Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

Osprey and the Fish, a Tale of Power Divergence Among Patriots and Socialists (Exclusive)



The front of this article, "Your Brain Chooses What to Let You See" , has a beautiful picture of an osprey having snatched a clueless fish from the water a second or two before the picture was taken. I need not point out who the Osprey represents -- Trump -- and of whom the fish is reminiscent -- Pelosi and her clueless pygmy-like Democrats.

I do not mean this in a partisan way as we are now way beyond the traditional two-party partisan era. Working-class folks support Trump, and the Neocon-interventionist/Globalist/Open-borders radical elite from the old-guard Republican party support the Dems now to a large degree.

The article is about how the brain prioritizes information, which is interesting, but I cite it here chiefly for its picture as a visual metaphor of the canniness and intelligence of Trump vs. the obtuseness of modern Democrats -- and RINOs/Neocons, for that matter.

Nonetheless, the article is topical as in the current political sphere the Dems have been confronted with a non-traditional political operator who does not play by the rules of the DC/Swamp system in which things change only on the margins -- resulting in the American public continuing to be victimized by a corrupt political system that benefits invariably the SwampMonsters to the detriment of Citizens ABC.

Consequently, the Dems and their RINO/Neocon comrades are clueless about how to respond to Trump. I see frequent commentary in the liberal media about this subject -- the Dems and their political consultants continue to be frustrated on how to attack Trump. The traditional attacks have failed; so now their plan B is a neo-quixotic impeachment attempt that everyone -- even the Dems -- knows will go nowhere.

So why pursue it? Because, in their minds they have no other options. Hence, they will waste time on a hopeless investigation that, at the least, the Senate will terminate. The Dems think that this will help them politically in 2020, but they conveniently forget that the Clinton impeachment did not help Republicans in 1998. In fact, the Republican-controlled House lost five seats to the Dems -- the first time that a president's (Clinton) party gained seats in an off-year election since 1934. Of course, 2020 is a presidential election -- a completely different dynamic. Still, the general rules apply.

The former 23 Dem presidential candidates are now down to 12 or so -- at least in terms of those qualifying for their next debate that will garner a big fat zero (0) in the Nielsen ratings. As I've noted before, the Dems will not nominate a white male (2004 was the last time). From day one Biden and Bernie had substantial issues, one of which in the case of Biden is that he is not new, and he has substantial baggage. Bernie is past his sell-by date, his time has come and gone, and he has health issues.

That leaves, in my view and that of others, Lizzy Borden Warren Pocahontas -- a true radical in the classic Massachusetts sense (though originally from good Oklahoma/Cherokee Indian stock (LoLs). Dems have nominated two Massachusetts radicals in the past 30 years -- the hapless Michael Dukakis and the arrogant Boston Brahmin and pseudo-warrior John Kerry. The American people rejected them both -- the former in an open election but in which Bush 41 campaigned for a third Reagan term; the latter against the incumbent Bush 43 who benefited from the fact that his disastrous Iraqi-war intervention had not had time to fail yet.

To wrap, who in their right mind believes that a school-marmish, fingernail-on-the-chalkboard radical Puritanical socialist that wants to confiscate Americans' wealth via an unconstitutional wealth tax can get elected president? Massachusetts has been producing radicals from its inception -- see the Salem witch-burning chronicles of the 1690s. The only other documented colony to convict and execute witches was Connecticut -- a nearby but less famous Puritanical colony that happens to be in New England. Their politics have been as radical as their social mores since almost the beginning of the colony. This persists to the present day to the point that most New Englanders have very little in common with the vast majority of modern Americans. It's almost as if they comprise a different country.

So will the Dems perform a hat-trick and nominate for the third time in 32 years a radical Puritanical Massachusetts socialist? As I see nothing but futility in the remainder of the Democrat field, I believe they will.

Photo from Unsplash
Quanta Magazine