Archives For Donald Trump

The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump has ended in an acquittal.

The charge of ‘incitement of insurrection’ concerned the January 6th security breach in Washington D.C., when a mob participating in a MAGA rally broke from the majority, and forced their way into the Capitol building.

The mob, described as rioters by legacy media, carried out acts of vandalism, which culminated in the tragic deaths of two people.

9News reported that Ashli Babbitt, a female veteran was ‘fatally shot by police’ as she entered the building. In addition, The Guardian reported that Officer Brian Sicknick, died due to head injuries inflicted by Capitol Hill vandals, who are alleged to have struck Sicknick with a fire extinguisher.

Three other people died during the incident, in what 9News referred to in speech marks as “medical emergencies.”

According to The Guardian, 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips, a computer programmer and huge Trump fan, died of a stroke. 55-year-old Kevin Gleeson, died of an ‘apparent heart attack, related to a history of high blood pressure’; and Rossane Boyland, 34, who had a ‘criminal history, including possession and distribution of heroin,’ lost consciousness, due to what 9News alleged was the direct result of being ‘crushed by the crowd.’

The Democrat push to pin the security breach, and subsequent vandalism from both known, and alleged MAGA supporters, on Donald Trump, as “insurrection at the Capitol”, was supported by big government Democrats, big media, big tech and big business.

The Guardian were quick to label the tragic event a ‘planned insurrection,’ joining legacy media’s chorus of buzzwords such as “invasion,” “attack,” and “incitement.”

Joe Biden called it ‘an assault on the citadel of liberty’; and Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) – among others – laid the blame on the then sitting President Trump, calling for him to be removed from office.

Silicon Valley joined the assault, using the constructed narrative of “insurrection at the Capitol” as an excuse to boot Trump from their social media platforms; killing off a competitor through the equivalent of a permanent D.O.S (denial of service) attack on Parler; which was justified through the distorted claim that the fervent freedom of speech, social media service, was a hotbed for ‘right-wing extremism.’

The January 6th tragedy involving between 500-800 people was a nexus for Trump’s nemeses.

Four-year-long “hate Trump because love trumps hate” campaigners, got in before a clearer picture emerged, and the dust settled. They called for impeachment, capitalising on the momentum of public confusion and concern.

The following weeks saw Trump’s enemies salivate over the possibility of connecting Trump, and Conservatives to the deaths, security breach, and vandalism.

This involved a ‘new rhetorical framing,’ or ‘rhetorical inflation’:

‘[Where] Trump supporters used to be portrayed as nationalists, as extreme patriots whose desire to “make America great again” was too laudatory of the U.S.A.  Now they are being portrayed as insurrectionists and [anti-American jihadist] terrorists who are trying to destroy America.’ – (Gene Veith/Jonathan S. Tobin)

Far-left Democrats are being true to their “whatever it takes to win” promise. It’s a zero-sum game and they know it.

Just like they knew what they were doing when they ‘played an edited video of former President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, leaving out his call for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (Breitbart)

Tackling this ‘new rhetorical framing,’ CBN called out the hypocrisy of those citing Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell” as proof of incitement to insurrection. Stating that ‘several members of the impeachment team, have used similar rhetoric in the past.’

Such as, but not limited to, ‘Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., as well as Reps. Joe Neguse of Colorado and Eric Swalwell of California, [who’ve all used] “fight like hell” or similar phrasing in their past statements.’ (Fox)

Rand Paul (Rep.Kentucky) used the example of Chuck Schumer’s speech given during the Kavanaugh trial to a mob in front of the Supreme Court, when the leading Democrat said:

“you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price, and you won’t know what hit you.” – ‘the mob charged the door of the Supreme Court and they tried to tear it down. They stood on top of statues, they were confronting and belligerent.’

Paul, in Trump’s defence then appealed to context, saying,

“The thing [here] is [that] you have to look at the President’s actual words. What did he say? He said go fight. Let your voices be heard, and he said march peacefully and patriotically. How can you twist that into words that incite violence?…I think Democrats if they look in the mirror, they’ve been guilty of much more than they’re accusing Trump of.”

The far-left failing to secure a second impeachment against Donald Trump is a blow to their ‘planned’ “insurrection at the Capitol” narrative (new rhetorical framing).

Stakeholders should take note. This push for the impeachment Trump, on trumped up charges, also shows that the far-left’s libido-dominandi driving the hate-fest for anyone, and anything they deem to be unworthy of an opinion, is far from over.

Cancel culture is on full display here.

Breaking down the votes for, and against impeachment, The ABC revealed a well-organised (“pre-planned?”) co-ordinated approach from the Left, with some on the Right supporting the motion (seven in total).

The Left were unanimous. ‘Senators voted 57-43 not guilty on the charge of incitement of insurrection’, which is 10 numbers below the 67 ‘required to convict’ Trump.

The far-left’s real loss here, is the failure of cancel culture to cancel out Donald Trump’s chances of running for President again in 2024. Which was, according to a wise American friend of mine, “the whole reason for the push for impeachment in the first place.”

The far-left engaging in ‘rhetorical inflation’; the twisting of words, facts, and events, in order to carve out a self-serving narrative, is a greater threat to Constitutional Democracy, and civil liberties, than an imperfect man, who for four years served for next to no pay, in the office of President, but sometimes posted mean tweets to his personal Twitter account.

Trump’s second impeachment trial was a fake charge, based on fake news.

I stand by my statements made earlier this year: The real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed. Cancel culture is fascism proper.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th February 2021.

© Rod Lampard, 2021.

The planned Hollywood Union show trial of Donald Trump was extinguished after the former President, woke to the fake woke people’s court nonsense, headed them off at the pass.

Trump’s response? Resign.

By doing so he effectively nullified Hollywood’s self-serving attempt at using its Union arm to charge, and convict him (as far as it’s within their power to do so) with crimes he never committed.

USA Today reported that President Trump ‘resigned from SAG-AFTRA after facing expulsion from the actors’ guild’ for his alleged “incitement” of riots on January 6th.

As noted, ‘on January 19th, the Screen Actors Guild board voted “overwhelmingly” that there is probable cause’ in regards to ‘Trump violating its guidelines for membership.’

USA Today added that ‘the charges are for Trump’s [alleged] role in the Capitol riot, and [again, allegedly] sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of “journalists”, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members.’ (parentheses mine).

The NY Times called the move a ‘disciplinary hearing’ then repeatedly referred to the former President as ‘Mr. Trump, a businessman.’

According to the NYT, SAG-AFTRA has confirmed the move, with the Union President stating,

“Donald Trump attacked the values that this union holds most sacred — democracy, truth, respect for our fellow Americans of all races and faiths, and the sanctity of the free press […] there’s a straight line from his wanton disregard for the truth to the attacks on journalists perpetrated by his followers.”

Rolling Stone rightly called the hearing an attempt to ‘banish Trump,’ and included Hollywood’s simple ‘thank you’ reply to his resignation.

In the official resignation letter Trump labelled the Union’s move a ‘blatant attempt at free media attention to distract’ [people] from lawsuits against the Union such as the group lead by Ed Asner. Who, according to Hollywood Reporter, are suing the ‘SAG-AFTRA Health Fund and its board of trustees for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties…Actors say they’ve been abandoned by their guild, and are losing their health coverage.’

The resignation letter is classic Trump; a reminder of why we “the-deplorable-little-people”, which includes 75 million+ Americans, and many more worldwide, still respect the imperfect man’s steadfast grit and love for his country, despite the being the primary target of irrational hate from an all-too-powerful, and smug elitist caste.

Trump’s move also disarms far-Left Democrats from using any Hollywood verdict of ‘guilty as charged’, ‘off with his head’ exile, as a precedent, or proof of his guilt, in its own potential State sponsored criminal [show] trial.

Despite Biden’s mandated ‘healing and unity’, many Democrats have made it clear that they’re not through with trying to punish the man who dethroned the Clintons, and helped awaken the world to the free-pass handed to powerful allies in Hollywood. (E.g.: Weinstien; Epstein et.al)

It’s the kind of trial that’d make Nazi, people’s court judge Roland Freisler jump with whatever is the fascist equivalent of joy.

Alongside an over-excited Goebbels ready, with pen and paper, to spin the “historic” and “unprecedented” act of “social justice” quelling “dangerous” hate-speech from individuals deemed enemies of the Reich.

Of course, Hollywood’s relationship with Nazism borderlines morbid obsession. There’s a reason why we see few movies portraying the war crimes, and human rights abuses from other countries under Socialist rule.

It’s worth noting that Hollywood’s Anti-Nazi league (later run by Communists, once they booted Christians) [i] practised a policy of neutrality, courting the Third Reich and its cinema market.

Let’s not forget that the league went silent in their opposition to Nazism, when Soviets signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop non-aggression pact with the Nazis, which saw the Nazis and Communists tear apart Poland, and enslave the Polish people.

Hand-in-hand, both Nazi and Communist, socialists one and the same, mined Poland to satiate the wolf (Nazi) and the bears’ (Bolshevik) socialist empire building, blood lust. [ii]

After four years of anti-Trump hysteria, Hollywood’s obsession with Nazism begins to look a lot more like admiration.

If the attempt to try Donald Trump reveals anything, it’s not Hollywood’s anti-Nazism, it’s Hollywood’s fascination with fascism.

As Thomas Doherty observed,

‘In the digital age, the collection and repackaging of images of the Nazis remains a growth industry, sustaining documentary features, action films, and cable channels.’ (Hollywood & Hitler, p.371)

It’s fair then to ask:

Do the dollars attached to Hollywood’s obsession with the Nazi worldview mean that Hollywood is essentially marketing Nazism?

Does this explain why they a) don’t speak about the just-as-equal evils of socialism, and b) are quick to spread alarmism about a so-called “far-right extremist” crisis?

Nazism and Communism are two wings on the same vicious bird.

It’s a shame that the subjective bias of Hollywood has held them back from speaking this truth to power.

References:

[i] The Communist beachhead in Hollywood caused a split, which created the far-left’s Popular Front, and the Catholic, National League of Decency (formed in 1934).

Doherty, T. 2013 Hollywood & Hitler: 1933-1939 Columbia University Press


First published on Caldron Pool,  6th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

The COVID Reflex & the Mechanization of the Masses

Under the shadow of Democrat encouraged civil unrest, and Covid-19, the 2020 election was always going to be a close call.

Temporarily set aside valid concerns about voter fraud. Then consider the climate of fear that has been battering voters non-stop since January.

Leftist politicians and activists went from attacking pro-active, anti-COVID conservative governments with “that’s racist”, to “they knew and didn’t do anything to save lives.”

Go back to the debates. The Biden/Harris campaign maximized COVID-19 for political gain. Biden was propped up as the adult, taking Covid-19 seriously, while Trump was portrayed by the feckless legacy media as irresponsible, and reckless.

Aided by Big Tech, Doctors were silenced, while keyboard warriors asserted themselves as life-saving experts.

Anyone who presented a well-reasoned argument that countered the approved narrative, was censored.

When this was questioned, with the help of leftist funded “fact-checkers” hiding behind the word “Independent” (not to be confused with impartial), Big Tech told us that this censorship was “for the greater good” because it was about “saving lives.”

As has been suggested by others on various platforms, the consequence of this is that people have voted against Trump as though he was a) responsible for COVID-19 and b) was the virus itself.

Since 2016 the Democrats have been playing a zero-sum game. (Found in the murderous ambition of Antifa and BLM.) It wasn’t beyond them to pave Biden’s road to the White House with fear and the bodies of COVID victims.

Covid-19 may not have been designed to remove Donald Trump from the White House, but the Left was quick to weaponize COVID-19 as a means to do so.

As Amanda Prestigiacomo put it,

‘This election is not like anything we’ve seen before, with well over 65 million mail-in ballots cast, relaxed rules. (COVID panic porn vital here.) The chaos is a feature, not a bug. Trump needs to challenge everything. I think he will. His supporters can’t be disenfranchised.’

COVID-19 propaganda porn created a COVID reflex. Disaster porn has been the bedrock of the Democrat platform since Hillary Clinton failed to move into the White House after Barrack Obama, the leftist lord-of-lords and king-of-kings, ended his tenure.

The “vote for us, or face certain death at the hands of COVID and racists” equation appears to have been a winning formula.

This says nothing positive about American voters who appear to have voted in fear, because of falsehoods and fake news, over against facts, faith, and freedom. Victims of a successful, corrupt Democrat scare campaign.

The COVID reflex is the result of propaganda; vicious political maneuvering. It’s what Jacques Ellul called psychological warfare.

To illustrate this, Ellul pointed to the different levels of aid provided by the United States, and the Soviet Union to under-developed countries in the 1960s.

 ‘The United States gave three times as much assistance as did the Soviet Union; but thanks to propaganda, it is the Soviet Union who is regarded as the great helper and benefactor in whom one can put one’s trust.’ (Propaganda, 1965:134)

Ellul warned that the dangers in doubting the power of propaganda led to propagandists manipulating and implanting within the public a conditioned reflex. 

He deduced that ‘the propagandist seeks automatic responses; to induce action without consideration; mass movement without thought.’ (ibid, 300 & 302)

Enemies of this mechanization of the masses were ‘organic groups.’

This is why genuine dictatorships, and totalitarians undermine families, authentic churches, and traditional community assemblies.

The only way for the masses to be manipulated is to replace these groups with ‘new primary groups’; political action groups, parties, unions, where ‘the individual can be trapped and made ready for propaganda.’

This meant automated mechanization (ibid, p. 98). Examples include the Nazis’ strategy in banning Homeschooling, and undermining Sunday School with laws instructing parents to enlist their children in the Hitler Youth. Moa and Lenin’s political re-education mantra ‘each must be a propagandist for all.’ (ibid, p.82)

The point of this, Ellul states, is ‘to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do.’ (ibid, p.132)

Come back to the U.S. election, and four years of Democrat scare campaigning. The climate of fear successfully established conditions and controls. Covid-19 just gave the political establishment the impetus it needed to deploy hysteria and its subsequent, “vote for us, or face certain death” brain washing, to move the people against its political enemies.

As economics Professor Gary Galles concluded in his article for the Mises Institute,

‘The 2020 election results will be a test of earlier liberal/progressive “investments” in modifying how Americans think about things. But at this point, perhaps more important will be whether, after the fact, people recognize how much they have been manipulated, which is the first step to thinking more accurately, which must precede learning to effectively resist that manipulation.’

This COVID reflex may have given Joe Biden and the Democrats the edge over Trump. Fear is a powerful motivator. Much more so than freedom.

The globalist elite, and their bureaucratic caste friends in Washington D.C know this, and they strip-mined it for every ounce of political gain they could squeeze out of it.

The COVID reflex is a direct product of Leftist propaganda. More concerning than a Biden/Harris Presidency is this mechanization of the masses, and I’m almost convinced that the U.S. election results are proof of it.


First published on Caldron Pool, 7th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.

Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.

Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,

‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.

The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.

The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.

The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”

Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.

Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)

Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.

His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.

Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:

“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.

Who said in return that,

 “it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)

Six years after the success of Reagan’s ‘supply-side mix’ policies, which reduced ‘intrusive and overburdening taxation, regulatory, and currency policies, delivering an effective resolution to the ‘Energy Crisis’, Reagan told administration supporters,

“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)

It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.

The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance. 

The Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris ballot is a ballot between a citizen President, and career politicians.

Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.

One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.

The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.

Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”

Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.

On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”

“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)


References:

[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142

[ii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th October, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Hillsong Church has been hit with a barrage of criticism after an employee “accidently” used the official Hillsong Twitter account to ridicule Donald Trump’s performance in the first Presidential debate of the 2020 US election.

According to the Herald Sun an ‘unnamed staffer allegedly logged into the official Hillsong Twitter account, rather than their own personal one.’ The Tweet read: ‘Can’t someone just mute Trump’s microphone!! He is coming across as such a bully. No respect for him sorry.’

The “gaffe” was quickly deleted, with Hillsong posting an apology soon after, saying, “Earlier today a staff member accidentally posted on this account personal comments about the US presidential debate, that were meant for a personal account. Hillsong does not comment on partisan politics & apologizes. These comments do not represent the views of Hillsong Church.”

ChristianPost listed a series of criticisms for the original post, starting with Greg Locke, Pastor at Global Vision Bible Church in Tennessee. Who said, ‘Dear @Hillsong, that was deleted very quickly. Careful. I sat beside @brianhoustontv at the RNC acceptance speech at the White House. Your boss secretly likes Trump.’

The Post also highlighted how problematic the “gaffe” could be for Hillsong. Brian Houston has visited the White House, applauded Trump’s initiatives regarding the preservation of religious freedom, and is part of a group of Christian leaders active in lending Donald Trump prayer support.

Criticisms of the “gaffe” was met with a similar amount of fiery criticism for the apology. Candace Cameron Bure (Hallmark/Full House/Fuller House) simply remarked, “Oooof”.  While a list of other Twitter users took the apology as an opportunity to throw more anti-Christian abuse Hillsong’s way.

The loudest condemnation came from those attempting to conflate Houston with Hillsong. They labelled the apology hypocritical. Pointing out that Houston’s support for Scott Morrison, and Donald Trump negated the Churches’ claim to distance itself from political dichotomies by “not commenting on partisan politics.”

This is despite the “gaffe, mistake, accident” – whatever – suggesting that Houston’s personal views don’t necessarily represent the views of Hillsong as a whole. The false equivalence seems to have blocked the obvious irony.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the high visibility of the Church, sins of some of its leaders, and the massive success of its music arm in recent years has brought Hillsong under a microscope.

The consequence of such close quarters’ scrutiny is that any unintentional faux pas by, or connected to the “mega-Church”, are rapidly churned out for maximum attention in order to either undermine, discredit or cancel them. And not just Hillsong, but Christianity in general.

It’s Hillsong. Just like Trump. They’re influential, but not exactly THE authority when it comes to Christian theological truths, or the conduit by which all Christians make their decisions.

It’s also almost guaranteed that most of the people acting all dismayed at the recent US election Presidential debate were just as equally entertained by it. Such is our spectator culture.

Perhaps the problem with leaders is a problem closer to home?


In this sense the debate and reactions to it are a mirror. What we condemn in others, we must first address within ourselves. For instance, eye-to-eye respect will always trump plankeye, and eye-for-an-eye relationships.

As atheist, author and ex-Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali quipped: “Everyone is talking about and asking about last night’s debate. I don’t want to make light of this because it is not funny. But where in the world do people in their seventies behave like stick-your-tongue-out preschoolers on national TV while vying for the highest office?”

The election debate highlighted the fact that the future of America, and by default her allies, will be decided by the choice between a career politician and a citizen President.

Trump doesn’t need the Presidency, Biden does. Trump’s income doesn’t ride on him being President, Biden’s does. Which of these is more likely to be the public servant Americans need? All the evidence shows that it isn’t Joe Biden.

If anything positive can be drawn from the debate moderator’s obvious favoritism, it’s that Trump was inadvertently painted as the underdog.

If the plan was to save Biden midway through, or gang up on Trump, and bait him for soundbites, it’s backfired spectacularly.


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st October 2020 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

One of the first rules about giving is not parading it for all the world to see.

There’s a difference between me sharing with someone that my family and I have financially supported Compassion Australia for nearly two decades, and me boasting about how much money we’ve given to them.

Unless those asking are the tax office, it should be enough to simply state the fact about our giving, without having to prove it with subtotal, decimal, and dollar sign.

For the sake acknowledging it. The exceptions here are small businesses and corporations. Transparency exists for tax purposes. Accountability on giving to charity from a corporate income is as much for shareholders as it is for tax payers, re: the appropriate governing bodies.

Giving from personal income operates by a similar accountability structure, but has a different set of rules when it comes to freedom of information. Anonymity is to be applauded and protected. It’s none of anyone else’s business how much an individual gives from their own personal income.

There’s also a difference between a foundation, set up in a person’s name, giving to charities, and donating money to charities from that person’s own finances.

Businesses never refer to a product, or cash given out to meet a charitable need, as having been given out by the CEO, or his family. They correctly state that the business donated them.

The foundation has to be transparent; the individual doesn’t. He, or she, can remain anonymous.

As Jesus emphasized twice in His criticism of hypocrites posturing righteousness in public for all to see: ‘when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.’ (Matthew 6:3-4, ESV)

This criterion makes the morbid quest to squeeze Trump’s wallet for information that could discredit his presidency, all the more lopsided and vindictive.

As The New Yorker’s, John Cassidy made more than clear in his 2016 piece on ‘Trump & the Truth: His Charitable Giving.’ Cassidy’s piece reached hard for the fraud card, up to criticizing Trump for where, when, and how much, Trump was donating of his own money to charity.

Forbes, in a convoluted attempt at the same game, insinuated that then Presidential candidate – whom they estimated to be worth ‘$3.5 billion’ – put revenue before helping ‘kids with cancer.’

Forbes accused Trump of having ‘paid their businesses with charity money.’ Speculating that money changing hands, ‘had more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook.’

In short, Forbes acknowledges that the Trump family gives to charity, but isn’t happy about the amount they give, where, or how they do it.

Outlining how Trump’s charities allegedly paid Trump organizations for services rendered. Forbes questions the legal and ethical aspects of Trump Charity organizations, but ultimately feeds into the now far too common dissonance of “hate Trump, because love trumps hate”.

Worth noting. Forbes lists this article as one of their “best pieces of the decade.”

Most recently, Phillip Hackeney penned a piece published by NBCNEWS, responding to news about a Nov. 2019 court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the N.Y. Supreme Court, ordering that Trump to pay $2 million in restitution for alleged misuse of Trump foundation funds.

The ruling was based on arguments presented by N.Y. Attorney General Barbara Underwood (who’d boasted about the ruling on Twitter), alleging that the Trump family ‘”illegally” used Trump foundation to further Trump’s political interests.’

The Trump’s responded by noting that all the funds collected were eventually donated to the designated charities – something Judge Scarpulla acknowledged (NBC).

Nevertheless, the Trump family were ordered to pay the $2 million to three charities, presumably pre-chosen by the prosecuting Attorney General.

It was a political win against the President, not an ethical one.

Facebook’s “independent” fact-checkers are doing the same. Flagging posts about Trump’s giving as “missing context” isn’t out of a concern for ethics, or even charities, it’s about partisan political gain.

Snopes rated the above facts as “unproven”, even though they have video of Trump stating: “well, I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.”

USA Today claims they’re false, and the NY Times (predictably) doubts it.

My criticism isn’t about the attempt to keep Trump accountable for claims he makes about charitable giving. It’s the motive behind the “fact checking”.

By tone, it’s easy enough to discern how the real motivation isn’t to help charitable organizations. The motivation is to sink Trump.

Should said “fact checking” take down someone they don’t like, and win them a Pulitzer in the process? Well, hey, “it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

It’s rich for any journalist to accuse a family of being ‘vainglorious’. Only to then go looking for glory in a financial shake down of the Trump family’s charitable works.

Had Trump not been running for President, and had there been no potential personal benefit involved, it’s unlikely many in the Leftist dominated mainstream media would even care.

Have the New York Attorney General and others, chased how the $2 million ripped from the Trumps was spent by court designated charities, with the same vigor? 

Have they looked into George Soros’ or the Clinton Foundation’s financial reach in the world of politics with the same scrutiny?

If I were in a diplomatic mood, I’d roll out the uber-understanding-wagon, layer on some sugar-coating, then dismiss the morbid quest to turn Trump into Scrooge, as a true-hearted selfless act of benevolence.

The truth is it isn’t. 2016 was an election year. As is 2020.

These are never-Trump self-serving gestures. Fueled by self-aggrandizement, and tinged with the flare of agitation propaganda, written for a rabid, radicalized mob who’s view of the Trump presidency only comes from the lens that’s been prescribed for them.

I doubt that even if Trump were to give away his entire fortune, those dragging him down, in order to raise themselves up, would find any benevolence in it.

Outbidding wars have their place in charitable auctions.

Outbidding wars over who is the greatest of givers has no place in politics.

For ‘each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor.9:6-7, ESV).


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd September 2020.

Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Left-leaning, Jewish online news organization, Jerusalem Post reports that Twitter have blocked accounts which feature the Star of David, branding the symbol “hateful imagery.”

The J.P stated that ‘the images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.’

After being bombarded with concerns, Twitter’s Public Policy page went into damage control, back peddling on the branding by stating that they ‘don’t consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image.’

The blocking of accounts was a blitz on the ‘Yellow Star or Yellow badge’ associated with the Jewish Holocaust, allegedly being used by hate groups to target Jewish people. Twitter thanked people for bringing the issue to their attention, and restored accounts wrongly targeted.

While Twitter back-tracked on its suppressing of the Star of David, the U.K based CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism) reported that Twitter refused to ‘act against abusive tweets’ linked to the anti-Jewish hashtag trend #Jewishprivilege.

An article on the CAA website cited examples which show extremists (what the CAA called ‘radical left-wing anti-Semitism and white supremacist anti-Semites’) joining forces. (For CAA the former ‘blames the Jews for being white’, the latter, ‘for not being white enough.’)

CAA noted that Jews and allies ‘co-opted the trend by attacking it’, but when ‘challenged to take action, Twitter refused’ to do so, claiming that the #jewishprivilige trend did not breach their community standards. In response, CAA has accused Twitter’s terms of service as ‘permitting the platform to be used for the dissemination of racist material.’

This led Stephen Silverman, a director with CAA to call for regulation of social media platforms in line with regulation applied to ‘all other mass media.’

He shot back stating,

‘the idea that Jews are a ‘privileged’ group is a slur designed to deny that antisemitism exists and to imply that Jews are a cause of racism towards other minorities… It is horrifying to see that #JewishPrivilege has been one of Twitter’s most popular hashtags of the past 24 hours. Twitter’s refusal to act is not just tone-deaf but brazen.’

CAA and Silverman’s concerns don’t come out of thin air. The problem is that they only mention antisemitism. Silverman’s point certainly carries weight when brought to bear against Twitter’s allowance of anti-white hate, misandry, Antifa, anti-Israel terror group Hamas, pro-LGBTQAII+ bigotry, and Twitter’s almost non-existent policy against pedophilia.

On more than one occasion Twitter has seen trends that mock, smear and demonize Christians, not just Jews. The most prominent was #christianprivilege.

Twitter also allows vile anti-conservative, anti-white organized myths, such as “Trump is Hitler”, “all white people are racist” and “white privilege.”

Twitter does so while its content filters are blocking content and accounts of conservatives. Seemingly based entirely on the yardstick of ideological differences (protecting some, harming others; perhaps even on the basis of melanin).

Such as the increasing censoring of President Donald Trump, the banning of Stefan Molyneux, and Katie Holmes (whose ban came after a “final straw” criticism of Black Lives Matter).

Add to this the social media block ban on Jewish conservative Laura Loomer, and Twitter’s recent block on all QAnon content.

These are stand out examples of Twitter approving some content, while suppressing others, through a selective interpretation of its terms and conditions.

The CAA and Stephen Silverman’s criticisms of Twitter share Donald Trump’s own concerns about the social media platform. In May Trump responded to selective censoring saying, “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct…”

By omitting these examples, the CAA and the Jerusalem Post are exhibiting a self-defeating short-sightedness. They see enemies, where they have allies, and allies where they should be seeing enemies.

The real perpetrators, and the root cause of the rise in antisemitism are either ignored or hidden from view.

Fiercely, anti-Trump contributor to the Jerusalem Post, Douglas Bloomfield is representative of this tragic myopia.

In an article from May, he defended George Soros, setting the blame for the rise in antisemitism squarely on the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Bloomfield might have momentarily forgotten that Trump’s son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner is Jewish.)

Bloomfield mentions Trump’s Twitter account, yet provides zero evidence to back up his “Trump is Hitler” insinuation, while completely overlooking the connection between the radical left, leftists in Mainstream Media, and the rise of antisemitism.

Bari Weiss, Ben Shapiro, Avi Yemini, and Melanie Phillips are all Jews. All have been labelled “Nazis and racists.” Look even closer at how the Leftist media, including Leftist Churches (who’ve long abandoned Christ for Karl Marx), demonize Israel, simply for existing.

Antisemitism gets a free pass while the real cause is ignored.

This myopic vision occurs because people are trained to only see white people as racists, and conservatives as Nazis.

It’s this kind of manipulative stigmatizing; this kind of organized myth, straw man mechanism that forms a lot of antisemitic rhetoric. The same stigmatizing is applied to Biblical Christians, and today’s conservatives. It places a lot of them in a position of genuine solidarity with Israel, and the Jewish community.

There is common ground. All it takes is someone willing to acknowledge that it exists. This common ground, despite differences, ignites unity, and it’s this unity that will help pull back the veil. Not just to address the real perpetrators of antisemitism, but to identify its roots, and stop it from doing significant harm.

For ‘man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualised depends on decisions, not on conditions. Our generation is realistic, for we have come to know man as he really is. For after all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shima Yisrael on his lips.’[i]


References:

[i] Victor Frankl, 1959. Man’s Search for Meaning, Beacon Press. (p.133)

First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd July 2020.

Photo by Kon Karampelas on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.