Posted on 07/07/2015 4:01:18 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Don’t say Donald Trump has never sacrificed for the red, white and blue.
As The Daily Beast reporter Olivia Nuzzi has amply documented, the real estate mogul and 2016 presidential contender has sued a stunning number of individuals, companies and countries over the years, for a whole host of reasons. But perhaps the most patriotic lawsuit Trump ever filed was in defense of a super-sized American flag he sported outside of his Mar-a-Lago country club estate in Palm Beach.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/06/that-time-donald-trump-filed-a-lawsuit-to-keep-up-an-extra-large-american-flag/#ixzz3fCc0UUYZ
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Worth noting:
But this would not be Trump’s last battle over an American flag. In 2014, Trump took on local government officials in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. to keep another giant American flag up at his Trump National Golf Course, a fight Trump appears to have won without having to resort to litigation.
He certainly shakes things up
Tell me again that Trump is not a patriot.
He may still have the opportunity before him but the window is closing fast. So far he has failed to pivot onto the topic of media malpractice.
Has shaken things up because he is a patriot. How many others have recently placed their fortune and honor on the table?
Pretty funny. I just can't picture the Donald as a founding father.
Snarkey aren’t you.We all get it that you don’t like the guy.Can you tell us all when was the last time he pissed in your cornflakes?
I think that Trump/Cruz would be the perfect team.
An unbeatable team that could guide America for 16 years, and beyond.
No way is Trump going to bow out. Does anyone think that someone so focused on being a winner could even CONSIDER dropping out now, and go down in history as a LOSER?
Hernando Cortez burnt his ships on the shores of Mexico, thereby committing him and his troops to win or die.
Trump has burnt his ships on the shores of America, and he’s now totally committed to fight to the death.
It’s going to be an epic battle, watch closely, we’ll never get to see something so exciting, so American, again in our lifetimes.
We are living in an historical moment. Alert your family and friends, they’ll want to watch, or perhaps even volunteer to be part of it.
Please post a positive post for the candidate you support
Cruz is a good man and I hope he improves as a candidate. How’s that?
Google Cruz and Trump and follow Cruz’s example
Red Eye radio talked about him being pro-abortion and for single payer healthcare, making Obamacare look like a capitalist’s dream!
If I was running as a Republican for office I certainly would but I’m not and I think the Donald is a snake who shouldn’t be trusted.
I have been cogitating about that ever since I fully realized - a generation ago - that “the media”areis “biased.” The question, in the first instance, was why were all journalistic outlets playing the same tune?After an embarrassingly long time, it dawned on me that it all traces back to the telegraph. The telegraph, and the AP.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe AP - and any other wire service as well - functions as a virtual “meeting” of people of the trade of journalism. That meeting is not “for merriment and diversion,” but precisely about business - and it has been ongoing since 1848. It is impossible to expect any other result than that “a conspiracy against the public” should have begun long ago, and should be ongoing.In 1945, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Associated Press v. United States that AP had been violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting member newspapers from selling or providing news to nonmember organizations as well as making it very difficult for nonmember newspapers to join the AP. The decision facilitated the growth of its main rival United Press International, headed by Hugh Baillie from 1935 to 1955. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_PressAlthough that decision apparently does not touch the issue of the effect of journalists’ “meeting together” via “the wire,” it does reflect the fact that the AP from its inception was anticompetitive in nature.Of course, the foundation of the AP predates the advent of the Sherman Antitrust Law by half a century . . .
- News Over the Wires:
- The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897
by Menahem BlondheimThe key point is, though, that the mission of the wire service - the economical transmission of news over a wide area - is actually an anachronism in the context of the satellite and optical fiber communication links which enable the Internet. At this point economizing on transmission bandwidth is of negligible value.
The other point I would make is that there is a systematic reason why a unified press would be a leftist press. Theodore Roosevelt famously declared
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sorbonne- but if you are “the critic,” that is an uncongenial message. And indeed, journalists are never "the man who is actually in the arena,” journalists only report - and they prefer to talk about other people’s failures. So it should not be unexpected to learn that journalists’ preferred message is the polar opposite of
"the credit belongs to
the man who is actually in the arena.”And arguably the opposite of that message is best summarized in the statement,
You didn’t build that. “You didn’t build that” is cynicism directed at the very concept of earned success. “Liberalism” is socialism, and it is the political logic of the envy of the journalist for the successful entrepreneur.
So if Donald Trump is a conservative, and if he is willing to put his reputation and some money on the line as he suggests he will do, he wouldn’t have to become POTUS in order to perform a signal service to his country. He wouldn’t even have to win the Republican nomination. All he would have to do is sue the socks off of the AP - and its membership, joint and several liability - for all its tendentiousness against Republicans, entrepreneurs, and people who are neither black nor hispanic. Ann Coulter’s Slander would be a good start on a bill of particulars, but the George Zimmerman persecution and the Ferguson and Baltimore fiascoes postdate that book.That would not be an attack on freedom of the press - it would be an attack on the Borg which has absorbed the free and independent presses which the Constitution and First Amendment sought to guarantee to us.Technological progress being an explicit goal mentioned in Section 8 of Article I:
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .the term “press” in the First Amendment should not be read as a reference to a specific technology of ink, paper, and machinery. The press is any technology for the purpose of publishing opinions or facts. The distinguishing feature of technology as opposed to speech is, of course, that it inherently requires things - things which cost money. Some may argue, possibly rightly, that money is not speech. But they cannot argue persuasively that a press is practical if its owner - let alone its purchaser - cannot spend money. “Campaign Finance Reform” is political censorship. Registration of political expenditures can be made to sound benign - but the Constitution would not have been ratified (at least in the opinion of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) if those founders had not had the right to publish the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.” And if they had that right, then under the Ninth Amendment we have that same right.
Some of us think Rubio is the snake.
Rubio wants no limits on immigration whatsoever. Rubio is OK with 300 million + showing for handouts on our doorstep. He has not set a limit.
Also Rubio seems to be both for and against his own immigration bill. It may depend on the audience he’s speaking to, but sometimes he’s been for it, other times he’s been against it.
Well Trump is also “evolving” on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, Obama-Care. Rubio I believe is sincere. Trump is a circus clown. Who knows what is behind the mask?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.