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.

Continue Reading
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 *

Opinions

The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards. This is a good thing.

Published

on

The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards This is a good thing

It doesn’t matter whether you support President Trump or not. There’s one thing we can all agree about: the next Chief of Staff for the President will have the best job security in the White House for the next two years. It’s hard to imagine a situation where the President would get rid of another Chief of Staff in his first term of office, especially after Tweets like this one:

John Kelly, the second Chief of Staff to leave the White House in less than two years, was widely regarded as someone who brought order to a chaotic administration. That reputation has changed in recent months when the rift started forming between him and his boss. The silver lining for his replacement is that if he/she is inclined, they can bring about big changes at the White House without worrying about backlash by the President.

It would be political suicide for the President to fire another Chief of Staff before his reelection. In fact, it would be harmful if there’s any hint of contention between them. Whoever is nominated, they must be in lockstep with the President going forward. The President knows this, which is why he wanted Nick Ayers, a young political star who has demonstrated strong loyalty to the administration. Unfortunately, Ayers was removed as a contender over the proposed timeline.

Pence aide out of running to be Trump’s next chief of staff

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/pence-aide-running-trumps-next-chief-staff/Ayers, who is chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, was seen as the favorite for the job when Trump announced Saturday that Kelly would leave around year’s end. But a White House official said Sunday that Trump and Ayers could not reach agreement on Ayers’ length of service and that he would instead assist the president from outside the administration.

Ayers confirmed the decision in a tweet Sunday, thanking Trump and Pence for giving him the opportunity to work in the White House. “I will be departing at the end of the year but will work with the #MAGA team to advance the cause,” he said.

Enter Mark Meadows

Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC), the House Freedom Caucus co-founder, is the ideal choice to be the next Chief of Staff. His conservative credentials are strong and his relationship with the President has been exception since the 2016 election.

Nobody knows how to maneuver through the tumult of Washington DC better than Meadows. He understands all the dynamics on Capitol Hill, and while that’s not a requirement for Chief of Staff, it’s a huge benefit. Moreover, his political acumen will be crucial in keeping the President from making fatal mistakes leading up to the 2020 elections.

Some, including our EIC, aren’t convinced it’s the right move.

He may be right, but at this point it’s better to put in someone who’s willing to try. Even if he fails at steering the President, he may be able to bring much-needed stability. Kelly may have brought that initially, but was unable to keep it all reined in. Perhaps Meadows can succeed where his two predecessors failed.

This is arguably the most important personnel decision the President will make before the 2020 election. The right person can get the White House moving along the proper course. The wrong person can become a further distraction. President Trump should strongly consider Mark Meadows.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The only question that really matters in the Russia investigation

Published

on

The only real question that matters in the Russia investigation

From now until special counsel Robert Mueller delivers whatever he’s going to deliver to the government and the American people, everyone will speculate about who did what, who knew what, and when. This is an exercise in reading tea leaves and inserting bias into reports. That’s what both politicians and mainstream media do in an effort to influence people into feeling one way or another about any particular topic.

Despite the cacophony that surrounds Mueller, President Trump, and Russia, this really comes down to a single question that matters: Did the President or his campaign staff collude with Russia to engage in illegal activities in an effort to win the election?

Up front, it’s important to declare my perspective on the issue. I’d suggest all journalists declare their biases up front, but few will. I’m not a fan of President Trump. I don’t care for him as a man and I am against a few of his policies such as banning bump stocks and promoting fair trade over free trade. I am happy that he beat Hillary Clinton but I felt there were much better options for the GOP and for the nation that were ignored because mainstream media pushed Trump to be the nominee in hopes he would lose spectacularly to Clinton. That didn’t work out for the media or the nation.

Even with my bias, I call things the way I see them and right now, I’m not seeing much coming from the investigation I think it’s very unlikely the President colluded with the Russians to influence the election. Let’s be clear what that means. Do I think members of Trump’s campaign worked with Russians? Yes. Do I think Russians tried to influence the election? Of course. But I am fairly certain the Trump campaign did not participate in activities that would be deemed illegal. They didn’t accept foreign funds to fuel the campaign. They didn’t supply the Russians or anyone else with damaging information about Hillary Clinton. They didn’t actively engage in subverting the election system to “steal” votes or otherwise manipulate the outcome. Most importantly, they didn’t collude with Russia or WikiLeaks to release the hacked emails.

They didn’t have to. Russia and WikiLeaks did all that without input from the Trump campaign.

I believe what the Trump campaign did was on par or possibly below what the Clinton campaign did in working with foreign actors to gather and transmit opposition research about Trump. Both campaigns were wrong for doing so but neither campaign broke the law.

Let’s all understand what’s required to prove this conspiracy. First, the Russians must be proven to have unlawfully “hacked” the election. That doesn’t mean finding Russian social media bots. That means finding proof that the Russians committed illegal activities such as hacking the DNC emails or paying political organizations to promote their messages.

Second, the Trump campaign must be shown to have direct knowledge of the illegal activities. The closest thing we have to that is Roger Stone. If he had direct knowledge that Russia hacked the DNC and/or John Podesta’s emails and gave those emails to WikiLeaks so they could be made public, then there’s something worth investigating. Having that knowledge alone is enough to get him in trouble for not reporting it, but it’s unlikely that route will be pursued. What the investigation needs is actual collusion. That could come in the form of coordinating the release date, giving access to certain people in the media, or aiding in corroboration if any became necessary to prove the leaked documents were real.

From there, Mueller’s team would have to connect the dots directly back to the Trump campaign. Then and only then can any measure of collusion in Russia’s influence of the election be proven.

So far, noise but no substance

Much is being made of Michael Flynn’s, Michael Cohen’s, and Paul Manafort’s upcoming sentences. All have admitted to committing crimes. Cohen has gone so far as to publicize some of the things he knows about the Trump campaign. None of those revelations have linked the campaign to Russia in a conspiratorial manner.

Everything the public knows about the crimes these men committed have nothing to do with Russian collusion. It’s ironic that Mueller’s investigation led to so many charges that have nothing to do with the original scope of the investigation. One might argue the greatest damage this investigation will have on the President is that it demonstrates he likes to surround himself with criminals.

There are only two major players who are in real jeopardy: Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. If they were working with Stone or anyone else to coordinate with Russia on illegal activities, we might see something big come from this investigation. It’s highly unlikely at this point, but that’s really the only thing Democrats and mainstream media can hope for right now.

Democrats and mainstream media are up in arms trying to connect distant dots in a way that proves the President or his campaign stole the election with the Russians. A sober examination of everything we know points far away from that conclusion.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report