Getbig Main Boards > Politics and Political Issues Board
Trump Derangement Syndrome
Dos Equis:
This guy sums it up pretty well.
Mainstream media screams in pain as Trump becomes president (they know he beat them, too)
By Dan Gainor
Published January 21, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Donald Trump’s inauguration Friday was a time of historic transition. It was not just the transfer of power from Washington back to the citizens, as explained by the 45th president. It also marked the transfer of power from the news media to Trump.
And journalists weren’t happy about it.
Trump did what no politician in the modern era had. He had taken on the most-powerful interest group in America – the media – and won. He celebrated his victory as only Trump could – tweeting from both the @potus account and his own. He now has more than 35 million followers between the two, about one-and-a-half times the viewers of the three network evening news shows combined.
The media acted defeated but not vanquished, calling the inaugural speech “Hitlerian” for daring to use the term “America First.” A viral video of a protester screaming as Trump was announced the new president could well have been almost any major network staffer.
The day was filled with similar screams of pain. Journalists who had spent the last 12 weeks of the campaign throwing both the kitchen sink and the whole house at Trump remained stunned he had bested them. They still haven’t learned that turning up speakers to 11 doesn’t make them any louder.
That didn’t stop them from continuing the barrage of Nazi comparisons, allegations of racism and overwhelming hate. Almost every outlet fixated on two other words of Trump’s speech: “American carnage.” Journalists didn’t quite grasp its meaning from their ivory towers, but they knew they didn’t like it.
NBC’s Chuck Todd said the speech was "shockingly divisive for an inaugural," and "unnecessarily divisive.” ABC’s Terry Moran complained its “overtones” were “anti-Semitic.” (ABC apparently forgot about Trump’s Jewish family and grandchildren.) CBS anchor Scott Pelley cautioned that the speech reflected, “A philosophy from the early days of the republic which found its 21st Century voice.”
CBS even asked if Trump channeled “a Batman villain in his inauguration speech.” The network actually compared the speech to one given by “Dark Knight” bad guy Bane.
All three major networks also hid the political affiliation of those in the “violent protest.” (Hint: Not conservative.) News outlets called them “people,” “protesters,” “demonstrators,” and “vandals” who attacked police, vandalized buildings and burned cars. Never once were they called rioters even though they were rioting. It’s the same downgrading networks do when they call terrorists “militants.”
The rest of the traditional media took their digs as well. Washington Post Pulitzer Prize winning writer Gene Weingarten called the new president “Messianic” and “A schmendrick who thinks he is the second coming.” Of course, Weingarten had already complained about the prayers as “More Jesusing.” Apparently, Weingarten missed that the service also included a rabbi’s prayer – the first time for that since 1985.
Nineteen minutes after Trump took the oath, the Post also filed a story about impeachment proceedings. “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” readers were told, as two far-left groups continued the long media march to discredit Trump.
The Post’s northern competition was no different. The New York Times also feared the “America First” wording. “With Echoes of the ’30s, Trump Resurrects a Hard-Line Vision of ‘America First,’” it wrote.
Both the Times and the Post obsessed over how Trump staff had already changed the White House website to delete previous climate change information. Throughout the day, journalists seemed shocked that Trump was actually delivering first a speech and then actions that reflected his campaign rhetoric.
Politico referred to the “gilded Oval Office,” like Trump had magically made it swankier just sitting there for a few minutes. Washingtonian magazine tweeted a picture of a crowd of photographers surrounding a trashcan fire with a typical attack: “Grasping for Metaphor, Reporters Flock to Burning DC Garbage Can.” But hey, there’s no media bias to see here, folks.
#Altleft outlets were more obvious, but not by much.
MSNBC was reliably insane, led by Chris “After The Thrill Is Gone” Matthews. So much so that even The Daily Beast filed Matthews’ “Hitlerian” comment under “HYSTERIA.”
Matthews compared the Trumps to Russia’s former royal family the Romanovs, who were killed in the communist revolution. He joked Trump could have his son-in-law executed, since he couldn’t fire him. Just like Mussolini. Even host Rachel Maddow was outraged by that. She said the speech was, “militant and it was dark."
Slate went full Nazi, complete with umlaut in its headline: “America Fürst.” Jamelle Bouie, the site’s chief political correspondent, warned Trump envisioned America as “a blemish-free people besieged by foreign and hostile forces.” Slate also vowed to hold Trump and his administration “accountable,” but that was just an advertisement for a premium service at $35 a year.
The literary pun “GRAVE NEW WORLD” led the Huffington Post, as staff warned the speech “Sounded More Like A Takeover.” And The Daily Beast described it as “Donald Trump’s Dark Forecast for America.”
Fusion (We’re the “voice of the resistance.”) broke the scandal of the designer that Melania Trump had used. Fusion filed a 10-word story under the headline, “We finally found out who had the nerve to dress Melania Trump.” Just so they could bash Ralph Lauren.
Hollywood celebrities avoided that kind of criticism with openly anti-Trump statements. Left Coast stars delivered their typical shock and awful comments. Actor/director and famous “Meathead” Rob Reiner accused Trump of “treason.” Entertainers told fans to set back their clocks – actress Jessica Chastain said 100 years and musician Brandon Williams 300. Director Joss Whedon warned “Tomorrow the devil’s clown car opens and millions will suffer.”
Even some establishment conservatives weren’t happy with Trump. Bill Kristol tweeted: “I'll be unembarrassedly old-fashioned here: It is profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim ‘America First.’” And George Will called the speech, “the most dreadful inaugural address in history.”
But journalists admitted that Trump spoke to his supporters and it was reflected in pro-Trump sites. The Drudge Report headlined in patriotic blue and red: “AMERICA AGAIN! TRUMP SWORN IN 'POWER BACK TO PEOPLE.'” And Breitbart, which the major media now target on a regular basis, had two big headlines: “IT BEGINS: PRESIDENT TRUMP” and “45 THUMPS ESTABLISHMENT ELITE IN FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS.” The accuracy is undeniable, but it’s fair to say only conservative outlets viewed that as a good thing.
Radio host and Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce celebrated one quote from the speech that journalists seemed to want to miss. “When You Open Your Heart to Patriotism, There Is No Room for Prejudice,” said Trump. She summed up what she called the president’s “genuine understanding of the conservative ideal” with one word. “Bravo.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/21/mainstream-media-screams-in-pain-as-trump-becomes-president-know-beat-them-too.html
Dos Equis:
Gregg Jarrett: The first (and frivolous) lawsuit against President Trump
By Gregg Jarrett
Published January 24, 2017
FoxNews.com
If you’re in the mood for a good chuckle, try reading the first lawsuit filed against the new president since he was sworn in.
The man hasn’t even unpacked his collection of red silk ties… and already he stands accused of corruption while in office.
Predictably, the plaintiffs are a clique of law professors serving as “arm candy” for a liberal group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (an oxymoron, to be sure). Their pleadings read like a dime novel. Or a comic book.
On the first page, we are warned of a “secret” and “grave threat”. The next sentence escalates it to a “creeping, insidious threat”. Get it? There’s a threat out there. Stephen King may write a book.
But if you can wade through the melodramatic style and tortured syntax, you’ll find the legal arguments oozing with the conceit of pseudo-intellectuals. In other words, they make little sense.
The plaintiffs claim President Donald Trump began violating the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution the moment he took office because the businesses that bear his name are surely receiving some money from foreign governments, even though he has relinquished management control and elected to donate foreign profits at Trump-owned hotels to the U.S. Treasury. Forget that the revenue derives directly from his businesses, not his high office.
The lawsuit is pure legal folly because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these kinds of circumstances do not violate the Constitutional emoluments prohibition. The plaintiffs, for all their academic prowess, manage to define emoluments incorrectly.
What The Hell Is An “Emolument”?
And that is precisely the question: what constitutes an “emolument”? Never heard of it?
I encourage you to read the excellent legal and historical analysis of Andy S. Grewal at the University of Iowa College of Law who published a recent study entitled, The Foreign Emoluments Clause And The Chief Executive. His review of the issues is smart, insightful and comprehensive.
But if you have neither the time nor inclination to wade through 43 pages and 187 annotations, here is the abridged version.
Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution states:
“…no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under (the United States) shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”.
The Framers were concerned that U.S. officials might be seduced by greed to use their office for personal profit, conferring benefits to foreign governments in a quid pro quo scheme for money. So they crafted the “emoluments clause” to prevent other countries from essentially bribing American officials, including the president. But our Founders did not define what is or is not an emolument.
In search of a definition, a basic and prominent legal source, "Black’s Law Dictionary," is useful. It defines the term emolument as, “Any advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s holding of office”. The original Webster’s Dictionary defines it as, “profit arising from office”. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a near identical definition.
None of these interpretations apply to President Donald Trump nor the many businesses that pre-date his presidency. Any payments to his Trump Organization do not arise from his holding the office he just assumed days ago. To the contrary, any realized profit emanates from his businesses, not his presidency.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has visited this very subject not once, but three times. In each case, the high court has consistently adopted the same definition of emoluments. That is, ordinary business transactions are not emoluments. There must be a nexus between the payment and the office. An emolument arises “when a pecuniary profit is derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.” (Hoyt v. United States, 51 U.S. 109)
Only when a president uses his office to confer a benefit in exchange for foreign money is he in violation of the Constitution. President Trump has done no such thing. The plaintiffs accuse him of no such conduct.
What is astonishing is how the plaintiffs ignore history in the context of the Framers’ intent. The first five presidents were farmers and plantation owners who maintained their businesses while in office. Some of their crops, especially tobacco, were sold abroad to companies and foreign governments. These sales were never regarded, even by their political opponents, as emoluments because they were unrelated to the holding of office.
So, how they can these “learned” professors, in good conscience, sue the President for something which the Supreme Court has said is perfectly constitutional? Well, I tend to think that professors view the law through the prism of an alternative reality. Or their political beliefs corrupt their legal judgments.
Two of the plaintiff professors published a column shortly before the presidential election demanding that Trump release his tax returns. This lawsuit appears to be nothing more than a pretext to force him to do so. If true, this is egregious misconduct. The federal court system should never be used and abused for political purposes.
The Plaintiffs Have No “Standing” To Sue
In order to maintain a legitimate lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiffs must demonstrate they have or will sustain a direct harm that that the court can remedy or rectify. It is called “standing”. Being displeased with a president does not constitute standing to sue.
So how are the plaintiffs harmed? The simple and obvious answer is they are not. And their own, rather laughable arguments prove it.
Beginning on page 23 of their civil action, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asserts that it has been harmed because it “has received hundreds of requests from the media” about the emoluments clause and has been forced to “divert its time and resources from its public-education activities to respond to these questions”.
OK, you can laugh now. That sentence makes no sense. By taking the time to educate the public through the media, it has been unable to fulfill its public-education activities. A genius argument.
The plaintiffs also claim their attorneys have spent so much time researching the new president and exploring potential legal actions against him that their costs have increased. Really? Isn’t that their own fault? If they had bothered to read the Supreme Court decisions on the emoluments clause, they could have dispensed with the entire matter in a leisurely afternoon.
Frivolous = Sanctions & Contempt
This case is not just lacking any legal merit, it is manifestly absurd. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, someone who brings a frivolous lawsuit can be sanctioned by the court, or even held in contempt.
In my experience, some law professors live in a land of make-believe. There is something about the seclusion of an ivory tower’s academic existence that twists and distorts reality.
Perhaps it is time a federal judge slap these profs with some meaningful sanctions. Maybe that will wake them up from their pedantic slumber.
And give them pause the next time they consider misusing our system of justice for purely political purposes.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/24/gregg-jarrett-first-and-frivolous-lawsuit-against-president-trump.html
Pray_4_War:
Sorry Liberals
Dos Equis:
James Franco ‘Spiraled Into a Depression’ After Trump Victory
by Jerome Hudson
23 Jan 2017
Actor-turned-director James Franco says he took the election of Donald Trump “really badly,” and has been suffering psychologically as of late.
“I mean, I’ve been reacting really badly!” Franco told the Daily Beast in an interview to promote his latest film, I Am Michael. “I’ve spiraled into a depression and I’ve been questioning everything that I am, and how I’ve been doing things.”
The 38-year-old star endorsed Hillary Clinton in October via a parody video of the famous Dos Equis beer “Most Interesting Man in the World” commercials.
“She’s the most interesting woman in the world,” Franco says in the ad, which first appeared on his personal Instagram page.
Today, the Oscar-nominated actor admits that “it’s been a rough few months.”
It’s also been a busy year, so far, for Franco. The budding producer is either filming or in the post production phase of more than a dozen films.
Franco is currently making the media rounds to promoting his bio drama I Am Michael, which follows a gay activist who rejects his homosexuality after accepting God.
The film’s director, Justin Kelly, told the Daily Beast: “Maybe Mike Pence will watch it and learn something.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/23/james-franco-spiraled-depression-trump-election/
Pray_4_War:
A cock swallowing liberal pot head is depressed. This pleases me. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version