Saturday, August 20, 2016

Donald Trump Changing His Immigration Plan?

Univision as well as Buzzfeed have come out with articles indicating that  Trump is changing his immigration plan.  Multiple news sites have now come out with articles.  A snip from the Univision article:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump plans to present an immigration plan in Colorado Thursday that will include finding a way to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, according to three people who attended a meeting between the candidate and Hispanic leaders on Saturday at Trump Tower in New York.

"I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane,” said Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer who attended the meeting.

If true, Trump's plan would stand in sharp contrast to his previous statements about immigrants during the campaign. During the primaries, the New York property tycoon promised to build a wall along the border with Mexico and to deport all undocumented immigrants.

The possible reversal over immigration policy by the Republican candidate would not be without precedent after Trump has shifted his position on a variety of issues during his campaign from banning Muslims to taxes, minimum wages and and abortion.

Polls show Trump has alienated many minority voters and Republican party strategists have urged him to tone down his rhetoric about immigrants, especially Hispanics who make up a growing share of registered voters - about 10% in November.

Republican National Committee spokesperson Helen Aguirre was also present at the meeting and confirmed that the candidate is working on unveiling a plan. "Trump was very categorical in saying that he's seeking a fair immigration reform," Aguirre said. "He wants to listen to everyone and announce his conclusions in the coming days."

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/trump-now-says-he-plans-to-legalize-some-undocumented-immigrants

This isn't the first time that I read that Hispanics who met with Trump say his stance has softened - I think the other time was a report a couple months ago from Univision also anonymously sourcing Hispanics who met with him (absolutely nothing happened after that report).  Obviously this is something that establishment GOP loves.  I know I have read that Kellyanne Conway has advocated for comprehensive immigration reform, but then she worked for Cruz and now Trump. so I had assumed she did so knowing his stance and accepted it.  Cruz wasn't pro-illegal immigrant either.  I don't think Steve Bannon supports comprehensive illegal immigration reform.

Come to think of it, though, have we heard Trump mention deportation in a while of all illegal immigrants?  He has mentioned the criminals, but has he mentioned everyone?  He has spoken to African Americans about illegal immigrants taking their jobs, but if these people were made legal, would it be considered that they are still taking their jobs or not because now they are legal residents (meaning the playing field is equal)?

This is what the article says:

“It doesn’t make sense to force undocumented [immigrants] to go back to their countries to regularize their situation. Trump himself mentioned a possible solution: let them do it at the embassies or consulates of their countries,” she said.

Other people present at the meeting backed that idea, explaining that the candidate said he did not like the idea of forcing undocumented immigrants to go back to their countries to regularize their immigration status, and that it would make sense to allow them to do so without leaving the United States.

Trump has said that they have to go back but can come back.  IF this article is true, it sounds like a moderation or simplification of that policy.  Here we go with a direct Trump quote:

TRUMP: We have at least 11 million people that came in illegally. They will go out. Some will come back, the best, through a process. They have to come back legally. It may not be a quick process, but I think that's fair. They're going to get in line with other people.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm

The article does specify that they wouldn't be made citizens but permitted to stay.  That would allay concerns of those who are worried that it would be an amnesty that would allow future Democrat voters - not that the Democrats couldn't vote for citizenship in the future if Trump is out of office, though.  Trump himself said we would never get the votes in 2013 per the On The Issues link:

Donald Trump said the Republican party will lose elections if it reforms the nation's entitlement programs and will hand Democrats 11 million votes if Congress grants citizenship to illegal immigrants, likening the reform efforts to a "suicide mission." "The fact is 11 million people will be voting Democratic. You can be out front. You can be the spearhead. You can do whatever you want to do, but every one of those 11 million people will be voting Democratic," he said. "It is just the way it works."

"You have to be very, very careful, because you could say that to a certain extent the odds aren't looking so great for Republicans, that you are on a suicide mission," he said. "You are just not going to get those votes."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm

His plan on his website has not yet changed (very in depth, so I'll just post the bullet points which are all expanded upon on the website):

~Triple the number of ICE officers.
~Nationwide e-verify.
~Mandatory return of all criminal aliens.
~Detention—not catch-and-release.
~Defund sanctuary cities.
~Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.
~Cooperate with local gang task forces.
~End birthright citizenship.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

A lot more in depth at website.

On another note, it doesn't make sense to me that Hispanic leaders are advocating for people who are here illegally just because they share an ethnicity.  If while people were coming into this country illegally over the border, I wouldn't stick up for them because they are white.  In fact there are white people who are here illegally as we know with the guy from the UK who tried to grab the cop's gun to shoot Trump.

I guess we will find out on Thursday in Colorado.  The campaign's statement has indicated there has been no change as well as some tweets by his press pool.  I will have a wait and see approach.  Whatever it is will be better than Hillary.

Friday, August 19, 2016

The New York Times Admits They Are Biased Against Trump...And They Say They Have Duty To Be

Balance, Fairness and a Proudly Provocative Presidential Candidate

New York Times ^ | August 7, 2016 | Jim Rutenberg

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist
I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?

Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on Fox News Sunday that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.

And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

The irony is that the New York Times is talking about being objective and nonbiased while saying the above. They ask how are they supposed to be nonbiased all the while they are going on a biased premise.

The NYT can’t prove that Trump is a racist. The man was in the public eye for 69 years before he decided to run for President. He was never referred to as racist until he got on a Republican ticket for President. An FYI to the NYT, Mexican is not a race, it’s a nationality. Muslim is not a race, it’s a religion.

The NYT then goes with that line about him cozying up to dictators. This line of argument was directly from a Hillary Clinton press release. Her toadies from every media outlet wrote a story on that after.  Addressed here:

Then they say, and this is purely based on bias, that Trump would be a threat as he would set off a nuclear bomb. They have no proof of that (minus the claim of Joe Scarborough later in the article which Trump denies and still doesn’t prove he will use nuclear weapons as anything other than a last resort), and in fact, Trump’s America first foreign policy has us less likely to get into wars than Hillary Clinton.

If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

This is absolutely laughable. Move closer than ever “to being oppositional?” “Uncomfortable and unchartered territory?” Really?!! The New York Times acts like they are forced to be unfair this time as though they’ve always been nonbiased when it comes to Republicans and Trump is the exception? They’re delusional!

The New York Times next admits that covering Trump thoroughly and negatively “threatens” to give Hillary Clinton an advantage. They say they would give Hillary more scrutiny and negative coverage, but they can’t because, alas, Trump is a dangerous man who must be opposed.

And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! This is from the same people who have fawned over Obama for the last 8 years. They were really balanced with McCain and Romney, right?

No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies, 

Yes, because our politicians are stupid. I didn’t even know that these people weren’t paying their fair share and were mooching off the U.S. until Trump. How in the world can it be okay for these people to expect us to foot the cost, not pay their fair share, and then demand we potentially get into WW III for them?

openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier,

There really wasn’t much of a fight. Trump asked why the mother did not speak ,and he said Hillary might have written part of his speech.  I said that he should apologize for that matter. Trump then put out a statement acknowledging the son was a hero, explaining his policy that the father attacked, and saying the father has no right to say he hasn’t read the Constitution. Trump didn’t mean “no right” literally in terms of the father wasn’t allowed to speak. It’s just an expression. If the father falsely accused him of never having read the Constitution if he has, then of course a lie would make him mad. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from countries compromised by terrorism, and there is nothing unconstitutional about enforcing immigration laws and building a wall. Trump also pointed out that the family was viciously attacking them.

Kahn has been (although it’s finally starting to settle down) on an interview bonanza, going after Trump every chance he can get. Kahn told Trump to give back a Purple Heart given to him by a soldier. Kahn did an interview the other day where he said that Allah is making Trump make mistakes as retribution. Again, I said he should have apologized to the mother, but this is hardly the massive fight the media has made it out to be.

Hillary essentially called the Gold Star Mom a liar, but no one in the media even cared.

or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media failed to get). 

Whether it was or it wasn’t a joke is not the question because it doesn’t matter.

1. I would presume that the server that Trump supposedly wanted hacked has been destroyed.

2. Hillary Clinton used this private server in lieu of a government one. Is hacking a private server espionage? (again, server likely dead).

3. Hillary Clinton says that what was on that server was not classified and was about weddings, yoga, etc. Thirty three thousand emails about that in fact. If that is all that was on the server, then why in the world would it be espionage or threatening to this country in anyway if they read them? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe that Hillary was lying.

4. The FBI says the emails are gone and our government doesn’t have them. Okay. How can it be espionage to hack into Hillary’s deceased server or the government server looking for emails that the government says that it doesn’t have? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe the government was lying.

5. The emails, if they are out there, are already out there. They either have them or they don’t. The U.S. says they don’t have them.

6. Is it normal for someone committing espionage to tell people to alert the press and the FBI and turn over the emails, which is what Trump did?

overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States 

The platform is for countries compromised by terrorism. The problem is that there is a contingent of radical Islamic terrorists or people who want to implement Sharia law that have to be kept out. A very good vetting process needs to be in place.

or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.

I have dealt with that and will repost the information:

 That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to is a political group:

SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this through two vehicles; it’s Political Affairs Committee and it’s Political Action Committee.

The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of Directors to oversee all aspects of the Association’s political efforts. The Political Affairs Committee has led the Association’s efforts to push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system, has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino Elected Official’s 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.

The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all aspects of the Association’s lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions on how to contribute the PAC’s money to support candidates and causes that are aligned with the Association’s mission and values.

http://sdlrla.com/about-our-work/

They make endorsements:

http://sdlrla.com/endorsements/

On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is pro-illegal immigrant:

http://www.borderangels.org/faq/

The Daily Caller lists these organizations:

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.

“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement. 

However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.
The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.” 

(Snip)

Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.” 

However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien. 

MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is 
MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.

Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a recent post on their site is, “Latinos allege excessive policing after Trump protests.” Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of Obama’s executive actions providing amnesty. 

Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because “it is not humane, as it would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the wall.” 

San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with deportation raids from the Obama administration. “San Diego will NOT stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of families#StopTheHate #HereToStay,” the group wrote on May 27.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/#ixzz4FGyw5b5Q

The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:

Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien. 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/#ixzz4FGztz085

Finally:

Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trump’s Businesses

Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his announcement speech.

The press release stated the organization’s mission to target Trump’s “business interests,” according to the Conservative Treehouse.

“By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong,” the press release states. “His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.”

The press release adds:

The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference. 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/07/report-trump-university-judge-linked-group-calls-boycott-trumps-businesses/

The NY Times lists all that is wrong with Trump and then says:

“It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.” 

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Here’s an article from a public editor the New York Times that actually says that some liberals think the Times is too biased, their inbox is filled with letters from angry conservatives, and that over 65% of their readership are leftists (seems like it would be higher):

Why Readers See The Times as Liberal

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=1

“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.” 

Bull! Some of these “controversies” were either media contrived or drawn out far beyond what they should have been. Media contrived ones include things like the sheriff’s star, the baby, the Russia emails, and the Iran plane. Others drawn out so long are the Heidi retweet (without including the other side of the story that led to that), the judge (without including reasons why the judge would be biased as posted in post 2), and this Kahn story. Newsbusters has illustrated the disparity in coverage like with Hillary lying to Chris Wallace
vs. Trump’s controversies.

The New York Times goes on to say that we know what a Hillary Presidency would look like; we don’t know what a Trump Presidency would look like, they say.

”And to say she hasn’t been amply scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates” affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate — than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.”

Hillary’s “gates” are minor compared to Trump’s “gates”, right, NY Times? I wish someone had a list of the number of negative articles this campaign against Trump vs. Hillary.

The New York Times says Trump is not as truthful as Hillary and then cites the leftwing Politifact, a project of the Tampa Bay Tribune, which endorsed Hillary Clinton.

By the way, there is a site out there called Politifact Bias which serves to counter some of the things on Politifact.

The NY Times says, ”It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.” 

Like they did with Obama as they carried his water?

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

In other words, the “facts” are liberal talking points. Journalists think they have a “job” to make the news. They don’t just want to report it. They believe that they have a duty to bring about change through their writing and make what they believe to be a positive difference in the world so that they can be seen as positively impacting history. I suppose this will depend on who writes history too. What they believe positively impacts history is moving the country in a leftward “progressive” direction. Someone who is opposed to that, is moving the country in the “wrong” direction and therefore deserves more scrutiny or negative coverage. The only problem is, perhaps this liberal agenda they are trumpeting doesn’t work. The history that they sought to be judged by may turn out to judge them in a negative manner because their utopian vision was a failure. History will see their bias demonstrated and blame the media for the hand it played, and that could be “untenable.”

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Responding To Washington Post's Editorial Denouncement Of Donald Trump

The Washington Post editorial board writes this editorial proclaiming they could never support Donald Trump for President.  Then then proceed to give a plethora of reasons (which I am going to address).  They say that they usually don't do this so early and usually wait to endorse, but gosh darn it, the evil Donald Trump has forced their hand.  Like they would have endorsed any Republican over Hillary anyway.  This article is full of criticisms of Donald Trump that would not have applied to "maverick," "reach across the aisle" McCain and "gentleman" Mitt Romney.  It didn't matter.  The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama both times. 

Looking at the Washington Post, it appears that they have a lopsided history of endorsing Democrats, and Republicans they do endorse are of course the moderate sort.  You know the moderate sort, right?  The kind virtually indistinguishable from Democrats.   The kind that make you wonder if there is essentially a uni party.  The kind that are the first to run to the media and spit on the conservative wing of their party.  This is from an article in the Washington Post itself (opinion piece) talking about how their endorsements lean Democrat:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-the-posts-endorsements-historically-tend-democratic/2012/11/02/6890a49a-250a-11e2-ba29-238a6ac36a08_story.html?utm_term=.e1010c6f430a

When it comes to the Presidency, though, has the Washington Post EVER endorsed a Republican?  Guess no?  Then you would be right!  The Washington Posts endorsement history proves it's a leftwing paper.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/washington-post-has-never-endorsed-a-republican-for-president-but-say-they-arent-biased/

On October 21, 2014, the newspaper endorsed 44 Democratic candidates versus 3 Republican candidates for the 2014 elections in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.[66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Political_endorsements 

Might as well toss this in for good measure too:

The point is that the Washington Post was NEVER going to endorse Donald Trump or any Republican.  Jeff Besos has a team of 20 plus reporters assigned to destroy Donald Trump.  That's not someone they would ever consider endorsing!  It's laughable for them to say that they will evaluate the other candidates prior to making a decision.  Like the Washington Post is going to endorse Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?  Uh... No!  Therefore, who is left?  The fringe guy from the #NeverTrump movement who only has a shot at winning Utah?  Uh...No!  Who is left, then?  Why, Hillary herself.  The Washington Post, through this and its other articles, has made clear that is who they are supporting.  They then proceed, though, to say that they are going to continue to cover the candidates fairly.  Laughable.  Beyond it, really.  

This is why Donald Trump has banned them from his rallies.  They have all but printed they are supporting Hillary, and they have written this article saying they will never support him.  This is ignoring the plethora of articles from the Washington Post comparing him to Hitler or Mussolini.  If someone writes of you so horribly and is out to destroy you, do you have an obligation to let them?

Now, on to the meat of the article itself:

Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy 
Washington Post ^ | July 22, 2016 | WaPo Editorial Board

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers. This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.

Why are we so sure? Start with experience. It has been 64 years since a major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral experience. That experiment turned out pretty well — but Mr. Trump, to put it mildly, is no Dwight David Eisenhower.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions.

Of course. They don’t diagnose liberal concerns as problems, and they address things liberals don’t consider problems at all. I am certain that Washington Post believes only a Democrat mind set can properly diagnose America and propose solutions.

Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together.

The delusion here is strong that I can only presume the Washington Post editorial board is living in an alternate universe. We’re so united right now we have BLM saying our police departments are murdering black people and people murdering cops.

And:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America is a more divided nation than it was four years ago. Clearly voters think things are getting worse because that’s up 11 points from the 61% who felt that way just before Election Day two years ago

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2016/even_more_voters_now_see_america_as_a_divided_nation

His contempt for constitutional norms

http://www.infowars.com/75-times-obama-broke-law-during-presidency/

This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall.

LOL! Honest views? Like anyone, EVER, EVER thought you would endorse Trump. Besos would never allow it. That’s why he hired a team of 20 of you to take down Trump. By the way, I doubt you would ever endorse a Republican for President when you can have the Democrat.

He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures and repeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him.

So what if he was.  There is nothing wrong with getting help from a parent or a loved one who is better off.  No one would turn that help down.  Many people can be given a million dollars, but how many can turn that into billions?  Donald Trump has had several bankruptcies, but when you are in business for decades and have your name on multiple properties and items, I don't think it's unreasonable to say to say that not everything is going to succeed.  People aren't perfect.  However:

The Trump Organization has interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries, as well as owning several hundred thousand square feet (several hectares) of prime Manhattan real estate. It lists involvement in 515 subsidiaries and entities with 264 of them bearing Trump's name and another 54 including his initials.[11]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization#cite_note-11

The Washington Post Accuses Trump of Lying About Seeing Muslims Celebrate In NJ after 9/11:

We KNOW for a fact the Orlando gunman celebrated. He was in school at the time. He was still a youth. You think he came up with that alone? Kids are highly influenced by parents and community at that age. If he was surrounded by parents and people who condemned the attack, why would he celebrate alone? I'll continue with sources, though:

Now, Former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard Kerik has vindicated Trump in his claims, noting that there were many post-9/11 celebrations by NYC-area Muslims.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trumps-claims-about-muslims-after-911-confirmed-video/#ixzz4BmHXldrJ

CNN Report: American Muslims celebrating 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4

CBS report:

Just a couple of blocks away from that Jersey City apartment the F.B.I. raided yesterday and had evidence removed, there is another apartment building, one that investigators told me, quote, was swarming with suspects — suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center. Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building.

The F.B.I. and other terrorist task force agencies arrived, and the older investigators on the task force recalled that they had been to this building before, eight years ago, when the first World Trade Center attack led them to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whose Jersey City mosque lies between the two buildings getting attention today. And the older investigators remember that the suspects that eventually got convicted for the first Trade Center case … lived in the building where these same eight men were celebrating the destruction that they saw from the roof. Calling this a hot address, the task force investigators ordered everyone detained.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/02/trump-100-vindicated-cbs-reports-swarms-on-roofs-celebrating-911/

The Washington Post Says Trump Supported Iraq Until After The War

Trump did an interview with Howard Stern in 2002 where he supported it, although he wasn't enthusiastic.  He did an interview with Neil Cavuto right before the war.  He didn't express directly an opposition, but he did say he believed the economy was important and perhaps that should be a focus.  He never sounded like an enthusiastic cheerleader for the war, but hey, let's give the WaPo part of a bone on this one:

 http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

The Washington Post Calls Donald Trump A Flip Flopper On Immigration Reform, Gun Control, and Abortion:

This disqualifies him over Hillary how? The GOP has a list of 22 Clinton flip flops for this election, WaPo, not that you’ll care:

https://www.gop.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-hillarys-flip-flops/

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Flip Flopped On His Muslim Ban:

That’s an exaggeration. He has refined his policy to ban immigration from countries with a high level of terrorism.  Besides, even if he did, the Washington Post didn't like the ban in the first place.  They should be glad.

The Washington Post Says Trump Flip Flopped On Punishing Women Who Get Abortions:

Abortion was not an issue Trump was familiar with, but he actually gave a logically consistent answer to a hypothetical. That’s all it was. That will not be his policy as President, and that was clarified within a day. If abortion ever became illegal, the policy would be what it was prior to Roe – go after the abortionists.   Also, he is appointing justices that are pro-life.  If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, this will go to the states for decision - not the federal government.

The Washington Post Says Trump Calls Our Existing Trade Deals “Stupid”, But They Say He 
Neglects To Say How He Will Improve Them:

Right here, WaPo: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Says ISIS Should Be Destroyed But Has Unfurled No Real Plans For It To Be Done: 

Anything is better than the strategy the Democrats have employed. Hillary is Obama’s third term, and ISIS is attacking what seems like weekly at this point. Trump has solid people around him like General Flynn and will have an entire foreign policy team like every other President. He’s not going to be in a vacuum.

Note: - Since the Washington Post wrote this, Donald Trump has given a foreign policy speech on ISIS:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical

The Washington Post Says Trump Doesn’t Tell Us How He Will Deport 11 Million Illegal Immigrants:

Donald Trump gives a plan to deport a good deal of illegal immigrants on his website. He says (and you can check his website for the in depth):

Triple the number of ICE officers.
Nationwide e-verify.
Mandatory return of all criminal aliens.
Detention—not catch-and-release.
Defund sanctuary cities.
Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.
Cooperate with local gang task forces.
End birthright citizenship. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

The Washington Post Says Trump Says, “Allies Are Taking Advantage Of The United States.” 

Is it false we have large trade deficits with some of our allies? Is it false that some members of NATO don’t pay enough? Is it false we are paying a significant cost to put our military in some of these countries and perhaps we should be paid more?

The Washington Post Says Trump Says, “Immigrants Are Committing Crimes And Stealing Jobs.”

In what may be the BIGGEST whopper of the entire article, The Washington Post then says:

Immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans and take jobs that no one else will

Donald Trump is referring to ILLEGAL immigrants. This is completely disingenuous. On that stage the other night at the debate we saw people who lost their loved ones to crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Of course illegal immigrants take jobs. That’s why they come over, and it saves companies from having to pay the full wage to Americans.

In the absence of comprehensive data, FoxNews.com examined a patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life. The explosive figures show illegal immigrants are three times as likely to be convicted of murder as members of the general population and account for far more crimes than their 3.5-percent share of the U.S. population would suggest. Critics say it is no accident that local, state and federal governments go to great lengths to keep the data under wraps.

(Snip)

FoxNews.com did review reports from immigration reform groups and various government agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and several state and county correctional departments. Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants. 

There are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S. 

In the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants. 

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals are being deported. In 2014, ICE removed 315,943 criminal illegal immigrants nationwide, 85 percent of whom had previously been convicted of a criminal offense. But that same year, ICE released onto U.S. streets another 30,558 criminal illegal immigrants with a combined 79,059 criminal convictions including 86 homicides, 186 kidnappings, and thousands of sexual assaults, domestic violence assaults and DUIs, Vaughan said. As of August, ICE had already released at least 10,246 criminal aliens. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/crime-wave-elusive-data-shows-frightening-toll-illegal-immigrant-criminals.html

Another:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in 2015 decided not to deport but release 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants, including 208 convicted of murder, over 900 convicted of sex crimes and 12,307 of drunk driving, according to new government numbers. 

Overall, those released into virtually every state and territory of America had a total of 64,197 convictions among them, for an average of 3.25 convictions each, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies. ICE also said that the group were convicted of 8,234 violent crimes.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ice-releases-19723-criminal-illegals-208-convicted-of-murder-900-of-sex-crimes/article/2589785

As far as low wage labor, even Bernie Sanders said,

“Should we have a completely open border so that anyone can come in the United States of America?” Sanders replied, after MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald asked the Senator about his position. “If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/31/bernie-sanders-no-question-in-my-mind-illegal-immigrantion-hurts-jobs/

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Says That Muslims “Hate” America:

Did Donald Trump ever say that all Muslims hate America? I’d like a link to that. Donald Trump has spoke out against “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. Also, he cited a Pew Poll. If you look at a recent Pew Poll that came out just this month, you will see that in many Muslim countries, there is a very high portion of Muslims who support Sharia law. Sharia law is incompatible with our Constitution.

Look at the Sharia support graph by country:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Donald Trump also sited this online survey which the liberals have dismissed:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

WaPo Quote: “Muslims are the primary victims of Islamist terrorism, and Muslim Americans, including thousands who have served in the military, are as patriotic as anyone else.”

Your point, WaPo? All the more reason for Trump to root out the bad apples of ISIS. No one has said all Muslims hate America, even Trump said it wasn’t the majority.

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Launched His Campaign By Accusing Mexico Of Sending Rapists Across The Border:

Perhaps the Washington Post can now prove that there are no rapist that come across the border from Mexico. How many people have been raped by illegal immigrants, WaPo? We saw in 2014 that thousands with sexual assault charges were released as well as over 900 last year.

The Washington Post Accuses Trump Of Wanting To Abandon NATO:

Donald Trump does not want to abandon NATO. He wants it refined to our modern age to cover terror, and he would like every member to pay their fair share. If Donald Trump sits down at negotiations and tells NATO that he wants them to pay up but then proceeds to tell them he is going to jump to their aid no matter what, exactly what incentive do they have to pay up?

The Washington Post Accuses Trump Of Encouraging Nations To Obtain Nuclear Weapons

He never encouraged them. He has said they are relying on our protection, and they should be compensating us more. He said he would rather they not have them, but if they aren’t compensating us enough, maybe they should defend themselves. Their enemies have nuclear weapons. However, at his rallies, he has said he would prefer they not.

The Washington Post Accuses Trump Of Cozying Up To Dictators:

They actually wrote an article about that entitled, “Trump’s favorite dictators: In reviled tyrants, GOP nominee finds traits to praise”

I spent a lot of time doing a post just like this one addressing the claims in that article. This is long enough, but you can check it out here:

http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/08/hillarys-camp-says-trump-loves.html

Now let's address something else.  Let's look at Obama's record with dictators.  I did a post right here:

http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/08/donald-trump-has-been-accused-of.html

The Washington Post Says That Donald Trump Has Vowed To Torture Terrorist Suspects And Bomb Their Families Whether It is Illegal Or Not

His main thing has been waterboarding, of course the libs declare that as torture. If someone has info of an imminent attack and they aren’t talking, wouldn’t it be better to waterboard them as a last resort than let Americans die?

But in a statement Friday, Trump said that he understands "that the United States is bound by laws and treaties" and that he would "not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters."

He added, "I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/

Obama, however, has killed many innocents or family members in drone strikes.

Barack Obama has claimed that drone and other airstrikes, his favored tactics of war, have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during his administration, a tally which was criticized as undercounted even before Friday’s announcement. 

(Snip)

Yet the count is also incomplete, leaving out the civilian toll from drone strikes in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Nor did the administration go into detail about where the strikes occur, citing what an official told reporters on Friday were “diplomatic sensitivities”, even as it presented the assessment as a significant advance in transparency. The Guardian has filed a freedom of information act request for records relating to the civilian-death assessment in the US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, where thus far the US military has concluded it has killed 36 civilians since summer 2015. 

The upper limit of the civilian death toll from drones stands at more than 800 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, during the time period Obama’s drones tally covered. But that and similar accounts are imprecise, owing to both official secrecy and the difficulties of fact-finding and verifying in some of the world’s most dangerous places. In some cases, human rights groups have found that strikes intending to kill specific terrorist leaders killed many more people.

In 2013, senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that drone strikes had killed 4,700 people, some 2,000 more deaths than the upper limit the administration released on Friday. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths

While many within the legal and human rights communities applauded the voluntary disclosure of casualty data and the executive order as a step in the right direction, some felt the Friday news dump fell short in key areas. 

“It’s hard to credit this death count, which is lower than all independent assessments,” Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, told The Intercept.

Organizations such as the Long War Journal, the New America Foundation, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimate that at least 200 and as many as 1,000 civilians have been killed by American drone strikes in nations where the U.S. is not at war since Obama took office. The administration offered no individualized accounts to explain where its numbers came from, or who the civilian casualties were. Without the government addressing individual cases, disclosing the identities of those killed, or providing detailed information on the investigations undergirding its conclusions, Shamsi contended, little could be done with the disclosures.

(Snip)

While the administration’s report was short on details, it did push back on claims that U.S. officials have, over the years, maintained a practice of labeling military-aged males killed in drone strikes as militants unless evidence is produced indicating otherwise. “Males of military age may be non-combatants; it is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants,” it said.

The government’s insistence that it does not label dead young men as militants by default contradicted years of reporting from multiple news organizations (just this week, former military and intelligence officials speaking to the Los Angeles Times confirmed that had been a practice under the Obama administration until recently).

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-finally-releases-its-dubious-drone-death-toll/

Detailed Info on The Drone Papers:

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

Just came out:

Hollande and Obama Behind “Bloody Massacres” in Syria. French and US airstrikes “Kill over 140 Civilians” 

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/hollande-and-obama-behind-bloody-massacres-in-syria-french-and-us-airstrikes-kill-over-140-civilians/5536988

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Attacked Judge Because of Mexican Heritage 

That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to is a political group:

SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this through two vehicles; it’s Political Affairs Committee and it’s Political Action Committee.

The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of Directors to oversee all aspects of the Association’s political efforts. The Political Affairs Committee has led the Association’s efforts to push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system, has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino Elected Official’s 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.

The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all aspects of the Association’s lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions on how to contribute the PAC’s money to support candidates and causes that are aligned with the Association’s mission and values.

http://sdlrla.com/about-our-work/

They make endorsements:

http://sdlrla.com/endorsements/

On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is pro-illegal immigrant:

http://www.borderangels.org/faq/

The Daily Caller lists these organizations:

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.

“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement. 

However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.
The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.” 

(Snip)

Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.” 

However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien. 

MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is 
MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.

Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a recent post on their site is, “Latinos allege excessive policing after Trump protests.” Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of Obama’s executive actions providing amnesty. 

Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because “it is not humane, as it would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the wall.” 

San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with deportation raids from the Obama administration. “San Diego will NOT stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of families#StopTheHate #HereToStay,” the group wrote on May 27.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/#ixzz4FGyw5b5Q

The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:

Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien. 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/#ixzz4FGztz085

Finally:

Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trump’s Businesses

Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his announcement speech.

The press release stated the organization’s mission to target Trump’s “business interests,” according to the Conservative Treehouse.

“By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong,” the press release states. “His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.”

The press release adds:

The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference. 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/07/report-trump-university-judge-linked-group-calls-boycott-trumps-businesses/

The Washington Post Says Trump Has Encouraged Violence At His Rallies:

Donald Trump had a problem where people were coming to his rallies and causing big scenes. They would yell until they would have to be taken out. Sometimes there would be obscene signs. There were three incidences I can think of at his rallies with the exception of maybe people ripping away some signs. The one was an older man, and the man who he punched gave him the finger right in front of him when being taken out. Should he have punched him? No! However, that’s considered very disrespectful to someone of his generation or anyone really. The other was when the black man got angry because a white guy had a confederate flag and the protester behind her had a kkk mask on, implying that Trump was racist and he was supporting a racist. Of course he was mad. Should he have done it? No, but if this happened at a Democrat rally, they would have defended this man. There was one other where a girl was getting shoved a bit, but we don’t see what she said that angered those older men. Should they have shoved her? No! I just don’t know the full story. Another time he told someone to knock the crap out of someone is when he was told that a protester had tomatoes. He said to knock the crap out of them if they saw them about to throw a tomato.

At rallies today, people are told to chant Trump’s name if they see a protester. Trump stresses over and over again not to hurt the protester. It is illegal for them to be protesting, and he could push legal charges if he wanted to. He doesn’t.

The media never wanted to address the fact that it was liberals coming into these things, causing a huge scene, and even causing violence outside. They shut down a rally in Chicago because they were so violent.
They would block the entrance to the door, smash doors, tip over barricades, harass people entering and leaving the rallies, they hunted people and attacked people in places like San Jose. Police officers have gotten hurt. They’ve shut down roads and highways. Cities have to send out lots of police and be well organized because the threat of violence is so grave. Donald Trump himself had to cross a highway barrier to speak at one event in California. Donald Trump never asked those people to come out. They chose to, and some were paid to. Imagine if our people did this, at their rallies. Just imagine. The media wouldn’t let the world forget it.

This black police officer went to a Trump rally, and he saw what was up. He said he wasn’t afraid of the Trump supporters. He was afraid of the protesters, and he was not a Trump supporter.

Police Officer talks about his experience at Trump's rally in Tucson 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyxZ7HO7aY

The Washington Post Attacks Trump On Attacking Ted Cruz’s Wife and Father

Addressed here:

http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-response-to-media-claims-trump.html

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Accuses Hillary Clinton Of Murder

Vince Foster is what they are referring to. Honestly, I was too young at the time to follow the case, but I watched part of this interesting documentary on the Vince Foster case. There were a lot of questions for sure. Watch for yourself if interested. For the record, I’m not personally accusing Hillary of anything. I’m just saying this documentary points out some interesting things about this case:

Vince Foster's death
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM3rWX4g5o

Trump barely brought this up, and lest I can tell has not been a campaign point he has used against her at rallies, on Twitter, in the online ads or his Lyin’ Crooked Hillary website. I haven’t seen this as a fixture of his campaign more than a comment made.

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Says Obama Is A Traitor Who Wants Muslims To Attack 

The Washington Post originally said Donald Trump accused Obama of being involved in Orlando. They changed their headline to this. This cost them their press credentials, so that’s what Trump thinks about that.

We do know his policies led to the growth of ISIS, and he struggles to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism."  Heck, he even struggles to use ISIS.  For some reason, Obama has to use the term ISIS.

The Washington Post says Republicans know this stuff to be true, and that is why Republicans weren’t there and he had to rely on testimony of friends and family. 

There were plenty of Republicans there including the Speaker, Senate Leader, and Whip, Governors, Senators, and Congressmen. So far as the Bush family, they were bitter because Trump destroyed Jeb! and ruined the dynasty. Kasich is a bitter, nasty, childish individual. That’s why he stayed in when he was 4th in a 3 man race. He made a fool of himself. Second of all, there were other people there like the Benghazi mother, families who lost illegals, pastors, conservative leaders like Falwell, Perkins, and Ingraham. As far as his family and friends, that gives us a look at who the man is, not the media spin on him.

The Washington Post Concludes They Can Trust Hillary Clinton To Protect The Constitution 

This is after she set up a server in her basement, sent classified material subject to hacking, and lied about it. This is after her Benghazi fiasco. This is after ISIS grew under her watch.

The Washington Post goes on to downplay Trump’s business success by saying he was “staked in the family business” by his father. They then say that his real estate business has some success and some failure. They act as though it’s evenly split. He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures and repeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Barack Obama And Dictators

Donald Trump has been accused of admiring dictators or cozying up to them by Hillary Clinton and her allies in the media.  Hillary Clinton put out a press release with a list of dictators that Donald Trump supposedly admires.  The media outlets all capitalized on her press release and proceeded to do a story based on that very press release.  I have done a response to that article below:

http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/08/hillarys-camp-says-trump-loves.html

I thought I would do a post on Obama's relationship with dictators.  Some of these are "our" dictators meaning the dictators that we work with in order to accomplish our own national security interests, but the point is that Trump was attacked for cozying up to dictators and loving dictators when Obama has worked with dictators or refused to strongly pressure them to change because they work with us.  Here are a series of articles:

The article from Politico entitled "We Caved" is by far the best among the articles.  I tried to order these chronologically.

Why Obama Loves His Dictators

(Can't even excerpt because the whole thing is good.)


http://www.independentsentinel.com/why-obama-loves-his-dictators/

The Obamas LOVED the #BurkinaFaso Dictator

The Obamas had a longstanding and warm relationship with the African dictator Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso.
Compaoré has ruled the poverty stricken nation with an iron fist since 1987 but Obama feted him at the White House in August.
Riots broke out against the tyrant today and protestors stormed the parliament.

The New York Times reported on how Obama had given $5 billion to African dictators to build up their militaries.

“Repression by dictators like Idriss Déby in Chad or Blaise Compaoré in Burkina Faso has been tolerated because their governments have supplied combat troops for operations against jihadists in the Sahara,” The Times wrote in mid-August.

http://gotnews.com/obamas-loved-burkinofaso-dictator/

Obama’s troubling counterterrorism allies: dictators

(Snip)

Assad is the bloodiest butcher of this young century, but he’s hardly the only example of the United States’ reborn love of strongmen. Egypt’s new dictator has killed and imprisoned opponents with a brazenness Hosni Mubarak never dreamed of. The State Department is eager to embrace him in a new partnership.

Obama used to insist that the government of Bahrain “engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.” Now, as Bahrain cracks down on peaceful dissidents, the United States barely notices.


In Central Asia’s Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, 76, presides over a closed society of prison camps and forced labor. But immediately after he announced he would rule for five more years — after all, he’s been in charge only since 1989 — the United States approved a shipment of weaponry for his government and counseled “a certain amount of strategic patience in how change can take place.”


From Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, where Obama will visit Tuesday, the United States is cozying up to dictators who share some key attributes. They agree with the United States that Islamic extremism must be fought. But they also go after nonviolent opponents — and they are most ferocious against secular, liberal critics. By destroying any moderate forces, they can present themselves as the only alternative to religious fundamentalism.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-troubling-counterterrorism-allies-dictators/2015/01/25/56ad3d76-a288-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html?utm_term=.059860b7a2aa

Another example of one that is our allies, but this is to illustrate a point:

Why is Obama showing so much love for a brutal dictator?

(Snip)

But when Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah died last week, American and Western leaders paid him the deepest respect. President Obama didn’t have time to join the March in Paris to speak out against the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, but made sure he was present for Abdullah’s funeral. The Pentagon is even having an essay contest to honor the late king.

Former State Department official James Carden reminds us of the late Saudi Arabian king’s human rights record at The American Conservative:
According to Human Rights Watch, the Abdullah regime beheaded 19 people over the course of 16 days last August; one of the executed was, according to a report issued by Amnesty International, mentally ill, while another was beheaded for the crime of “black magic sorcery.” Meanwhile, a blogger by the name of Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes, while only recently a video emerged of a Saudi policeman beheading a Burmese woman in the middle of a street in Mecca as she screamed for her life. She is one of 10 people beheaded in Saudi Arabia so far this year.
Then of course there is Saudi Arabia’s role in providing material support for the 9/11 atrocity that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. Obama continues to protect the Saudis by refusing to release the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report having to do with Saudi Arabia’s funding of and complicity in the attacks. This despite his own promises to the 9/11 families that he would do so…
Meanwhile, the Saudis continue to fund—to the tune of billions of dollars a year—the propagation of the most sinister and violent branch of Islam throughout the world, leading to, among other things, the ritual slaughter of a staff of cartoonists in the very heart of Europe, hostage taking in Sydney, and murderous rampages in Ottawa and Brussels, to say nothing of a series of subway bombings in Madrid, London, and Moscow.
http://rare.us/story/why-is-obama-showing-so-much-love-for-a-brutal-dictator/

Obama Loves Dictatorships

(Now for this one, I realize these are our allies, but the point is that Trump is supposed to admire dictators per the Washington Post.  This goes to show that Obama and our present government will work with dictators and look the other way on human rights abuses for our benefit.  We saw that illustrated in the Politico article.)

Last week, President Obama met with representatives from six Gulf Arab states: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman.

(Snip)

But that wasn’t the only thing that Obama was providing assurances for. He also said that the U.S. government would respond to any external threats against the six Gulf Arab countries. This could even include using military force.

(Snip)

Aside from just women, Amnesty International has listed human rights abuses in each of the six countries. Some are worse than others. We have heard the stories of people being executed for things that we would consider minor crimes, or perhaps not even criminal at all. There are problems in all of these places with the governments inhibiting free speech and not allowing dissent against the government.

http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/obama-loves-dictatorships/6101

Obama’s Legacy Is Propping Up Dictatorships, Not Democracies

By praising Ethiopia’s repressive regime for being “democratically elected” last week, President Obama was driving home once again something that should be abundantly clear by now: His administration marks a radical departure from previous ones when it comes to democracy promotion
.
On the contrary, the Obama legacy will be one of propping up dictatorial regimes around the world. His praise for the government of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn merely took to Africa what Obama and his foreign policy team have already done on a grander scale in Iran, Cuba and Burma.

To be sure, President Obama was standing next to Desalegn at a joint press conference in Addis Ababa when he spoke. Maybe he didn’t want to be a bad guest. And the president did add that the Ethiopian government has “more work to do.” After a slew of criticism at home, he later also questioned why African leaders cling to office rather than leave after their terms are completed.

But Obama didn’t have to go out of his way to call Desalegn “democratically elected,” let alone do it twice. Nor did he have to make excuses for Desalegn’s government’s horrendous human rights record by recalling the country’s past hardship and the relative infancy of its constitution.
Before he left for Africa, human rights activists and think-tanks had called on Obama to use his trip to promote economic and political freedom—something the president did only in the mildest of ways.
The Ethiopian government, for the record, has been roundly criticized by all major human rights organizations for holding sham elections in May in which Desalegn’s Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) claimed to have won 100 percent of the vote. Immediately upon Mr. Obama’s comments, the president of Freedom House, Mark P. Lagon, released this reaction:

President Obama unfortunately was fundamentally wrong in his comments about the parliamentary elections Ethiopia held in May, in which the ruling Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) won every seat.  Calling Ethiopia’s government democratically elected lowers the standards for democracy and undermines the courageous work of so many Ethiopians who fight to realize a just and democratic society.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/08/obamas-legacy-is-propping-up-dictatorships-not-democracies/

Global Dissidents Ask That Obama Pressure Dictators, Not Coddle Them

While President Obama was holding a private confab at the White House Thursday night with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to discuss, among other things, his pet project of climate change, dissidents held a public meeting in another part of Washington to demand more attention for a more traditional American priority, the support for democracy and human rights.

Chen Guangcheng from mainland China joined fellow Hong Kong democracy activists Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai at Washington’s Newseum to repeat a message that has so far failed to dissuade President Obama from cozying up to dictators: you can’t trust someone who mistreats his own people. It was a message that, coincidentally, Cuban dissidents were issuing in a desperate call from Havana at the same time.

“Obama should be on the side of the rights of the Chinese people, not on the side of the leader of the Communist Party,” Chen told me, speaking through an interpreter.

(Snip)

What they want is support from the world, especially the United States. “We need to get support from the White House,” says Wong. “Hong Kong will continue the fight, but we need support from the world.” President Obama’s statements on Hong Kong’s freedoms, however, have been “very weak,” he added.

(Snip)

As fortune would have it, while I was attending the dissidents’ event Thursday night, I received in my inbox a letter from a dissident leader in Havana, Antonio Rodiles from the Cuban movement Estado de Sats, signed by him and 13 other Cuban dissident leaders. The letter made almost exactly the same points the Chinese dissidents were making.

“The United States as a nation has declared time and again its total commitment to the defense of democracy and fundamental liberties,” read the letter, before taking President Obama to task.

Obama, it said, affirms that his policy of opening to the Castro dictatorship “is guided by the values of the Founding Fathers … However, the reality of the current situation contradicts this idea and paints a completely different picture. This unconditional rapprochement has only served to legitimize the longest lived and most destructive dictatorship in the history of the hemisphere, and has served to reinforce the violation of fundamental freedoms.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikegonzalez3/2015/09/26/global-dissidents-ask-that-obama-pressure-dictators-not-coddle-them/2/#f386ebb1ced4

Fantastic Piece By Politico Magazine (The Entire Thing is Worth a Read):

 ‘We Caved’

For Egypt’s brutally repressive president, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the spectacle was a triumph, symbolizing not only his militaristic power at home, but also his victory over an American president who had tried to punish him before surrendering to the cold realities of geopolitics. 

Just two years earlier, Sisi had seized power in a military coup, toppling Mohamed Morsi, the democratically elected successor to Hosni Mubarak, himself a strongman of 30 years pushed out in early 2011 by mass protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. In the summer of 2013, Sisi followed his coup with a brutal crackdown that would have done Saddam Hussein proud. His security forces arrested thousands of people, including much of his political opposition, and in one bloody day that summer, they gunned down some 1,000 pro-Morsi protesters (or more) who were staging peaceful sit-ins. The massacre was shocking even by the standards of Egypt’s long-dismal human rights record.

Obama was appalled. “We can’t return to business as usual,” he declared after the slaughter. “We have to be very careful about being seen as aiding and abetting actions that we think run contrary to our values and ideals.”

Several weeks later, Obama halted the planned delivery of U.S. military hardware to Cairo, including attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles and several F-16 fighter jets, as well as $260 million in cash transfers. He also cast doubt on the future of America’s $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt—a subsidy on which Cairo depends heavily, and much more than the United States sends to any country in the world aside from Israel.

(Snip)

For months, Obama tried to split the difference. In meetings and phone calls with the Egyptian ruler, by now paranoid and resentful about America’s intentions, Obama and Kerry urged Sisi to respect human rights, while also seeking his help in countering the the metastisizing Islamic State in nearby Syria and Iraq. Sisi did little of either. 

In the end, Obama folded. This past March, he called Sisi once again, this time to explain that he would release the cash transfers and delayed hardware—including the F-16s—and end the administration’s threats to block the larger $1.3 billion annual aid package.

(Snip)

“He’s never quite melded his rhetoric with his policies,” says Dennis Ross, who served as Obama’s top Middle East aide in his first term. Adds Robert Ford, who was Obama’s ambassador to Syria before resigning in frustration over the president’s policy there: “It seems like we are swinging back to the idea that we must make a choice between supporting dictators or being safe.”

(Snip)

The article says there was a debate over whether or not Mubarak should stay among Obama's advisors.  Obama ultimately went with the camp that said he should go.  Hillary Clinton disagreed.  Now Mubarak didn't have a stellar human right's record, so based on the WaPo's logic, she supported a dictator.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would later describe them, in her memoir, as being “swept up in the drama and idealism of the moment.” She, along with other elders like Gates and then-national security adviser Tom Donilon, warned of unintended consequences.

(Snip)

The latest annual report of Freedom House, a nonprofit that tracks democracy and rights worldwide, tells an unhappy story. Rising authoritarianism from Asia to Latin America made for “a disturbing decline in global freedom in 2014.” That made 2014 just like every other year of the Obama presidency: The group’s freedom index has seen a net decline each year since 2006. Most recently, Freedom House found that authoritarian rulers worldwide “increasingly flout democratic values, argue for the superiority of what amounts to one-party rule, and seek to throw off the constraints of fundamental diplomatic principles.

Some of the worst offenders are nations with which Obama regularly does business, including China, whose president, Xi Jinping, Obama has sought to befriend even as the Chinese leader conducts what activists call a political crackdown unseen since Tiananmen Square. In Turkey, a NATO ally where the U.S. operates a major air base that it uses, in part, to strike the Islamic State in Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has smothered dissent (a Turkish physician is on trial for posting photos online that likened Erdogan to the reptilian Lord of the Rings character Gollum), and Erdogan recently completed a $350 million palace symbolizing his bloated power. Obama’s relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin may be frosty since Putin’s land grab in neighboring Ukraine, but Obama has said little about Putin’s political repression at home.




(Snip)

...They point out that when Obama restored diplomatic relations with Cuba in July, he required only modest concessions from the Castro regime, such as the release of a few dozen political prisoners and the promise of broader Internet access, and that the Cuban government continues to make large numbers of political arrests—more than 1,000 in October alone, according to one independent tally. But Obama feels that sanctions and subversion are dead ends. “A good portion of our democracy funding ends up in the hands of the Cuban government,” says one senior administration official. “The old model just doesn’t work in some places anymore.”

(Snip)

Myanmar is a similar story. In July 2012, Obama agreed to end sanctions and recognize its military-led government, perhaps best known for brutalizing saffron-robed Buddhist monks who revolted against it in 2007. Obama’s November 2012 visit to the country was the first by a U.S. president. More recently, the Burmese regime has stalled political reforms, waged new political crackdowns and created an epic refugee crisis by persecuting its ethnic Rohingya minority. 

(Snip)

Obama came to office determined to engage, not overthrow, Iran’s regime. The Iran Democracy Fund is no more; it has been renamed the Near East Regional Democracy Program, and Obama’s budget requests have shrunk by nearly a quarter. When mass protests erupted across Iran in June 2009, Obama mostly held his tongue. (The opposition Green Movement was brutally crushed and has never been reconstituted. Clinton has since said she regrets that the administration didn’t offer the Greens more encouragement.) The nuclear talks that culminated in last year’s deal also excluded questions like human rights and political reform, although Obama has expressed hope that they may begin a diplomatic thaw that could gradually liberalize Iranian society. 

(Snip)

Several months later, in July 2014, Tom Malinowski, a former Human Rights Watch official who had succeeded the disillusioned Posner as Obama’s top State Department official for human rights and democracy, traveled to Bahrain. Things had been tense in the tiny oil-rich kingdom since March 2011, when its Sunni monarchy—aided by troops from neighboring Sunni Saudi Arabia—used force to clear peaceful Shiite-dominated protests. Mindful that Bahrain hosts the 5,000 sailors and Marines of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Obama was far more tempered in his reaction than he had been after crackdowns in Syria and Libya, while Clinton called for “calm and restraint on all sides” in a very lopsided confrontation. That fall, amid concerns that Bahrain had used U.S.-supplied arms against protesters, Obama halted the sale of weapons to the country—although a few months later, he allowed other purchases, including Cobra helicopters, to proceed.

(Snip)

But there’s scant evidence Obama has tried to have it. After the Saudi government executed 47 accused terrorists, including the prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, in early January, Obama officials were privately appalled. They believed the death sentences made a mockery of due judicial process, and also foolishly infuriated Shiite Iran. But the White House and State Department, while expressing “concerns” about Saudi Arabia's human rights record, declined to specifically condemn the executions.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/we-caved-obama-foreign-policy-legacy-213495?o=0

Asian trade summit has Obama working with dictators 
Mr. Obama has invited the heads of Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia and six other countries for the first Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting to be held in the U.S. It’s an effort to burnish his foreign policy legacy of shifting America’s attention to the Asia-Pacific region, including a massive free trade deal.

But the invitations have raised criticism that Mr. Obama is granting legitimacy to dictators who resist democratic reforms, when the president should be offering incentives to improve their human rights records.

“President Obama knows that human rights are under assault in Southeast Asia; the question is whether he’s going to say or do something about it,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “The risk is that the summit will empower and embolden ASEAN leaders who have been responsible for jailing journalists, cracking down on peaceful protesters and dismantling democratic institutions after coups.

(Snip)


Among the worst offenders at the summit, say human rights advocates, are Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, an autocrat who has ruled the country since the 1980s and has been shunned by previous administrations from setting foot on U.S. soil. In a new report, Human Rights Watch said the former Khmer Rouge commander has a record of “violence, intimidation, and politically motivated arrests and prosecutions against all perceived opponents, while allowing high-level corruption and cronyism to flourish.”

The sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, one of the world’s richest men, with an estimated net worth of $20 billion, “has imposed a near complete ban on freedoms of expression, association, and assembly,” Human Rights Watch said. “He plans to increase the imposition of Islamic law punishments, including whipping and stoning, for adultery, sex between unmarried persons, and homosexual activity.”

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is implicated in a massive corruption scandal in which nearly $700 million found its way into his bank account. He claimed it was an entirely legal “personal donation” from Saudi Arabia’s royal family. He also has engaged in a crackdown on political opponents, civil society groups and the media.

Vietnamese leaders also will attend the summit, a month after Communist Party leaders chiefs selected the country’s next leaders without any semblance of a democratic process. Bloggers critical of the Vietnamese government are being jailed.

The presence of Thailand’s prime minister, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, is “especially troubling,” the report said. “Prayut, who regularly threatens critics with violence and asserts that his decisions are unchallengeable, has repeatedly delayed a return to civilian democratic rule,” Human Rights Watch said.

Despite the dismal human rights records of the participants, Mr. Obama is fostering partnerships with them for cooperation on economic and security priorities, including a united front against China over maritime jurisdiction questions in the South China Sea, a major shipping route. The U.S. also wants their cooperation on counterterrorism efforts, and is linking up with several ASEAN countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/14/obama-works-with-dictators-on-asian-trade-deal/

Obama's Apology Tour And Latin American Dictators

Here’s why: His words in Argentina cast his speech in Cuba in sharp relief.  In Havana, the President offered but timid support for human rights in Cuba, devoid of any denunciation of flagrant abuses that continued to rage on the island even during his visit (and even swept up people he was supposed to meet). Yet in Buenos Aires, he strongly denounced an Argentine military dictatorship that dissolved more than three decades ago. The denunciation came, of course, with the requisite expressions of contrition over any possible U.S. involvement.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikegonzalez3/2016/03/25/obamas-apology-tour-and-latin-american-dictators/#18bd36a3b07d