Twenty years ago, that deception was big news. The American public was shocked that any “performers” would dare to execute such a fraud. And some Americans were amazed that that audio technology would allow such fraud.
Today, the audio technology that allowed Milli Vanilli to deceive America seems as old news as Photoshop. Who’s surprised that digitized audio files or 2-dimensional images can be can be edited or used to deceive? Virtually no one. Fifth graders aren’t surprised or impressed by such technology.
But, who among us imagines that current video technology not only allows the manipulation of digitized, moving video images in order to completely falsify the words seemingly spoken by the subject of the video–but also allows that manipulation to take place in real time?
Ooo–“awful legacy“–sounds juicy.
According to The Washington Examiner,
“In a speech Monday to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign, former President Bill Clinton asked Democratic voters to shrug off the “awful legacy” of President Obama’s years in office.
“According to Bill Clinton,’Now if you don’t believe we can all grow together again, if you don’t believe we’re ever going to grow again, if you believe it’s more important to re-litigate the past, there may be many reasons that you don’t want to support her.’“
I can just about hear Hillary shouting at Bill “Thanks, you stupid S.O.B., for admitting there may be many reasons not to vote for me!”
Korea has opened the world’s first virtual shopping center. All the products are just LCD screens that allow you to order the items by touching the screen. When you get to the counter, your items are already bagged and ready to go.
Pretty cool. No more shopping carts.
That first article was based on a CNBC video interview of Republican National Committee (RNC) member Curly Haugland who explained a rule of the “Republican Party” (an entity whose precise meaning and membership is not commonly known, but does not include all of the “riff-raff” who voted in the Republican primary elections). According to Mr. Haugland, the “Republican Party” (whatever that is) will decide who’ll be the Republican candidate for President while the Republican primary election voters’ preferences will carry no real authority. I.e., the primary elections don’t count.
Assuming Mr. Haugland’s admission legally accurate, it is explosive. He has almost certainly ignited a political revolution.
RNC-member Haugland has unwittingly opened a can of worms that won’t be easily closed or forgotten. Just today—just one day after CNBC posted Mr. Haugland’s original video-interview—The Washington Times published an article entitled “RNC weighs scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers“.*
That article declares in part, that:
The following video might push your blood pressure up a few points.
Curly Haugland is member of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and was recently interviewed by CNBC. According to Mr. Haugland, the “Republican Party”—not the voters in the Republican primaries—will choose who will be the Republican nominee for President. If Trump wins 90% of the delegates in the primaries, he can still be denied the Republican nomination for President by the “Republican Party”.
When asked, “Then, why have the primaries?” The Mr. Haugland grinned and answered, “That’s a good question.”
The implication of Mr. Haugland’s interview is that the primary elections are nothing but a dog-and-pony show and have no real authority or power to determine who’ll be nominated for President. More, what’s the purpose and legality of all the financial contributions given to candidates during the primary elections, if the primaries are, themselves, meaningless? Are the primaries less about votes than about advertising?
Finally, if the “Republican Party” will select the “Republican” nominee for President, but voters in the Republican primaries have no real say in selecting that nominee, then it’s apparent that the “Republican Party” is something other than the voters in the Republican primaries. Thus, the “Republican Party” does not appear to include 99% of those who vote in the Republican primaries and mistakenly think of themselves as “Republicans”.
If the votes in the primaries don’t really count, the voters who think of themselves as members of the “Republican Party” are deluded. They are nothing but “house niggers” in the Republican “mansion”. They may live in the same mansion as the “Republican Party,” but they’re not really part of that “family”.
All of which leads me to wonder, who, pray tell, are the real members of the real “Republican Party”?
I can’t answer that question for sure, but I recall someone telling me about 20 years ago that the real “Republican Party” includes only those people who’ve been elected under the Republican Party banner and who are still serving in office. I don’t know that that description is accurate. But, if (as Mr. Haugland has implied) the voters in the Republican primaries are not really members of the “Republican Party,” that description sounds plausible.
If the real “Republican Party” consists only of those “Republicans” who are currently in office, there aren’t more than five or ten thousand “real” Republican Party members (from city dogcatcher on up to President) in the entire country.
If those “real Republican Party” incumbents are up for reelection this year, and if they disenfranchise the Republican primary voters’ choice for presidential nominee, I’d advise those Republican incumbents to start updating their resumes, because they won’t be reelected this November and will be looking for a new job.
I’d recommend to everyone who voted in the Republican primary that if your vote is ignored and you’re disenfranchised by the “real Republicans” in the “Republican Party,” then you shouldn’t vote for any “Republican” in the A.D. 2016 election or in the balance of your life. I don’t care if the “Republican” running for office is your parent, spouse, or child, don’t vote for ’em if the real “Republican Party” disenfranchises those who voted in this year’s “Republican” primaries.
Here’s the explosive CNBC video (a little over 4 minutes long) of the interview of Curly Haugland: