Tag Archives: Jerry Falwell

Donald Trump

Extend your term, Mr. President? Are you f***ing nuts?

I don’t know whether to laugh, scream, pull my hair out by the roots or jump onto a fire ant mound.

Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump has just retweeted something that on its face is beyond the unbelievable but is something that one can totally expect from the goofball who happens to be president of the United States of America.

He believes his term as president should be “extended” by two years. Why? Because, in Trump’s own words, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian attack on our election in 2016 has “stollen” two years of Trump’s presidency.

Can you believe this man would make the moronic suggestion?

Yeah, me too.

The U.S. Constitution — the document with which Trump has no familiarity — limits the president to two elected terms that shall last no longer than eight years.

So this clown wants to extend his term by two years? To a six-year term? Is this guy out of his ever-lovin’ mind? No need to answer that.

The idea comes initially from the “Rev.” Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and an unabashed admirer of the president. I use the term “Rev.” guardedly because I do not consider Falwell to any more a man of God than his late father.

The very idea that Jerry Jr. would pitch such a ridiculous notion is preposterous on its face. It’s not so weird that Trump would latch onto it, given that I believe he is hurtling out of control.

I think I might start looking at any moment for that fire ant mound.

national news, religious news

Falwell Jr. channels his late father

Jerry Falwell Jr. is showing that the proverbial nut doesn’t fall far from the ol’ tree.

The president of Liberty University is sounding a lot like his late father in terms of despicable political rhetoric.

Jerry Falwell Sr., the one-time televangelist, once took part in the production of a film called “The Clinton Chronicles” that alleged that Bill and Hillary Clinton took part in a series of criminal acts, including harassment of women, shady real estate deals, protecting a drug smuggling ring and — get a load of this — murdering drug smuggling witnesses and covering up the cause of death of a close aide and friend of theirs, Vincent Foster. How Christ-like, yes?

Now comes the son to say that evangelical Christians who opposed Donald John Trump “might be immoral.” A Washington Post interviewer questioned Falwell about whether evangelicals should expect a higher standard of personal behavior from the president, given Trump’s admitted philandering and groping of women to whom he wasn’t married.

“It may be immoral for them not to support (Trump) because he’s got African American employment to record highs, Hispanic employment to record highs,” Falwell said.

I suspect that wasn’t the crux of the question, which I gathered sought to focus more on the president’s behavior.

Falwell, therefore, is justifying Trump’s hideous behavior on the basis of matters having nothing whatsoever to do with what the president has admitted to doing.

I don’t get it.

The Post interviewer, reporter Joe Helm, asked Falwell if there is anything Trump could do that would lose his support. His answer: “No.” I know. It’s simply shocking to hear such a thing.

Well, there you go. Imagine for one moment whether Barack Obama had done anything of the nature that Trump has done. What do you suppose would be Jerry Falwell Jr.’s response to that?

I would bet real American money Falwell wouldn’t be so forgiving.

national news, political news, religious news

Trump speech venue laced with irony

One word came to mind when I heard over the weekend that Donald J. Trump would deliver a commencement speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.:Ā ironic.

There was so much to confound us about the 2016 presidential election that I am hesitant to rank the most puzzling element that arose from it.

I’ll place oneĀ development near the top: the support Trump earned from the evangelical community. The president’s Liberty University speech is a continuation of that relationship.

One line has gotten the most attention. It’s when the president said Americans “don’t worship government, they worship God.” Gee, do you think?

Why the ironic view of this venue?

Liberty U. was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, a highly political preacher. Falwell was a sworn enemy of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary. He once produced a hideous video that purported that the Clintons were complicit in the death of their dear friend Vincent Foster, who committed suicide not long after Bill Clinton became president. That’s not a Godly thing to do, you know?

LibertyĀ is a religious-based university of some renown. Its curriculum espouses conservative values. Biblical studies are required for graduation. All of that is common at faith-based institutions.

Why, though, the embrace of Donald Trump? I’ve neverĀ perceived Trump’s life to be necessarily informed by a devotion to the holy word, to the Gospels, to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Quite the contrary, my perception of Trump — and I believe the perception of millions of other Americans — is that he has placed great value on material wealth, on personal enrichment, on self-aggrandizement; he’s also boasted publicly about his boorish behavior and he has routinely denigrated women.

Does Scripture lift all of that up, to be something to which we should aspire? It’s not in the Bible I have read for my entire life.

So there he was, telling the students at Liberty U. about the virtues of swimming against the tide, telling them to be unafraid of criticism. They cheered, clapped and hollered.

Great!

Liberty U. is now run by Falwell’s son, Jerry Jr., who recently referred to Trump as evangelicals’ “dream president.” The younger Falwell must have turned his TV off during the campaign when word leaked out about Trump’s admitting that he has grabbed women by their genital area, that he has forced himself on them because he’s a “celebrity” and a “star.”

Jerry Jr. also must have turned away at the news of Trump’s two divorces and his acknowledged marital infidelity as it regarded his first two wives.

This clown isĀ a dream come true?

Go figure, folks.

national news, political news

Right-winger draws rebuke from conservatives … good!

It turns out that political conservatives have their limits on the level of provocation they are willing to tolerate.

My spirits are lifted when I read such things.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing provocateur, has been disinvited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual meeting after drawing a sharp rebuke from other conservatives.

Yiannopoulos, who is openly gay,Ā recently stated that younger gay men would benefit from a relationship with — ugh! — older men. Oh, but he has condemned pedophilia and, I guess, he has tried to legitimize his hideous views by telling of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

He’s also written extensively against homosexuality. Go figure.

Right-wing bloggers, pundits and consultants are outraged that CPAC would invited this guy to speak in the first place.

According to The Hill: “Conservative blogger Erick Erickson on Monday slammed the ACUā€™s decision to include Yiannopoulos among their speakers, casting the move as more of a publicity stunt than a contribution to conservative dialogue.”

I am heartened to learn that conservatives have their limits on the level of bile and vitriol they would tolerate. Let’s flash back, oh, about two decades or so.

Conservatives were none too shy about defaming President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, by suggesting they were complicit in what they said were the murders of their political opponents. None other than the late preacher/demagogue/”Rev.” Jerry Falwell actually produced a video, “The Clinton Chronicles,” thatĀ suggested the Clintons were responsible for the suicide death of their longtime friend Vincent Foster.

I don’t recall hearing much protest then from the right about that shameful act of defamation.

That was then. Today is a new day, I reckon.

Milo Yiannopoulos is getting the scorn he deserves from his so-called political brethren.

As conservative consultant Matt Mackowiak said of CPAC’s decision to disinvite Yiannopoulos: This is not a hard call.

national news, political news

‘Scandals’ won’t end? Of course they won’t!

imrs

The headline from the Washington Post was funny when I saw it.

Then I noticed who wrote the essay over which the headline was posted. Then I chuckled out loud.

“The Clinton scandals will never stop,” the headline blared. The byline belongs to Ed Rogers, a noted Republican operative.

If you add two plus two, you come up with four. So, if you believe what Rogers theorizes, then it all adds up. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “scandals” won’t die because Republicans like Rogers won’t allow it … ever!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/11/03/the-clinton-scandals-will-never-stop/

Clinton has been in the public eye since before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. The foes of the two politicians have been digging for dirt for longer than most of us can remember.

Whitewater, Vince Foster, sexual misbehavior, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, e-mails, “pay for play.”

I am sure I have missed something, but you get the idea.

The late Rev. Jerry Falwell once produced a video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that alleged that the Clintons were responsible for the murders of their political foes. How in the world he got away without being sued for defamation is beyond me.

If Clinton wins the election in three days, you can bet some serious American money that the “scandals” will stay in the news.

Republicans will make damn sure of it.

national news, political news

Clinton doesn’t need a ‘reintroduction’

hillary

I am skeptical of political operatives who say they want to “reintroduce” their candidate to the American public.

What’s more, I am extremely skeptical — dubious, even — of efforts to reintroduce arguably the nation’s most recognizable woman toĀ Americans whose votes she is seeking.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on or near the national stage for nearly a quarter century. She stood by her man — pardon the pun — when he ran for president in 1992; she weathered the storm of Bill Clinton’s impeachmentĀ involving that disgraceful relationship he had with the White House intern; she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and served for eight years with many of the same individuals who voted to toss her husband out of office; she then served for four years as secretary of state.

Is a reintroduction necessary? Hardly.

I believe the term “reintroduction” is a sort of code for “extreme political makeover,” which the Democratic presidential nominee’s handlers believe is necessary, given the incessant pounding she’s been getting for, oh, the past 25 years.

I’m sure you’ve seen — or perhaps even used — some of the hideous perversions of her very name when referring to her.

If the Democrats’ candidate for president has demonstrated anything she has shown herself to be filled with an iron will and an emotional constitution that defies most of our understanding. I am one who has trouble grasping just how she has endured this withering fire.

But she has. As for the “reintroduction,” it’s not necessary.

She’s been called a liar and a crook. She’s been tarred by accusations that she and her husband are actual murderers; do you remember the “Clinton Chronicles,” a video produced by none other than the late Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and a “Christian pastor”? Lately, she’s been labeled a traitor who should be executed.

It’s all phony.

A reintroduction — if that’s what you want to call it — is going to require some serious marketing.

national news, political news

Maybe Cruz will … oh, never mind, not a chance

First-term Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s allies are putting the word out to political reporters across the nation.

Be sure to listen to the senator’s remarks Monday in a major speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/236501-cruz-speech-stirs-talk-of-2016-launch

The tongues are wagging. The Cruz Missile might be getting ready to launch his 2016 presidential campaign.

Liberty U, founded by the late Jerry Falwell, often has been at the forefront of Republican politics. It’s a conservative campus, with a conservative faculty, teaching subjects with a conservative slant.

Now the school is going to play host to one of the Senate’s most conservative members. Cruz has been decidedly un-bashful about seeking public attention for this or that speech.

This one is being billed as The One to Watch.

Almost every political expert predicts Cruz will run for president. Perhaps he thinks if another Senate hot-shot — Barack Obama — can run for president in the middle of his first term in the Senate, then he might join the fight, too. But will the nation elect two of them in consecutive elections?

I look forward to hearing what Ted the Texan is going to say.

But do you suppose he’ll … naww, never mind. Not a chance.

 

Uncategorized

Some critics are unfair, but not all of them

Peter Beinert, writing for Atlantic Monthly, makes a fascinating case in defense of those who are highly critical of President Obama.

Yes, some of the criticism is race-based … but not all of it, not by a long shot. The article attached here is worth reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/radical-republican-opposition-is-not-new/361536/

He takes U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson to task for making some outrageous claims about how Barack Obama has been singled out merely because of his race. Here’s what Beinert writes: ā€œI never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,ā€ Thompson told a radio show. ā€œThat Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States ā€¦ that ā€˜I donā€™t care what you come up with weā€™re going to be against it.ā€™ Now if thatā€™s not a racist statement I donā€™t know what is.ā€

Beinert notes that Thompson then said that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t like being black, which on its face is a preposterous notion.

Obama’s critics have been harsh. Have they been any more strident than those who went after, say, Preident Bill Clinton? Hardly.

Beinert makes some interesting comparisons between the two presidents’ critics. My all-time “favorite” criticism of Bill Clinton came from the late preacher Jerry Falwell, who sponsored a video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that suggested — no, it actually accused — that Bill and Hillary Clinton orchestrated the murder of long-time friend and adviser Vince Foster, who committed suicide early in the Clinton presidency.

Let’s also point out here that Beinert is a left-leaning journalist who generally is friendly toward policies advocated by progressive politicians.

He is right to calm down those who suggest things such as those brought forward by Rep. Thompson that all criticism of President Obama is race-based and is uniquely harsh.

Bill Clinton surely would disagree.