When you do what I do (whatever your appraisal thereof happens to be), there are things that come across the transom (this being a reference to the old-style windows that were once commonly utilized as an architectural devise of many big-city buildings and even apartment buildings) that just cannot be ignored.
In films from the early to mid 20th century, the transom (which could be opened to facilitate ventilation) might be used to pass anything from mail, to a bomb intended to neutralize a meddling detective, to an aspiring writer’s manuscript flung through the transom into a prospective agent’s office.
The internet, online access and digital delivery modalities have become sort of an analogue for the transom, through which millions of us experience a veritable deluge of information on a daily basis. Practically every email solicitation the average person receives can be considered an example of transom-transmitted information, much of which would be considered junk mail by most of us.
How does one determine what is significant and what is not when so much of these data are the digital equivalent of junk mail? How can one determine what is relevant, particularly if they are in business, specifically if they are in the business of information – like commentary writers, journalists and the like.
Across my digital transom today appeared the account of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and his analysis of certain communiqués sent to and from members of the Obama administration and powerful Democrat operatives – particularly former National Security Adviser Susan Rice (who initially drove the preposterous, lying narrative pertaining to the tragic loss of American personnel in Benghazi) and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Now, for the record, I do respect Tucker Carlson as a journalist. According to Carlson’s account, in the days following Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Susan Rice apparently sent emails to herself using White House servers (presumably for the intent of security and verification) wherein she revealed former President Barack Obama’s perception of Donald Trump as a “traitor” and a “Russian spy.”
I have heard very few statements as preposterous in the extreme as this one. This is not to say that I discount Carlson’s account. Quite the contrary: Considering the vile nature and deportment of our former president – You know, the transformational, post-racial, unifying, messianic Barack Hussein Obama – I appraise accusations of this nature relating to Mr. Trump as not only extreme projection, but a deflection of the highest order.
Over the last nine years during which the American people suffered under the despot Obama, I and others made account of the depth of subterfuge, foreign influence and fundamentally subversive elements that composed the administration of our precious First Black American President, and what an obscenity that administration represented. All I can say by way of verification is that the reader examine the last nine years of my WND archives. Each and every disgusting and horrific account of the exploits of Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators was verified and vetted.
During the time this saboteur was in the Oval Office, it was not only determined that his hotly contested origin story and documentation representing same were bogus, but I can say with the highest confidence that this man was a complete and entire fraud. Even his name is not his own, meaning that the name to which the world refers to him was not his birth name. Based on my knowledge and information, I doubt that even the year and location of his birth were accurately disclosed.
Obama’s youth, surrounded and mentored by subversives of varying stripes (communists, Islamists and dedicated socialists) is largely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Nor is the subsidization of his career and ascent by subversive and foreign interests. Yet, this is what molded him into the ultimate Manchurian candidate. What is truly chilling is that so much of the truth about the man has always been out there and accessible. Sadly, few chose to look.
Thus, any charges made by Obama or his surrogates claiming subversion, disloyalty, or foreign collusion on Trump’s part – or any other American for that matter – must be evaluated with the utmost in cynicism and discretion.