Ukrainegate in a nutshell

I think Robert Bridge does a good job of summarizing our current political brouhaha.

Just as Russiagate was a conspicuous effort on the part of the Democrats and their lapdog media to deflect attention away from the contents of Clinton’s emails, not to mention the identity of the leaker (as opposed to the ‘Russian hackers,’ that is), Ukrainegate is a desperate attempt to focus attention on a harmless phone call between two state leaders so as to bury the news of corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration, up to and including not only Joe Biden, but former Secretary of State John Kerry as well. In other words, we are talking about obstruction of justice on a mind-boggling scale, and which could only be pulled off with the full support of the mainstream media. A free-thinking, independent journalistic community would have called foul on such shenanigans long ago.

Lest anyone forget, the Democrats have been under investigation by Attorney General Bill Barr and federal prosecutor John Durham. These two are currently traveling the world in an effort to determine “the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement on Sept. 25.

In fact, Barr and Durham’s ‘mission’ kicked off back in May, long before the smoke and mirrors of yet another Trump ‘transgression’ took front and center in living rooms across the country. Indeed, while every American has heard of the impeachment inquiry, few realize that the Democrats are under investigation for far greater crimes should they be found guilty, that is. Now, in the event that Barr and Durham attempt to present their findings to the public, the Democrats will scream in one persecuted voice that Trump is attempting to ‘obstruct justice,’ which will certainly be the greatest irony considering the source.

In other words, there are two vehicles – one filled with Democrats, the other Republicans – careening towards an intersection at a high rate of speed, and neither looks willing to yield to the other. This is the situation confronting America at the present time: a smashup of epic, deadly proportions, quite possibly on par with its first civil war. Such a seemingly inevitable event, however, would never have been remotely possible had the media been a fair and just provider of news and information as opposed to being an instigator and provocateur of the first order.

Now, should the Democrats get the impeachment they’ve been dreaming about ever since they lost the 2016 presidential election, at least 50 percent of the American public will understand full well that the scales of justice are tilted against them. That will be the moment when the United States is forced to confront its worst crisis in many years, simply because the Democrats have become so terrified of a longstanding political technology known as ‘free and fair elections.’

There’s more at the link.

I repeat what I’ve said many times before:  I’m not a fan of President Trump.  I didn’t support him in the previous election, and I don’t think he’s the best available candidate for the Presidency.  However, I have to admit that he’s the best candidate for the Presidency who’s actually running at present.  He’s shown courage, persistence and fidelity to his campaign promises.  What’s more, he’s achieved remarkable (albeit limited) success in the face of the most concerted, inimical, “bitchy” opposition that I think any President in modern memory has had to endure.  We need a person like that in the White House, irrespective of their political affiliation.  We don’t need someone who’ll bend with every prevailing wind, and try to accommodate every shade of opinion.  We need someone who will say, unapologetically, that they were elected to lead America, not the rest of the world, and who will then get on with that job.

Equally, I don’t support any political party in America.  I regard all of them, particularly the two major parties, with suspicion, and I believe they put their own partisan interests ahead of those of this country at every possible opportunity.  I don’t think the truth is in any of them.  Therefore, if given the choice between candidates for any office in an election, I’m going to vote for the person, rather than the party.  If it should emerge that the Republican candidate, despite a reputation for being a believer, a conservative, and a leader, turns out to be a morally hollow person, I’m going to vote for his opponent, provided that person is not morally hollow, even if I disagree with their politics.  I’d rather vote for Jill Stein than Mitt Romney, because I know she’s a lot less likely to be two-faced and mendacious than he is.  If both candidates are suspect, I’ll probably hold my nose, swallow hard, and vote for the least immoral among them, on the grounds of choosing the lesser of two evils.

I think the overwhelming opposition to President Trump, on both sides of the political aisle, is very helpfully revealing those who put America first, versus those who put political, or social, or economic ideology ahead of their country.  (Why do they hate him so much?  Victor Davis Hanson has some suggestions, that I recommend you read.)  I regard a Republican like Mitt Romney as no less culpable in that regard as Democrats like Adam Schiff or Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi.  I shudder to think that Mr. Romney actually ran for President himself.  It begins to look like his loss was the best possible thing for America, even if it inflicted another four years of Obama upon this poor, long-suffering nation.

So, no matter what his faults and failings, it looks more and more like President Trump is at present the only way forward (rather than downward) for America.  If that’s what his opponents continues to demonstrate, every day, by their actions and by their words, and if that’s what their lap-dog media continue to propagate, I think they’ll find out that the American people will get the message, and respond accordingly.

Peter

5 comments

  1. . . I don’t think he’s the best available candidate for the Presidency. However, I have to admit that he’s the best candidate for the Presidency who’s actually running at present.

    That’s a difference that is a little too subtle for me. For many years, the candidates I’ve seen for President have all come out of the political ranks, and thus come with all of the baggage that implies. They have all made deals; they have all done things many of us would call morally questionable. Some of those things many of us would call despicable. So where is a President that represents the people who are America to come from?

    Donald Trump isn’t the smooth talker JFK was. He is occasionally socially out of line. But he has gone to Washington and represented American interests, not Washington interests. I’ll take a candidate like him any day.

    I’m not defending Donald Trump. I’m speaking to his actions as President.

  2. I used to be a Democrat, and even held office in the party apparat (county council, back in the 70s). I very well may never vote for a Democrat again. The party has become unhinged. You have the lunatics who no longer keep their mouths shut, and these have become so numerous that I suspect the few who *do* keep their mouths shut are liars, a la “moderates” like Clinton and Obama.

    Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, and Ed Muskie are rolling over in their graves.

    And you’re 100% correct – they hate Trump because he is absolutely NOT a weak tea candidate like Mitt Romney or John McCain. But the failure to accept the outcome of the last election is grotesque, and the very best evidence on offer that this Republic is slouching towards civil war.

  3. If you read Instapundit, you will remember Prof.Reynolds’ saying that “the media are Democrats with by-lines(press), or chyrons(TV). Leftist to the last.

  4. s part of your selection criteria, don’t just take into account your perception of their personal integrity, take into account the policies they claim to support.

    The most upright Democrat is going to be a vote for Pelosi/Schumer against everything Trump is trying to do. (note how not a single Democrat voted to censure Schiff for his made-up transcript).

    I wish we could pick the person with the most integrity, but we do need to take into account what policies they back.

    The Presidential Candidate with the most Personal Integrity is Sanders. He is a socialist, proud of it, and will enact policies to implement it. By comparison Trump is a foul mouthed used car salesman, but his actions and policies are FAR better for the US than what Sanders would implement.

    The US would NOT have been better off if Sanders had won in 2016

    David Lang

  5. I have to concur with David. While it is nice to say that you’d vote for the dedicated, principled candidate over a ‘typical’ politician, if that candidate is a dedicated, principled Communist you’re cooking your own goose. I’d rather have someone who at least gives lip service to the ideals of Liberty than one who passionately advocates for slavery because the Liberty candidate, if its constituents can bring enough heat, can possibly be made to see the light.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *