The Fall Of The Deep State 1989’s And Communism

The collapse of the figurative and literal wall between East and West Germany was chief among the upheavals in those final weeks of 1989.  Not even a year out of office and Reagan was magnificently proven correct in his understanding of basic humanity: people want to be free.  Apart from one major exception, the oppressed behind the Iron Curtain that autumn overcame their regimes without bloodshed and violence.

YouTube screen grab

I was in high school during the fall of communism across Eastern Europe.  I could not then imagine that precisely thirty years later a caricature of upheaval would be transpiring in my own country.

“Resist!” is screamed by media personalities and celebrities and politicians who in a sane world would never win a race for city lieutenant sanitation commissioner.  They betray ignorance of what real dictatorship is, as they dare ascribe the gravitas of 1989’s righteous rebellions upon their own crusade.

When I consider Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Nadler maneuvering for impeachment of President Donald Trump, it is with some dark bewilderment.  They have no idea what disaster they are courting for themselves and their allies.  It will not end well for them.

It is a disaster already.  Television ratings for the House’s impeachment inquiry have cratered.  I have heard absolutely nobody in the real world gushing breathlessly over Trump’s pending downfall.  The pundits are lamenting that the American people are not taking this revolution seriously.

Those same pundits neglect to accept that the revolution already happened.  It came in 2016, when the long-ignored hinterlands turned against their “betters” in Washington.

So, let’s clarify something: the present effort to impeach Donald Trump is not a revolution.  It is a counter-revolution.

Since the summer of 2015 the hardliners of the Deep State have gazed at Trump with derision, then desperation, and now total destruction in mind.  To them the American people simply aren’t meant for a loosening of control and regaining oversight of their own government.  Trump’s message resonated with those same American people as had nothing in recent memory.  Democracy came to Eastern Europe by ballots and not bullets.  So too did American citizenry in flyover country begin to revolt against their elitist masters.

It wasn’t part of “the plan” and perhaps for the first time ever, the Deep State shuddered in fear.  The revolution was not only televised, it was splayed across Facebook and Twitter.  But if not Trump himself, someone else would have inevitably threatened the entrenched political and media complex.  The peril would come.  It was only a matter of when.

The Deep State will not tolerate rebellion.  And now an example must be made to force the unwashed masses back into submission.

Trump’s domestic and foreign efforts share some kinship with glasnost and perestroika.  Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies encouraged greater transparency of the Soviet government and loosening of control over the Russian people.  But Gorbachev’s reforms were too great for Soviet upper crust to accept.  Their frustrations with Gorbachev came to a head in August of 1991, when the USSR’s own hardliners staged their coup and tried to depose the Russian president.

The coup failed, and Gorbachev was restored to office.  His policies against entrenched Soviet politics had succeeded beyond any expectation.  So too are many of Trump’s own policies, particularly economic, already bearing great fruit.  “Make America Great Again” may sound ruffian compared to the beautiful enunciation of perestroika, but it has shaken the power structure of our own establishment all the same.

The likelihood of success for the coup in our midst is comparatively less.  Doubtful the methodology will mirror that of the Soviet hardliners.  However, the motive remains the same: hold on to power over the people.

Happily, counterrevolutions rarely succeed without overwhelming firepower.  And so far as counterrevolutions go, this one is pretty lousy.  It’s also the acme of fantasy to expect the same people you have condemned as “deplorable” to rally to your cause.

And even should Trump be impeached and removed: what then?  The “Color Revolutions” of the autumn of 1989 were, well… colorful.  The playwright Vaclav Havel.  Boris Yeltsin, eyes gleaming with brewing mischief.  And that feisty electrician of the Gdansk shipyard, Lech Walesa.  All three and many other reputable characters across Eastern Europe would soon ascend to lead their respective nations in transitions to democratic government.

Who among the faces of this “glorious revolution” will win the White House in 2020?  It may be the most lackluster field of candidates in modern history.  Which alone indicates to me that Trump would be too smart than to level unethical sabotage against any political opponent: Joseph Biden will never be as formidable as even George McGovern.  And Adam Schiff as the one who will go down in legend as the man who toppled the President?  Oh please….

The German band Scorpions released “Wind of Change” in the weeks following the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It immediately became the anthem of that sudden zeitgeist.  The gales of autumn 1989 were a hurricane of triumph.  Fully three decades later and a weak zephyr blows across the Beltway.  1989’s was the aroma of freedom.  2019’s “revolution” reeks of crude behavior after a dinner of bad beans.

We watched with rapt attention as one communist regime fell after another.  But in 2019 the attempt to impeach and remove Donald Trump from the Oval Office is not captivating by any measure.  Bill Clinton was impeached over a stained blue dress.  Today the House leadership is trying to remove Donald Trump over the matter of a phone call.  A phone call, incidentally, that in the normal everyday routine of business might be referred to human resources before crumpling the complaint into the circular file.

The American people are daring to openly acknowledge what is already known: that the House leadership and its allies have made the re-acquisition of political power its only priority.  It is hellbent on crushing the true revolution against encroaching government.  Hence, counterrevolution.  This one is already a certain failure.  But counterrevolutions also often demand a heavy price.

As noted, there was one significant deviation from the pattern of the pro-democracy movements in the autumn of ’89.  For a quarter century communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu wielded absolute power over the Romanian people.  As one Soviet satellite after another fell, he staged a bloody countercoup against Romania’s own invigorated malcontents.  It didn’t work.

Out of desperation Ceausescu promised higher salaries and student aid.  But Ceausescu had woefully mis-gauged the frustrations of the people amassed before him in Bucharest.  The moment his decades of control evaporated was chronicled on worldwide television.  Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu promptly fled the palace by helicopter and were soon captured.

December 25, 1989 was not a Merry Christmas for the Ceausescus. Found guilty by a drumhead trial of crimes against the Romanian people, Nicolai and Elena were immediately thrown against the wall – literally – and shot dead.  Images of their shattered bodies were broadcast around the globe.

So far as analogies go, the comforts and careers of the petty tyrants in Washington may soon be just as crumbled.  Our own would-be overlords would do well to be mindful of that.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Trump makes it official: U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate accord,Why did George W Bush pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

Image result for al gore george bush

Why did George W Bush pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them – and against climate scientists.

Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act – even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.

Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.

But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.

A Rumoured Speech

Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.

Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith later told Newsweek: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”

Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”

The President’s Position

At this, the denial machine set in motion. Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheney in a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”

Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.

“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”

Polluter Pull-Out

Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.

By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.

Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.

Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.

Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.

A briefing note prepared for Paula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”

Image result for bush pull out of' kyoto

The Trump administration notified the international community Monday that it plans to officially withdraw from the Paris climate accord next fall, a move that will leave the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases as the only nation to abandon the global effort to combat climate change.

President Trump has long criticized the 2015 accord and insisted that the United States would exit it as soon as possible. As recently as last month, Trump called the agreement “a total disaster” and argued that the Obama administration’s pledges to cut carbon emissions under the deal would have “hurt the competitiveness” of the United States.

In a statement Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration had sent official notification of its plans to the United Nations.

“In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model — backed by a record of real world results — showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy,” Pompeo said. “We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.”