Elizabeth Warren and the Progressives Will Assert Anything To Sell Their "Story"


Recently Donald Trump made a statement that has all the progressives up in the air. The context of his statement had to do with the Second Amendment and the assumption that H. Clinton would try and nullify it as much as possible. For an example of the progressives' comeback to Trump's utterance, Elizabeth Warren tweeted out the following:

The progressive media, and obviously Warren, immediately jumped to the conclusion that Trump had threatened the life of H. Clinton and/or Supreme Court Justices. Here, the NY Times sort of explains the hubbub. But REALLY? "Death Threats"? "Reckless Comments"? One has to go a long stretch to get THERE! I'll explain.

Before we all jump to the same or similar conclusions, wouldn't it be nice to read or see and hear EXACTLY what Trump said?

Before presenting both a transcript and a video of the Trump statement, if you are the type of person who will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, the type of person who will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman, the type of person who voted for Obama because he is part black, or the type of person who did not vote for Obama because he is part black, you need not continue. Promoting your agenda without facts or logic is not a good thing.

Now, on to a transcript of Trump's full statement:

Trump: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

That is the entire statement by Trump that has all the progressives up in the air.

If you want to see and hear him offer the above, Click Here and then come back.

Yes, if one has a certain political agenda to "float", almost anything can be interpreted to fit one's desires. However, at some point "logic" should be applied.

Where in Trump's statement was there a threat? Where in his statement was violence even hinted at?

OH, because he mentioned "the Second Amendment people"? If that is the answer, then please lump people who believe that into the "agenda without logic" group.

The Second Amendment speaks only to the prohibition of the government to curtail "the right to bear arms". It says nothing about the "right to shoot someone" nor "the right to use firearms in a criminal manner".

Let me offer a conceptual analogy to interpreting Trump's statement -

In your minds' eye go back to the early 1960s. Some undefined politician makes the following statement in relation to Civil Rights for Blacks:

"If the next president gets to pick their judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the black people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Is this statement calling for violence from blacks? Of course not. However, if one's agenda is that blacks should be denied civil rights, the statement could certainly be "spun" that way. But, look what actually happened back then. A leader, a black leader, rose up and through Dr. Martin Luther King's peaceful diligence, civil rights for all became the law of the land.

Trump, of course, could have phrased his statement to be be a tad bit more clear. But, he and his supporters immediately responded to the progressives' outrage with surprise. Trump, et. al., (including me) were actually shocked at the progressives' interpretation of his remarks. They found the progressives' interpretation absurd. The American people, as a whole, along with the political influence of the NRA, would make reversing the Second Amendment extremely difficult. The political influence by the "Second Amendment people" is what Trump obviously meant. Any other interpretation is logically silly.

For a news story on Trump's reaction, Click Here.

For whom you vote is your personal business and, of course, you have every right to make that choice. It is still America, after all.

But, accept nothing the media or a politician offers without checking its accuracy.

Ronald Reagan coined the phrase "Trust but verify!". Unfortunately, today that credo should be changed to "Verify, never trust!"

My opinion - the progressive media and politicians seem to follow two basic rules:

1. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

2. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” - Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals', Rule #10

This incident seems to fit perfectly.

A specific example of "agenda vs. facts": Click Here.