The Latest View - News, Opinion, Rants

The historic site, which sports 60ft tall busts of FOUR U.S. Presidents, carved from the living rock, was created by Gutzon Borglum between 1927 and 1941. Reportedly, Borglum had room for FIVE Presidents but choose to only add four, for numerous reasons. The question posed to Banfields television audience – “Who’s face would you add to Mount Rushmore if you could.” To enhance the “fun”, MSNBC listed Four Presidents along with a few lines underscoring the accomplishments which would cause these men to qualify for such a hallowed honor.

Ignoring the fact that modifying this temple of the American mythos would be not only abhorrent, but never accepted, “just for fun” let us examine the list, and in particular the resumes, which MSNBC provided as an aid for selection by its audience.

Remember, these are MSNBC’s chosen descriptions taken DIRECTLY off their website voting page;

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: "FDR was the longest-serving president and covered 2 of the 3 greatest crises in American history -- World War 2 and the Great Depression. He was elected to four terms, served 12 years."

HARRY TRUMAN: "He created the national security state we live in today...the Pentagon, the CIA, Department of Defense. He ended WWII, he is the father of the Marshall Plan and NATO, and was the 1st pres. to enhance civil rights for blacks."

JOHN F. KENNEDY: "He initiated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended the crime of legalized segregation. He led us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. He began the quest to be freed from nuclear confrontation."

Pretty impressive individuals. A most impressive and objectively worded selection of accomplishments to underscore their worth as well.

The fourth nominee? Well (heavy sigh), if you MUST know…

RONALD REAGAN: "Reagan is the person who is getting credit for winning the Cold War and ending the threat of global Communism."

Now…

Forget whether any of these individuals truly belongs on Mount Rushmore. Forget that there are three Democrats and one lone Republican (JFK deserves a slot but not IKE?)

Forget, for a moment, your personal opinions or politics.

Forget all of this.

I ask you – sincerely – If you knew none of these men, and had to choose based SOLELY on the endorsements provided by MSNBC, is there any hope in hell you would choose Reagan?

The answer is of course, no way.

There is a reason for this.

That reason is that this is exactly the opinion MSNBC wants you to walk away with.

On both an unconscious, as well as conscience level, the fix is in – accomplished though language manipulation.

Lets break down the structure of the endorsements to their component parts, adjectives, and action phrases;

FDR: “longest-serving”, “2 of the 3 greatest crises”, “elected to four terms”, “served 12 years."

HARRY TRUMAN: “created…”, “ended WWII”, “Father of the Marshall Plan”, “Father of NATO”, “enhance(d) civil rights for blacks."

JOHN F. KENNEDY: "initiated the Civil Rights Act”, “Ended legalized segregation”, “Led us through the Cuban Missile Crisis”, “Began the quest to be freed from nuclear confrontation."

RONALD REAGAN: "the PERSON (not President, Leader) getting credit for…”

The holy pantheon of progressive philosophy earns powerful action words like CREATED! INITIATED! ENDED! LED! QUEST! FREED! FATHER! ENHANCED!

The sole representative of backward-thinking conservative philosophy earns “PERSON GETTING CREDIT FOR…”

FDR gets four major accomplishments in three lines. Truman gets five in four lines. JFK gets three in three.

Reagan gets two, highly DUBIOUS accomplishments (according to MSNBC) in less than two full lines.

I like Truman – a lot. He is on my list of “Top Ten Presidents in U.S. History” (http://www.nebulae.net/tvfh/past-views/ranking-the-presidents.htm).

FDR is there as well, ranking third directly behind Washington and Lincoln. He was the greatest President of the 20^th century and if anyone should be added, he would be it.

Even JFK gets an honorable mention on my list – so I can hardly be accused of being partisan in my opinions of these men.

But to conduct an “objective” opinion poll, which in essence asks who was the greatest President of these four, and to display such maddening “witness leading” is nauseating and indicates exactly how deep liberal media bias has permeated the majority of mainstream media. It illustrates, in painful detail, to what level progressive commentary has weaseled its way into “objective reporting”.

I watched the show. I voted. I voted for Reagan - mostly because I felt he stood no chance and wanted to add my voice to aid his showing. At the end of the show they announced Reagan had won – with 44% of the vote. FDR got 38%, Truman 7% and JFK 11%. An informal poll of the live show audience on location at Mount Rushmore offered Reagan’s name at an even higher percentage.

Does this mean Reagan is greater than FDR?

No. Not in my book.

Does this mean “Dutch” will soon be rubbing elbows with George, Tom, Teddy and Abe?

It does not – what’s more, he should not.

What it does is underscore the desperation of the elite left and the lengths to which they will go, whether subconsciously or by design, to turn the tide of a war they know they are losing,

What it means is that despite all attempts to undermine this great man and greatest of American leaders, as well as lead the delusional flock that admires him away from the cliff, the people are not succumbing to the “Manchurian Candidate” treatment.

Boss Dailey was never so subtle in his attempts at election rigging as MSNBC, but I bet he’d be pleased.