Saturday, February 25, 2017

RESIST ----- PERSIST ! ! !

Muzzling and Intimidating the U.S. Press

There is no longer room in the United States for dissension as continuing actions by the country's current administration demonstrate, despite what our leader would have us believe.

Excuses and reasons the administration gives for why "pick and choose" news outlets are blocked from White House press briefings simply are smoke screens in our leader's ongoing efforts to demean, discredit, destroy the Fourth Estate -- our free press.

More and more the question arises as to whether or not this leader has much to hide -- so, no wonder he wants to curtail press and other investigative efforts with loud pronouncements -- "not true" -- "did not" -- "lies" -- reminiscent of past presidents' later proven false claims.  "Methinks the man doth protest too much" to paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet.  So far, though truthfulness has hardly been one of his strong character traits, we've given him the benefit of the doubt as is the American way. Would he do the same for us?  His words might say, "Yes", but his actions likely would say, "No".

Only a Press that supports our current leader's point of view is permitted -- his administration's alternate facts -- fake news -- reporting his outright lies, distortions of which he's proven to be a master.  Eliminating such phony reports is laudable, desired by most, but this administration arbitrarily excluding credible credentialed news outlets from Press news briefings is a blatant effort to control the news the media reports that has little or nothing to do with the accounts legitimacy.

These news media attack actions also serve as a distraction -- a tactic our leader often uses when there are matters he doesn't want the public and news media to focus on, such as issues like
-- questions of  Russia's involvement in U.S. politics, even our government,
-- questions of conflicts of interest with his business dealings,
-- questions about what he may be hiding by not releasing his income taxes.

Citizens, who in good conscience to safeguard our democratic republic.....

    -- our nation's founders, WWII veterans, especially, other military service men and women fought and died to preserve,
    -- those in the Press who attempt to provide the truth to the rest of us to preserve our nation's sovereignty and freedoms, some of whom have also died in the process,

are under assault by this administration!

The 'Cool' Aid (misspelled deliberately to not malign the commercial product) that this administration's leader serves -- already drunk by a large but minority number of our population -- is addictively sweet to the many drinking it.  His possibly hypocritical words often espouse their morals and values, that some of them are all too willing to impose on everyone else rather than allow all individuals the freedom of determining what is best for themselves -- contrary to what our nation promises us.  

His words feeding false fears of inadequate existing security measures with a need for excessively more, scapegoating others, fosters a willingness by a worried segment of the public to relinquish freedoms, little by little, for contrived safety.

History tells us this is a repeat of the pattern that ultimately resulted in nations leaders evolving into dictators.   Before that final step occurred some of a leader's programs might even temporarily have increased his country's prosperity, disarming his people into believing he has their best interests at heart.  They were increasingly willing to grant him even more power unaware he was becoming what seemed to be a benevolent dictator.  The price they paid -- their freedoms -- for too many, even their lives -- was high.

Those who recognize the danger today -- who express disagreement with any of his actions -- who publicly resist his efforts to thwart reality and the truth -- are increasingly prevented from expressing themselves -- chastised from his bully-pulpit.   In time, probably subjected to much worse.  His vindictiveness for those who disagree he freely demonstrates.

Early on in the leader's campaign to gain power -- by making gross flamboyant statements to appeal to the basest of human nature's qualities -- his words (later excused simply as violating political correctness which many applauded) incited the subsequent unleashing of an unsavory segment of supporters to begin initiating violence into the community.  Later lukewarm statements condemning such actions are periodically uttered by the leader, but they know through subtleties unknown to the public that he doesn't really mean it.   The documented instances of racist, sexist, other discriminatory violence increases as is happening in the U.S. such as this most recent crime.

In fact, this administration's leader wants the violence to increase the public fear which he can grandiosely exploit with a promise to quell by using more and more law enforcement -- hopefully, for him -- to a level he can marshal the military, declare martial law(?)   Then, his power will have no restraints.   Our leader's supporting segment of the public embrace their, essentially, benevolent-seeming dictator so they willingly relinquish each little freedom for safety like mindless sheep led to slaughter.

Just the other day one of his most trusted advisers in a rare public interview stated an intent for "deconstruction of the administrative state" which clearly could lead to a different form of government (bet you didn't know you elected as pseudo-President the author of that statement).   Continued characterization of  "media" as the "opposition state" dominates the White House position.   Our leader in another context used the term "military operation" inappropriately toward those he's scapegoating that discloses his real mind set on executive actions he's ordering as his minions rushed to try to explain away what he said as being otherwise.

In the meantime, the Legislative Branch of our democratic republic's government has decided to go along with this leader in order to accomplish some of their goals --  and they like the power.  After all, they believe, they can control him if he goes too far astray.  They're thinking, don't we have checks and balances to protect us?   History in other nations shows us some supporting government officials thought that once, too, only to be rudely disabused of that notion when they realized too late they were impotent and dissident purges began sweeping up even some of them.
Our Judicial Branch becomes subverted with appointment of an Attorney General who seems likely to have a rubber stamp perspective on his leader's views.  The Supreme Court may take a bit more time to mold but expected additional appointments may bring them around.   We might wonder, will they be a check and balance to protect our democratic republic?

The Fourth Estate -- the Press -- the last bastion of the people to help us preserve our democratic republic -- continues to be under assault by an administration that is busily.....
.....disparaging, demeaning, destroying all Press dissension,
.....punishing perceived Press dissension by exclusion from attending briefings,
.....preventing true transparency in disseminating executive branch government actions information,
.....obfuscating executive branch actions using the smokescreen of necessary secrecy from the press,
.....eliminating the means by which citizens can expose government wrong-doing,
.....requiring all news stories about government be reported only in a positive light, even if untrue.

When this leader happily tells the American people all is progressing just fine for his administration, he's correct.   He's thinking of the plan above, not the people's goals they're thinking of, no matter what verbiage he spouts to them.  We already know he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

The chaos and confusion his governing manner creates that is so distressing to so many in the U.S. and around the world is exactly what he wants in his march toward consolidating power in himself despite --
--his behavior, whether rational or irrational,
--his words, whether or not factual and true,
--his actions, whether in the best interest of the people or not.

Make no mistake, this administration is not just a routine change of one political party assuming office over another so many want to believe as has been the case throughout the history of our country which so many of us have accepted in the past.

Mollifying this administration is exactly what they're counting on -- the people's belief their leader shares their basic ethical, moral and spiritual values despite the fact his lifetime of actions, words have demonstrated otherwise in his personal and most notably business practices.  A failure to recognize that their leader's pursuit is primarily for his own personal interests -- anything that's legal, or not, if he can get away with it.  

Our system of government.....our democratic under assault by means of taking over from using our own systems of law, then stretching and going beyond laws limits -- in the beginning -- then, further and further afield.   Laws will eventually be whatever the government dictates with no freedom protections, quite unlike today as imperfect as law may sometimes be.  




  1. Not only is our Prez denouncing the Press and attempting to restrict its freedom but he has military men in positions that should be filled by civilians. That combination does not bode well for us.

    1. I don't usually respond to Anonymous comments, but wanted to say I am aware of what you report. I didn't even address that worrisome aspect of this Administration's actions -- possible preparation for a future step that's part of the classic action sequence required to establish an autocratic, even dictatorship, form of government - a la what's happening in Turkey and exists in Putin's Russia.

  2. Well as someone said...Russia's plan is to erode from within like a snake.

    1. There have been numerous quotes attributed to Russia's various leaders, many of which haven't been verified as I discovered when I attempted to research some recently, including "we'll bury you ..... from within". Only the "we'll bury you" part was said, apparently, but I guess other quotes were paraphrased, then combined with the initial phrase for what has become that alleged quote. Don't know about the snake bit.

  3. This administration is the most alarming in our history. His attacks on the free press should send alarm bells going off all over the place but on a website where I go to debate politics there are plenty of people willing to take up Mr. Trump's mantra that the press is bad, that we don't need them anymore because "everyone has a cell phone with a camera and can upload news to the web." Ya, sure.

    The more he talks about the press, and gets them to have to spend time defending themselves and the First Amendment is time they aren't investigating Mr. Trump and there is plenty of smoke and mirrors covering up something big in that Russian connection.

    When upsets me, too, is that our educational system must be failing society that so many people can be fooled by a guy who lies and insults as easily as most of us breathe in and out.

    1. Definitely alarm bells should be ringing -- better than not -- nothing I would like better than for this to be a false alarm. We would be remiss as citizens who treasure our freedoms to not guard them at all costs.

      You're right, distracting all of us from serious issues is part of this Administration's tactics. That, and trying to force everyone to accept everything our leader says as fact.

      Yes, education has definitely needed to emphasize critical thinking. I'm out of touch since my children graduated many years ago and I'm live far away from grandchildren -- only one entering elementary school now. Parents really need to have conversations about everyday happening topics in which children can participate to stimulate such thinking, too.

  4. I didn't read all of this but may come back later after breakfast. The one point you addressed was upset that major newspapers were angry they had been blocked, small ones allowed into what is called a gaggle, not a full press conference.

    Always the White House pool is there (9 reporters) who pass on what is said to those who didn't get into any event. The President does not pick those 9 but they are pretty much there all along, I think.

    CNN, etc. got cut out because of Trump's belief that they are not there to learn what happened but to find some way to do what you want them to do-- resist. They are not a regular news outlet as we think of them but like many others-- they are there to do what they believe is best for the country as a fourth wing of government--unelected but supported by patronage or subscriptions.

    I understand you are very upset and want to drive Trump from office. Your blog has become totally political and hence i moved it from Rainy Day Thought to another of my blogs that is devoted to political thinking-- Rainy Day Rant where I am trying to keep all political blogs, not as a way to say I an censoring them but to keep Thoughts positive and currently politics makes that impossible. I post also at the Rant but from a moderate perspective which is hated by right and left right now. I get it, but we all have to speak truth as we know it... or at least believe it to be. I may not have voted for Trump but many did (if they didn't live in California, the popular majority). I don't know if he will be a disaster as a president, but currently he is doing what he ran on doing. To blame all those who voted for him as being Fascist wantabes is to me as unpositive as claiming all who wanted Hillary are Communist wantabes. While that might be true of both extremes, it's certainly not of all who voted for the one they considered the best of two negatives.

    1. How the Press pool works is always of interest with which I'm quite familiar as well as the orientation of most of the Press represented there. Their system does not alter the significance of what occurred, or the rhetoric of our leader, others representing him. I'm simply pointing out what actions our current leader and his administration are taking; not the excuses/reasons they're attempting to affix to them. I am also describing this leader's actions with the observation many of them parallel those taken by leaders in other countries who became dictators as authenticated in history. Readers can research such history as I coincidentally did before our current leader became a candidate.

      For years I periodically wondered how the people of a major European country could support becoming the nation they did to foment WWII. I had always firmly believed such could never happen in my country. I read factual histories. Ironically, simultaneously the candidates were beginning to enter the U.S. 2/16 political fray. As I listened to each of the initially many candidates, observed the number beginning to decrease one-by-one, the parallels in behavior from one candidate were becoming unbelievably, to me at first, similar those who became dictators.

      I noticed other historical scholars were wondering, too, if this was really happening in our U.S. Surely not! There comes a time when the truth cannot be denied, excuses for behavior can no longer be made, explanations for rhetoric are inexcusable. I will not ignore those implications and, apparently, many other much more knowledgeable people than me have arrived at their own similar conclusions independent of each other as I did. Anyone reading here is certainly entitled to their own opinion, as the facts speak for themselves which I encourage them to research.

      I hardly think this blog has become "totally political" since the last time I posted a piece here relative to our government's functions was 2/7 (it's now 2/25) with several posts of a more personal nature in between. Thank you for continuing to visit here and for welcoming me at any of your blogs.

  5. Of course and I hope you will comment in the Rant when you disagree. I believe in healthy discourse though it's hard to have today. We used to just get mad at our leaders but not so much blame their supporters. Both sides now despise the voters on the other side-- if you can go by their rhetoric.

    Well, if your blog doesn't go heavily into resist and persist, it'll go back. I just like having the political blogs in one place along with my own opinions there. It's important to me to keep Thoughts as a refuge of creativity, nature, and issues of living. I wrote a blog today there on connection. I plan the next one on disconnection as it's a major deal for many of us where we are disconnecting from one group or idea and sometimes families and friends. It's a weird time in my mind and I've heard disdain from right and left at those, like myself, who consider themselves moderates because we don't go all the way with either party. Currently we have no party because we don't all feel the same way about different issues.

    Trump is mostly parroting what the right is saying on the media. He did not invent what he's saying as it's been out there a long while. And I was wrong-- 13 members, chosen by the news people, go to pool events. The mistake or the provocation that the Trump people made was to invite the little guys and rightie groups in. If they'd kept it to the pool, the press couldn't argue as that's what the pool is about.

  6. I perceive my presenting facts, my conclusions and opinions differently than being a "rant" as Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word:
    "to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable".

    Others may interpret what I write however they choose, perhaps misinterpreting by assuming non-existent hate, anger toward those whose views differ. I typically don't visit rant-type blogs of any point of view, but don't disparage those who choose to do so. ;-) I appreciate and will respect your wish to avoid any political commentary on your sidebar linked blog listed here.

    I think, as you say.....
    "The mistake or the provocation that the Trump people made was to invite the little guys and rightie groups in."

    ..... was no mistake, and, in fact, was a calculated move mirroring exactly a sequential step that history documents being taken toward an autocratic/dictatorship form of government.

  7. I believe the protests we are seeing may result in some lasting good. I say that because there are so many different groups protesting different issues. This, in my opinion, is a visible way to get a message to the White House and Congress. These protests are not made up of only Democrats. I don't see them as Party affiliated, but rather as Americans expressing their concern.

    The more this administration fights the press the stronger it will become. Because of increased support the NYT and Washington Post have been able to add reporters.

    I'm just thankful this administration is so public. It would be much worse if they were operating in secret.

    1. I agree, a benefit of all this seems to be an increased awareness, interest, involvement of more people in actually participating in our government in some manner, even if it's simply becoming educated, hopefully thinking and ideally voting. I'm not so sure this administration is as open as it may appear.

  8. Rant to me doesn't have to be nasty but is when a person just has to get it off their chest-- and knows it won't be popular. It can be articulate or lose all perspective. I called that blog a rant because it is always something I feel strongly about. I research though and try to present it without only seeing one side. As a moderate, I do see both sides, much as the left and right consider that heresy to say.

    Too bad you won't look at it but that's, of course, your choice. I just did one there on immigration, might cover what I think has happened to the media but I only post when something strikes me and I have other places I have to get out posts. I am fortunate to mostly get comments, when I do, that are polite even when they disagree with me.

    On the 'gaggle, I considered it a mistake because I have noted often with my blog, if I put in a red herring, I lose the readers' attention for where I wanted it to go. Maybe he didn't make this decision and Spicer did. That man has been so ridiculed for being a Trump spokesman and because he's not macho or attractive looking. I really dislike that kind of meanness, of which there has been a lot (has toward the Obamas too from the other side of the canyon).

    The actual link to the blog doesn't say rant lol I had originally called it Rainy Day Things and that title remains. I felt rant more fairly warned readers who had had enough of politics. I can't actually think of a better word that didn't sound a touch arrogant- Rainy Day Powerful Thoughts lol

  9. How we define terms does make a difference, but the one I quoted for rant most closely coincides with my perception formed over the years based additionally on other contexts than just blogs for me. I'm really not taking the time or don't have the interest in engaging in dialogue on most blogs that are focused solely on a singular topic, including politics, or just complaining, which a rant also suggests to me its purpose is.

    I certainly understand and appreciate your desire to set up your blogs as you are doing, and support your doing so. ;-) I can hardly get around to all the blogs on my sidebar as it is now -- sometimes only reading or leaving a comment that is little more than "a lick and a promise". When I get time to visit new blogs I can add yours to the list.

    As for what I write, it's simply what I said when I started this blog -- it's for myself, and whatever strikes my fancy at any given time -- that I would welcome any civil comments and/or readers who wanted to visit.

  10. There really is no viable moderate position. What is called for is unity on the Left, pushing back with our great numbers and resources against a fascist regime. We don't all have to love each other and can disagree on many things. The Trump regime is criminal and has drawn together all the worst kinds of people into a coalition against the rest of us.
    So let's leave fantasy land for a while and live in reality. There is no way to accommodate Trump or his minions.

  11. Unfortunately, what you say about taking a moderate position with a leadership as we currently have has proven to be correct. History shows us the positive intentions of moderation and accommodation are little more than wishful thinking and, in fact, when dealing with this type of leadership problematic, even giving tacit aid instead of preventing usurpation of the free government.

  12. Being a moderate doesn't mean accommodating. It means not agreeing with either party on all they want and with equally strong feelings. Most moderates are socially pretty liberal and economically pretty conservative. There is no word for not being in a partisan box. Conservatives and liberals can make deals-- we see it all the time and some in ways that are disgusting like okaying a bill for pork that is added into it and benefits their state.

    Moderates could call themselves Independents except that implies the others aren't. We could also say we think for ourselves and don't accept a party telling us how we should feel about gun control, taxes, environment, gay rights, abortion, etc. I would like a name for us but it would not help. We'd still be disliked by the strong liberals and conservatives (Limbaugh regularly blasts moderates as meaning nothings). To be a moderate doesn't give us a group identity and in some ways that's frustrating but there is no choice if someone just doesn't see it the way they are supposed to if they want to belong. One thing about the extremes of both sides is they totally know what should be done and if you disagree, you are the enemy-- hence moderates (leaning left or right) tend to be put into a box ;). In my rant blog, I wrote that I felt frustrated that I no longer had someone to cheer for after many many years of thinking I did. Ah well, as the old saw says-- to think own self be true. Can't please everyone and often not anyone

  13. This blog post is all about the issues for me -- based on facts I've reported and my opinion -- not the labels of positions (left, right, up, down and all around), As I've long said labels can be problematic, not only in politics, since people often define them differently from one another then dispute the definitions. Labels then come with stereotypes for most people and even listing the same stereotype's characteristics often differ from person to person. What occurs can be exactly what has happened here -- distraction from this post's issues and point -- that citizens need to resist any efforts to circumvent our constitution -- a position which is politically nonpartisan IMHO -- one I have always had no matter who has administrative power and control. ;-)