his campaign was an express train, without doubt

9 February:

When Trump graduated from his stint at Fordham and then Wharton, he was eager to get into the hunt. He was a solid student who did his work but was not into deep intellectual pursuits.

This is another important point. He may not be an intellectual but he is no dummy. Those who underestimate him, which so far is legion, seem to think they can paint the man with their own brush and that becomes a fact.

This is a major folly, and it's why the progressive movement of Barack Obama, which seemed on a glide path towards sealing their own deal is now off the tracks. To any of this persuasion reading this, in order to come to grips with what has happened you MUST accept several hard truths.

One is that ideology is not governance. Two, organizing is not leading. You lead by example, and that will never change. Mr Obama was aloof and unconcerned.

Three, and this is the most important aspect, is arrogance breeds stupidity. And the movement was supremely arrogant; they ignored the Bernie Sanders movement and thought, like the GOP before them, they could 'anoint' someone because it 'was their turn'.

It didn't work for Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. It was destined to doom Ms Clinton as well. No amount of sugarcoating can change this, and if they are ever to go forward they have to realize just how wrong they are.

Being in denial will just lead them farther into the political hinterlands.

The success of the Trump campaign is largely due to the major drift into secular humanism of the globalist elite, and just plain old violation of Sun Tzu's first order of affairs.

'Know your enemy'. The Democrats thought they could brand Trump and that this would be accepted as fact; to this moment they are still heavily invested in what is a losing effort to define the man.

Accusing someone of lying is not going to stick from a bloc that has twisted, spun and outright lied for decades now. In Arnaud de Borchgrave's groundbreaking tome 'The Spike' he told of editors that were left wing activists 'spiking', or killing stories that did not advance that particular narrative.

The book was written in 1980. De Borchgrave was the senior foreign affairs editor of NEWSWEEK. Disguised as a novel, it was an indictment of the media as factual truth tellers. Intead it showed that they are invested, many straight from journalism school, in shaping the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.

This goes back to Walter Lippmann, who is considered the dean of modern journalism. His desire was to have journalists become advocates for what he called 'a higher truth'.

This was abused right away by Walter Duranty of the NY Times, who whitewashed Josef Stalin's purges while sitting in comfort in his Moscow hotel room. To this day they have the 'Walter Duranty Award' for anyone who deliberately softsoaps communism.

Michael Moore has been a previous winner. No surprise there.

On the other hand, Edward R Murrow turned his sundry assignment in London into a personal campaign against Hitler. He hired William L Shirer and between them became an unstoppable force in the war effort.

Lippmann's desires cut both ways. This is the problem with selective reporting of facts, and yet another lesson in just WHY Trump won.


Entrepreneur unleashed.