Trump Goes Full Trumpian After Being Contacted About Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year”

It seems like only yesterday I was writing about what a whiney, arrogant, possibly mentally unbalanced toad our president is.

Well, to be exact, it was Wednesday.

Almost as if he was afraid somebody would forget, Donald Trump kicks in with something else totally unhinged to keep that thought fresh in our minds.

His latest ego-fueled snit has to do with Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” declaration.

According to the orange-hued man-baby, he was told by the magazine that he would “probably” be given the nod.

Now, we don’t know if they reached out to him, or not. I’m half expecting to hear from someone with Time this weekend disputing Trump’s account. The man has a tendency to mutilate truth.

This, however, is Trump’s allegation:

Ok. Right. You just didn’t want to commit to it if “probably” was the best they could tell you?

You’re too old to be such a brat.

Trump actually was “Person of the Year” in 2016, but if online polls are any indicator, he’s lagging behind Taylor Swift and the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico, Carmen Yulin Cruz, currently.

Said Trump in 2016:

“It’s a great honor. It means a lot,” Trump said at the time. “To be on the cover of Time magazine as the person of the year is a tremendous honor.”

And he does keep tabs on how often he makes the cover.

“I think I was on the cover of Time magazine twice in my life and like six times in the last number of months,” he said in July 2016.

“So you tell me which is more important, real estate or politics, OK? I have six for politics and I have two for real estate or whatever they put me on for.”

In June it was even reported that Time had to ask the Trump Organization to take down several fake Time covers featuring Trump that hung on the walls of his golf resorts.

So, yeah. He cares about getting on that cover, which leads me to believe if he’s making this fuss now, it’s for the opposite reason than what he stated.

And please, nobody say he’s much to busy to care about such trivial things. We all know that busy or not, he loves seeing his face on things. He loves being honored. If he’s tweeting about it, he already knows he’s lost to Taylor Swift.

As a zinger, a former editor with Time, Richard Stengel, couldn’t help taking a jab:

Should be an interesting weekend.

The post Trump Goes Full Trumpian After Being Contacted About Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Trump Renews Calls for Border Wall Following Friday Attack in Egypt

A mosque attack in Egypt Friday led to the deaths of 235 people, a manhunt for those responsible, and renewed calls by President Donald Trump to both build a wall on the Southern U.S. border and reintroduce a travel ban for known terrorist-sympathizing countries.

The coordinated attack involved both bombs and gunfire and took place at the al Rawdah mosque in the northern Sinai. The mosque is an important Sufi site, thought to be the birthplace of Sheikh Eid al-Jariri, who is considered the founder of Sufism in the Sinai.

Eyewitnesses said a bomb went off in an adjacent building and, as they fled, worshipers were targeted by gunmen wielding semi-automatic weapons as they left the mosque. While no one has claimed responsibility, Egyptian officials say the attack bears the hallmarks of ISIS.

Ashraf Abu Salem 27, said gunmen then went inside the mosque to fire at people. Entering the mosque afterward, he said the bodies looked as if people had been shot in the back. His clothes were stained with the blood of the injured he helped to carry out, but he was unharmed.
The gunmen had set up “ambush” locations and opened fire on ambulances as they were transporting wounded worshippers to al-Arish before the arrival of security services, eyewitnesses reported.
Photos from inside the mosque showed what appeared to be bodies lined up in rows on the carpet.
Trump had a phone call with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on Friday after condemning the “horrible and cowardly terrorist attack on innocent and defenseless” worshipers. The White House released a statement following that call:

President Donald J. Trump spoke today with President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi of Egypt to offer condolences to the people of Egypt after the heinous attack on worshippers in Egypt’s North Sinai province.  President Trump condemned the attack and reiterated that the United States will continue to stand with Egypt in the face of terrorism.  The international community cannot tolerate barbaric terrorist groups and must strengthen its efforts to defeat terrorism and extremism in all its forms.

Egypt is not among the countries listed in the original travel ban. Those responsible for the attack have not yet been located.

The post Trump Renews Calls for Border Wall Following Friday Attack in Egypt appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Former Ethics Chief Suggests a Harbinger of Bad News for Jared Kushner

First of all, I’m a little hesitant to heed the word of anyone that dealt with ethics during the Obama administration. The association tends to lead me to believe they sucked at their job.

But let’s approach this as a “what if” situation, where we allow some grace and consider that maybe Obama’s ethics czar Norman Eisen was just having a dry spell, but otherwise knows a thing or two.

Eisen responded to a New York Times report that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was cutting off the line of cooperation with White House lawyers, possibly signaling that he’d be working with Mueller’s team, or working on a plea deal.

Patterico covered that particular report yesterday.

Eisen tweeted out in response:

He may have a point, as speculation-heavy as it is.

There have been multiple reports of Flynn’s concern that his son, Michael Flynn Jr. could be implicated in some way.

I believe Flynn was loyal to Trump, but if he had to choose between pulling Trump’s, or a Trump associate’s butt out of the flames, or saving his son, I still think he’d think of his son, first.

Besides his son’s possible culpability and what some believe to be unshakeable evidence against Flynn, there are other reasons for concern.

According to multiple outlets, he is under investigation for an alleged quid pro quo with the Turkish government, in which Flynn would have been paid millions of dollars in exchange for the extradition of a Muslim cleric living in the U.S.

Federal records show that Flynn did not register $530,000 he was paid during the 2016 campaign for work he did that the Justice Department said principally benefitted Turkey — a potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Flynn, just like former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is definitely dirty. How dirty, and how much of that dirt can be leveraged for bigger fish will have to wait.

It’s important to note, Flynn’s ending of cooperation with Trump’s lawyers doesn’t mean for sure that he’s working with Mueller. There may have been a conflict of interest between the defense lawyers that necessitated stepping back.

The White House is continuing to claim innocence, stating confidence that Flynn has nothing on Trump or his immediate circle.

“I think [Trump] would be sad for them, as a friend and a former colleague, if the process results in punishment or indictments,” White House lawyer Ty Cobb told The New York Times in an interview last month, referring to Flynn and his son. “But to the extent that that happens, that’s beyond his control.”

Yeah, that’s what you said before he stopped working with you. I wonder where we’re at, today?



The post Former Ethics Chief Suggests a Harbinger of Bad News for Jared Kushner appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Amazon’s Alexa Is A Digital Social Justice Warrior

Nobody doubts that Jeff Bezos is a liberal who opposes Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and any semblance of a conservative agenda. We normally associate the Washington Post as his venue for spreading his progressive propaganda, but it turns out Alexa, the digital assistant produced and distributed by Amazon, is another way he pushes his agenda.

In a sometimes-crude video by Steven Crowder, the conservative comedian asks Alexa several questions. Topics ranged from Antifa and Black Lives Matter to Muhammad and Jesus Christ. The answers were often editorialized with left-leaning answers. Some were downright insulting.

According to Crowder’s Alexa, Muhammad was “very wise prophet” and Jesus Christ is “a fictional character.” Independent reports couldn’t duplicate these answers, but most of the others were accurate.

Even if the religious implications from the device are made up, the company’s leftist views on history, economic policies, and other political elements should have you fuming. Watch the video with a warning: at times Crowder gets crude, as he is often wont to do.

The post Amazon’s Alexa Is A Digital Social Justice Warrior appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Questioning the Roy Moore Accusers vs. Believing Them and Saying “So What?”

There are two types of partisans who support Roy Moore: those who question the most serious of the allegations against him, and those who accept the allegations as true but say we should support him anyway.

It is the latter group — people who say “sure he’s guilty but vote for him anyway” — that I continue to find inexplicable. I run a personal blog at and have done so since February 2003. Over there, I have a guest poster who is also a long-time reader named Dana. She’s an excellent blogger who deserves to be more widely read, and she had this to say about the Roy Moore situation:

The worst example of party loyalty is when a sexual predator’s bad behavior is brushed away, rationalized, overlooked, or worse: acknowledged as being rooted in truth, or altogether true but dismissed anyway because supporting the party trumps everything else – especially when an election is involved. And even if the opponent is as morally pure as driven snow, better to have an accused sexual predator in office than one from across the aisle.

Emphasis is mine.

When I recently wrote a post targeting those who believe Moore’s accusers but support him anyway, my post was repeatedly misread as attacking people questioning the claims of the accusers. In this post, I’m removing any chance for a fair-minded reader to misread what I am saying, by emphasizing the bolded language above.

So let me be crystal clear: for the sake of this post, we are going to assume for the sake of argument that all of the most troubling aspects of the accusations are false. We’ll assume for the sake of argument that multiple women got together and contrived a political hit on Moore, fabricating evidence against him in an effort to keep him out of office.

Isn’t there still room to criticize people who have said: “Even assuming the allegations are true, we should vote for him anyway”? Even if those people are mistaken about the allegations being true, isn’t it troubling to you that someone would say that?

I saw that in comments to my recent post, some people were saying I was trying to “cherry pick” these comments as having come from unimportant people. But one of the people who said this was the governor of Alabama, who said she had no reason to question the accusers, but that people should vote for Moore anyway.

It’s not “cherry picking” to note a claim from the governor of Alabama. And the accusers include someone who said Moore tried to have sex with her when she was 14.

Dana titled her post on this topic When Party Loyalty Begets a Collective Moral Bankruptcy:

But convenience is not limited to the left side of the aisle. The disgust I have at the Democrats’ decades-long denials and efforts to dismiss and rationalize Bill Clinton’s awfulness until politically convenient to admit them, is the same disgust I feel about the right side of the aisle currently circling the wagons around Roy Moore. . . . It’s taken a long time, but Republicans are now this close to becoming as morally bankrupt as are the Democrats.

This is the problem when you say “maybe it’s true but vote for him anyway.” You become morally bankrupt. If you believe in God as the foundation of morality, how can you justify voting for someone you have said you believe to be a child molester, whether you’re wrong or not? It makes no sense to me, at all.

And what basis do you have to criticize those who support Al Franken’s butt cheek grabs or John Conyers’s escapades? The only thing you can say is: well, their policies are bad. Because you have already legitimized supporting sexual assaults for the purpose of politics. The only weapon you have left is that the other side’s politics are worse.

And even if you didn’t care about moral bankruptcy, your precious political power is not exactly enhanced when independents see Republicans shrugging their shoulders at child molestation.

If you want to question the accusers, and you can do so in a factual way that does not rely on rumor and fever swamp smears, that is appropriate. But if your argument is “vote for the guy I believe to be the child molester, FOR THE CHILDREN!” then you have lost your way.

Roy Moore may well still win this election. But there is a giant wave coming in 2018. The Senate will almost assuredly be firmly in the hands of the Democrats, whether Roy Moore is in the Senate or not.

And when that wave has washed over you, and your majority and your soul are both gone, what will you have left to show for it then?

The post Questioning the Roy Moore Accusers vs. Believing Them and Saying “So What?” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State