Terms such as “shadow players” and “powerbrokers,” circulate loosely during election seasons since they are in charge of selecting those who will be. And it is to these unknowns, those who operate without recognition or restraint, that Trump has manhandled and mystified.
As events unfold, the credit for this Trump movement rests squarely upon the shoulders of those elitists. During their ongoing pursuit for control, they themselves fell prey to one of nature’s ever present callings. Although difficult to accept and even harder to admit, the urge of “impatience” beckoned and disrupted their best laid plans.
For as long as I dare remember, the art of gradualism has been steadily at play. Way back when unwarranted building blocks were established, those credited with such were content in knowing that they started the greatest of revolutions without firing a shot.
Those long-ago players assumed others would fill their vacancies and carry on their quest. Since this policy of gradual revisionism necessitated lifetimes, a general understanding was shared that eventually all efforts would be justified and fulfilled by those who followed faithfully.
This process granted the schemers and plotters the same undetectable action which the hands of a clock offers. Appearing to be stationary, they move at a very slow and unseen pace. This is the system of gradualism and its theme is patience.
Americans have been given one last chance and it came about quite by accident. If everything continued creeping along, as was the case during the last century, eventually, it would have been too late to reverse. However, happenstance interrupted and Trump beckoned our hearts and minds with his “make America great again” and “what do you have to lose!”
His introduction and subsequent success was made possible based upon one blunder which went both unnoticed and naturally unreported. In all probability, this faux pas was due to the human instinct of impatience since an easy win was hard to pass up.
It’s understandable that the “powers to be” were at ease with a Clinton Presidential campaign in 2008. That was until an unknown Senator from Illinois blustered onto the scene with an impassioned speech at the democrat convention. From that performance, his presidential potential was irresistible.
Instead of realizing that this young Senator would be a perfect follow up to Clinton’s socialized styled Administration, the social draw for racial equality screamed with a magnetic appeal. As we now are mercifully wrapping up Obama’s second term, that impulsive shuffling of candidates is currently posing a turbulent stretch run and in retrospect, a pause for regret.
Just imagine if the original progression was maintained. After eight years, an aging Clinton would hand the gavel over to a younger Obama, who after additional Senate service, would be a more formidable candidate. Given the public’s rapture which he inspired back in 2008, is there any doubt that today, we would be looking at an Obama presidency with a probable re-election in 2020?
And how did this mishap occur? Simply from the frailties of the human spirit which are often irresistible, even to the point of affecting those shadowy Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) elites. So, they took the bait and succumbed to the easy win. And it was way too easy. But now, the reverse is true.
Emerging from the first Presidential debate, a campaign that otherwise would have been a “no-brainer” is now a grind-it-out slug fest. But most importantly, that interloper has awakened a sleeping giant.
All the post debate media spinning has Clinton winning hands down. However, voters don’t agree. If only from the last eight years, public trust of the media’s word has waned drastically. It’s ironic that while we are fed reports of the low Congressional approval ratings, those same numbers could and should be shared by the media’s punditry.
As a result, their bantering about the recent debate falls upon deaf ears. At this point, after nearly eight dreadful years of Obama spins and distortions, the democrat’s weightiest ally has lost its effectiveness.
So, is it any wonder that desperation has now crept onto the democrat slate once again? Without a credible candidate to showcase and with its propaganda arm in disarray, extreme measures are now being revisited. Is it possible that street violence has replaced the influences from the journalistic sword?
Given that such discord is based upon racial inequality, a political theme has reared its ugly brow in that the locales for such mayhem do not conflate with that perceived style of injustice.
What caused such rioting in Charlotte when both participants were racially identical? That compared to what occurred in Oklahoma, where a white/black incident took place? Could it be that Oklahoma, as a “red State,” offers less political incentive than the “toss up” State of North Carolina? Has racial rioting become a political tool?
While this thought may seem vulgar and unacceptable, so is the fact that four Americans were abandoned at their time of need. Repetitious is this pattern of pre election desperation which again dictates extreme alternatives.