Repost from 9/12/12 ( the day after Benghazi ): Pure political spin

I'm reposting this because the advice that Trump is getting sounds pretty familiar.  In fact, it sounds like how Romney was pounded for criticizing the administration's response to Benghazi.

Romney went bean bag, and lost the election.  Trump should learn that politics ain't bean bag.


I've  been trying to understand the left's line of reasoning for criticizing Romney.  There are all agog that Romney spoke before events completely unfolded.  That's implying something that really isn't plausible.  For example, is Romney's criticism exploiting deaths that he doesn't know about yet, or what?  Or is it that Romney's criticism actually caused anything to happen?  Or, are they mad that this reflects badly upon Obama, and Romney's criticism isn't fair?

Let's look at this quote from Reuters:

He said it was "disgraceful" to be seen to be apologizing for American values of free speech. Obama's campaign accused Romney of scoring political points at a time of national tragedy.

The "national tragedy" hadn't happened yet when Romney criticized the Egyptian Embassy's pre-emptive apology for the so-called offending video--- a video that nobody knows about because it is so bad.  But the left is so agog that Romney jumped the gun to score political points for something that hadn't happened yet.  I suppose their position was that he should have known that it was going to happen, so he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.  As if by saying nothing, that the ambassador would still be alive?  Or is Obama and his cohorts mad that Romney's criticism scored points because it was true?

I think that this is spin control and the media is in on it.  Big time.

Double checking Muslim Brotherhood thing

The Khan guy is said to be Muslim Brotherhood.  Okay, why can't we discuss that?  Just because his son died in a war, the guy is off limits.

Look, he stepped on the playing field.  If he was attacked without cause, then yeah.  But he inserted himself into the fray.  He's fair game.

The supposed Gold Star rule didn't stop the dems from attacking a Gold Star Mom.  That rule only applies to Republicans, but only if they let it stick.  The most disappointing thing is to have George Will go on the attack.  Many of the GOP side cannot bring themselves to support Trump.

I double checked the Muslim Brotherhood story.   There's something there.  It avails little to give up on it now.  Keep pounding Hillary on it.  They expect the GOP to wither and cringe before them with these kind of attacks.  If I had Trump's ear, I'd say: "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!"

GOP "leadership" an oxymoron

All they are doing is rubber stamping whatever the left has to say on the issue.

They should support their nominee, not undermine him.  ( But he is NOT their nominee, which I think is the main point.)  This only confirms the falsehoods that the left is propagating.

If the GOP thinks that this helps with the rank and file voter, and if they are right, I'd be VERY surprised.  As for me, it only confirms me that they are lower than slime.

Yeah, it looks like they are ready to wave the white flag as usual.  The typical cowardice in the face of enemy.

They are determined to make this a kabuki theater at all costs.

The "sacrifice" flap could backfire on the globalists

From this article, courtesy of a Free Republic post, Walid Shoebat reveals that the dad who "sacrificed" his son, and made such a dramatic spectacle of himself at the Democrat convention, of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The alleged grieving father wrote a paper in favor of Shariah, for crying out loud.  He was attempting to get warriors to fight for jihad.

Keep in mind that Osama bin Laden said that the Muslims love death, while we love life.  They are portraying themselves as grieving parents.  For what do they grieve?  That their son gave his life in defense of a infidel country?

We are now fighting a highly symbolic war in which the meanings of words are being twisted, for grief is not sacrifice.  Indeed, the jihadists celebrate death.

If this story is true, then Clinton may have really stepped into it.

Trump v. Stephanopolous

Yeah, the former Clinton Administration flunkie tried his best to get Trump's goat.  Trump did okay, but it might have been better.

The one part that he could have done better with is the "sacrifices" part.  Stephie asked Trump if he made any sacrifices.  This is in comparison with the Muslim dad who lost a son, and made a big dramatic scene out of it at the DNC. 

The Muslim dad didn't sacrifice his son.  He lost his son, but that is not the same thing as sacrifice.  Sacrifice means to give up something for a greater good.  How did the Muslim dad do a sacrifice of his son?  His son was a grown man and he made his own decision to go fight.  While the Muslim dad did lose his son, he could not force his son to go fight.  Not unless it is under Sharia, and his son must obey his father, even if the son is old enough to make his own decisions.  Perhaps Sharia has no such requirement, but why use the word if it doesn't?

Any other comparison is not apt.  Why even bring it up, unless you are creating another straw man argument?

Update:

These look like the same kind of accusations flung at Trump by his primary opponents.  They are non-factual and incorrect.  If his opponents are so head and shoulders above him, then why do they have to resort to such dishonesty?  Because they know no other way.  Competence will "Trump" dishonesty, because at the base of dishonesty is a fundamental incompetency issue.  That is what I always have believed.

Update:

I don't know how the public will take all this, but the New York Times is claiming that Trump is "reeling" from the "confrontation", and that his rhetoric was "harsh and defensive". 

This characterization seems outlandish to me.  If anyone is being harsh, it is Trump's critics.  He hasn't said anything harsh, if so, what exactly was so harsh about it?

Once again, the word "sacrifice" is being used.  Who sacrificed, but the son.  The father may have been opposed to his son's sacrifice. 

"Mr. Khan made the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn’t he?” Mrs. Clinton said. “And what has he heard from Donald Trump? Nothing but insults, degrading comments about Muslims, a total misunderstanding of what made our country great.”

Who is Mrs. Clinton referring to, the father or the son?  What insults?  What degrading comments?

Totally bizarre.

Pope Francis: "The world is at war because it has lost peace."

The Globalist Pope has admitted failure.

It is the Globalists who wanted this Pope, and now he says that the peace is lost.  If peace was lost, who lost it?  Who's in charge of affairs these days if it isn't the Globalists?

What is Globalism but the notion that you can bring peace to the world by removing national boundaries?  Humanity gets reduced to the lowest common denominator.  All people are the same, all religions are the same, all nations are the same- so let's join hands and become one world!

One big problem with this utopian appeal is that it isn't grounded in truth.

People aren't the same.  Religions aren't the same.  Nations aren't the same.

Peace on Earth might be possible, but not without a respect for truth.  Globalists are failing.  If they were on the side of truth, they would admit their error.  Such is not the case here.

Chelsea Clinton: She’s No Ivanka Trump

Dick Morris



comment:



The comparisons are devastating.  Like Mom, like daughter.  She's an empty pant suit.