Musings

Standard

I watch with dismay, the news coverage of Donald Trump in recent days.  It is clear that the media is doing their best to take down Trump to prevent him from getting the GOP nod and winning the election for President.  Take the most recent flap regarding abortion.  It has been a media feeding frenzy trying to paint Trump as some kind of anti-woman monster or ill-prepared dummy pretending to be qualified to be a presidential candidate.  The truth of the matter is that Trump was set up to answer the way he did.  One could get almost anyone to answer in a specific way by structuring the sequence and rapidity of questions, because the sequence and rapidity prepares the mind to follow a pattern.  Note that Matthews asked the more general question of whether there should be punishment for the hypothetical crime of abortion.  Trump, being a law & order believer, said yes, there should be punishment for the commission of the crime, to which Matthews quickly said for women?  Trump’s mind was already programmed to think of punishment for the crime and without thinking said yes.  The structure and rapidity of the questioning programmed Trump to respond in that manner.

It is also laughable that the media would try to portray Trump as anti-woman by going back to some of the things he has said about and to some of the women who have attacked him. The few comments that are on the record now do not make him anti-woman.  The comments made about Carly Fiorina were not made in a public manner but in private.  Therefore it does not rise to the level of an attack.  The comment about Megyn Kelly were responses part of the on-going feud he had with her.  She attacked first and he responded.  His feud with Rosey O’Donnell is well documented.  His comments, therefore, were not against women in general but directed toward specific women who had attacked him.  He has consistently demonstrated that he respects women, but this does not get much press attention because it does not fit the media agenda.  He puts women in high positions in his organization.  He hired a young, black, female, on-the-spot, at an event last week.  A terminally ill woman made it a point to go to the town hall in which he appeared so that she could express her appreciation for the care and concern he expressed to her in her time of need.

It is also laughable that women want to have equality with men but then want to use their womanhood to protect themselves from barbs that men may throw their way.  That is hypocritical.  Women spend lots of money to look good, even sexy.  They get their hair styled.  They paint their faces to accent the eyes or lips,.  They wear shorter and tighter dresses and skirts with high heels to accent their legs.  They lift up their breasts or show cleavage to accent same.  Then, they get offended when men point out how good they look or comment that their looks may have given them an advantage in some way.

It was reported in the media that Hillary claims that world leaders are calling her expressing their fear that Trump could become president.  Could that be true?  I suppose it could because Trump is saying he would take away their candy, e.g. the billions and trillions of dollars they make off the U.S. in trade imbalances, foreign aid, NATO funding, etc.  Trump is rightly saying we are getting ripped off in a big way on the world stage and that it has to stop given that our national debt is $19 trillion and climbing.

Again, it is clear that the media are trying to take Trump down by blowing small things way out of proportion.  I would agree that Trump is not a polished politician.  But that is what is refreshing about him.  He has the knowledge and skills to renew the greatness of America.

Musings

Standard

The media, especially CNN and Politico, have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find something with which to discredit Dr. Ben Carson.  They have not found hard evidence of a scandal, but they are spinning their lack of information as a negative for Dr. Carson, using innuendo to suggest that he is lying or trying to hide something.  CNN defends its actions by saying they are just “vetting” Dr. Carson as they would any other candidate.  But is that really what they are doing?  Why are they not spending that much time “vetting” Trump, Rubio, Fiorina, or Kasich?  The reason is that, given current poling data, these candidates,except for Trump, are not likely to win the GOP nomination.

Here is my take on the situation:  CNN and Politico, and the other liberal media, are, in fact, trying to take down Dr. Carson.  Here is why that is true:  Recent polls have indicated that in a head-to-head contest with Hillary Clinton, Dr. Carson would win and Donald Trump would lose.  Trump is still slightly edging out Carson in the GOP contest but they are in a statistical dead heat.  If Trump wins the nomination, they are not so concerned, but if Carson wins, it is problematic for Hillary.  Carson could come out the winner of the GOP nomination.  Given that the media are in love with Hillary, this presents a problem.  They do not want their anointed one to lose.  Therefore they must do what they can to take down Dr. Carson with hopes that Trump will win the GOP nomination but not be able to put together a winning campaign against Hillary.

Musings

Standard

I am amazed at how quickly the liberal media will jump on something a conservative politician says and jump to conclusions without really understanding the words said.  An example of this is the recent interview in which GOP representative McCarthy made comments regarding the Benghazi committee with reference to Hillary Clinton’s decline in the polls.

The media were quick to conclude that McCarthy said that the committee was formed to take down Hillary.  However, when one examines the actual statement made by McCarthy, one will find that he did not say the committee was formed for the purpose of taking down Hillary.  What he said was that Hillary’s decline in the polls was a by-product of the the committee’s work.

Another example of the liberal media jumping to unwarranted conclusions is the situation with Dr. Ben Carson’s statement about not advocating putting a Muslim in the White House.  When Carson made that statement, the media immediately got their drawers in a knot and got into a frenzy about the constitution not allowing religion to be a qualifier for the Presidency.  Again, this was a knee-jerk misinterpretation of what Carson said.  Carson was making a personal statement based on what he knew of Islam.  He was not making an interpretation of the Constitution’s qualifiers for the Presidency.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an individual voter from applying whatever litmus test he or she wishes to determine how he or she votes.

The reporting on what Donald Trump said about illegal immigrants was also out of place.  Trump did say that the 11 million illegals must go.  He never said he was going to send squads of police or troops into communities to smash down doors and haul families away kicking and screaming.  He never said he was going to deport American citizens, i.e. the anchor babies/children.  What Trump did say was that the process would be humane, and that it is assumed that when the illegal families left, they would take their children with them, even if those children were born in the U.S.

Regarding babies born in the U.S. being U.S. citizens if their parents are illegal aliens, the media are quick to mention that the Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. are citizens.  What the media forgets or ignores is the qualifier regarding that citizenship.  The Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens.  “Subject to the jurisdiction” is the qualifier.  Illegal aliens are still citizens of their home country, so they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not of the U.S.  This qualifier will likely be the basis for challenging the status of the so-called anchor babies.