Radical
environmentalists and liberal Democrats are both engaged in that old game of
switcheroo; the former pretty much a fait accompli and the latter a work in
progress. Both parties have benefited
greatly, basically been enabled, by a
liberal media that has been more than willing to carry their water in any
fashion they deign. And unfortunately,
even in today’s world where audio and video exists like air to breathe, most of
the public has swallowed these bait and
switch schemes lock, stock, and
barrel.
How
many of us can recall the term global
warming? Can you remember when the “One” proclaimed that he would
single-handedly stop the rise of the
oceans? What about all of those
polar bears that would be floating down the east coast due to the ice caps
melting? And please…do not ask the
people along the Atlantic from Florida to Maine about global warming; better to
ask them about the bomb cyclone. After building mega fortunes (looking at you, Al Gore) on hype and running
all over the planet warning of the coming apocalypse, the environmental
carpetbaggers realized at some point that their falsified data and bogus
research would eventually be exposed for the fraud that it was…and is. At some point, they began to slyly substitute
the term climate change for global
warming. Think about that for a moment…when
was the last time you heard the term global warming? Global warming is a pretty definitive term;
it entails a consistent rise in temperatures and can be pretty well quantified. On the other hand, climate change is a much
more generic term and can be bent or shaped to suit. Who in their right mind can deny that the
climate is changing? Forget that there
are decades of archives detailing all of the Chicken Littles running around the
world crying about global warming; they will now tell you that it was always
about climate change. I suppose that all
of that historical fact is nothing more than just…An Inconvenient Truth. So
the next time you see some environmental radical espousing the imminent
catastrophes that will be forthcoming from climate change, just remember that
these people are actually thinking
global warming and saying climate
change. Of course the climate is changing; the pertinent question is “why is it changing”?
Don’t miss the next post! Follow
on Twitter
@centerlineright. If you enjoy
the blog, pass it
on to your friends.
And
now we fast forward to the most recent chapter in this game; that of switching
the conversation from Russian Collusion
to Obstruction of Justice. It has been nothing short of HI...LAR…I…OUS
to watch the old gray rag herself, the New York Times, switch its holy grail
from the Steele Dossier to a drunken and puffed-up campaign juvenile named
Papadopoulos. Six months ago, the NYT
was telling us all that the Steele Dossier, a shoddy tabloid composite of
salacious lies and fables (just ask Mr.
Comey), was the Rosetta Stone for all this Trump Campaign/Russian Collusion stuff. They breathlessly parroted anything the most honorable
Mr. Schiff leaked to them and were…so…damn…certain…that they had Mr.
Trump dead to rights. But in the last
couple of weeks, curiously just as their key piece of evidence was being
exposed for the shameless product of the Clinton Campaign, DNC, and corrupt DOJ
officials that it is, the ignoble NYT now simply pooh-poohs the Dossier and
says that it was never the genesis of all this Trump Collusion business.
Of course not, they say; it all began with the drunken braggadocio of a
30-year old campaign staffer in a London bar to an Australian diplomat. Now if you are getting a sense of déjà vu, please
feel free to indulge the impulse. The
same old global warming/climate change metamorphosis is taking place. Refusing to acknowledge that their
world-shattering, Pulitzer Prize seeking expose on the Steele Dossier has flown
south; the liberal media now is attempting a smooth transition from collusion to obstruction. Once again, as
in the former episode, they expect folks to simply transfer all that was
previously reported under the guise of collusion to the new flavor of the month
headline…obstruction of justice. Fortunately, they are making a fatal error
this time around.
Whereas
the term climate change is a generic
term that is sufficiently deep and wide to eliminate any possible disproof; the
term obstruction of justice is
sufficiently precise as to require supporting facts in order to claim
legitimacy. The NYT, the Washington
Post, and all the pompous and self-important television networks that have
created this Resist Trump cottage
industry have now boxed themselves in a corner.
They must back up their wild allegations of obstruction with actual proof or else admit, in likely
the most evasive and subtle ways possible, that…well…they didn’t actually mean
to use the term obstruction of justice; they were actually meaning…something else. I wonder...how many times can someone move the
goalposts and remain in the game?
No comments:
Post a Comment