Connect with us

Opinions

What we can learn from Trump’s idiotic blather

Published

on

It would be absolutely ridiculous to relitigate the entire NFL controversy regarding the National Anthem and standing versus kneeling, as l think it has been discussed to death. However, there is something to be learned from Donald Trump’s idiotic blather.

They call it the First Amendment, Mr. Trump

People in America protest things on a daily basis. Some of the protests are quite worthwhile, while others are utterly absurd. However, Americans have a Constitutional right to peacefully protest anything they want, even if their approach leaves much to be desired. Didn’t we see liberals walking down the street dressed as vagina’s this year? In other words, a person has the right to act like a disrespectful idiot if he or she so chooses. That comes with being a free American citizen. This is something Donald Trump clearly does not understand.

Observations

It is interesting that someone who has consistently allowed anything and everything to come out of his mouth, regardless of how vulgar or offensive it was, should now be criticizing and condemning others for behavior he deems unacceptable.

Apparently what we have here is an ideal example of the classic double standard. We have seen this for several years now: anything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth is justified and therefore perfectly acceptable, and any uncouth, base, classless behavior he chooses to exhibit is also above reproach since he is, after all, him. However, anything he chooses to dub inappropriate is automatically inappropriate and should be outlawed.

Here we have a classic characteristic of a dictator. Trump seemingly fancies himself a King, but I have a hunch that if we could pry into the minds of people throughout the world, he is probably the biggest laughingstock on earth.

How much does Trump really care?

Everyone who has intelligence, and I realize that demographic is dwindling as we speak, sees this for what it is and nothing more. Donald Trump is creating a diversionary fuss over something that in reality he probably cares very little about, to attempt to boost his poll numbers by a noisy show of patriotism.

It is my humble opinion that if Donald Trump cared about this country, he never would have taken a job for which he has zero qualifications just because he decided it would be cool to be president. Lectures coming from Donald Trump on proper behavior are about as incongruous as lessons from a scorpion on how to make one feel loved and cherished. Many people are of the opinion that Trump is the most divisive person ever to sit in the Oval Office, and let’s face it, he had some stiff competition on that front.

Few have upset, angered and offended so many different people on so many different levels, yet somehow this man thinks he has moral high ground to lecture others. Amazing.

The nonsense needs to stop, and U.S. citizens need to understand that part of being a free American is having the right to act like an idiot. I do not agree with not standing for the national anthem. I think there are hundreds of better ways to protest something . I also don’t agree with presidential candidates calling women fat pigs or trading their wives in for younger models when they get too old. However, we don’t legislate manners or morality in this country, which Trump would know if he were familiar with the Constitution.

I think Mr. Trump should worry more about his collapsing presidency, the state of the country, and the consequences of his attempt to goad a maniac on the other side of the world into war, and worry less about criticizing the actions of others. Trump has absolutely no moral high ground to critique anyone’s behavior, anywhere, anytime, EVER. Therefore, he just needs to stop.

Advertisement

8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Russell Alexander

    September 28, 2017 at 8:48 am

    The freedom of speech which the First Amendment protects against Congressional intrusion serves an important social function. It is not a guarantee that fools can blow off steam by acting foolishly. It is a means by which bad ideas can be confronted and bad actors can be identified.

    If there is idiocy in the matter, then it is the failure to distinguish between saying something is wrong and should not be done and making it illegal. The totalitarian or statist reflex that jumps to the apparent conclusion that a President condemning something as politically imprudent or blatantly immoral is proposing that it be made illegal.

    Free speech fosters discussion. Discussion involves saying — what you are saying is wrong because it is foolish or illogical.

    Failing to recognize the role and wholesomeness of such political discourse is evidence of the “dwindling” of intellect. But consider, if good people cannot talk bad people into being good, then legislation and the threat of force is all that is left — and free society is doomed.

  2. Russell Alexander

    September 28, 2017 at 8:51 am

    Please let me know if there are any replies to my former comment. Thanks.

  3. Dan Lamar

    September 28, 2017 at 9:12 am

    YES, YES, YES, you are absolutely on target with everything you said here and said it perfectly! How stupid can one be to goad back and forth with a lunatic communist who wants to blow everyone up who stands for freedom! How about use every diplomatic means possible!? The president is majoring in the minors and minoring in the majors!

    Thank you Jesse for again being right on! KEEP IT COMING!

  4. Raz Schultz

    September 28, 2017 at 10:39 am

    Excellent article and exactly right, Jesse! Even if the kneelers were being disrespectful instead of making a point, Trump is the last one to talk. He has been nothing but disrespectful to individuals, the country and the law since he came on the scene. Most of those men are good guys with good reputations, very patriotic and know how to be team players and support a cause greater than themselves, all of which Trump will never learn.
    But if the worst among us wants to be disrespectful toward the country, burn the flag, etc., etc., they have that right.
    This is just his latest diversion to make us focus on something other than his incompetency. He didn’t know how to run a football team, either, as we know from his failed National football team disaster, LOL

    • Sharon

      September 28, 2017 at 10:53 am

      Well said, Schultz, well said.

  5. Sharon

    September 28, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Outstanding article. I do believe Broadt has captured the essence of Trump’s disastrous Presidency, his absurd behavior and his true agenda: Trump. It is all about him and what might make his poll numbers rise, and Broadt clearly reminds everyone that this is not what a good President does. The NFL protest left a particularly bad taste in my mouth; however, good men and women fought and died for the right to free speech and peaceful assemblage. And yes, that means we can walk down the street dressed as vaginas (that one made me laugh) or for instance, have a “run for squids day” by jamming rubber gloves over our heads while chanting, “I’m a squid! I’m a squid!”. It is legal. It is our right. Whether it is moral, reasonable, adult behavior is another matter, but as Broadt pointed out, we do not legislate morality in this country. We do not legislate silly behavior. When Trump fixates on such matters, rather than running the country (or attempting to), he is displaying the same self-absorbed behavior he claims to be against. This was an exquisite expose on the true motives of our alleged POTUS. Thank you for the contribution.

  6. Gail

    September 28, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Jesse….you are 110% correct! BRAVO!

  7. Violet

    September 28, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    SPOT ON!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

Published

on

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

The great primary evolution is already starting. We saw it in 2016 as every Republican candidate tried to “evolve” their views to cater to the conservative base. No evolution was more striking than candidate Trump’s, who went from supporting gun bans and partial birth abortion as a younger man to being one of the most conservative candidates during the primaries.

We’re seeing it now with the Democratic candidates and potential candidates as they try to plant their ideological flags as far to the left as possible. Former Trump pollster John Mclaughlin gave his opinion on the leftward lurch of the field, focusing on Elizabeth Warren, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, and Kamala Harris. Each has attempted to paint themselves as the radical progressive the primary-voting base desires. All of them were much more moderate in the past. Warren was even a Republican in the 1990s.

The thing that makes this trend most disturbing is that the “far left” of the past is nothing compared to the radical progressivism of today’s Democratic base. By the time the primaries really heat up, most if not all will be full-blown socialists.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel

Published

on

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr to attack Israel

When a nation the size of New Jersey is surrounded by enemies and is the subject of incessant condemnation from the United Nations, it’s natural to assume thoughtful people will take a complete look at its circumstances before deciding which side of a contentious debate to support. This is why many Americans still choose to support the nation of Israel despite mainstream media’s efforts to frame it as evil.

Unfortunately, the debate is so complex, most Americans form their perspectives based on very limited data. Passions are so strong on both sides that it often comes down to which side’s message is loudest in the ears of those deciding who to support. The Israel-Palestine debate has been ongoing since the tiny nation was first formed and ramped up greatly following the attacks on Israel in 1967 that resulted in necessary expansion.

Today, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are all considered “occupied” territories by a majority around the world, at least among those who are paying attention. Despite clear evidence that the very existence of Israel would be threatened if these lands were “returned” to the Palestinians, most of the world calls for the two-state solution as the path to peace.

On top of the disputed lands, the way that Israel maintains peace within its own lands is labeled as oppression against Palestinians living there. The core of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s message is that the Palestinian people are being persecuted. To support this premise, an activist at the NY Times is invoking Martin Luther King Jr and his opposition to the Vietnam War as the roadmap by which BDS activists should muster their own courage and build more support to fight the nation of Israel.

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.htmlReading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

To be clear, King was opposed to a war that resulted in the deaths of 1,350,000 people, which is nearly the same amount of Arabs living in Israel currently. King was opposed to a war in which no Americans were attacked prior to us getting involved. Israel is attacked regularly from multiple groups in and out of the nation who support the Palestinian movement. King was opposed to a war that took focus and resources away from his cause.

As he said, “We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

To be fair, the author of the NY Times article, Michelle Alexander, was using his anti-war speech to demonstrate the courage King displayed as inspiration for the courage she feels BDS supporters need today. Had she left it there, then there wouldn’t be much of a need to respond. However, she continued in the article to speculate King may not have been happy with Israel back then. Worse, she implied that he could have been a supporter of the BDS movement today.

This opinion is beyond questionable. King’s motivations for not wanting to outwardly support Israel’s actions following the Six Day War were for the sake of his movement, not based on personal feelings on the matter. It made sense to not take a side in a debate in which many of his supporters of African or Middle Eastern descent may have objected.

It is becoming increasing common in the BDS movement to point solely towards the actions of the Israeli government while ignoring the reasons for these actions. They often talk about homes being bulldozed, but they ignore the fact that punitive demolitions are a result of terrorist attacks. I am not in favor of these demolitions, but I would never hide the facts to support my claims. The BDS movement realizes calling out Israel for bulldozing Palestinian homes is most effective if the reasons are never mentioned.

As pro-BDS articles go, this one was strikingly coherent. This is a bigger problem than the unhinged hate articles we often see from BDS supporters. It’s easy to see how this one-sided portrayal in a publication as strong as the NY Times that invokes an icon like Martin Luther King Jr can garner support for the movement from those who would otherwise never consider it. The article is very careful to cut off cries of antisemitism and is written for rational thinkers rather than emotional feelers.

But therein lies the problem. It invokes King and his famous speech knowing full well few will actually read it. If they take the time to read or hear it, they’ll wonder what any of that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NY Times is betting on the easy odds that nobody’s going to take the time.

None of the seven reasons King gives for opposing the Vietnam War could be applied to Israel. Invoking the speech and insinuating he would have been a BDS supporter is a disingenuous attempt to equate his righteous activism to the BDS movement itself.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”

Published

on

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report