Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

@WaPo writer has lost his mind



To rein in the media from using the Republican presidential primary debates to undermine the party, the Republican candidates. The disrespect shown in the questions -- "Coke or Pepsi?" -- led to the party to pick and choose its networks (sorry MSNBC) and its news partners.

NBC News tried that 2008/2012 crap at the CNBC debate and wound up losing the multi-million-dollar final debate. CNN will get it.

The National Review decided to kneecap the Republican front-runner (Donald Trump) and the RNC said goodbye to you for the final debate.

"Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our 'Against Trump' editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald," National Review Publisher Jack Fowler said late Thursday night.

Fine.

Except the Washington Post decided to stir things up. Its Erik Wemple wrote: "The RNC has lost its mind on GOP debates," which is more of that Republicans-are-crazy crap that causes Republicans to distance themselves from organizations such as the Washington Post.

He wrote: "Well, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has now decided that National Review is no longer qualified to referee an officially sanctioned GOP debate. Its offense? Leveraging the First Amendment."

Has he ever read the First Amendment? Because if he did, he would know how crazy it is to drag this constitutional passage into the argument. In case he missed it, the amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The amendment controls the actions of Congress, not the public. The American people and their institutions are under no obligation to politely endure insult.

For years, Republicans have indulged assholes. No more. GOOD.

10 comments:

  1. The "of" religion is so often misread as "from" religion by so many, including lawyers, judges, and the left.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "For years, Republicans have indulged assholes. No more."
    Well, except now the RNC establishment, in fear of Cruz, are backing asshole #1 Trump in hopes they can work with him and the Dems to pass whatever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Trump and the Republican establishment will never get along and never work together toward any mutual goals. If Trump is elected president, I submit his worst enemies in Congress will be the Republicans, not the Democrats. On most social issues, Trump is a liberal, which everyone knows. So when it comes to schmoozing and deal making, Trump and Congressional Dems will probably get along just fine. On the other hand, Trump's personal "charm" does not work well on establishment Republicans. It irritates them... a lot. A Trump presidency would entail 4 years of intra-party squabbles, at the end of which the Republican Party, if it even exists, will be far different than it is today.

      Delete
  3. Ironic, considering the WP is always yelling for "campaign finance reform" (read: censorship). Only in liberal la-la land can private acts be considered censorship, and a government crackdown on free speech "reform".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They should have stopped right after Law. Congress shall make no Law. Just let them get together and drink and chase interns and have a jolly time, take a little graft and go home.

      Delete
  4. Remember when the Constitution was ratified 6 or 7 states of the original 13 had a state ordered religion and the religious part of the first amendment was assurance to the states that the federal government would not force a federal religion upon the states. Mass was actually the last state to give up its state religion in about 1835. One more point guns-if I remember correctly all of the original 13 state constitutions guarantee that the citizens of that state had the right to keep and bear arms-the reasons stated in the document ranged from self defense, military actions to providing food (often in the same sentence). One of the things I find odd is none of the "experts" on the constitution never seem to mention this history(which I think is a fact pertinent to the 2nd amendment as well as the first 10 amendents). The original 13 state constitutions were all enacted before the Federal Constitution-during time of the articles of confederation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the problem that keeps coming up these days is not with the establishment clause but with the free exercise clause. It's almost as if Liberals think that if there can't be an officially established government religion then neither can private individuals practice a religion of their choosing.

      Delete
    2. well, except islam. they fear those who lop heads, the rest they know won't likely attack them so are fair targets to their minds.

      Delete
  5. If not for Trump's position in this race the republicans would still be bending over for the lsm and the biased debates for fear of "offending" people who wouldn't vote for them anyway.

    ReplyDelete