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.

Jesse Broadt has been a full-time writer in the travel industry since 2007 and regularly contributes to news and political websites.

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

It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump

Published

on

One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.

As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.

It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.

Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.

This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”

McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.

Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:

“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”

Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.

Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.

As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Nevada Primary

Published

on

Nevada is full of competition. There are no shortage of quality candidates in Nevada, only quality politicians. Nevada isn’t a strong blue state or red state. It usually sides with the winner in a presidential election. In fact, given Trump’s upset, it was surprising Nevada wasn’t one of the states where polling was wholly inaccurate. Nevada is home of Las Vegas, the country’s fastest growing metropolitan area. So the future political leanings of the state are up in the air. This primary features vacancies which offer a nice opportunity to grow conservative ideals among the population.

Best Picks: Danny Tarkanian, Joel Beck
Worst Picks: Mark Amodei, Cresent Hardy
Best Race: District 3
Worst Race: District 4

US Senate

Dean Heller is an incumbent Republican and in all likelihood will keep his nomination. Heller is running on a rather unimpressive Senate record showing that he is part of the problem, not the solution. There are four challengers but only a few are worth talking about. The first is Sarah Gazala. She is somewhat running as a conservative, but her emphasis on education shows that she isn’t the right fit for the Senate. A local office would be a better calling. Then there’s Vic Harrell. The only discernible fact about Harrell is his devotion to Trump. This zeal isn’t wrong but it doesn’t make him a good candidate. The strongest challenger is Tom Heck. Heck ran and lost in 2016 in a tight race. It’s very possible Heck could maintain the seat, and probable that he would do a superior job.

Conservative Pick: Tom Heck

District 1

Two challengers seek to red pill this district. The first, Joyce Bentley, has a decent platform and is like to side with Trump on several key issues. The issue is whether she will deviate when necessary. The second is Freddy Horne. He is likely the more viable candidate here having a history of running a campaign, but its a moot point in this district.

Conservative Pick: Joyce Bentley

District 2

Mark Amodei has held the seat for a while and is a RINO. He faces three challengers. Sharron Angel is the first. She was a failed Senate candidate in 2016 losing to Heck. She seems as though a strong Conservative. But she may be a weak candidate. Joel Beck is a veteran running on a solid small government platform. He has a more thorough understanding of veterans issues and immigration than most. Beck would be an outstanding defender of the Constitution.

Conservative Pick: Joel Beck

District 3

This vacated seat has caused a feeding frenzy of an election. but this race is between Scott Hammond and Danny Tarkanian. Hammond is a State Senator with a decent record and the backing of the NRA. But from this article which he promoted, he doesn’t seem to be a strong defender of liberty, though its hard to get a clear picture with the bias writing. In a rare instance of strategic planning by the Trump administration with regards to the 2018 race, Team Trump convinced Tarkanian to seek the House as opposed to the Senate. Danny Tarkanian, being a team player, obliged. Nothing wrong with that. Playing along earned him a Trump endorsement. And while Heller gets by with one less challenger from the right, Tarkanian has a better chance at reducing government spending as he campaigns heavily on. Overall, Tarkanian may be a sycophant, but Hammond is more likely a RINO climbing the ladder.

Conservative Pick: Danny Tarkanian

District 4

Congressman Ruben Kihuen will not seek reelection as the result of a sexual harassment scandal. This presents a golden opportunity to flip this blue seat. Many Republicans have entered but there is no clear frontrunner. First up is Jeff Miller. He’s running to prevent Nevada from becoming East California. With all the candidates, the Las Vegas Review-Journal made this one easy. The former Congressman refused to answer. If Cresent Hardy believes he’s too big to answer yes or no questions, he probably thinks he’s too good to talk to his constituents. The only thing that is concerning is the question on DACA recipients.

Conservative Pick: Jeff Miller

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks in the South Carolina Primary

Published

on

South Carolina is one of the nation strongest overall states for Conservatism. Out of nine representatives, eight of which Republican, only two are complete RINOs (Joe Wilson and Lindsey Graham). Conservatism is strong in South Carolina just as it is in North Carolina. This primary presents a good opportunity to maintain and grow. Trey Gowdy is exiting, presenting a good chance for an upgrade at the position. Since the GOP took the Whitehouse, Gowdy stopped being fiscally Conservative, and is an unfortunate voice of support for the expensive Mueller investigation.

Best Pick: Mark Sanford
Worst Pick: Katie Arrington
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 7

District 1

After five years, Mark Sanford has been a solid Conservative. He is being challenged. His main opponent is Katie Arrington. Arrington is a full blown Trumpist. If she had a shred of Conservatism in her she would be satisfied with the performance of Sanford. But instead she is challenging him because he, like most decent Conservatives, has been reasonably critical of Trump. Arrington’s fanaticism is not worth the risk of losing Sanford.

Conservative Pick: Mark Sanford

District 2

Joe Wilson is an unchallenged product of the swamp. He is running to complete his second decade.

District 3

Jeff Duncan is a steadfast Conservative who didn’t compromise under Obama and has remained strong under Trump. He is unchallenged.

District 4

There are numerous candidates seeking to fill Trey Gowdy’s shoes. The first of which was written about back in February, Mark Burns. I had a lot to say about Trump’s top pastor:

I remain optimistic about Mark Burns joining the ranks of Congress. Previously, Burns announced he was praying about challenging Lindsey Graham, a notorious warmongering RINO. But it appears either prayer or opportunism has landed him in a different race. Due to his political amateurism, not many of his positions are clear. Oddly enough, he has suggested Federal takeover of public school security. Though his heart seems in the right place, his position shows a lack of localism which small government believes in. It’s safe to speculate that Mark Burns isn’t all that fiscal conservative which isn’t unfamiliar.

On social issues, however, Pastor Mark Burns could be a strong tool for conservatives, so long as he can graduate from being a Trump surrogate. Burns has a more unifying persona than a lot of Republicans adding the possibility of broadening the base. On the issues of race and abortion, Pastor Mark Burns is a powerful voice. Though a strong personality does not make one the best candidate, Burn has tremendous potential to make a difference in DC.

Another formidable candidate is Lee Bright. He has the backing of Steve King (IA) and Thomas Massie (KY). Massie is a strong Conservative so this endorsement means something. Bright’s political career was put on hold when he got primaried in 2016. To be frank, he got voted out probably for being a nutjob. This guy is all rhetoric and no substance. He will maybe vote the right way, but he is not a leader on Conservative legislation. Furthermore he is a weaker candidate due to his propensity to act a fool. Bright isn’t likable but he at the end of the day, he wouldn’t be a RINO.

Then there’s William Timmons. He has the endorsement of Marco Rubio which indicate that he is the RINO in this race. Timmons campaigns on fiscal responsibility but champions Trump for it who has not been fiscally responsible this year. Either he’s pandering or misinformed. Either way, it’s an indication he will e a big spender. His attack ads on Dan Hamilton are baseless, though he is likely correct that Hamilton is not that Conservative. But Timmons record isn’t Conservative either.

Conservative Pick: Mark Burns

District 5

Ralph Norman is unopposed. He’s actually been solid in his brief tenure.

District 6

Gerhard Gressmann is the only Republican running.

District 7

Tom Rice has been a halfway decent Congressman but not without fault. He is being challenged by Larry Guy Hammond. Hammond is running from the right but not with a level head. Tom Rice isn’t fantastic, but populism won’t do the job better. And Hammond is more populist than Conservative. His website offers no real solutions. It merely trashes the state and asks for money.

Conservative Pick: Tom Rice

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.