Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large, published this article on July 6, 2018. He criticized Trump for “dangerous” remarks:
“Trump’s speech on Thursday night contained a number of genuinely dangerous lines, lines no president before Trump would even considering uttering among a small group of friends — much less in front of thousands of people. Below, then, are the 11 most dangerous lines Trump said last night — and why each one poses a real risk to the body populace.”
Trump said “She gets special treatment under the Justice Department. … Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. She gets special treatment under the Justice Department.”
We knew this to be true of the FBI’s treatment of Hillary in July. Heck, we were sure of this long, long before that. We are even more sure of this today.
Cillizza wrote “When the President of the United States insists the Justice Department is biased and can’t be trusted, it erodes one of the long-standing pillars of civil society.”
What is this? Blind worship of government? Isn’t Trump supposed to clean house when it needs cleaning? How else can corruption be rooted out? What is the matter with Cillizza’s train of thought? Why is he putting forth an outrageously false criticism? Could it be that he’s simply biased against Trump, or is he really so brainwashed as to believe that our society depends on defending the Justice Department even when it contains festering sores of illegality?
Trump said of North Korea: “”But we signed a wonderful paper saying they’re going to denuclearize their whole thing. It’s going to all happen.”
Cillizza thinks it’s dangerous for Trump to overstate the facts: “Trump’s assertion that North Korea has agreed to denuclearize and that ‘it’s going to all happen’ is a massive overstatement of the facts.”
The two Koreas continue to progress on this problem. Time will tell. It’s not a done deal. Today, the U.S. envoy made remarks that show a split between the U.S. and South Korea. However, as recently as Sept. 19, a positive progress report came out. The historic summit of April started a process that continues today.
Cillizza does not understand English. He refers to “facts” being overstated, one of which is that “it’s going to all happen”. Cillizza mis-states the case. If I say that it’s going to snow here on December 25, 2018, is this a fact? A fact is “a thing that is indisputably the case.” Obviously, the only fact is that I made the prediction. The content of the prediction is not itself a fact. “It’s going to all happen” is a prediction, an expectation, not a fact. Is it dangerous for Trump to make such a prediction? Not obviously. Does Cillizza make an argument why it’s dangerous? Not at all. Is there something dangerous about pushing forward with optimism? Is there something dangerous about expressing a joint goal even if the precise steps to achieve it are not known at the time? Is there something dangerous about encouraging movement toward a goal, movement that changes the direction of events from highly negative to positive? Could it be that Cillizza is so biased against Trump and so willing to cater to an audience looking for anti-Trump statements that he does not appraise the events in anything even near a neutral way? Could Trump be correct to criticize CNN as he often does?
Let’s jump to the end and not belabor this one CNN report. Trump criticized Elizabeth Warren and political correctness. He said “And we will say, I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test so that it shows you’re an Indian.”
Trump was proven correct, of course. Cillizza upbraids Trump’s mild gibe directed at #MeToo. Trump in so many words says that he must toss the DNA testing kit to Warren gently or else risk being accused of sexual assault. Is it a danger to the country to suggest that the mores and laws are going too far in a slew of directions relating to sex, gender, male-female relations, etc.? Or is it a tiny step toward common sense? Wouldn’t this mild questioning be vindicated within a matter of weeks by the amazing treatment accorded to Kavanaugh?
Is a person now accused to be a danger to the country because he or she criticizes those who are criticizing him or her? If so, we are in French Revolution territory.
Yes, we are near that territory. Nothing that Trump says is above criticism from his opposition. Their goal is to lobotomize him. Read this from The Guardian. It criticizes Trump for speaking an evident truth, backed up by numerous public statements, which is that his critics have seized upon the pipe bomber’s targets to blame him (Trump) for instigating the bomber:
“Trump’s narcissistic suggestion that the attacks, which exclusively targeted his political opponents and critics, were being exploited by Democrats and the media to discredit him ahead of next month’s congressional elections was disgraceful. Trump does not understand he is president of all Americans, not only those who voted for him. His reaction was unworthy, even by his very low standards.”
Utterly ridiculous. Insane. In total neglect of the fact that numerous Democrats, media figures and entertainment celebrities have hung the bomber around Trump’s neck, this editorial seeks to shut Trump up from stating the fact. It seeks to deflect his fire back on him by accusing him of being narcissistic, devisive, and low.
Howard Dean let himself go, nearing berserk territory by linking the pipe bomber to the evil in Trump:
“This has now become a struggle about good versus evil. And the President of the United States is evil.”
All of this because the Democrats lost the election in 2016 and want now to win back the House. All reason, all facts, all good will, all real care and concern about the country, all charity, all honesty, and all truth are up for sacrifice at the altars of political power.
10:11 am on October 29, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
