Trump & the Press — A Death Struggle

Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan

Trump & the Press — A Death Struggle

Alerting the press that he would deal with the birther issue at the opening of his new hotel, the Donald, after treating them to an hour of tributes to himself from Medal of Honor recipients, delivered.

“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. … President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”

The press went orbital.

“Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent” howled the headline over the lead story in The New York Times.

Its editorial called Donald Trump a “reckless, cynical bully” spreading political poison in an “absurdist presidential campaign,” adding that Trump is the “ultimate mountebank” using a “Big Lie” that “made him the darling of the wing nuts and racists” and “nativist hallucinators.”

You get the drift.

While Trump’s depiction of the birther controversy was … inexact … there was truth in it. Obama’s campaign did charge the Clinton campaign with drawing press attention to that photo of Obama in traditional Somali garb. Apparently, Sid Blumenthal did push a McClatchy bureau chief to search for Obama’s birth records in Kenya.

Tim Kaine was wailing on Sunday about how “painful” Trump’s birtherism has been to African-Americans. And Democrats and the media are pledging not to let it go, but to exploit Trump’s attempt to “delegitimize” Obama’s presidency.

These are crocodile tears. Obama gave the game away Saturday night. At the Black Caucus’s annual gala, says The Washington Post, a “beaming” Obama “gleefully” had the attendees rolling in “laughter” over Trump’s concession. “With just 124 days to go,” mocked Obama, “we got that thing resolved.”

Many news organizations will go along with the game. For many appear to be all in on Clinton’s depiction of half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … haters.”

Yet one wonders. Do the major media understand that in their determination, bordering on desperation, to kill Trump, they are killing their credibility? And as they are losing credibility they are losing the country.

According to a new Gallup poll, distrust of the press has hit an all-time high. Half the nation’s Democrats still trust the media, but only one-in-three independents and one-in seven Republicans, 14 percent, believe the media are truthful, honest and fair.

When, early in his presidency, Obama jokingly referred to the White House Correspondents Association dinner as his political base, Americans now believe he was not exaggerating the case.

And the more the media vent their detestation of Trump, the more Trump’s supporters revel in their discomfort. “We love him most of all for the enemies he has made,” said backers of Grover Cleveland in 1884. Trump’s folks feel that way about the national press.

America’s media seem utterly lacking in introspection. Do they understand why so many people hate them so? Do they care? Are they so smugly self-righteous and self-regarding they cannot see?

Take the birther issue again. According to a January HuffPost/YouGov poll, an astonishing 53 percent of all Republicans, 30 percent of all independents, and even 10 percent of Democrats still believe Barack Obama was born outside the USA.

What does this say about the persuasiveness of the press?

Indeed, what does it say about the idea that universal suffrage is the best way to determine the leadership of a republic?

In 2016, America faces serious issues — a rising deficit and escalating debt, the explosion of entitlements, the resurgence of Russian power, Chinese military expansionism in the South and East China seas, North Korea’s development of nuclear missiles, and Afghanistan.

Now consider the issues that have transfixed the media this election season:

The birther issue, David Duke, the KKK, a Mexican-American judge, Black Lives Matter, white cops, the “Muslim ban,” the Battle Flag, the “alt-right,” the national anthem, Trump’s refusals to recant his blasphemies against the dogmas of political correctness, or to “apologize.”

What does the continual elevation of such issues, and the acrimony attendant to them, tell us?

America is bitterly and irreparably divided over race, ideology faith, history and culture, and Trump’s half of the nation rejects the modernist gospel that America’s diversity and multiculturalism are her greatest treasures.

To the contrary, Trump’s half wants secure borders, “extreme vetting” of immigrants, especially from the Mideast, and foreign and trade policies marked by an “Americanism” that seems to be an antonym for globalism.

They want America to be “great again,” and they believe she was once, and is not now.

No matter who wins in November, America is going to face a divide unseen in decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront a resident media more hateful than that which confronted Richard Nixon in 1968.

If Hillary Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half of whom she has maligned either as “deplorables” or pitiful souls in need of empathy.

Not for half a century has the idea of “one nation under God, indivisible,” seemed so distant.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
27 Comments
Credit
Credit
September 20, 2016 7:33 am

of course the original intent to protect the Presidency from foreign influence was requiring the President to be a “natural born” citizen. the definition of this, as noted in the Supreme Court decision of Minor vs. Happersett, was a person born of 2 U.S. citizens and not simply someone born in the U.S. this requirement eliminated the likelihood of a foreign-born parent of a President influencing that President’s loyalties. and it’s logical. this disqualifies Obama, Cruz, Romney and me, since my mother was Canadian. this requirement was simply forgotten institutionally as political parties took over vetting of candidates.

Hardhead
Hardhead
  Credit
September 20, 2016 9:14 am

and also Trump as his mother was born and raised in Scotland!

Don’t know if she ever became an American citizen, but still
would have been “naturalized.”

But, I’m still voting for Trump!!!!!

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Credit
September 20, 2016 9:15 am

Minor v Happersett said that a person born in the US of two US citizens is a natural born US citizen. It didn’t say that only someone born in the US of two citizens is natural born.

Anonymous
Anonymous
September 20, 2016 8:02 am

You’re misreading Minor vs. Happersett, it is inclusive not exclusive.

It establishes that someone born of two US citizens within the United States are definitely considered natural born citizens but does not exclude other categories of citizenship by birthright as also being considered the same.

This has been determined by other Courts and they have not been overturned by the USSC as they would be if Minor vs. Happersett were exclusive in nature.

Essentially, there are two classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, if you aren’t naturalized (i.e. a foreign citizen becoming an American citizen by the process of naturalization as established by Congress) then you are natural born since it is the situation of your birth that has conferred American citizenship.

Credit
Credit
  Anonymous
September 20, 2016 9:11 am

your claim here implies that an anchor baby born of two Mexican illegal aliens inside the U.S. would be a qualified candidate for president. you:
” does not exclude other categories of citizenship by birthright as also being considered the same.”
your argument that inclusiveness is inherent is specious. it’s that type of thinking that has made health care and cel phones human rights in the mind of some. after all, why can’t rights be based on things left out, so as to be inclusive, rather than enunciated?

Hollow man
Hollow man
September 20, 2016 8:17 am

Great read thanks

Credit
Credit
September 20, 2016 8:17 am

i’m not a legal scholar, but i can read.
the court:

“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

“of parents” (note the plural, not “a” parent or one parent); then “these were natives, or natural born citizens,”

Credit
Credit
  Credit
September 20, 2016 8:23 am

and lacking this distinction, we leave the door open for a dual-citizenship President, as only one example of split loyalty, clearly a situation where foreign influence could play a huge role.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Credit
September 20, 2016 8:46 am

Something that can only be addressed by Congress since the Constitution establishes them as the authority for this matter.

Wouldn’t hurt to write your Congressthing, although it may not do any good since they really don’t care about such things.

rhs jr
rhs jr
  Anonymous
September 20, 2016 10:21 am

They will send your letter to FEMA to be added to the Red List.

TC
TC
September 20, 2016 8:42 am

Credit is correct on all points, Anon is wrong on this one. McCain was also ineligible, as is Rubio and Jindal. That said, nobody really cares about the Constitution anymore.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  TC
September 20, 2016 8:48 am

Courts, both State and Federal, have ruled otherwise.

People who don’t know how to do legal research and understand what they find shouldn’t make legal arguments.

Credit
Credit
  Anonymous
September 20, 2016 8:56 am

courts have ruled for many incorrect, unconstitutional things. based on one of their most recent, we could therefore elect a corporation as President (as long as it has existed for 35 years). and i’m appalled at your belief in leaving law to only lawyers. they’ll fuck you with it every time.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Credit
September 20, 2016 3:25 pm

You’re alternative?

Preferably a peaceful one that costs no one their life in the process.

The Court, whether you approve or not, has the final say as to what in law is legal and valid or not.

credit
credit
  Anonymous
September 20, 2016 4:07 pm

My alternative is to get you enrolled in an English class. A guy who can’t spell”your” is really arguing legal minutiae?

TC
TC
  Anonymous
September 20, 2016 10:17 am

Legal finger pointing by the guy posting anonymously on a blog. 🙂 The highest court in the land has defined NBC very clearly in Minor. The fact that lower courts have since contradicted this ruling and have gone unchallenged doesn’t mean the highest ruling no longer applies. It just means we have a corrupt system run by a bunch of fuckos who happily bend the rules if it lines their pockets appropriately.

David
David
September 20, 2016 8:52 am

I want to meet the 30% of independents and 10% of republicans who think the press is honest, also the 40% of the population that think Hillary is trustworthy.

rhs jr
rhs jr
  David
September 20, 2016 10:27 am

Watch TV, go to Democrat rallies, visit a campus, go to concerts, watch a PRIDE event, enjoy the sights and smells of a getto, walk in a faggot park at night…

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
September 20, 2016 9:29 am

Obama’s birth certificates – both of them – were forged. I’m of the opinion that Trump’s decision to run in 2016 was set in motion when Obama mocked Trump at the White House correspondents dinner in 2011. As soon as he’s inaugurated, Trump will start to plot Comey’s well-deserved impeachment. Uncovering the many conspiracies surrounding Obama means uncovering the deep state. It may not be possible, but it’s certainly impossible with Comey as FBI Director until 2023. Trump may get himself assassinated (with a Mexican or Muslim playing the role of pasty) and Pence seems like an enrolled member of the Uniparty.

RCW, a deplorable
RCW, a deplorable
September 20, 2016 9:32 am

The important point, as I see it through my Protestant prism, is the chasm between politicians, MSM, Power Elite (the coasts) and the proletariat (flyover country). I see several similarities between the situation in 2016 and the mid-1850’s, with the material difference between now and then being communication speed.

susanna
susanna
September 20, 2016 10:47 am

A natural CIA approved agent can be president regardless
birth place or parents’ status. “Law” is quite flexible that way.
Supremes? Just have one of them murdered, no questions asked.
They rule based on self interest.

Jim
Jim
September 20, 2016 10:55 am

Perceptive, as always. The Grover Cleveland comparison is dead on.

I especially laugh when the press triumphantly announces some Republican worthy won’t endorse Trump or will actually vote for Clinton. As long as the Republican is a Washington insider, it only helps Trump’s cause and feeds the narrative that there is a new need for real change, and not the same old thing from politicians who scratch each other’s backs, regardless of party affiliation.

I half think that Trump only makes outrageous statements to get the press to parrot Hilary’s line that he is a loose cannon who lacks Washington experience; Trump’s supporters apparently think those count in his favor.

Muck About
Muck About
September 20, 2016 2:01 pm

The FBI’s Comey deserves to simply be fired, tarred and feathered and run out of Wash. D.C. perched ass-backwards on a donkey with an “unemployable” sign stapled to back (with one inch staples and the sign in red with natural drainage).

When the Head of the FBI is shown as a common, politically bought and paid for Criminal, it destroys not only him, but the core organization he is supposed to lead and inspire.

As far as I’m concerned, until Comey is over-baked and trashed, the FBI as an organization is nothing but a group of clowns with no justice in place. One more piece of America gone.

Muck

dc.sunsets
dc.sunsets
  Muck About
September 20, 2016 3:18 pm

The FBI was always the “political police.” It’s an illusion (or better, simply propaganda) that it was ever more than that.

dc.sunsets
dc.sunsets
September 20, 2016 3:18 pm

The point is being missed.

The relevance of the MSM’s disposal of even a fig leaf of objectivity is that we’re moving from Peak Trust to Peak Distrust. It seems like a paradox that the people engaged in the occupation we call the MSM would casually throw away what credibility they still maintained, but it fits perfectly with the times.

People always play the role assigned to them. Those who work for the MSM are, in a period of declining trust, assigned the role of justifying the trend to declining trust.

Human history is just a bunch of trends and their reversals.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
September 20, 2016 6:56 pm

“Human history is just a bunch of trends and their reversals.”

Succinct, accurate and insightful.

Suzanna
Suzanna
September 20, 2016 10:51 pm

“Human history is just a bunch of trends and their reversals.”

Wow dc. you summed that up real good.
Peak Distrust…beautiful