EnduringSense

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato

  • Daily Quote:

    "Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights."

    Thomas Sowell

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 92 other followers

  • Subscribe

Liberalism Fails Society and Those Most in Need

Posted by Steve Markowitz on March 7, 2017

Since the early 1960s liberals have promoted the narrative that people on the Left are more compassionate than those on the Right. This proposition was based on a motion, not empirical evidence. It emotionally seems right that the government should give to those in need. Conversely, those who would withhold government’s largess from the less fortunate lack compassion.

While a governmental safety net has been a part of American society since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Administration, it advanced significantly under President Lyndon Johnson. Given we are now a half-century into Johnson’s Great Society, it is reasonable to determine efficacy of the programs.

The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley recently published some important statistics since the initiation of the Great Society:

  • In 1962 the percentage of the Americans receiving government assistance in the form of cash transfers was about 12%. Today this has nearly doubled to 21%.
  • In 2012 over 48% of Americans resided in households receiving some form of government benefits. This number was only 30% in 1983.
  • By 2011 the US published property rate remained flat compared to 1965. During the same period, US governmental expenditures on poverty rose by 900% per receiving person (after inflation adjustments).
  • The Heritage Foundation marks 2014 as the 50th anniversary of Johnson’s Great Society. They calculated that federal government spending increased by 16 times, adjusted for inflation, for means tested welfare during this period.

Cause and effect are often difficult to prove. However, in the case of the Great Society Programs and their offspring, the evidence seems convincing that at the very least, much of the spending was wasteful and have not benefited those most in need over the long-term. At the same time, these programs significantly benefited certain industries that serve the programs and distributed their benefits. Those industries offer significant resistance to fundamentally changing governmental spending habits.


 

Posted in Progressives | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Global Warming Debate is Not Open for Debate

Posted by Steve Markowitz on March 1, 2017

We live in a time where open debate is not tolerated on important issues facing society. This is especially true of intellectual elitists who respond to questions relating to their core beliefs as if they were personal attacks. There is no better example of this unintellectual and unscientific approach than with the subject of global warming.

Proponents in the belief that contemporary climate change is the result of man’s use of carbon-based fuels often shut down any debate of the issue by saying it is “settled science”. While many in the scientific community conclude this, the science is not settled. The science that these people refer to is based on modeling that can only be as good as the assumptions used in them. The models needed to predict long-term Climatic events are highly complex and must be tortuously simplified to be usable and therefore subject to the discretion of those choosing the inputted variables.

Bill Nye is known as the “Science Guy” who has written books introducing science to children. While his degree is in mechanical engineering, he purports to be an expert on climate change. During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News, Nye made a highly emotional argument that man is responsible for contemporary climate change. When Carlson attempted to have Nye back his conclusion up with precise figures relating to man’s responsibility, Nye equivocated, bringing into question his actual scientific knowledge.

Nye has stated in the past that jail might be appropriate for people who disagree with his view on the cause climate change. That sounds eerily similar to how scientific dissenters were handled by the church hundreds of years ago. Nye’s emotional outburst at the end of the video below, where he goes off the rails concerning the Trump Administration shows a zealotry that is not worthy of scientific discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Attack on Constitution’s First Amendment

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 21, 2017

The U.S. Constitution is a remarkable document, including the United States’ supreme law. The Constitution initially paved the way for 13 diverse colonies to come together and form a Federation by preserving rights of each colony (state). Its fair and stable legal platform played a huge role in the Country’s success.

Amending the Constitution was purposely made difficult to inhibit changes made on the political whims of populists. Amendments require the calling of a Constitutional Convention or two thirds supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Still, the Constitution has been amended 27 times by Congress, including the pivotal Bill of Rights with its 10 amendments made in 1791.

The First Amendment under the Bill of Rights states:bill-of-rights

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment, free speech has come under attack in recent years through the use of political correctness with its social pressures. More recently, some on the Left have been more transparent in efforts to inhibit speech with increased ferocity since Donald Trump’s election.

This Blogger recently discussed the First Amendment with a slightly left-of-center acquaintance who would curtail speech in the name of public safety. In justifying the control of speech, he used the example of crying fire in a crowded movie theater and its risk of creating injury. He equates this example to those who take an anti-illegal immigrant philosophy in America, believing that it leads to attacks on immigrants or aliens. This author believes the comparison is a canard used to curtail the discussion of disagreeable ideas.

Inhibiting free speech, either through social pressures or the legal system, is a slippery slope traveled in the past. McCarthyism was a hammer used by the Right to inhibit the speech of liberals in the 1950s. A similar tactic is now in vogue by the Left, but for a different political agenda. For those who dare to discuss immigration policy, religion security issues, sexual mores, or social benefits, for example, are microphone labeled bigots, homophobic, Islamaphobic, or as Hillary said, “deplorable”.

The key issue with any attack on free speech should be how do we choose who gets to determine what constitutes calling the fire in a theater? Should the curtailing be to the benefit of ones’ political views, they are more likely to agree with the First Amendment attack. However, sooner or later the opposing side gains power and that is why the slippery-slope should concern all, irrespective of political views.

In a relevant example, a few years ago Harry Reid used the nuclear option in the Senate to allow Democrats to use a simple majority to get Obama appointments approved quickly. Previously this required a 60-vote Senate majority. Reid justified this drastic action claiming the Republicans to be the “party of no”, inferring that the step was required to keep government moving. Obama and fellow Liberals were all too happy to go along, irrespective of future consequences. Now, Trump and the Republicans have the use the nuclear option and the Democrats are screaming.

The Senate’s 60 vote requirement was created to make political appointments bipartisan, not easy. Similar to the Second Amendment, this rule had the long-term good of the Country behind it, with the goal of further legitimizing presidential power. The nuclear option has increased polarization and the divide in the Country and government. Instead of looking to Reid’s or Obama’s role in increasing political divisiveness, Trump is demonized for appointments.

Americans on the Left and Right would do well to look at the Constitution is a set of laws created to protect the long-term interest of all. Those that would mold it to fit their short-term agendas do so at the peril of their own future rights.

Posted in Constitution | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Bill Maher Challenges Liberals on Free Speech

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 10, 2017

Comedian Bill Maher is a star on cable TV. He is also an unapologetic liberal espousing Progressive causes through humor. That has not stopped Maher from criticizing the Left on significant issues affecting society.

Maher, an atheist, has been especially critical of Islam and its penchant for violence. He has also been critical of the Left’s unwillingness to honor what should be a backbone of the movement, free speech. In a recent show Maher said: “Look, I’m not against free speech. Believe me. I’ve been a longtime critic of colleges shutting people up. That is a problem on the left that we need to deal with very much so” and “Free speech should be something we (liberals) own.”

Maher’s dressing down the Left on free-speech came after recent riots at the University of California Berkeley campus. That supposed bastion of free speech rioted in an effort to stop right-leaning provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus.

In an attempt to make excuses for inexcusable behavior, Leftists and their supporters in the mainstream media would define the burning and destruction of property at UC Berkeley as a “protest”. Such behavior has in the past been called fascism.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/03/maher-on-berkeley-riot-shutting-people-up-on-campuses-is-a-problem-on-the-left/

 

Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congresswoman Waters Believes Russia’s Invaded North Korea

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 8, 2017

Politicians have been known throughout to often make dumb statements. While our current president Donald Trump plays the role of the anti-politician, he too has come up with some doozies during the past year.

Not to be outdone, two of our esteemed congresswomen, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, both of California, came up with a couple recently that could put them on top for year. It seems Ms. Pelosi still thinks Bush is president. As for Ms. Waters, she seems to believe that Russia invaded North Korea. This video below might humorous if these folks weren’t charged with enacting legislation for the Country.

While the mainstream media was all too happy to take on Sarah Palin for claiming she could see Russia from her property, don’t expect coverage on the mistakes made by Leftist politicians.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Barack Obama’s Legacy

Posted by Steve Markowitz on January 12, 2017

According to one classical definition, “legacy” is “anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor”. American presidents often consider their potential legacies as they are leaving the White House. During the waning weeks of the Obama administration this has been a focus of the President.

Since the election of Donald Trump and the defeat of the President’s Party, Obama has taken steps that are legacy focused. Perhaps the most surprising was his anti-Israeli vote (abstention) in the United Nations where he broke decades of American precedent only after there would not be political consequences. In addition, the President and some advisers have been making speeches in attempt to write history in advance. While legacies are ultimately viewed as positive or negative, they are created by history and historical facts, not political narratives.

Prior to the New Year, Obama was asked by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria about his biggest policy disappointment. Obama’s response:

pew-study-gun-control“If you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws.”

While gun control is an issue with thoughtful people on both sides of the debate, the President placing it as his biggest disappointment shows a disconnect with the American People. According to a 2016 Pew Research poll, those in favor of gun rights is at its strongest since the study began. During the same period, support for gun control is at its lowest.

Most Americans agree, irrespective of Obama’s recent pronouncements, that race relations in the United States has deteriorated during the past eight years. On the economic front, wealth disparity in the United States has grown. Internationally, the US’s relations with China and Russia deteriorated and the Middle East has become an even greater firestorm. Given these realities it is rather incredible for President Obama to claim his greatest disappointment with his administration relates to the failure to increase gun control. If this illogical conclusion is not the result of the President being out of touch with the electorate, it then must be chalked up to an attempt to deflect from the more serious problems that have grown under his watch.

Eight years ago Barack Obama became President with great opportunity. Five days before taking the oath he said: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Obama’s legacy will ultimately be created by the results of the policies implemented under his watch, not by preemptive speeches.

Posted in President Obama | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Slams Obama

Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 29, 2016

Since the election of Donald Trump, liberal pundits have come up with all sorts of excuses for the outcome. At best they look to voter apathy on the Left. More troubling excuses include racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., the “deplorables” according to Hillary Clinton. These head-in-the-sand excuses ignore the weakness of candidate Hillary Clinton and the difficult economic state many Americans find themselves in, which as not improved under Obama’s Presidency.

The excuse-making machine on the Left has ignored the fact that many liberals are displeased with the Obama Presidency. Many expressed this dissatisfaction by supporting Socialist Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary. Others have come out more recently with President Obama throwing Israel under the bus.

Last week the United Nations held a vote that basically blames Israel for the stalled Middle East peace process. While hidden behind the narrative that the vote was about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the vote was a much more general combination of Israel. Such anti-Israeli votes in the Security Council have become commonplace in recent decades. However, votes the United States has historically used its veto power to block them. Incredibly, this lame-duck president in his last three weeks of office went against American policy back by both Republicans and Democrats and abstained, allowing the condemning of Israel to pass.

The outcry against Obama’s decision has been crosses political parties with many prominent Democrats coming out quite vocally in opposition. One example is Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law school professor who has been a lifetime Democrat and supporter of Barack Obama. His comments, included in the videos below, include:

He defined the president’s handling of the resolution as a “bait and switch”:

He pulled a bait and switch. He said to the American public ‘Oh this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank’ and yet he allowed his representative to the U.N. to abstain, which is really for, a resolution that says Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall. Jews can’t live in the Jewish quarter where they’ve lived for thousands of years. And he’s gonna say ‘Whoops. I didn’t mean that.’ Well, read the resolution. You’re a lawyer. You went to Harvard Law School.”

Dershowitz went on to call Obama one of the worst presidents ever on foreign policy. Strong words from a liberal Democrat!

While this Blogger agrees with Dershowitz’s comments, the good Professor and others from intellectual Left bear responsibility for Obama’s policies and duplicity. It was known before Obama’s first election that he held questionable/radical political views and had contacts with some shady characters including Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres of Weather Underground fame and others. Many on the Left made excuses for these associations, giving Obama a pass. Now, as Rev. Wright once so infamously said: “the chickens have come home to roost”.

 

Posted in Israel, President Obama | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

American History no Longer Required for History Majors

Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 26, 2016

Independent Journal Review reports on yet another sign of the disintegration and political tampering in education by the higher-education industry.  According to the report, George Washington University has changed its requirements for history majors, no longer requiring a course in US History to earn the degree.

GW joins approximately one third of the top US universities in omitting the American history requirement, accordunceding to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).  ACTA President-elect Michael Poliakoff correctly says of this radical direction:

Historical illiteracy is the inevitable consequence of lax college requirements, and that ignorance leads to civic disempowerment.  A democratic republic cannot thrive without well-informed citizens and leaders.  Elite colleges and universities in particular let the nation down when the examples they set devalue the study of United States history.”

It would be bad enough if universities the US history requirement to make way for courses they felt were more important for students, irrespective of how ludicrous that conclusion would be.  No, instead their motivation is far more sinister.  Progressives at universities understand that history teaches lessons that affect graduates’ conclusions and then ultimately future policy decisions that could inhibit the radical Left’s political agenda.

Besides irresponsible curriculums, the cost of services universities offer, i.e. education, are out of control.  While in a free market consumers would ultimately demand improvement and more efficiency, governmental intervention through financing and funding programs has allowed consumers to be pillaged.  This is another example of damage to society as a result of crony capitalism

Posted in Education, Radical Left | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Trump Transition

Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 22, 2016

We will shortly have a new president, one from a different political party. This Blog wishes the new president success in addressing the issues the Country faces. This hopefully is the desire of all Americans, irrespective of political leanings.

Given it has been eight years since we have prepared for a new president, it is an appropriate time to reflect on changes that have occurred during this period. Blog reader Jim Mahoney shares his reflections in the post below “A Tale of Two Transitions”. As Jim concludes: “They [the media and the Left] have painted a caricature of Donald Trump as being so buffoonish and inept, that he will hit a home run if he comes into office acting even halfway presidential.” This Blog will hold Donald Trump to a much higher standard.

A Tale of Two Transitions, By Jim Mahoney

Remember back in November 2008? Barack Obama had just won the election and expectations for his presidency were running white hot for no apparent reason. Throughout the campaign liberals, the media and the Obama campaign constantly reminded us about his high level of intelligence and capability and the official narrative was that he would easily be able to solve all of the country’s problems. This led some of us at the time to question exactly what in his background made him so qualified. For those who may not remember, here is a rundown of Barack Obama’s resume.

By his own admission, Obama had a lackluster high school academic career in which he spent most of his time smoking pot with his friends in the Choom Gang. That didn’t prevent him from being accepted to Occidental College and later transferring to Columbia University in his junior year. After graduating in 1983 he had brief stints as a research associate at a New York Public Interest Research Group and as the Director of the Developing Communities Project on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in the fall of 1988, where he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, president of the journal in his second year, and two years as a research assistant to the constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. After graduation, he was an associate with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School as a Senior Lecturer until 2004.

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, where he developed a habit of voting “Present” to avoid taking a stand on any tough issues that might give him a legislative paper trail.   Sensing an opportunity to run for the United States Senate, Obama became an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Illinois U.S. Senate seat was open in 2004, giving Obama the opportunity to win a landslide victory in the March Democrat primary. The primary victory made him an overnight rising star in the Democrat Party and led to him being selected to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Obama’s expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw from the race in June 2004 after sealed court records from his divorce proceedings were made public. With no viable opponent, Obama won the November 2004 general election with 70% of the vote. After serving 144 days in the United State Senate, Obama was suddenly on the fast track to the Presidential nomination and ultimate victory.

Bear in mind that this biographic information came from the left-leaning Wikipedia website, which presumably would give the most glowing accounting of Obama’s accomplishments. Even if we accept Obama’s resume as fact, (and we have no choice since none of his school transcripts have ever been made public), there is nothing in his official background to suggest he had any executive experience or that he was even remotely capable of addressing the complex level of economic and structural problems facing the country at that time. Of course, in what rapidly became standard operating procedure for the Obama administration, anyone who dared to question the party line on any aspect of Obama’s intelligence, experience or intentions, even based on legitimate policy differences, was preemptively labeled a racist. What is now abundantly clear in hindsight is that with his wafer-thin resume, Obama was probably the emptiest suit to ever occupy the Oval Office.

obama-pres-electThe media were deeply invested in the charade, and they dutifully played along by immediately shifting all attention away from George W. Bush, other than to continually highlight his falling poll numbers, and turned the spotlight almost exclusively on Barack Obama. During the transition period, we received daily briefings and pronouncements from Obama. He even created something called the “Office of the President Elect”, complete with a sign for his podium. There is no provision in the Constitution for such an office, which should have been our first indication of how Obama planned to govern for the next eight years. Of course, the press covered all things Obama with all of the seriousness of a presidential press conference. They breathlessly reported each day’s pronouncement and the brilliance of each of Obama’s cabinet announcements. Concurrently, the media initiated the narrative that since there were so many problems created by the Bush administration that needed to be addressed, “some people” thought it was a shame that Obama had to wait until January 20th to take office. They longingly wished the Constitution could be changed so he could take office immediately and get right to work curing all of the nation’s ills.

Contrast the coronation atmosphere created for Obama with the hostile reception being given to the incoming Trump administration. The media’s emphasis is still squarely on Obama as they cover his world tour “explaining” Donald Trump to world leaders and they cheer his last minute flurry of unconstitutional executive orders in an attempt to institutionalize his policies into the future. Any coverage of Trump consists of highlighting the controversies of the ongoing protests against his election, the attempted liberal hijacking of the Electoral College, hit pieces on his Cabinet choices and comparisons to Hitler. They are performing a full court press to cast him as an illegitimate president before he even takes office.

If you look at Donald Trump’s Wikipedia page to get an indication of his background and experience you will have to wade through paragraph after paragraph detailing active and pending litigation against him, unsubstantiated sexual misconduct allegations, his bankruptcies and aspersions on his legitimate use of the Federal Tax Code. However, if you do a little digging, you will find that Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 and followed his father into a career in real estate development. He was made head of the company in 1971, and expanded it beyond real estate development into the successful, multinational organization it is today. Based on his 45 years of experience running large companies, managing complex projects and recruiting and evaluating talent, it certainly appears that Donald Trump is far more qualified than Barack Obama to tackle the problems of a bloated, out of control federal government bureaucracy. After all, the federal government is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. In many respects it is similar to a large company in need of effective management, which is right in Donald Trump’s wheelhouse.

Despite the manufactured feel-good stories coming out of the Obama administration, this country faces problems today that are even more ominous than they were in 2008. Consider the following troubling statistics:

  • There are currently 96 million Americans out of work, over twice as many as when Obama took office;
  • The US debt stands at 19.8 trillion; after Obama added more to the national debt than all of his predecessors combined;
  • One in six households currently has no adult in the workforce;
  • Our total debt now stands at 106% of GDP;
  • 45 million Americans are living in poverty and receiving food stamps, up from 32 million when Obama took office; and,
  • Obama is the only president who never achieved a 3% growth in the economy in any year of his presidency.

This country is on its back, and when you add in the problems of a federal government unmoored from the Constitution, unchecked illegal immigration, unvetted Islamic refugees and worldwide tensions we need some help fast. Could you imagine the reaction of liberals and the media if we were to suggest that with all of these major problems facing the country it would make sense for Donald Trump to be able to take office right now to start fixing things rather than waiting until January 20th? The same mainstream media that protected Obama and amplified his meager accomplishments are already in full attack mode against Donald Trump and anyone who dares to support him. The mask has finally come off the media in this election cycle. We used to think they were cheering liberal candidates from the stands, now we know they are really sitting on the bench. However, Trump understands something that made Ronald Reagan so effective; the value of bypassing the media filter and delivering his message directly to the American people – and public seems to be responding positively. The stock market is hitting new highs and a recent poll showed that 70% of Americans surveyed are feeling optimistic, the highest level since 2004.

In many respects, Donald Trump was created by the media. They built him up during the primaries, believing he would be the weakest candidate to face Hillary Clinton, secure in the belief they could tear him down at the right time during the general election. His tendencies to say what’s on his mind and shoot from the hip were also great for their ratings. What the media failed to consider was that his message was resonating with a sizeable portion of the American people who felt the country is on the wrong track. They are tired of the lackluster economy of the past eight years, they are tired of massive government intrusion into every aspect of their lives and they are tired of having their traditions and beliefs ridiculed by elitists.

So buckle up everyone, because the over-the-top behavior we’re currently seeing from liberals and the media will only harden and intensify over the next 8 years. At the same time, liberals have really overplayed their hand. They have painted a caricature of Donald Trump as being so buffoonish and inept, that he will hit a home run if he comes into office acting even halfway presidential. There will be no honeymoon period with the press for the incoming administration, but positive results Trump achieves will speak the loudest.

Posted in Politics, President Obama | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liberal’s Meltdown Since Trump Election

Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 18, 2016

Since Donald Trump’s election, the liberal Left has been in a downward spiral.  Immediately following the election the Left was in shock and acted in a respectable manner.  Hillary Clinton graciously conceded and suggested that the President-elect be given time to work on behalf of the People.  Barack Obama gracious statements included offering his office’s full cooperation in the transition of power.  In the five weeks since, the liberal Left has been in full attack mode.

First, Green Party candidate Jill Stein asked for vote recounts in various states even though she received few votes during election.  This effort had the tacit support of Hillary Clinton’s team.  When that effort failed, the Russian-backed computer issue took over.  While there is clear evidence of Russian hacking that was known before the election, the liberal Left attempted to create a nexus between that hacking and the election’s outcome.  However, there is absolutely no evidence to support this narrative.

The liberal Left is persistent.  Now, their attempt to nullify the will of the People is focused on convincing Electors to ignore the vote outcomes in their states.  While this effort will fail, the tactic nevertheless indicates a distain for the Democratic process and Constitution.  Prior to the election, when the Left was convinced of Hillary’s inevitable victory, their related focus was on whether Trump would accept the will of the People when he lost.  Their approach since demonstrates the Left’s hypocrisy.

The Left’s derangement since Trump’s election goes deeper than organized political associations.  This has been exhibited by some in the news media breaking down in tears, college professors giving students time off for election depression, and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio offering paid counseling for city workers depressed by Trump’s election.  Families were even coached prior to Thanksgiving on how to avoid acrimonious discussions during the holiday dinner.

This week Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Kurt Eichenwald, senior Newsweek writer, concerning his reporting of Trump.  The exchange, included in the video below, is a poster child for Leftist derangement.

Carlson raised an Eichenwald tweet in which the Newsweek reporter indicated that Trump had a nervous breakdown and was “institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990.”  Carlson asked a yes or no question as to whether Trump was ever institutionalized.  Not only wouldn’t Eichenwald’s answer, but he is response devolved into derangement with the Newsweek senior writer seemingly losing connection with reality.

It is understandable that those who voted for Hillary Clinton are disappointed with the election.  However, given that Donald Trump was elected and will become the next President of the United States, the derangement has developed is irrational.  It also is undemocratic.

It is time for all Americans to get behind the President-elect and work with him to promote policies that are for the benefit of the Country.  Should the President-elect propose or promote policies not in keeping with one’s moral or political views, that would be the appropriate time for opposition.

Posted in Mainstream Media, Radical Left | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »