I had a short sit-down with a most charming and intelligent lady recently – very Prudent in my judgment.  We agreed on nearly everything concerning her professional expertise and shared each other’s reminiscences from too many decades.  At a couple of points she had alluded to being “very liberal” without it influencing our discussions, while describing how her work improved individual  performance for business leaders and managers.  At that Prudence suggested that she probably is not as liberal as she thinks.  We never did get into either of our social views, but before parting it became very clear that conservative news sources could never be trusted while “liberal” ones always could.

In the end I opined that I wasn’t sure that President Obama was a natural born American, that his released birth certificate was forged in some way and that he was the only person in his administration who ever claimed he was born in Kenya, and I cited a statement on a “book jacket.”  She was able to name everyone related to or near the president in any way as scurrilous in the light of “more than 30 indictments,” for Heaven’s sake.  I suggested that they weren’t connected to Russian involvement with Trump and she listed a couple where people had been working for Turkey (Flynn) who later lied about meeting a Russian, and Paul Manafort, of course.

I was wrong about the “book jacket” reference: the claim was made by Obama’s literary agency in a booklet it used to promote books to large buyers, but Obama, himself, never challenged it until a couple months after declaring himself in the running for the Democrat nomination.  The literary agent lady claimed it was her personal mistake and that Obama himself had never told her personally that he was born in Kenya.  She probably derived the “belief” in his place of birth from the information in the Harvard Law School yearbook that listed the very same Barack Hussein Obama as having come from Kenya.  The very same Obama hadn’t challenged that, either, after having certainly seen it, he being the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, after all.  So there is some validity to Prudence’ having formed a belief about his Kenyan origins.  Harvard, of course, “corrected” the yearbook entry after the controversy became news in 2007.  Lots of mistakes connected to one little-known individual’s demographics.

The idea of Obama’s grandmother, in Kenya, having been present at his birth, there, however, is not substantiated.  One of Obama’s half-brothers, among others, tried to float a fraudulent claim about a Kenyan birth certificate, which muddied the waters even more.

To the lady’s credit, despite rattling off every “Trump” negative possible in a very brief couple of sentences, there are many questions about Trump’s associates, himself, and even about his relatives – but it seems Prudent to await some sort of proof of the many embellishments certain media layer on to every indictment that has emitted from the Mueller operations.

Prudence would indicate that most of those who voted for Donald Trump don’t like him, particularly.  (See http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/11/29/trumpism-is-a-ghost/)  Many obviously do, imputing to him the persona of “one of the guys” even though he doesn’t drink or smoke.  They like the way he says what he thinks, even without the politically correct filtering.  Those who don’t “like” him also appreciate his willingness to throw out his opinions and willingness to call people out for their bad acts, lies and falsities of various sorts.  It doesn’t help that he is reckless in many of his statements to the point of stating his own falsities, but in most cases it doesn’t sound like “lies,” in the sense of malicious mendacity.  Opinions vary.  Still, a majority of states wanted the degree of change Trump would bring, regardless of his “baggage.”  Prudence agrees.

It is obvious, Prudence would indicate, that the creation of Fox News dramatically altered the “news” business, perhaps on a par with the creation of CNN.  The challenge to the amorphous leftism of, first, broadcast networks and then cable networks, caused those outlets to sharpen their stances and to attack “right wing news.”  With so few right-leaning networks, right-leaning politicians have naturally hewn closer to Fox and a handful of independent “blog,” YouTube and “Podcast” sources for “alternative” news and opinion… and confirmation.

CNN and others turned to spend more and more time and content in sharply partisan “reporting.”  The news business is now not just corrupt, it is failing its vital role, guaranteed to it in the First Amendment.  Government types are delighted to be allied with the “press.”  It removes all that “truthiness” pressure.

However, the slippery immersion into partisan defense by most media, is not only destructive of our separation of powers, but an abject disregard… a besmirching of the role of a free press – not “free” to pander but free to be honest, something journalists in many countries die for.  Of all the ills America suffers today, the loss of an honest, free press may be the worst.  For shame, and shame upon the magnates and business titans who own various outlets of partisan claptrap.  Who is watching the watchers?

The biggest watchers, today, are the largest cyber-media monsters: Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others.  In the span of fifteen years, virtually everyone who utilizes the internet for communication or information, has adapted to obtaining both through one of these companies.  It is the most rapid transformation of human interaction… and most rapid concentration of power – power over human knowledge – in all of history.  Only now is the danger and threat of this concentration being recognized.

-Google, in particular, is succeeding at convincing schools to forego books and other paper media for everything from studies, assignments, homework and testing.  Kids who spend excessive hours on screens for games, Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Snapchat, have been shepherded onto screens for even more hours per day!  Worse, they are being taught from the youngest possible ages that truth may be found on a Google screen.  Except that, now we learn that Google has a very specific view of what truths are find-able on those very screens.  Can democracy survive this evil filtering of facts?

Indeed, not even Constitutional republicanism can withstand it.  Have we the necessary vision and courage to reverse this extra-constitutional threat?