Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?

Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It? by Ann Coulter.Why the mainstream media are hoping people won’t listen to Trump’s post-Orlando remarks themselves.

The media have lost their minds after Trump’s magnificent speech on Monday. It’s all hands on deck, no attack is too extreme. Their main point is: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH. It has “words that wound.” Much too dangerous even to read it.

Instead of reporting what Trump said, the media give us the “gist” of it (in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion). It was awful, Hitlerian, beneath our dignity as a nation. They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they’re attacking Trump.

The Washington Post’s headline, which got their reporters banned from Trump’s press briefings, was: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to the Orlando Shooting.”

I guess OK, You’re Right, didn’t sound professional, so the Post pretended not to understand Trump’s speech, at all. We can’t make heads or tails of it, but he seems to be saying …

We have noticed the same phenomenon in climate change. When we speak to the  warmists, such as in a meeting with then minister Penny Wong in 2009, they literally do not understand even the simplest thing. We know they physically heard us, because they were looking right at us and paying attention. But there is no sign they comprehended.

Often they paraphrase it back to you: “You mean bla bla.” But they have simply mapped what we said to the nearest of their talking points about “what our opponents say.” It as if they cannot or will not recognize anything beyond the straw-man arguments they allege we say, in their media echo chamber. And of course, what they paraphrase back to us is quite different from what we said. Crucially different.

Bob Carter and I looked at each other a few times in that meeting, puzzled — were they being deliberately obtuse, or are they really stupid? They just could not or would not understand the simplest of ideas if it did not suit them.

And yes, then they attack us for what they thought we said. Convenient for them, because they had their attack on what they thought we wold say all ready. Very frustrating for us, because the facts and the information we were trying to communicate to them get completely disregarded. Which presumably is their intent.

Perhaps what were were saying was so inimical to their dearly-held convictions that they just refused, at some psychological level, to process or recognize it? Reality was just too much, so they blanked it out.

The same phenomena is happening there. Trump said the simple, relevant truth and draws some obvious policy conclusions, that should make perfect sense even to a seven year old. But the politically correct have built their self-image of themselves as morally superior and more compassionate, and then their herd has consequently formulated certain policies towards Muslims, gays, and so on — but what they believe about the world is not compatible with what  Trump is saying. PC is at odds with reality, always. So they simply fail to understand.

Psychological failure. These people are unfit to govern us.

Back to Ms Coulter:

One thing Trump is not, is unclear.

Contrary to the Post’s headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack — No, this gun is much better for a mass shooting, Omar — Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe. (It’s completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen!)

After San Bernardino and Orlando — also, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga and Times Square — quite obviously, Trump is right.

This is the point the PC media cannot and will not concede: their policies have not kept US citizens safe from attacks by Muslims. Given the media stories, it is hard to know whether they understand and refuse to admit it, or whether they have a weird psychological problem admitting it because it would so damage their self image as more deserving to run society. My money is on the latter, by the way.

The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion, … repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations, writing, “Donald Trump wants a pat on the back.”

But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump’s tweet allegedly saying this: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Fournier’s “Trump wants a pat on the back” was 12 words away from Trump saying, “I don’t want congrats.” Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far.

Now you see why reporters aren’t quoting Trump and have to hope you won’t read the speech for yourself.

hat-tip Stephen Neil