Cross posted at: THE WORD on The Word of Faith (a GroupBlog)
Yes, when a campaign merely relies on “black” and “pastor” while not fully understanding the depths of false narratives typically associated with televangelists theology as well as one’s own self aggrandizement (ego) involved in such money making careers… you will invariably run into such issues as we see below:
Following links from “Pastor” Burns show we find some of his compatriots listed HERE (a “who’s who” of false teachers).
AS AN ASIDE: I hate that term, “alt-right,” see a great commentary by GAY PATRIOT on it.
(HOTAIR) [see also, The American Spectator] A classic via the Daily Rushbo. Listen [above] and you’ll realize immediately that he’s not laughing out of affectation. He’s honestly cracking up at the ridiculous irony that the great populist warrior who’s come to smash the Washington “globalists” has turned out to be the amnesty errand boy they’ve been dreaming of. Marco Rubio couldn’t sell amnesty to the populist right. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t sell it. But Mr Nationalism? If he says it’s okay, what cuckish RINO would dare disagree? If Rush wasn’t laughing, he’d have to cry at how little many of his own grassroots listeners seem to care about the policies they claim to support when a heroic authority figure argues to the contrary…..
(POLITICO) Team Cruz on Trump’s immigration shift: Told you so…. “Everything Trump promises comes with an expiration date,” said Cruz’s former Senate communications director, Amanda Carpenter. “We knew it during the primary, and now it is apparent he has duped his most loyal supporters on the issue they care about most, immigration. Don’t say we didn’t warn them.”
(WINTERY KNIGHT) Trump Cuckolds Low Information Alt-Right Voters By Reverting To 2013 Pro-Amnesty View…
The so-called “alt-right” is a group of secular leftist white nationalists who supported Trump in the GOP primary because they thought he would be tough on immigration. They called traditional conservatives “cuckservatives” because they thought that voting for GOP primary candidates who had a record of being tough on immigration was less important than insults and vulgarity. Well, just as policy-oriented conservatives predicted during the primary, Trump has reversed himself on his tough rhetoric and resumed the standard Democrat position on immigration: amnesty.
There are a whole bunch of posts about Trump’s reversal on immigration policy over at the Conservatives 4 Ted Cruz hub.
[…..]
….Rick Tyler, Cruz’s former campaign communications director, said that Trump’s evolving stance seems like amnesty for illegal immigrants.
“From what I have seen, he is now the pro-amnesty candidate,” he told Politico.
“If Trump is insistent on reversing himself on amnesty, then he will have fooled his entire base. He would have fooled enough people who voted for him to make him the Republican nominee. It’s deceitful; it was a betrayal.”
Wintery continues:
Two quotes from WINTERY KNIGHT about or in the above noted article:
Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media issues an appeal to “my fellow Hebrews,” making the case for a Donald Trump presidency. (More)
Professor Peter Navarro (business professor at the University of California-Irvine – his books are here) is one of the specialists informing Donald Trump on his trade policies. This was a very informative interview and I plan on watching the documentary mentioned in this interview.
This conversation took a big step in elucidating me on the issue. I wish I could have heard a response to us (the U.S.) manipulating our currency and why this is an issue that I haven’t heard dealt with. In other words, if it is bad and really unlawful for China… why not us?
The David Duke thing was great!
Dan Bongino, The Renegade Republican, was at a loss that the media at CNN were treating this as a DEFCON 1 issue.
WESTERN JOURNALISM makes notes of the exchange:
…The former Secret Service agent said no calls for violence against Clinton were implicit in Trump’s statement. He explained that the GOP nominee was directing his comments to “one-issue voters” who support the Second Amendment.
Bongino said, “It’s clear he’s trying to motivate people to go out and vote based on the potential for an open Supreme Court seat. How that’s clear to you that was some kind of call to an open revolution and to start firing your weapons at public officials, is utter absurdity.”
Lemon fired back asking, “As someone who’s running for leader of the free world, shouldn’t he be as clear in his words as possible?”
Bongino answered, “We can disagree about how imprudent he worded that, but to suggest that he was calling to violence means to me that you came into this with the idea that, ‘Donald Trump was calling to violence, let me make the case afterwards.’ You didn’t come into this with a clear and open mind.”
[….]
Lemon declared, “You’re lying to the American people and you know that you’re lying to the American people.”
“Right, I’m lying, Don,” Bongino answered sarcastically…
For more of Dan Bongino’s stuff, see here:
★ Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/authors/dan-bongino
★ His blog is here: http://blog.bongino.com/
★ Make sure to follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/dbongino
Dennis Prager touches on Donald Trumps poor use of the English vernacular to express his poor thinking. The bottom line is that Trump should stay on script and (b) we shouldn’t allow the media to form the narrative. One comment on another video on this topic reads:
“Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish – the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. That will be a horrible day.”
That last line is very ambiguous, you could interpret that as following on from the previous line i.e. It would be horrible if the second amendment people shot her. Or that it means it would be horrible if Clinton picked supreme court justices.
He shouldn’t have left it open to interpretation, it’s just giving the Clinton campaign and the biased media far too much ammunition.
I wish to reword this a bit myself:
➤ “Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish – the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the NRA and other pro-second amendment groups could continue the fight. But if Hillary gets to appoint judges for the Court, that would be a horrible day.”
HotAir comments on Dan Rather’s rather obnoxious indignation:
Disgraced news anchor Dan Rather wrote a post on Facebook yesterday attacking Trump’s comments about “Second Amendment people.” Here’s a sample:
No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?…
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.
There’s a lot more like this but it all has the same urgent tone of righteous indignation. This Facebook post shows everything that was wrong with Dan Rather as a journalist. There’s no effort to understand or explain the subject he’s discussing. Was Trump really making a threat here? Was he talking about the NRA? Was this a joke Trump should never have made? He doesn’t even bother to quote more than four words of what Trump said that prompted this response….
Before continuing, not how the story is presented, and then see Kayleigh McEnany rightly note the correct view of what Trump said:
Using the Left’s logic, however, we see that Hillary called for the assassination of Obama in 2008 (POWERLINE!):
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”…
Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.
Let’s see whether the typical media double standard kicks in with Trump’s comments today.
If Trump is racist for saying it… why not Hillary? Hhmmmmm?