A Bipartisan Acquittal May Be in President Trump’s Future

trump-manchin-rt-hb-180131_10x7_992

When the Senate impeachment trial wraps up, a supermajority of 67 votes will be necessary for the president to be removed from office.

The math indicates that even if all 47 Democrats in the Senate vote to convict, 20 Republicans would still have to break ranks with their Party and their base in order for the Dem’s dream to actually materialize.

Unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment, the Senate vote that will ultimately exonerate the president is likely to be bipartisan, with at least one Senate Democrat voting against the president’s removal.

Although attention has been focused on how so-called moderate Senate Republicans may vote, three Democrat senators may serve as potential swing votes in favor of the president.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) looms as a potential vote to acquit. Sinema has a somewhat centrist voting record, and the state that she represents went for President Trump in 2016.

The Arizona senator has not revealed what she thought about the case that was presented by House Democrats. However, as the first Democrat sent to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 30 years, she is no doubt aware of the eyes that are fixed upon her.

Sinema voted with the GOP to confirm both Attorney General William Barr and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. She also voted in the positive to confirm many of President Trump’s judicial nominees and to pass a bill that enhanced immigration screening and expedited the cases of those who lack valid asylum claims. Putting herself directly in the crosshairs of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, Sinema voted against the Green New Deal.

Democrats still carry a grudge, when as a member of the House of Representatives, Sinema voted against the Iran nuclear deal that was put together in 2015 by the Obama administration.

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) is the most vulnerable Democrat senator on the ballot this year, as he seeks to win a full term after his upset victory in a 2017 special election in the solidly red state of Alabama. In 2016 Trump took the state by nearly 28 points. Jones will be seeking a full term in 2020.

The Alabama senator has voted to confirm the vast majority of the president’s judicial nominees. He has additionally voted in favor of appropriations that included border wall funding. He also voted against the Green New Deal.

An outside group aligned with President Trump has targeted Jones in an advertising campaign, which aired during the Senate impeachment trial. The ad, which is appearing on television and other digital platforms, features images of House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Maxine Waters discussing impeachment.

Jones has joined other Democrats in calling for witnesses and documents to be part of the Senate trial. However, he is aware that if he votes against the president at the conclusion of the Senate trial, his upcoming election chances are likely to be negatively impacted.

The most likely of all Democrats to vote in the president’s favor is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was once considered for a cabinet position in the Trump administration. Manchin was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Displaying more support than any other Democrat senator, according to the website FiveThirtyEight, Manchin has voted with the president the majority of the time. And he, too, voted against the Green New Deal.

Not only does Manchin represent a state that President Trump won by more than 40 percentage points, he reportedly enjoys a friendly relationship with the president. He has been a guest at White House movie screenings and has lunched with the president. President Trump posed for pictures with Manchin, which were used in the senator’s 2018 campaign.

On Manchin’s urging, the president signed a bill into law in 2019 that dealt with pension and health care benefits for coal miners. After Manchin lobbied the president to do so, President Trump gave two basketball stars, Jerry West and Bob Cousy, the Medal of Freedom.

A recent Club for Growth poll of West Virginia voters indicates that almost 70 percent of those surveyed are opposed to the impeachment of the president.

Many Democrats have concerns about how Manchin will vote, but another issue may carry even more weight.

In December of 2019, Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat congressman from New Jersey, switched parties and became a Republican.

Manchin may find it’s the perfect time to follow suit.

Democrats Implement ‘The Big Reverse’

safe_image-14

“The Big Lie” is a form of propaganda that has been used over time by manipulative figures in and out of government, politics, and institutions. It has generally been adopted and applied with the specific intent to surreptitiously alter the beliefs of large groups of people.

Adolf Hitler utilized “The Big Lie” phrase in his 1925 book “Mein Kampf,” describing a lie that was so enormous in size those hearing it would be compelled to believe it.

As members of the human race, the positive side of our nature does not allow for us to accept the notion that any of our fellow human beings would ever lie to us in such a massively brazen way. Our line of reasoning, as well as our unconscious processing, leads us to believe that the lie we are hearing just may be the truth.

Hitler put it in the following way: “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

And so it is that if the lie is big enough, people will oftentimes come to the conclusion that it is true, particularly if it is repeated over and over again.

Chiseled on an unholy invisible stone tablet, the insidious principle persists to this day. It was embodied in a quote from Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which read as follows: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Our customary psychological defenses endow us with the ability to filter out falsehood from truth so that we are able to deal with the commonplace types of lies that we encounter in everyday life.

However, “The Big Lie” is so extraordinary that it is able to pass through psychological defenses that exist within us. Our minds are temporarily short-circuited and ultimately manipulated to a sufficient degree that allows the lie to emerge as “truth.”

Various members of the Democratic Party have either wittingly or unwittingly come upon a variant of “The Big Lie,” which they have used in their “resistance” efforts against President Donald Trump, his administration, his personal relationships, and his family.

I have given this variant of “The Big Lie” the label of “The Big Reverse.”

Lying, of course, is part and parcel of “The Big Reverse.” However, “The Big Reverse” involves an additional component with an individual or group displaying a sudden and dramatic turnaround of language and conduct. This creates in the recipient population what media psychology refers to as “cognitive dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is an intellectual and psychological discomfort caused by the intake of information that involves a conflict between what has been said or done in the past and what is presently being said or done.

As human beings, we will instinctively seek to alter one of the opposing beliefs or behaviors to restore the sense of balance that needs to be maintained for individual stability and functionality.

How does all of the above information relate to where our country finds itself in a political, psychological, and societal sense?

Some recent examples may be instructive.

“Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens it has to be a bipartisan initiative,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated in the spring of 2018. “Unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country.”

In an interview with The Washington Post in the early spring of 2019, Pelosi remarked, “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

Then the turnaround occurred.

It was the fall of 2019. Without a single Republican vote, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve an impeachment inquiry. Two hearings were then conducted, where partisan rules were imposed, restrictions were placed solely upon Republican committee members, witnesses that Republicans wished to call were denied, and evidence, fairness, and due process were ignored.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives brought the articles of impeachment up for a vote. Not a single solitary Republican voted in favor. In the most partisan way imaginable, the articles passed.

In another turnaround example, Democrats stoked the flames of fear and anxiety for months about the urgency that existed to remove the president from office. They even used the culturally familiar phrase “clear and present danger.”

Democrat committee chairs Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler had pushed through the proceedings without having waited for the judicial branch to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege.

After the articles passed the House, Pelosi suddenly put on the brakes. Shirking her constitutional duty, she held back the articles from the Senate for almost a month.

During the impeachment process, the Democrats went to great lengths to portray themselves as being “prayerful” and the process itself as being a “solemn” and “somber” one.

Then the impeachment signing ceremony happened.

Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues celebrated with abandon. Pens with Pelosi’s name stamped on them were actually handed out as souvenirs.

This caused a bit of short-lived cognitive dissonance on the part of otherwise Democrat-adoring personalities on cable news shows.

CNN’s Dana Bash commented, “We are used to seeing signing ceremonies handing out pens at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation.” She added, “It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House speaker has bent over backward to say publicly and privately that this is somber, this is not a time for celebration.” And Bash’s colleague Nia-Malika Henderson called the odd festivities “a little jarring and certainly off message…”

Note of caution in the upcoming days: Expect to see more use of “The Big Reverse” in the Senate impeachment trial.

On the Brink of Peace

air-force-sun-research-770x434-5df2574cf10fd

Many of the previous foreign policy makers of our country have turned a blind-eye to the evil that has emanated from Iran over the years. A glance back helps to explain where we are now, how we got here, and what we need to do moving forward.

The year was 1979. Fifty-two of our people were being held hostage in a U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Our own would be forced to endure captivity for over a year.

The Iranian regime had claimed that Americans were being held by a group of “students.” This would be the first of many falsehoods to come. The truth was the real hostage takers were actually armed personnel who reported to dictator Ayatollah Khomeini.

Iran adopted a strategy of attacking the United States and her allies in an indirect manner, thereby making things appear to be something other than what they actually were. Plotting continued over the years via the application of a deceitful formula that used proxies, militias, terrorist organizations, and the like as covers behind which the country could slyly hide.

The scheme ultimately expanded into an enterprise of indirect warfare led by international war criminal and terrorist Qasem Soleimani. It would tragically remain in place. But thanks to action taken by President Donald Trump, which culminated in a precision drone strike, Soleimani’s sinister reign came to an end.

For those who dispassionately examine the facts, the take-down of Soleimani is good news, not only for the Middle East, but for the world. As the architect of the Iranian effort to exert influence outside of the country’s borders, under his diabolical direction roadside bombs were provided to Sunni terrorists, support was supplied and advice was given to the terrorist group Hezbollah, a civil war in Yemen was fomented, and Shiite militias were used to attack U.S. personnel and interests.

Soleimani planned and implemented almost all of the terrorist attacks of the Iranian regime and its proxy groups across the globe. The Shiite terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East were under his control. He and his proxy groups were behind the flow of IEDs to Iraq and Afghanistan, he used rooftop snipers in both Iran and Iraq to kill protesters who were demonstrating, and on and on it went.

Much as it did with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in labeling him an “austere religious scholar,” The Washington Post called international terrorist Soleimani a “most revered military leader.” Rather than revered, the overwhelming majority of Iranians viewed him as a brutal participant of an oppressive regime.

Mere days before Soleimani was removed by the American military, he appeared to be trying to conjure up a sequel to the above referenced hostage crisis of 1979. But this time around, instead of “students” Soleimani used “protesters” to attack a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

President Trump’s action in removing Soleimani stands in stark contrast to the feeble policies of past administrations toward Iran. This, in part, may explain why Democrat lawmakers and former Obama administration officials displayed such inexplicable and over-the-top public reactions to President Trump’s Iranian action.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi used language that implied a war crime had been committed. She additionally used a legislative session to pass an unconstitutional resolution to place restraints on presidential power.

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in the promotion of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, came forward to claim that President Trump’s action would lead to war. He wrote via his Twitter account that the drone strike on a terrorist leader “is a really frightening moment…”

Former Obama Defense Department official Kelly Magsamen tweeted that she was “honestly terrified” and sent up an additional prayer petition of “God help us.”

While at a recent campaign event for Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, former Obama secretary of state John Kerry weighed in with his assessment of President Trump’s decision, characterizing it as a “tragedy” and stating the following: “If this develops into a tit for tat increased effort, it will become a war that is needless, it didn’t have to happen, and it will be a reckless war of choice by the president of the United States.”

Interestingly, in a recent appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Kerry was asked about his role in releasing billions of dollars to Iran while serving in the Obama administration. He responded to the question with a non-responsive reference to the president’s tweet on the subject.

He had admitted to CNBC back in 2016 that “some” of the money would end up in the hands of “entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”

Fast forward to 2020. When asked in the above referenced CBS appearance why he believed the release of the money was a risk worth taking, Kerry failed to respond, choosing to attack the president instead. He never did explain why he authorized giving a lawless regime an extraordinary amount of money without knowing where the funds would end up.

President Trump has been remarkably consistent. He has shown a great deal of restraint in his use of limited targeted action, while still displaying strength and resolve. It is clear from Iran’s failed missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq that the regime has a healthy fear of the Trump administration. And so it should.

In the aftermath of the Soleimani saga, a healthy fear is precisely what is needed to keep our country and the world solidly on the brink of peace.

The Trump Doctrine in Real Time

trump-doctrine

The mainstream news and entertainment media are once again in a frenzy trying to figure out what just happened on the world stage and how they can make the latest Trump victory look like a loss.

The president does not expect to receive accolades for his successes from those who have hated from the start. No credit given for the safe return of hostages, no singing his praises for facilitating the meet-up between North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in, no congrats for making changes in trade policy that resulted in better deals for average working folks, and on and on.

But prominent among President Trump’s many accomplishments is the re-building of the United States military and the re-shaping of our foreign policy. The president’s approach to national security issues has at times been referred to as the “Trump Doctrine.” With the recent turn of events, however, it has become enshrined.

A brief explanation of terminology. The sum and substance of an administration’s foreign policy carries the label given by analysts and experts of “presidential doctrine.”

A presidential doctrine serves an important purpose; that being, to inform the public and signal to the world the manner in which foreign affairs will be conducted in accordance with a president’s worldview. It is essentially a summarization of the distinctive approach taken by the president to the nation’s relations with other nations.

The U.S. air strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes has spelled out the Trump Doctrine in a way that the president’s detractors, and thankfully America’s enemies, did not expect.

It may have come as a surprise to Bret Stephens, who wrote a biting critique of President Trump in the New York Times back in September of 2019. In his piece, he catalogued the ever increasing attacks purportedly made by Iran against the U.S. and its allies. The attacks included six on tankers, a shoot-down of a U.S. surveillance drone, the seizure of a British ship and its crew, and strikes on oil processing facilities that halted half of the Saudi’s critical oil production.

Stephens claimed in his article that the Trump administration was “bluffing” in its condemnation of Iran and characterized the administration’s position as “weakness masked in bluster.” His critique was written prior to the time Iran committed an act of war by attacking a U.S. embassy.

Two simple phrases have been used to describe President Trump’s foreign policy: “principled realism” and “America First.” The president himself has articulated these concepts in formal speeches, press conferences, verbal statements, campaign rallies, and the like. Half the country understands exactly what he is saying and enthusiastically supports him in his efforts.

The Trump Doctrine is simple and honest in its content and end goal. It embodies the notion that our country is best served by putting the interests of our own people first.

It also brings to a screeching halt a worldview that seeks multilateralism, celebrates the demise of sovereignty, and embraces the practice of appeasement.

After Iran committed an act of war by orchestrating the attack on our embassy, the targeted limited action in which the Trump administration engaged was the correct approach in dealing with the rogue state. The administration sought real deterrence yet did not seek an escalation of military conflict. It was, and remains, the only option with which we could defend ourselves while simultaneously sending the necessary message.

There is another thread that quietly winds its way through the Trump Doctrine.

The president built his field of dreams before stepping on that escalator. With fame and fortune already in hand, unlike others before him, he views his options with clearer eyes. Unclouded by concerns that produce weakness, he projects a strength that springs from a genuine love of the country.

That’s the Trump Doctrine in real time.

Disney Rules Over a Declining Box Office

starwars-tros-poster-revengestyle-frontpage-700x304-1

Despite some blockbuster hits, Hollywood’s box office continues on its downward trend as 2019 comes to a close.

Domestic revenues are expected to fall nearly 4 percent by year’s end; this according to The Hollywood Reporter. The box-office total of this past fall not only constitutes the sharpest decline in five years, it is also the fifth downturn this decade.

Executives in Hollywood are assuming that the decline is mostly due to new home entertainment technology and the rise of streaming services, including Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+. However, the content of much of the entertainment product that is being produced these days simply does not seem to be connecting with American filmgoers.

Disney is proving to be the major exception to this rule. The company’s product is not only resonating with the movie-going public, it is stamping out the competition in a big way.

The top 10 films of the year brought to the industry 38% of domestic ticket sales (up from 33% in 2018). Disney contributed an unprecedented 80 percent of the product, meaning eight out of the top 10 biggest revenue generators in the domestic box office were brought to you courtesy of the Mouse House.

The growth of the company that Walt Disney founded continues on an upward trajectory. Disney had a record-breaking year in 2016 and during that time period accounted for 6 of the top 10 highest grossing domestic films. The company made 4 out of the top 10 in 2017, 5 in 2018, and then jumped to 8 in 2019.

The Disney releases “Avengers: Endgame,” “The Lion King,” “Captain Marvel,” “Toy Story 4,” “Frozen II,” “Spider-Man: Far from Home” (shared by Disney and Sony), “Aladdin,” and “Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker” have propelled the company to $3.8 billion domestically and over $10 billion in global box-office revenue, a record breaking number for Disney or for any other Hollywood studio.

Although some have criticized the cost of acquiring Lucasfilm and Marvel, in hindsight the purchases were bargains. But even with Disney’s blockbuster year, including the highest grossing movie of all time “Avengers: Endgame,” Hollywood is watching the overall domestic gross for movies head south.

No doubt the introduction of elaborate home theaters equipped with big screens, high definition technology, surround sound audio, and streaming of content directly into homes has been a factor in the overall impact that is being felt in the entertainment industry and beyond.

However, the effect has not been great enough to alter content creators’ perception, or for that matter to make them even question the themes that are being shoehorned into a whole lot of the entertainment product.

Because streaming is being used more as a distribution alternative, especially for smaller budgeted studio films, the big budget blockbuster has become the stock-in-trade for movie theater owners.

Some in the entertainment world are concerned by a new approach, which is that streaming services, with the acquiescence of producers, are debuting new films online rather than in brick and mortar movie theaters. This is causing a drop in traditional movie theater ticket sales.

Ironically, Disney has embraced the direct to streaming approach with “Noelle,” a Christmas comedy starring Anna Kendrick, and the “Lady and the Tramp” remake, both of which bypassed the multiplex and went straight to Disney+, the studio’s new streaming service.

“The Irishman,” an Oscar buzz offering from Martin Scorsese, was streamed by Netflix after less than a month had passed. The streaming giant similarly started to stream “Marriage Story” after only one month. Both films are getting the awards talk that Netflix undoubtedly wanted. Nevertheless, the impact at the box office has been underwhelming.

Because the overall ticket revenue outside of the United States will likely be the same or greater than last year’s $41.1 billion, Hollywood will pay even more attention next year to the global consumers of entertainment, particularly the biggest overseas film market. For all those who are keeping tabs, that would be China.

‘Christianity Today’ Becomes a Tool of the Left

billy-and-franklin-graham

Although a lot of people link “Christianity Today” with evangelical Christian ideology, the magazine’s editor, Mark Galli, recently nixed that idea with a click of his keyboard.

Galli penned a column that appeared to be written with the goal in mind of putting grins on the faces of leftists and garnering gobs of attention from the Trump-hating faction of the media.

Whether the above stated goal was mapped out or not, the end result was the same. The magazine’s image took a hit, the president was unfairly maligned, and the liberal media ate it all up.

Galli used the pages of the magazine, which happened to be founded by the late legendary preacher extraordinaire Billy Graham, to call for the removal of President Trump from office.

As his days with the magazine are on the wane, the liberal-minded editor put forth a constitutionally vapid case with an apparent purpose of reversing the results of the 2016 presidential election. Galli argued for the president’s removal because of behavior that he chooses to characterize as immoral.

What Galli apparently doesn’t understand is that the U.S. Constitution sets forth a specific and elevated standard in order for the nation’s chief executive to be removed, not just a mere allegation of subjectively questionable behavior.

Because Galli’s publication was originally founded by Reverend Graham, the article referenced the evangelist. It is fitting that Graham’s son, Franklin, who now leads the ministry that his father envisioned and brought to fruition, was one of the first to comment on Galli’s opinion piece.

In a compelling social media post, Franklin let the world know that his dad both “believed in” and “voted for” President Trump.

“… they invoked my father’s name, so I felt I should respond. Yes, @BillyGraham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree w/ their piece. He’d be disappointed,” Franklin stated.

Other leading evangelicals joined in with the countering of Galli’s assertions.

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University stated that “Christianity Today” has been “unmasked” as part of what he called the “liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed said of the magazine, “You cannot imagine a publication more out of step with the faith community that it once represented.”

And President Trump himself joined in with a comment, calling the publication “a far left magazine” and tweeting that Christians are not very likely to be “looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion.”

When they found out that an ostensible spokesperson for evangelical Christians essentially used Democratic Party talking points to go after the president, the left-leaning media were filled with delight. Galli was predictably offered numerous media spots.

Guesting on NPR’s Morning Edition turned out to be a perfect venue in which to double down on his attacks on the president while letting loose with some additional jabs that seemed tailor-made for a CNN audition.

Galli, of course, repeated his call to negate the choice of America’s voters, but this time came up with other justifications, claiming that the president is in “psychological and moral confusion.”

As propagandists are prone to do, Galli used highly manipulative and corrosive language that is designed to plant negative seeds and is deliberately crafted to poison the minds of potential voters. He compared the president to a physically abusive husband and then left the notion there to lie.

During his appearance, Galli denied that his publication is left-leaning. But the truth is, he and his magazine don’t even come close to being objective.

On February 20, 2015, “Christianity Today” featured a commentary written by none other than Galli himself, titled “Amnesty is Not a Dirty Word.” The main assertion of the piece was that “…the one thing we Christians especially should not run from is any action accused of offering ‘amnesty.’”

In his article, Galli refers to the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a group that has received financing from the George Soros-backed National Immigration Forum.

An article published in the November 2019 magazine, titled “Another Way for Immigration Reform? How Evangelicals Can Help Lead It,” is highly critical of the president’s approach to securing the border. Conversely, it advocates for policies that are consistent with the president’s political opponents. The author of the article is Matthew Soerens, the national coordinator for the aforementioned EIT.

Although it is unlikely that “Christianity Today” will be able to get many of its readers to return to the publication, a name change might help to attract a new crop of subscribers.

“Un-Christianity Today” might do the trick.

U.S. Leftists Ignore UK Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as they take part in a session on reforming the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters in New York

The recent landslide election triumph of Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson may prove to be an accurate predictor of what is likely to happen in U.S. elections come 2020.

The same hatred that has held Democrats in its bitter grip since President Donald Trump first took to the political stage is the same rage that is likely to blind them to the lesson that is there in the UK election results.

Prime Minister Johnson’s electoral victory resulted in the largest majority in the British Parliament since Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher held office.

Conversely, Johnson’s adversary, Jeremy Corbyn, managed to drag his Labour Party to its lowest levels since the 1930s. The conservative Tories won 365 seats in Parliament’s lower chamber, with Labour gaining a mere 203.

Labour was left shell-shocked after a night that saw once safe seats in working class areas jump to the conservative side of the spectrum. Such a profound change to the political landscape would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Interestingly, the place with which we share a common language, culture, and history currently has a political climate that is remarkably similar to the one that is occurring in the U.S. In both places, there is a seemingly perpetual struggle that exists between globalist elites who embrace trans-national institutions and national populism that is aligned with working class citizens who are trying to navigate the waters of the current economic reality.

Political occurrences in the U.S. and across the pond appear to run jointly at times. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher strove together in fierce opposition to communism. The 1990s saw President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair hike the “Third Way” road together of supposed middle ground politics. And in 2016, the political earthquake election of President Trump caused comparable seismic waves to that of Britain’s prior Brexit vote.

It then comes as little surprise to the politically and culturally astute that the right in both countries seeks border integrity, individual empowerment, fewer regulations, lower taxes, and innovative approaches to international trade, thereby favoring the nation state.

The left in both countries, on the other hand, has a preference for multilateral international organizations, embraces ever-expanding government, elevates open borders, is expert in crafting draconian regulations, and is endlessly preaching about the supposed environmental doomsday that is to come.

Corbyn campaigned on a set of extreme left-wing policies that sound eerily similar to the current crop of Democrats that are seeking the presidential nomination. Corbyn would have increased government spending to gargantuan amounts, ballooning the public sector. During his first 100 days in office, Corbyn promised to nationalize utilities, give 10 percent of corporate stock in companies to workers, and implement a 32-hour work week.

His planned policy solutions were almost in lockstep with the so-called democratic socialism offered by Democrat presidential wannabes Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

A couple of their fellow Democrat opponents attempted to capitalize on the UK results. At a fundraiser, former Vice President Joe Biden referenced Johnson’s victory, saying, “Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly.”

And former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his Twitter account to declare that “Jeremy Corbyn’s catastrophic showing in the U.K. is a clear warning: We need a Democratic nominee who can defeat Donald Trump by running a campaign that appeals to Americans across our divides.”

Much like their denial after President Trump’s watershed victory, the left in America cannot accept the results of the UK election either. Leftists are already following the same pattern of rationalization, falsification, and resistance that was exhibited in 2016 and thereafter.

Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast characterizes Corbyn as someone who was “never suited to be a national leader of a major political party in a major industrial democracy,” adding that he “was an ineffectual backbencher and should have remained so.”

Others such as Kate Aronoff, a senior fellow at Data for Progress, which is a progressive U.S. think tank, dismiss Johnson’s massive win by claiming that it was only about Brexit. Aronoff used the Guardian to explain that, in her assessment, “the UK election was ultimately an election about Brexit, and Brexit won. There’s no clean analogue to that in the US.”

Eric Levitz of the New Yorker Magazine rationalizes that Sanders’s “political vision is less radical than Corbyn’s, particularly on foreign policy.”

Another Guardian writer, Cas Mudde, posits, “Centrists say this is proof Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren can’t win. They are wrong.”

Two infamous names, Fusion GPS’s Glen Simpson and “dossier” author Christopher Steele recently surfaced to precondition the UK public in a virtual re-run of the debunked narrative of 2016.

Even before the electorate in the UK had cast a single vote, Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote in an editorial that appeared in the Guardian that Russia was the reason Prime Minister Johnson won.

The article actually urged the British government to launch a Mueller-style investigation into Russian interference in the UK elections, claiming, “The British political system has become thoroughly compromised by Russian influence.”

Weeks earlier the Guardian had drudged up yet another so-called dossier derived from an “analysis from Britain’s intelligence agencies, as well as third-party experts such as the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele…”

It seems as though the American left, lost in its impeachment obsession, is calloused to the growing disgust and anger on the part of the public on both sides of the Atlantic.