It’s impossible to know how many times Donald Trump has been described as the lesser of two evils. He’s been called much, much worse so really it’s almost a compliment. At the very worst it is just another way of saying, “I’ll hold my nose and vote Trump.”
Excellent. Anything to prevent the greater of two evils from further destabilizing the country and the world. Whatever it takes. Four more years, and possibly eight, of Obama style deconstruction, America cannot withstand.
It’s likely a majority of voters have already made up their minds between Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democrat choice, socialism’s good friend, Hillary “We’re gonna put a lotta coal miners and coal companies outta business” Clinton.
For those still unsure as to who is evil and to what degree, hopefully this will make things clearer.
In 2007, when commenting on oil company profits, Hillary said, “I want to take those profits . . .”
There are some points being ignored in Hillary’s desire to affect the supposedly free market – oil company profits aren’t hers to take. They do not belong to the Democrat Party or the federal government. Large portions of those profits are plowed back into research and exploration. Besides, the government already takes it’s pound of flesh through taxation and the huge costs of permits and regulations.
But there’s more.
The Washington Examiner reported yesterday, that Democrats are working with the Federal Election Commission to ban media companies with as little as 5% foreign ownership, from covering political races or giving endorsements. The Examiner claims such a move could ban Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, among others, from full reporting in the political arena. The NYT would be the silver lining in that cloud.
Just kidding progressives. Calm down.
For years, the oh so fair minded political left has been working to shut down the voice of conservatism. In 1949, with a Democrat as President, the Federal Communications Commission introduced the Fairness Doctrine. While it never became law, neither has it disappeared.
Put succinctly, for every hour of conservative talk on radio or television, the Fairness Doctrine would require the opposing viewpoint receive an equal hour. Since liberal talk radio has never been successful on a large scale, listener numbers during those hours would plummet. The loss of revenue would then drive stations to dump all political talk. Democrats would not hesitate if they could silence Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage and O’Reilly.
Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, represents just that type of assault on American freedom. There’s a few examples of the greater evil. Trump isn’t even close.
When deciding on who to vote for remember that Hillary Clinton will continue what Barack Obama started: a steadily increasing $20 trillion national debt that grows by $60 million every hour, a healthcare program collapsing under it’s own weight as insurance companies race to the exits with $2 billion losses so far this year, a smaller and increasingly more weary military, a global wide loss of respect for America by friend and foe, 45 million Americans on food stamps, 94 million Americans not working, a near stagnant economy, food prices rising, confidence in government falling, growing division between blacks and whites, more attacks on Christianity and conservatives, increasing attacks on police officers and more terror attacks at home.
To allow that to fester in America is evil and it has to end before the US falls.
The choice is clear. Even if all you see in Trump is the lesser of two evils, he is undeniably a patriot. He does love America.
So if necessary, hold your nose. Do it for the generations who follow. Make the choice for freedom.
You misunderstand the history and use of the Fairness Doctrine. When it was being employed (it was never required by law, but was a practice guideline promoted by the FCC), it meant opposing views should be significantly represented ON THE SAME CHANNEL. We obviously don’t do that now with so many more channels available. Each channel today, especially the 24-hour news outlets, “narrowcasts” toward specific target audience profiles. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.
(Credit for the info goes to my wife, retired CBS news writer, 40 years, five Emmys.)
Thank you for the great input. You are correct. The Fairness Doctrine, from an official position, became history in 2011. But does that really define permanency? Frankly, I do not believe it has disappeared completely. I strongly suspect it remains simmering on the back burner for Democrats, solely due to the ongoing success of conservative talk radio & Fox News. Many on the left blame those sources of daily comment for a number of criminal and terrorist acts carried out by deranged individuals with, to the best of my knowledge, no proven guidance from or link to right wing media commentary. If given the opportunity, I think it a safe bet to suggest that a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, in an effort to at least blunt or better, eliminate conservative opinion, sway and momentum, would quickly move it to the front burner. It seems only reasonable to suggest that the requirement would be an hour’s worth of equal time, as you pointed out, per station/channel. However, it would not be merely a guidline as in times past. Rather, it would be a full on FCC regulation meaning every broadcast license would depend upon compliance.
Congratulations to your wife. Forty years of stellar performance. The proof is in the Emmys. Nicely done.