Liberal Forum

EXPOSED: School Shooting Survivor Turned Activist David Hogg’s Father in FBI, Appears To Have Been Coached On Anti-Trump Lines [VIDEO]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... nes-video/

Presidential historian calmly destroys raging pro-Trump C-SPAN caller lacking ‘logic, reason and intelligence’

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley made an example of a “raging” C-SPAN caller on Monday by using his rant as a lesson about how President Donald Trump has impacted national discourse.

During a President’s Day appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Brinkley noted that President Donald Trump had lied a “mind-boggling” number of times during his first year in office.

“He’s the Babe Ruth of lying,” Brinkley explained.

“There’s no president that can even come close.

He’s in a category unto himself. Whether people find that’s okay, that’s the new norm.

‘If he can get jobs back and I can get some tax cuts, I’m okay with this is a symbol of what the United States is.’

I’m not. I find it problematic to have a president that routinely doesn’t tell the truth.”

“We’re talking about a systematic respect for reality,” he continued.

“We need to make sure — above all — that a president has a sanity to them overall.

And there are times when Donald Trump swings pretty far off what we call the zone of normalcy.

He goes off into very weird tangents that can be disturbing.”

“He is not even wanted in Great Britain right now,” Brinkley later noted.

“These are problems.

This is somebody who — that kind of tone-deaf narcissism that our president has that he’s not able to try to find the way to heal the country is another shortcoming of Donald Trump, I’m afraid…

He goes too quickly to do tweets that seem to be self-aggrandizing for himself and belittling somebody else instead of doing true Judeo-Christian healing.”

As if to make Brinkley’s point, a Trump supporter named David called with an unhinged racial rant.

"David, I disagree with every point you’ve made,” David said, getting Brinkley’s name wrong.

“You’re really saying everyone else in the country that voted for Trump are the incurables is what you’re saying.”

“The people who put Barack Obama in office were the white people!” the caller ranted.

“And Barack Obama spent — I can name 20 things where he kept poking his finger in the eye of the United States with [Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl], with the other guy [Chelsea Manning] that he gave the sex change.

With everything that he’s done, the racial things that he’s divided the whites and blacks so much in this country, it’s not funny.

Because all of the sudden, they were alright. Bringing Mexicans into this country.”

“This is not a dumping ground for the rest of the world!” the man shouted.

“The rest of the world, the countries should be taking care of their own people.”

At that point the C-SPAN host cut off the caller.

“We’ve had a number of callers and you can feel the civility,” Brinkley said, referring to previous callers.

“And then you get a caller like that, just like raging.

Like a Tasmanian devil coming on the air and just saying all sorts of things.

That’s what we’re talking about.

That kind of always having to be incendiary and putting logic and reason and compassion and intelligence — backburnering those. And instead, a sense of rage.”

Brinkley explained that the caller’s rage “has been the formula that’s worked for Trump and has brought in his supporters.”

“We do need to make America great again,” the historian said.

“But what I’m objecting to is the way Trump goes about it by trying to divide and conquer.

And our caller is saying that Barack Obama did the same tactics so now it’s payback.

I just never found President Obama’s tone towards fellow Americans in a consistent way as demeaning and belittling as the way that Donald Trump talks to our fellow Mexican-Americans or LGBT people, African-Americans, women.”

Misty » 19 Feb 2018 11:28 pm » wrote:


I guess Mitt forgot what he said in 2016.



And yet you just did, Mitt.

indago » 20 Feb 2018 3:46 am » wrote:

Misty » 19 Feb 2018 11:28 pm » wrote:


I guess Mitt forgot what he said in 2016.



And yet you just did, Mitt.

That's POLITICS...

Supreme Court leaves in place California's 10-day wait for gun buyers, rejects 2nd Amendment challenge.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a 2nd Amendment challenge to California's mandatory 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.

With only Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, the justices let stand a ruling of the 9th Circuit Court that called the California law a "reasonable safety precaution" and one that does not violate the constitutional right to own a gun.

The high court's action is the latest in a series of decisions that have upheld gun regulations, including bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons and strict limits on who may legally carry a concealed weapon.

In 2008 and again in 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of firearms on the grounds these hand-gun bans violated the 2nd Amendment.

But since, the justices have refused to extend the 2nd Amendment to prohibit various regulations on buying and carrying weapons in public.

California is one of eight states and the District of Columbia that imposes waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm, and it is longer than all of them except Hawaii.

And California's waiting period applies to new gun purchases even if the owner already possesses another legal weapon.

Jeff Silvester, a gun owner, and the CalGuns Foundation sued, contending the 10-day wait is too long and unnecessary for gun owners who are purchasing a second weapon.

They said the state's claimed need for a "cooling off period" makes no sense if the buyer already has a gun.

But the 9th Circuit upheld the regulation.

The judges said they agreed with the state's argument that "waiting ten days may deter subsequent purchasers from buying new weapons that would be better suited for a heinous use."

Misty » 20 Feb 2018 12:21 pm » wrote:

Supreme Court leaves in place California's 10-day wait for gun buyers, rejects 2nd Amendment challenge.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a 2nd Amendment challenge to California's mandatory 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.

With only Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, the justices let stand a ruling of the 9th Circuit Court that called the California law a "reasonable safety precaution" and one that does not violate the constitutional right to own a gun.

The high court's action is the latest in a series of decisions that have upheld gun regulations, including bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons and strict limits on who may legally carry a concealed weapon.

In 2008 and again in 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of firearms on the grounds these hand-gun bans violated the 2nd Amendment.

But since, the justices have refused to extend the 2nd Amendment to prohibit various regulations on buying and carrying weapons in public.

California is one of eight states and the District of Columbia that imposes waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm, and it is longer than all of them except Hawaii.

And California's waiting period applies to new gun purchases even if the owner already possesses another legal weapon.

Jeff Silvester, a gun owner, and the CalGuns Foundation sued, contending the 10-day wait is too long and unnecessary for gun owners who are purchasing a second weapon.

They said the state's claimed need for a "cooling off period" makes no sense if the buyer already has a gun.

But the 9th Circuit upheld the regulation.

The judges said they agreed with the state's argument that "waiting ten days may deter subsequent purchasers from buying new weapons that would be better suited for a heinous use."

SCOTUS has also allowed assault weapons bans to stand in Connecticut and in Highland Park, Illinois.

As President Donald Trump surveys aides and guests at his resort at Mar-a-Lago about what to do about gun control in the wake of another school shooting, one voice close to him is advising that he not give in to those calling for stricter measures.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, has been assuring his dad that the right move was to stay strong on gun rights and draw a hard line on the issue that helped propel him in the 2016 election.

He is among the host of people talking to the president in the wake of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, which resulted in the death of 17 people.

But the fact that he is family makes his access more personal and his guidance more trusted.

For those hoping to turn the latest national tragedy into a robust legislative response on guns, this isn’t a good thing.

While some friends have urged Trump to adopt a more balanced approach, or even for the revival of an assault-weapons ban, Trump Jr. has argued that there was no time for even a hint of reversion to the more restrictive views on guns that Trump espoused years before he became leader of the Republican Party.

According to three sources with knowledge of their conversations, the president and Trump Jr. repeatedly discussed gun control over the long Presidents’ Day weekend, often as they both closely watched a TV airing footage in real-time of young Parkland students savaging the president for his inaction.

When polled on his opinions on the matter, the first son emphatically replied that the president must not waver on his pro-gun stance, whatever the impassioned calls for reform.

Trump Jr., according to these sources, reminded his father that inching toward gun control would be immediately taken by his conservative base—as well as major donors and motivated activist networks, including the National Rifle Association—as an unforgivable betrayal.

Eric Trump, his middle son, readily agreed.

But not everyone at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday nodded along.

That evening, President Trump and his two sons had dinner with Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera, who is pushing Trump to support, as Rivera calls it, a new “Juvenile Assault Weapons Ban” as a “compromise all can live with,” and as “a start” to fixing the problem.

Trump Jr. and Eric Trump did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Misty » 20 Feb 2018 7:06 pm » wrote:

Misty » 20 Feb 2018 7:57 pm » wrote: