetted before the election. Trump’s qualifications and competence were approved by the voters.
So I think it fair to suggest that the Progressive Left wants a divorce from the President, and those who supported him. They feel the marriage is abusive and dysfunctional. If we view the electorate as the symbolic children of the marriage, Progressive want them removed from Trump’s custody.
Trump, as the father figure on the other side of the divorce, wants to keep the children because he believes mom (the Democrats) will expose the kids to dangerous conditions. Meaning he, and his supporters, have evidence that mom’s reckless flirting and bringing strangers into the home, with no locks on the doors, encouraging drug use, staying out late and leaving the children with unvetted babysitters and other careless policies are unacceptably dangerous.
In the meantime, the basic issues of division of resources has progressed smoothly, but mom (Nancy) suddenly accuses dad (Donald) of a history of child abuse. She has said through her attorneys that she wants dad to go to prison, and she will not be happy until he does.
But she has no evidence other than her word. And she contends that she shouldn’t need evidence, because she is a woman, and the subject is too important to wait for evidence, because the children continue to grow, and everyday that goes by while dad is in their presence, is another day of abuse the innocent children must endure.
Donald asks both parties to meet and try to reconcile their differences. Mom refuses, saying she cannot accommodate child abusers. She calls him a liar and says he can’t be trusted, so she will not talk about compromises.
Dad says he feels sorry for someone who harbors so much hatred, so much vitriol, and who makes unproven and scurrilous charges that not only spoil the process but have the effect of ruining his private and professional life. He refuses to drop his demands for shared custody while Nancy holds a proverbial gun to his head.
This is no longer, in his view, a divorce court. It has become a circular firing squad.
Beside destroying his marriage and the parent’s relationship with their children, the process is about to destroy him! How do you negotiate in good faith with someone who has announced her commitment to totally destroying your life? This abuse of the court is a threat to our justice system!
Wife Nancy has hijacked the moral high ground and sabotaged any chance of finding an equitable solution. From now on, husband Don must respond in kind with nothing less than devastating counter attacks just to salvage any portion of his reputation, let alone his ability to act as a father figure to his children. Mom has chosen a scorched earth strategy, suggesting anything less than complete separation from the father would be committing the children to a lifetime of fear and abuse.
This is no longer a divorce, it is an all out assault. There is no longer any common ground or mitigated solutions. In this kind of warfare, there are only two outcomes: winning or losing.
Isn’t that outcome precisely what our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid after having just suffered through the biggest divorce in human history, the War of Independence? Writing up the marriage vows between government and the people, they instituted a series of checks and balances that could facilitate compromising solutions to civil conflicts. They called it The Constitution.
But they could not foresee the time that leaders would have so much difference in values, in gender perceptions and anger over nationalistic tendencies, that reconciliation would be viewed as a loss in political gamesmanship. They could not have foreseen such a devaluation of the concept of self government and rule of law. Nor could they have fathomed the deterioration of relations between the sexes.
They feared government authoritarianism, but they never considered the threat of gender authoritarianism.
In my mind, this is the underlying motivation for all of this vitriol. A women’s movement that came to a point of reckoning when some women decided that all men are by nature “Toxic”. Now the values of western civilization have been “redistributed’ since according to the Neo-communist (Progressive) feminist branch of the feminist movement, capitalism has subjugated too many moderate feminists and compromised their ambitions.
In a way, this war is a result of the radical feminist movements’ screams of desperation, as they realize their narrative is no longer resonating with Americans. In any scorched earth campaign, the idea is if you can’t win outright, take no hostages and leave no survivors.