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.

 

EXCLUSIVE AT EYE ON THE REPUBLIC: Video: Prediction that Steve Bannon will be removed

I happen to notice these stories:

Here is my previous blog posting. 

and now, my commentary:

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

 

Others: USA Today, The Hill, Washington Post, Front Page Magazine, The Lid, Daily Kos, CNN, Mediaite, Mother Jones, Media Matters for America, Correct The Record, Common Dreams, Business Insider, NPR, Hot Air, Vox, Big Think, BizPac Review, Hullabaloo, Salon, The Times of Israel, The New Civil Rights Movement, Breitbart, National Review, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Raw Story, The Daily Caller, Boing Boing, Southern Poverty Law Center, The Root, AMERICAblog NewsAMERICAblog …, Jezebel, NBC News, The Daily Beast, RedState, The Huffington Post, Guardian, Joe.My.God., ABC News, Political Insider blog, RT, TheBlaze, WORLD, Media Matters for America and Talking Points Memo, Talking Points Memo and RedState, CNNMoney, Little Green Footballs, Washington Post, The Lid, Washingtonian, Mediaite, Law News, TheBlaze, New York Magazine and The Week, more at Mediagazer »

The utter hypocrisy of the “Christian Right”

I have to say, the so-called “Christian Right” has fallen away from what it once was in the 1980’s. As you know, and as I blogged about at about four this morning, Trump got caught on a hot mic saying some pretty nasty stuff about a woman.

This is what amazes me to no end. The so-called “Christian Right” has pretty shrugged the shoulders and said, “Oh Well…”.

Click here for the story via the Daily Beast. I shall quote some interesting parts:

The fact that Donald Trump said in 2005 that he could grab women “by the p*ssy” because he’s famous doesn’t seem to be changing how social conservative leaders feel about him.

Evangelicals who opposed him before still aren’t fans. And the ones in his camp aren’t phased by the recording. That’s because this isn’t about how much they like the brash billionaire; it’s about how unflinching they are in their opposition to Hillary Clinton.

“People of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defund Planned Parenthood, defend religious liberty and oppose the Iran nuclear deal,” said Ralph Reed, who heads the Faith & Freedom Coalition.  “A ten-year-old tape of a private conversation with a talk show host ranks low on their hierarchy of concerns.”

This whole thing that I just quoted above, encapsulates the entire downfall and compromise of the Evangelical Christian right. Now, I happen to be 44 years old and I remember the Reagan era very well and I remember the militancy of the Christian Right. Could you imagine, if you are old enough to recall; what would have happened to Ronald Reagan, if something like that would have broken, during his bid for the Presidency? Ronald Reagan would have been shamed out of the Presidential race in an instant!

The reasoning for this reasoning of this, “eh, it happens” stance, is this:

Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and a member of Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, said the comments were “lewd, offensive, and indefensible.”

But, he added, he’s still voting Trump. He said he moderated a meeting between the candidate and Evangelical and Catholic leaders, and he was forthright about his hesitations about Trump’s moral

“I said at that time, with Trump sitting next to me, I would not necessarily choose this man to be my child’s Sunday School teacher,” Jeffress said. “But that’s not what this election is about.”

He added that he doesn’t think Hillary Clinton is morally superior to Trump.

“Here is a woman who lied to the families of the Benghazi victims, she destroyed 33,000 emails while under subpoena, and she’s attacked the women who attacked her husband,” he said. “The fact is we’re all sinners, we all need forgiveness, and God doesn’t grade people according to their level of sin.”

And David Bozell, a Roman Catholic who heads the conservative group ForAmerica and supports Trump, said the audio won’t change how conservative voters view the candidate.

“Bill Clinton’s history of being a sexual predator, including affairs with interns, dwarfs any locker room banter,” he said. “The clip is unfortunate, but then again, we’re not electing saints in November.”

Unbelievable. The reasoning is, “Donald Trump is pretty bad; But Hillary Clinton is worse.” This is a fatal flaw and bad reasoning. It also is a sure sign of the apostasy within the ranks of the Evangelical Church.

Now, do not misunderstand me here; I am voting for Trump and I will be holding my nose. However, as a Christian and an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist; I would expect those who claim to represent me and my beliefs to at least take more of a stand on an issue much as this one.

Other Bloggers: Vox, ThinkProgress, CNN, Mediaite, The Last Tradition, Us Weekly, Business Insider, FiveThirtyEight, Jezebel, The Gateway Pundit, Media Matters for America, The Verge, electionlawblog.org, portal.liberalamerica.org, Los Angeles Times, Independent Journal Review, New York Times, ABC News, Joe.My.God., CBS Los Angeles, Bloomberg, The FADER, KATU-TV, TheStreet.com, National Review, Hit & Run, Mashable, Florida Politics, The Times of Israel, Outside the Beltway, Daily Kos, Law News, RT, Boing Boing, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, Scott Adams’ Blog, CBS San Francisco, Gothamist, The Daily Caller, Politico, BizPac Review, BuzzFeed, Off the Kuff, Politicus USA, fox13now.com, Occupy Democrats, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, Page Six, Fox 59, Fox News Insider, FOX2now.com, Forbes, Electoral-vote.com, Talking Points Memo, USA Today, Taylor Marsh, Power Line, The Stranger …, bet.com, WREG-TV, Media Matters for America, TVNewser, NO QUARTER USA NET, Liberal Values, TMZ.com, CBS Philly, Patterico’s Pontifications, KTLA, abc7.com, CBS New York, TalkLeft, Heat Street and Althouse, – Via Memeorandum

This is end, my only friend, the end….

This is so funny. The Establishment is feeling the butthurt:

Nothing can stop the Trump train….nothing. Not even Erik “whiny bitch boy” Erickson

The talks about how to deal with Trump’s ascendance took on fresh urgency on Thursday. Some were intent on keeping up the fight. Prominent conservative activists gathered behind closed doors at the Army-Navy Club in downtown Washington, just a few blocks from the White House, to discuss how Trump could be defeated — even if it means waging a third-party campaign to run against him. The meeting drew around two dozen figures, including prominent activist Erick Erickson, conservative columnist Quin Hillyer, South Dakota businessman Bob Fischer and former George W. Bush adviser Bill Wichterman.
Source: Anti-Trump forces contemplate the end – POLITICO

I believe this here is most appropriate:

youtube placeholder image

 

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

The 2016 Presidential Race Begins: Iowa caucuses are today

The first step of the 2016 election starts today.

Video:

The Story via Fox News:

As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.

After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.

Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.

“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.

The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.

I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.

Whoa: Donald Trump goes off the rails and not in a good way either

I have to admit, that at one point, I would have actually voted for this guy. I am really not sure of that anymore. This, I have to say, is very much below the belt.

The videos: (via HotAir)

https://youtu.be/0jpZgncFVfk

and…:

youtube placeholder image

Transcript:

“It’s in the book that he’s got a pathological temper,” Trump told “Erin Burnett OutFront,” speaking about Carson’s autobiography. “That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that … as an example: child molesting. You don’t cure these people. You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that.”

In his 1990 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” Carson attributes violent behavior in his youth to his “disease,” a “pathological temper” that the Republican presidential hopeful said caused him to strike one friend with a rock and attempt to stab another. In subsequent accounts of his violent youth, Carson said he once attempted to attack his mother with a hammer.

“I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book,” Trump told Erin Burnett. “You know, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological — and he says that in the book, I don’t say that — and again, I’m not saying anything, I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he’s pathological, somebody said he has pathological disease.”

A report on the second video:

At first, the audience was quick to laugh at Trump’s sharp insults and applaud his calls to better care for veterans, replace the Affordable Care Act and construct a wall along the Mexican border. But as the speech dragged on, the applause came less often and grew softer. As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped. …

He scoffed at those who have accused him of not understanding foreign policy, saying he knows more about Islamic State terrorists “than the generals do.” He took credit for predicting the threat of Osama bin Laden and being right on the “anchor baby situation,” a position he says “these great geniuses from Harvard Law School” now back. He uttered the word “crap” at least three times, and promised to “bomb the s—” out of oil fields benefiting terrorists. He signed a book for a guy in the audience and then tossed it back at him with a flip: “Here you go, baby. I love you.”

Trump called Republican rival Carly Fiorina “Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is,” accused Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton of playing the “woman’s card” and said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is “weak like a baby.” He then devoted more than 10 minutes angrily attacking his chief rival, Ben Carson, saying the retired doctor has a “pathological disease” with no cure, similar to being a child molester.

“If I did the stuff he said he did, I wouldn’t be here right now. It would have been over. It would have been over. It would have been totally over,” Trump said. “And that’s who’s in second place. And I don’t get it.”

Wow, Just Wow. 😯 No wonder the Republican establishment is in an utter panic!

Ed Morrissey observes the following:

Two points. First, “pathological” does not mean “incurable,” and anyway Carson uses the term as a descriptor, not a medical diagnosis. Second, there is a vast difference between having a violent temper in one’s youth, and molesting children. This is mud-slinging of the most virulent and dishonest manner.

I am thinking that you are going to see a huge — oh, sorry, “Yuge” — drop in the polls for Trump. This is not politicking, this is slander and utter dishonesty and I really think that the America voters are going to make that clear come the first primary vote.

I have to like Carly Fiorina’s Response:

Donald, sorry, I've got to interrupt again. You would know something about pathological. How was that meeting with…

Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 12, 2015

So funny. 😀

Others: (via Memeorandum)  NBC News, Power Line, Washington Monthly, Mother Jones, Fox News, Front Page Magazine, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, VodkaPundit, Mock Paper Scissors, The Gateway Pundit, Associated Press, Politico, No More Mister Nice Blog, Hullabaloo,Shakesville, PoliticusUSA, Balloon Juice, Outside the Beltway, Lawyers, Guns & Money,Booman Tribune, Daily Wire, Vox Popoli, The Week, The American Conservative,FiveThirtyEight, Erick on the Radio and ABC News