Media Mission: Destroy Donald Trump

art credit: pinterest

Jeffrey Lord is a regular contributor to The American Spectator blog, but more Tea Party people may recognize him as a regular panelist – often the only conservative – on CNN prime time news. He attended a recent Trump rally and published a piece exposing the utter dishonesty in the mainstream media. The following is an extract from NewsBusters:

The other night I spent some time with Donald Trump. He had come to Cumberland Valley High School in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, a mere five or so miles up the road from my house.

The Trump rally was filled - completely - with thousands inside and outside thousands more waiting (in vain) to get in the door. Here’s what interested.

Never once - not once - did I hear Donald Trump mention the Khans, the now famous parents of a son killed in battle in Iraq. Even more to the point? In talking with many people in the audience before and after the rally, no one - say again not a single soul - mentioned the Khans. What I did hear from Trump was talk about jobs, trade, the economy, ISIS and more. Which was the talk from members of the audience when I spoke to many of them before and after the rally. They volunteered directly to me, conversation after another, their thoughts about ObamaCare, a sick child, jobs, trade ,pride in America, Hillary and so on.

And yet? Mysteriously when I returned home and turned on the television or checked on-line it seemed to be all-Khan all-the-time. As if Trump had spent the evening re-hashing the whole subject yet again. Which he had not.

In my conversation with Donald Trump himself he was upbeat, every bit as enthusiastic as his audience. Yet what was the media take on the Trump campaign this week? Here’s ABC’s Jon Karl:

“I am told that senior officials at the party are actively exploring what would happen if Trump dropped out. How to replace him on the ballot.  They can’t force him out, he would have to go out voluntarily. And then it would be the 168 members of the RNC through a complicated process they would pick a new candidate.” 

Over here at Politico was this headline:

Insiders to Trump: Drop out

'I’d rather take our chances with nearly anyone else than continue with this certain loser who will likely cost the Senate and much more,' said a New Hampshire Republican.

This media jewel began this way:

“Amid widespread chatter that Donald Trump could drop out of the presidential race before Election Day, Republican insiders in key battleground states have a message for The Donald: Get out.”

And over here at The Washington Post was this: 

GOP reaches ‘new level of panic’ over Trump’s candidacy

“Turmoil in the Republican Party escalated Wednesday as party leaders, strategists and donors voiced increased alarm about the flailing state of Donald Trump’s candidacy and fears that the presidential nominee was damaging the party with an extraordinary week of self-inflicted mistakes, gratuitous attacks and missed opportunities.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was described as “very frustrated” with and deeply disturbed by Trump’s behavior over the past week, having run out of excuses to make on the nominee’s behalf to donors and other party leaders, according to multiple people familiar with the events.

Meanwhile, Trump’s top campaign advisers are struggling once again to instill discipline in their candidate, who has spent recent days lurching from one controversy to another while seemingly skipping chances to go on the offensive against his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

“A new level of panic hit the street,” said longtime operative Scott Reed, chief strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s time for a serious reset.”       Hours later Politico took note of the Trump announcement of his economic team - a team filled with seriously competent businessmen  with considerable experience in making the American economy work.  What did Politicosay? This: 

Trump unveils all-male economic advisory team

“Donald Trump's campaign on Friday announced more than a dozen members of the Republican nominee's all-male economic advisory team, including several prominent real-estate investors, hedge-fund managers and bankers.”

Then there was this from the Media Research Center: 

CNN's 'New Day' Airs Nearly 200 Times More Coverage On Trump Controversies Than Iran

“CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday's New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn't think much of the Wall Street Journal's Tuesday revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn't mention that the payment was sent on "an unmarked cargo plane" New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”

. . .

To the larger point.

Monday night at that Trump rally here in Pennsylvania, a rally I have described here in The American Spectator, Trump drew what was unarguably his most sustained applause when he said of his campaign: “the biggest problem is the media.” The audience erupted, applauding and cheering, with many turning - unasked by Trump - to the back of the room where the television cameras were perched on risers and booing repeatedly. Trump went on to say this:

These are among the most dishonest people you will ever, ever meet. These people — you know, I’ve had days where I have said, ‘Boy, this was a great day. I’ll look forward to seeing it tonight or tomorrow and it’s brutal.’ And I say, ‘What happened?’

We are going to punch through the media. We have to! The New York Times is totally dishonest. Totally dishonest. The Washington Post has been a little bit better lately but not good. By the way The New York Times, which is failing badly. I call it ‘The Failing New York Times.’ Every story that they write is a hit job. I could do the greatest thing in the history of the world. I could come up with a cure for the most horrible disease in the world and they give me a front-page horrible, horrible story. The New York Times is very dishonest but it will be out of business soon. I hope. It will be out of business. It will. Really dishonest reporters. Not all of them, but most of them.

There was more, with another attack on CNN. 

But the point here is very simple. Out and abroad in the land there are millions of Americans who feel intensely that “the media” - fill in an outlet of your choice in print, TV, radio and now the Internet - are out there with the sole object of destroying Donald Trump [emphasis added]. That the slightest misstep of Trump’s will be magnified and replayed over and over endlessly - while major events like the clear case of the Obama administration’s payment of $400 million in cash to ransom Iranian hostages are simply downplayed.

. . .

Buckle in. It is a long way to November. And everything including the kitchen sink is coming in Trump’s direction courtesy of the media.

Read more here.

# # #

FACES IN THE CROWDS during the Republican National Convention

FACES IN THE CROWDS during Day 4, 

the final day of the Republican National Convention ~ 

Photos by Pat Dooley Photography  

Who says Code Pink doesn't have a sense of humor? Check out the white sign in the middle, just above the Trump sign. Embiggen if necessary.

And finally, two Cleveland Tea Party people went to XO on Thursday evening before the prime time speeches -

and got to shake the hand of America's Sheriff, Milwaukee's David A. Clarke, Jr. Wow.

If you missed Sheriff Clarke's speech at the convention, go here. If you missed his epic encounter with CNN's Don Lemon, go here. Clarke is an inspiration to us all.

# # #

Cleveland Prepares for the RNC: photos

                                                From photo album: RNC 2016 Friday before

Cleveland Tea Party's roving photographer, Pat J. Dooley, took a reconnaissance tour around downtown Cleveland today to check out preparations for the Republican National Convention that officially commences on Monday. You'll see crowd control barriers going up along the streets and in front of the Hilton Hotel, temporary cafes going up near The Q, various eateries on or near East Fourth Street that are now temporary headquarters for CNN, MSNBC, and other media, law enforcement presence on East Fourth St., and lots more.

The photo album "RNC 2016 Friday before" is here.

# # #

For or against gun control?

art credit: riversong.wordpress.com

Gun control is not one of the primary planks in the Tea Party platforms (those planks are limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets). However, Tea Party patriots may be interested in the gun control bills defeated yesterday in Congress. CNN reports:

Senators couldn't muster enough bipartisan support to pass a series of gun control measures Monday [yesterday], the latest in a long string of failed attempts at enacting tighter curbs on firearms in the United States.

Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, senators from each party introduced the measures they said would have strengthened background checks and prevented suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons.

But tough election year politics, paired with disputes over the effectiveness of each party's ideas, proved too powerful to break the longstanding partisan gridlock that's surrounded gun issues for years.

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.

"I'm mortified by today's vote but I'm not surprised by it," Murphy said Monday evening. "The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place."

More of the report is here.

According to Sen. Murphy, the National Rifle Assoc. is once again the villain in the piece. Thomas Sowell published an excellent opinion piece at RealClearPolitics:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws -- and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's empirical study, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm's book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

The rest of Sowell's article is here.

# # #

“Rubio trounces Trump in the GOP debate” ???

Art credit: therightscoop.com

Today’s message from the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund PAC opened with its endorsement of Ted Cruz, followed by this:

Rubio routs Trump in Thursday’s debate.

After last month’s weak (devastating, really) debate performance in New Hampshire, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio desperately needed a win at this week’s debate. And on Thursday, he certainly got the win his campaign wanted.

Sen. Rubio’s winning strategy centered heavily on attacking Donald Trump’s record. For many of the past debates, Trump’s opponents have given him a pass, choosing instead to attack one another – they figured (wrongly, it turns out) that rather than challenging Trump directly, the better strategy was to attempt to knock each other out in hopes of being the Last Man Standing against Trump (at which point they believe the 65-70% of the anti-Trump voters in the GOP would rally to their cause). But with Trump’s latest victory in Nevada, the other candidates are quickly realizing the short-sightedness of that strategy. And Sen. Rubio, for one, decided it was time for Trump to account for his record on everything from founding a “fake university” that defrauded people, to his history of hiring undocumented immigrants.

During the debate, Trump – who long ago became accustomed to being unchallenged in the debates – seemed unable to regain his footing after several of Sen. Rubio’s zingers. . . .

But here are some key polls, h/t Conservative Treehouse:

Drudge Report  

Political Opinion 

Right Scoop  

Telegraph  

Wall Street Journal 

The Blaze (click on the list of names to see results)

TimeDotCom  (click on the list of names to see results) 

Slate

All these polls showed Trump the winner. The Blaze poll is especially telling, since everyone knows that Glenn Beck has endorsed Cruz and loathes Trump. The Telegraph didn’t much like the poll results, either. But regardless of where you stand on the candidates, it’s unfortunate that Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund claims that Marco Rubio the winner of the debate, that he trounced Trump, when the above polls show otherwise. Where was at least a qualifier?

# # #

And then there were five.

carton credit: thefederalistpapers.com

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Carson

AP: The ninth Republican debate of the presidential campaign will take place just a few days before 11 states hold GOP elections that will either cement Trump's dominance — or let his rivals slow his march to his party's presidential nomination.

Tonight on CNN (Cleveland area Time Warner ch. 34) at 8:30 pm.

# # #

Unresolved: eligibility to run for President

cartoon credit: Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Unresolved: natural born citizenship and eligibility to run for President

The 9th GOP debate was not much fun to watch, nor did we learn anything about the eligibility of two candidates with Hispanic pedigrees (no, not Jeb!, who defined himself as “Hispanic” on his voter registration form), those two being Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Last month, CNN declared that

Cruz was conferred American citizenship at birth because his mother is an American citizen, and legal experts have largely agreed that would qualify him for natural-born citizenship. The Texas Republican was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also had Canadian citizenship until he renounced it in 2014.

Is that correct? If so, what’s all the fuss about?

Gateway Pundit posted a more detailed and sourced analysis of the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen of the U.S.:

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.

It would be nice if the Cruz camp cleared this up for Republican voters.

Via Family Security Matters:

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,”Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

What about Marco Rubio? AOL summarizes: 

The issue at hand -- as Ted Cruz has learned well -- is over whether Rubio can be considered a "natural born citizen."

Rubio's lawyers are in court this week fighting claims he's not eligible because his parents weren't U.S. citizens until four years after his birth. The lawsuit claims that means he is ineligible to run under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Rubio's citizenship has been contested before, when the question popped up in the 2012 election after rumors swirled that Republican candidate Mitt Romney might tap Rubio as a potential running mate.

The argument over what a "natural born citizen" actually means has been going on for years, and the only group who could actually define it, the Supreme Court, has never done so.

The issue has been going on for years. President Obama’s eligibility was never decided in the court. Will Mr. Trump or some of his supporters force the question into court?

# # #

Democrat Presidential Debate tonight on CNN

Photo credit: weaselzippers.com 

Democrat Presidential Debate tonight on CNN  

at 9pm (preliminaries at 8:30)

The candidates: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley (former Maryland Gov.), Jim Webb  (former Virginia Sen.), and Lincoln Chafee (former Rhode Island Gov.).

If you don’t want to watch (Anderson Cooper is moderating the event), you have other options, among them:

Donald Trump will be Live Tweeting 

Stephen Green will be Drunk Blogging live at Vodkapundit.

# # #

UPDATE Oct-14: Mark Steyn's take on the debate last night is here. A short extract:

It was interesting to me how the Dems' single-digit losers - Webb, Chafee, Martin O'Malley - were so incoherent and unimpressive compared to the GOP's single-digit losers - Jindal, Graham, Santorum, even (God help us) Pataki. Last night, to justify their continued presence in the race, one of these guys had to lay a glove on Hillary. Instead, they all wimped out. Tonally, the sub-text of the debate was that these fellows were too scared of her to challenge her: They communicated only their subservience. 

I often quote the British SAS motto "Who Dares Wins". Hillary dared - she dared these beta-male "progressives" to get in her face - and they all wimped out. So she wins. And it looks like Joe Biden's let his will-he-won't-he Hamlet routine drift on 48 hours too long. The rationale for exhuming his Chiclet choppers and hair-plugs was that Hillary's looking like a loser. But last night the beta Dems allowed Hillary to look like a winner. She dared, she won. Biden didn't dare, he dithered - and lost.

# # #

Stop the Iran “deal” rally report from Sept. 9 in DC

Donald Trump posing for a photo with Capitol Police at the rally on Weds. 

Photo credit: Roll Call

Some reports, photos, and videos of the "Stop the Iran "deal" rally yesterday (Weds.) are here (yahoo), here (CNN), and here (Roll Call).

As Rep. Gohmert said toward the end of the rally, the latest development, that GOP leadership was scrapping the vote on the rule, was a sign that the rally was effective. 

PJ Media reports: Conservative Revolt Forces GOP to Delay Iran Vote, Alter Strategy. Let’s hope it’s not just for show. But paving the way for a future lawsuit against the White House does not inspire confidence. Check out some of the reader comments over at Lucianne.

# # #