NEW VIDEO SERIES: Trump Betrayal Watch #1 – Tariffs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbR4T2VQK4

 

Source:

Trump demands Canada dismantle supply management or risk trading relationship – CBC.CA

I’ve had it with President Donald Trump!

To give you some context to my decision. As you all know by now, Rosanna Barr made an ass of herself and lost her TV show.

Well, the President in his quest to make everything about him, tweeted this:

To which I responded:

 

This is when, I decided to drop the bomb on the President:

and with that folks, I declare, publicly, for the first time, that I am no longer in the pro-trump camp. This man has lost my support. Now, I am not switching sides. I am simply withdrawing support from this President. My political position, principles and convictions have not changed a bit. I just cannot support this President any longer. This has been a LONG time coming and it is finally gotten to the point with me, that I simply cannot continue to support this man.

Signed,

Patrick Adkins

Owner

Eye on the Republic

 

 

Living proof that the Republican party is no longer neoconservative

I saw this on two different sites and needless to say I was kind of surprised.

Writing over at the New York Times, Mona Charen tells the story:

I’ve been a conservative my entire life. I fell hard for William F. Buckley as a
teenager and my first job was as editorial assistant at Buckley’ s National
Review, followed by stints writing speeches for first lady Nancy Reagan and
then working for the Gipper himself. Looking toward the 1988 race, Vice
President George H.W. Bush wasn’t conservative enough for me . I went to
work as a speechwriter for Representative Jack Kemp in 1986.

So you’d think that the Conservative Political A ction Conference , or
CPAC, would be a natur al fit. It once was. But on Saturday, after speaking to
this year ’s gathering, I had to be escorted from the premises by several
guards who seemed genuinely concerned for my safety .

What happened to me at CP AC is the perfect illustration of the collective
experience of a whole swath of conservatives since Donald Trump became
the Republican nominee. We built and organized this party — b ut now we’re
made to feel like interlopers.

I was surprised that I was even ask ed to speak at CPAC. My views on
Trump, Roy Moore and Steve Bannon are no secret. I knew the crowd would
be hostile, and so I was tempted to pass.

But too many of us have given up the fight. W e’ve let disgust and dismay
lead us to withdraw while bad actors tak e control of the direction of our
movement. I know how encouraged I feel whenever someone simply states
the truth, and so I decided to accept CPAC’s invitation.

Politico tells the rest:

Mona Charen, a well-known conservative author and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was among four women discussing issues of feminism and sexual abuse on the final day of the annual right-wing gathering. Asked by the moderator to name something that gets their “blood boiling” as it relates to those subjects, Charen replied, “I am disappointed in people on our side for being hypocrites about sexual harassers and abusers of women, who are in our party, who are sitting in the White House, who brag about their extramarital affairs, who brag about mistreating women—and because he happens to have an ‘R’ next to his name we look the other way.”

And she didn’t stop there. With the audience silent and seemingly paralyzed by her assault on Trump—whose Friday-morning speech highlighted three days of uninterrupted adulation—Charen added: “This is a party that endorsed Roy Moore for the Senate in the state of Alabama even though he was a credibly accused child molester. You cannot claim that you stand for women and put up with that.” Her final line was interrupted with jeers and boos from the audience, mixed with scattered applause, with one woman near the front repeatedly yelling: “Not true! Not true!”The moderator scrambled to move the panel forward, mentioning the “explosion” of incidents in which “accusation has been equal to conviction.” Many in the crowd continued shouting, several of them about the need to defend men from baseless allegations and separate good guys from bad guys.“Speaking of bad guys,” Charen interjected, her tone louder and more aggressive than before, “there was quite an interesting person who was on this stage the other day. Her name is Marion Le Pen. Now, why was she here? Why was she here? She’s a young, no-longer-in-office politician from France. I think the only reason she was here is because she’s named Le Pen.” A man screamed from the audience: “Why are you here?” Charen continued: “And the Le Pen name is a disgrace. Her grandfather is a racist and a Nazi. She claims that she stands for him. And the fact that CPAC invited her is a disgrace.”By the time Charen had finished, boos and taunts drowned out the applause. “You’re a disgrace!” another man shouted.

Waiting for Charen afterward in a hallway inside the Gaylord National Resort, I was surprised to see her surrounded by three security officers. She was surprised, too. Charen told me the detail had suddenly appeared backstage, “seemingly nervous,” having been assigned to protect her on the way out. As we talked, and the detail marched Charen briskly toward the front doors, a few people tried to approach her but nobody got close. “They were acting as if I were in real danger,” she texted me afterward, “which I didn’t feel at all.”

This incident right here is kind of what troubles me about the Republican Party nowadays. Although I will tell you this the only sign that this is, is that the Republican party, at least the Grassroots is not buying the BS of the neoconservative right anymore. You have to understand something the Republican Grassroots we’re the ones who were subjected to the lies of the George W Bush Administration; when they told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and true Mona Charen was one of the ones who preached that Doctrine. Well, nowadays, the Republican Grassroots simply is not open to neoconservative or any sort of progressive thought because the last time they were open to that sort of thought, this nation got dragged into the Iraq War which almost destroyed the Republican Party standing in National politics and put a humongous stain on this country. This lady ought not to be surprised, she ought to be a little more cautious where she appears; because quite frankly her Jewish-first conservatism is simply not wanted anymore in the Republican party or any political party for that matter anymore.

Exclusive Video Commentary: Trump vs Bannon

Well, this is very interesting…

Via Bloomberg, Trump says, Bannon is “Teh Crazy..”:

President Donald Trump denounced his former top strategist, Steve Bannon, on Wednesday in a dramatic break from the man considered an architect of Trump’s populist campaign.

 

“When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” Trump said in a statement issued after the publication of excerpts of a new book in which Bannon criticizes the president and his family. “Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look.”

 

Steve Bannon

Photographer: Nicole Craine/Bloomberg

Bannon has lost the access to the president that he’s enjoyed since leaving the White House in August, one person familiar with the matter said.

Earlier on Wednesday, The Guardian published excerpts of a forthcoming book by author Michael Wolff in which Bannon predicts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will “crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV” over the president’s son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016. Bannon also called Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with the lawyer, in which he expected to receive damaging information on Trump’s election opponent Hillary Clinton, “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” according to the Guardian.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters at a briefing that Trump was “furious, disgusted” by Bannon’s remarks about his son, calling the claims “outrageous” and “completely false.”

Bannon, reached by Bloomberg News, declined to comment on the remarks published by the Guardian. Two people close to him said he wasn’t bothered by the president’s statement. They asked not to be identified discussing Bannon’s reaction.

New York Magazine also published an article by Wolff on Wednesday, based on the book, that recounts a conversation between Bannon and former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes in which the two men debated whether Trump understood the importance of his election.

“‘Does he get it?’ asked Ailes suddenly, looking intently at Bannon. Did Trump get where history had put him?” Wolff wrote. “Bannon took a sip of water. ‘He gets it,’ he said, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. ‘Or he gets what he gets.”’

My temptation to giggle at the faux outrage aside. This will have some far reaching consequences and I explain this in my video commentary below:

https://youtu.be/kNtC_2BDKVk

Related: (Via Memorandum)

Michael Wolff / New York Magazine:Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President

David Smith / The Guardian:Trump Tower meeting with Russians ‘treasonous’, Bannon says in explosive book

Asawin Suebsaeng / The Daily Beast:Enraged Trump Personally Dictated Scathing Denouncement of Strategist Steve Bannon

Others: Washington Post, RedState, The Hill, National Review, CNN, Politico, The Daily Beast, Shareblue Media, CNBC, The White House, Washington Monthly, Talking Points Memo, New York Times, TVNewser, Little Green Footballs, Business Insider, The Daily Caller, Axios, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Refinery29, Gizmodo, Raw Story, Washington Press, Mother Jones, Mashable, Front Page Magazine, The Guardian, TheBlaze, Breitbart, The Daily Gazette, Mediaite, IJR, Shakesville and The Mahablog, more at Mediagazer », Politico, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, TheBlaze, Infowars, Daily Wire, New York Post, CNN, National Review, NBC News, New Republic, ThinkProgress, The Atlantic, Vox, Talking Points Memo, bizpacreview.com, Washington Press, HuffPost, Washington Post, Axios, ABC News, Right Wing Watch, IJR, Mother Jones, The Daily Caller, The Moderate Voice, Business Insider, Raw Story, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Booman Tribune, CNBC, Hullabaloo, The Gateway Pundit, Common Dreams, The Stream, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, RedState, Fox News Insider, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Monthly, Roll Call and Townhall.com, The Hill, Raw Story, Business Insider and Washington Press

 

A good example why I stopped voting for Democrats

This comes via Memeorandum, a good example as to why I stopped voting for the Democratic Party.

Quotable Quote:

Imagine how far gone in hate a liberal must be to attack Mrs. Trump for her efforts to decorate the White House. There is simply no bottom to left-wing depravity, as manifested in the Democratic Party press.

Now to fair, I did see some nasty stuff printed about the Obama Family, by some Conservative outlets; notably by Michelle Malkin, who was especially vicious towards Michelle Obama.  However, anything that the left prints is much, much worse. I’m no Trump fanboy, not by a long shot. But, attacking his family, is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Video: Senator Jeff Flake says he will not seek reelection in 2018

I kinda saw this coming and I totally understand where he is coming from.

Full Text of the floor speech via CNN:

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country – the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.
Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.
It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.
Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing—until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.
When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.

Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.

These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.
Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.

The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?

The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.
I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.

I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.

It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a heathy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.
I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.

Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.
I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Related:

Others: Weekly Standard, Washington Post, Vox, The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo, NBC News, The Hill, CNN, ABC News, JustOneMinute, Axios, Mother Jones, RedState, CNBC, Raw Story, Shareblue Media, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, Bearing Drift, The Federalist, Outside the Beltway, TheBlaze, Washington Free Beacon, Business Insider, Hit & Run, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Daily Kos, Shakesville, Mediaite, Political Wire, twitchy.com, New York Magazine, Joe.My.God. and AOL, ThinkProgress, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, Vox, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Shareblue Media and Mashable, Vox, Washington Post, Talking Points Memo, CNBC, Hit & Run, NBC News, Raw Story, The Gateway Pundit, Washington Free Beacon and Hullabaloo

 

Another good reason why I am not happy with President Donald Trump

Is this nutty idea that The President should be able to cancel the broadcast licenses of those in the press that he disagrees with. This is crazy talk and smacks of Hitler.

Here’s a snippet of the story and commentary from HotAir.com:

Yet, there are also plenty of conservatives and libertarian who have criticized Trump for his attack on the MSM. AP and Ed both wrote Trump was wrong in his challenge to the First Amendment. Katherine Timpf at National Review went even further, (correctly) using the “f-word,” as in fascism, in her condemnation.

Let me be clear: Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view; it’s a fascist one. You’re fine to think that the government should control the media; you’re fine to espouse it — thanks, of course, to the First Amendment that you’re apparently totally fine with jeopardizing — but please understand that this idea is not compatible with conservative, or even traditionally American, values.

There’s no doubt the MSM has raised the dander of conservatives and libertarians, and for good reason. The newscaster plenty of people cite as an example of fair news, Walter Cronkite, wasn’t fair at all. Douglas Brinkley’s book Cronkite, written with participation from the ex-CBS News anchor’s family, showed Cronkite wasn’t biased, especially to Barry Goldwater. There’s also the stupidity of Dan Rather, who pushed the idea ex-President George W. Bush figured out a way to skip out on his service in the National Guard.

These are examples of biased press, and should cause people pause. It’s totally okay if someone decides to find another source for a story because it was written by an outlet which may or may not give someone a fair shot. That’s up to individuals, not the government. Yet, biased press is very much protected by the First Amendment. In fact, biased press is free press, whether it makes conservatives, libertarians, liberals, or socialists happy or furious. Federalists and Anti-Federalists used the press to put out their opinions on whether the Constitution should be approved. Jeffersonians used the press to get their viewpoints out to the masses.

It’s also important to remember it’s not just “conservatives” who have had issues with the press. California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested only “real reporters” deserved to be protected in a 2013 media shield law (which should just be the First Amendment, but I digress). Her amendment thankfully failed.

But it shows both parties have issues with outlets which don’t give them favorable press, and there are politicians in both parties who want to see the press restricted. All political ideologies, especially those who believe in freedom and liberty, should reject this wholeheartedly.

If President Donald Trump thinks that he can control the media; he is very highly mistaken. I voted for this man; to tackle trade, secure the boarder and straighten out our fiscal mess. I did NOT vote for a fascist. This whole idea smacks of the German Nazi nonsense of the 1940’s and it needs to be stood up to and stopped.

This is America and here, we do not control the press, ever. End of Discussion.

 

Video: Eye on the Republic predicts the outcome of the Trump Administration

I was looking at the headlines this morning and I see this….

Via NYT:

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.

The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.

Here is my prediction as to what will happen to the Trump Administration:

Others:

Mother Jones, Breitbart, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Vox, The Atlantic, American Prospect, The Daily Caller, Talking Points Memo, ThinkProgress, Politico, NPR, FiveThirtyEight, The Hill, Daily Wire, Raw Story, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Business Insider, Infowars, PRI, The Week, Scripting News, IJR, MSNBC, NBC News, Salon, Fox News Insider, The Huffington Post, Hullabaloo, New York Magazine, Media Matters for America, CBS Philly, AOL, CBS New York, Shakesville, Gothamist, Political Insider blog, Common Dreams, Outside the Beltway, Mediaite, BillMoyers.com, Washington Monthly, Towleroad, CNN, No More Mister Nice Blog, TheBlaze, Hot Air, Power Line, BizPac Review, Just Security, Joe.My.God., alan.com, twitchy.com, Informed Comment, RT, AMERICAblog NewsAMERICAblog …, The Resurgent, The FADER, Refinery29, Little Green Footballs, Lawyers, Guns & Money, TheStreet.com, Balloon Juice, Boing Boing and Axios, more at Mediagazer »

This is not going to end well for the Republican Party

Good morning from Detroit.

I am awake very early this morning and I happen to be looking over the headlines here on Memeorandum.

I happen to be reading and looking at these headlines here and I cannot help but think that if, by chance that Donald Trump loses this election; that the Republican Party is going to be totally in a state of shambles for a very, very long time. I mean, even the Wealthy are now looking elsewhere and in a Republican election, that is bad…very bad. I mean, I hate to sound like a “Debbie Downer”, but this really does not look good for the Republicans at all. Because folks, let us just face the facts — There are more wealthy Republicans, than there are grassroots conservatives. The majority of the Conservative Christian Right, is presumably staying home, at least the ones I know.

The reason I say it is not looking good for the Republicans, is that they have totally invested themselves into basically a clown, a showman, an egotistical blowhard — who sues anyone that dare criticizes him. You cannot say, that the Republicans did not try, they did and it was a very valiant effort. But, you would think that they would have selected someone a bit more serious, than who they picked. Ted Cruz was dangerous. But, there were others, Rand Paul, Christie, a few others. Instead we go who we got and now we’re looking at 8 years of a criminal pantsuit.

 

Guest Voice: No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers

With all the turmoil and uncertainty coming from this election cycle, one constant is already known. U.S. Foreign Policy is well under the control of the international interventionists. The career globalists on the American payroll continue to push for more and greater engagements. Step back and consider the premise. Seldom is there an international involvement that is not eagerly embraced, funded and expanded. Based upon this premise, the record of continued failures is better understood. The systemic decline of a once great nation has developed into a pathetic deterioration of an imperial empire.

Continue reading Guest Voice: No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers”