Defining Trump: A Response To “32 Reasons”

Liberty Points, February 27, 2015

A blog by a best-selling Christian novelist of apocalyptic fiction wrote “32 reasons” why America is doomed if presidential candidate Donald Trump wins.

Joel C. Rosenberg warned U.S. Christians to “fast” and “pray” to stop Trump from winning . In our article, we’re going to go through Rosenberg’s blog point by point to set the record straight on Trump, whether good, bad or ugly.

Rosenberg claimed that Trump would be a “catastrophe” for the U.S., admitting that he “prayed”, “fasted” and searched the Scriptures. But we should note that many prayerful, Bible-believing Americans sincerely and proudly support Trump – a man who clearly won with evangelicals in early primaries and continues to poll highly.

It is my position that Trump is not the “pathological narcissistic sociopath” that media mogul and Mormon mouthpiece Glenn Beck alleged. Nor is he the embodiment of evil that fiery Catholic blogger Matt Walsh claimed. Neither is he acting “not a christian” for planning to build a wall with cartel-plagued Mexico instead of “bridges” as Jesuit Pontiff Francis I publicly suggested.

Trump is angry about the direction of our country and the betrayal of our leaders. And so are we. There’s a lot of misinformation, caricatures and misquotes on social media about Trump. The presidential candidate faces opposition and hate from the liberal media and the Republican Establishment, as well as the Ted Cruz party of loyalists.

Let’s examine Rosenberg’s so-called “reasons” based on his “personal beliefs and opinions” to condemn and reject Trump:

1. Trump Made A Firearm-Related Joke Upsetting The Media – Trump cracked a hypothetical quip to his supporters to highlight their solid loyalty to him. This was a direct response to the news media attacking the seriousness of his candidacy, labeling him a “clown” and criticizing his support of the Second Amendment. Trump hit the overly-sensitive media who can’t stand being called on the carpet. He didn’t call his supporters to take up pitchforks or Molotov cocktails.

This same media wrongly portrays Trump as a racist, misogynist xeonophobe with “angry” supporters who have little to no college education. The fact of the matter is that amid hundreds of hours of campaign speeches, interviews and monologues, jokes happen in politics – on both sides of the aisle. Trump delivered an analogical, off-the-cuff point about something that no reasonable person would ever actually do. Trump has a clean criminal record and has never violently assaulted people. Perhaps the joke wasn’t classy? Well, neither was the Obama Administration’s joke about Christians persecuted in Egypt, yet the media largely ignored that one.

The audience got the joke (and the point) and they laughed. Trump laughed. But the anti-gun, socialist-leaning media once again ripped a sound-byte out of context – ignoring the rest of his speech. The corporate media is mouth-frothing anxious to connect Trump to Hitler (i.e. a socialist dictator who disarmed the Jews ). Keep in mind that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is a wealthy Jew and Trump’s daughter Ivanka in 2009 converted to Judaism.

Conclusion: The corporate media wrongly circulated this video clip out of an entire speech as so-called evidence that Trump promotes violence to his followers. To say this is a stretch of the imagination is an understatement. Move on, progressives. Take a look instead at nepotistic Jeb Bush joking about dropping his pants on the campaign trail.

2. Trump (Like Most Christians) Doesn’t Like Asking Forgiveness – Who does? I don’t. And I suspect Rosenberg didn’t list this as one of his top ten hobbies in life. I’ve asked forgiveness from God and people but it doesn’t mean it makes asking any easier or any more desirable. This is a petulant and juvenile reason to reject any candidate. See reason #3 below for a fuller discussion of Trump and God’s forgiveness.

3. Trump Believes in God But Didn’t Asked Forgiveness – Rosenberg cited Trump’s response about his relationship with God as nothing more than a childish attempt to paint Trump as a lunatic and heretic in one breath. Trump said he hadn’t asked forgiveness from the God he publicly believes in. This statement should make us born again Christians disagree on theological grounds, but there’s something else important here that we shouldn’t miss. And it’s this: Trump is sincerely honest about his Presbyterian-based faith, even though it departs from a central tenet of the biblical gospel.

But we should note that other candidates aren’t as Christian as we would like either:

a. Ben Carson’s Seventh Day Adventism is an off-beat denomination with a cult-like following of Ellen G. White.

b. Ted Cruz of Canada has a strange theocratic faith (learned from his former-Communist-turned-pastor dad) which pushes Dominion Theology. This version of evangelical Christianity touts a “message of dominion” for our “anointing as kings”. that should make supporters of constitutionalism cringe.

c. Marco Rubio (like Jeb Bush) is a Catholic-turned-Mormon-then-Baptist-then-Catholic whose Roman magisterium still anathematizes evangelicals since 1563.

Likewise, we shouldn’t forget that many American Christians include believers who tout “forgiveness” while contradicting the Bible on abortion rights, “gay marriage”, prosperity gospels, emergent trends, and even Islamic ecumenicalism.

In short, Trump is not running for head pastor of a mega-church. He unquestionably believes in God but admitted that his personal faith sadly does not involve personal forgiveness. Although this wouldn’t qualify him to be a youth pastor, it shouldn’t disqualify him from the Oval Office. Unlike Obama, Trump has openly stated he will defend Christians in America and has called acts of violent jihad “radical Islamic terrorism”. Theological-purity tests fail us in election cycles.

4. Trump Has A Unique Anti-Iran Stance – Rosenberg cites Trump’s unique take on the Iran deal in August 2015. The Iran deal, I might add, had not yet happened at that time. Also, Trump as a newly-sworn in president in 2017 wouldn’t be able to address the deal until after Iran already got back its frozen $150 billion.

It’s true that every other GOP candidate (except “act of love” Jeb Bush) advocated ripping up the deal. But Trump has vociferously and consistently attacked the Iran deal. See here, here and here. In the words of Joel Pollack, Trump “avoided cheap promises of repeal in favor of a serious and pragmatic policy.” If the money is gone then the repealing or “ripping up” the contract may be no better than setting a marriage license on fire. You’re still married.

As a U.S. businessman, Trump shows a surprising understanding of complicated foreign affairs. He’s well aware of Iran as the largest sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East (and other regions) as evident from his many interviews and campaign speeches. This so-called reason to dump Trump is nothing more than a misunderstanding of Trump’s reasonable and unique anti-Iran posture. It’s a misstatement of how he will deal with the Iran bully that supports ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah.

5. Trump Doesn’t Kill Women, Children (Or Unicorns) – Here, Rosenberg dug from the bottom of the barrel by linking a video to the radical-progressive Muslims “The Young Turks”. These braggadocious anti-American liberals wage social media jihad against all that is Christian, constitutional or supposedly “Islamophobic”. (Talk about a non-credible source!) They unsuccessfully tried to expose Trump as a baby-killer.

Trump said in an interview he would, “Knock the hell out of ISIS” and, “I would do my absolute best [to avoid collateral damage],” i.e. the loss of civilian lives. Trump astutely admitted that “this is a politically correct war”. Trump continued, “With the TERRORISTS, you have to take out their families….their whole families.” [Emphasis mine.]

Let’s think this through. Trump already said that he, as president, would do all possible to avoid the loss of innocent life. Last time I checked, no one except ISIS is hell-bent on murdering kids. Admittedly, Trump won’t allow radicalized families of known terrorists (or royal caliphates) to obstruct him from destroying the jihadist State.

Allow me to explain what this means to progressives who believe world peace is possible if we try hard enough by making excuses for radical Muslims: President Trump will admittedly capture and kill ISIS ringleaders and their “whole” radical family networks without any hesitancy. He never said that once coalition forces capture children and babies that the soldiers will impale them on bayonets. Although this was the kind of propaganda some made about the Kaiser’s Germany in WWI it’s still the frightening reality today in regions where ISIS kills innocent babies, women and elderly in systematic massacres.

The conclusion that Trump is a baby-killer a la radical 60’s protesters contradicts what he already said about “collateral damage”. Sorry, Rosenberg and Islamic Turks…Trump will not target innocent civilians. But he will plan to destroy ISIS.

6. Businessman Trump Listened To Military On News Shows – This is a particularly senseless whimper as Trump never actually said those words. Let’s look at what Trump actually said. NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd asked: “Who do you talk to for military advice right now?” Trump responded, “Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great — you know, when you watch your show, and all of the other shows, and you have the generals, and you have certain people –.” In other words: I don’t talk much to military top brass (except for two or three friends) but I watch generals and others discuss foreign affairs on the news! Shocker!

Some conservatives wrongly think that unless one is part of the GOP establishment or a Bush Dynasty supporter one can’t understand foreign affairs. Trump is an intelligent, shrewd and very successful businessman who works around the globe. In the many decades of his watching generals, politicians and pundits discuss foreign affairs (like the rest of America) he has made his own conclusions about what works abroad for U.S. interests.

Trump, like many Americans (including myself), opposed the Iraq War in July 2004. Yet none of us formed our opinions by attending Congressional committees, sipping wine with four-star generals or sitting with the joint chiefs of staff. We learned a lot about foreign affairs from those discussing foreign and military matters on prime-time interviews. Rosenberg wants to convince his fellow evangelicals that Trump is a knucklehead on foreign affairs. He desperately wants us to think Trump forms his opinions from watching mindless “TV Shows”. That’s simply not true.

Trump continues to show that he’s an informed candidate, to the dismay of milquetoast conservatives and globalist progressives. Few would expect a successful billionaire to rub elbows with military brass at 5th Avenue, the Hamptons or Las Vegas. It’s interesting to note, that Rosenberg cites a Breitbart article whose site has been very fair to Trump (both good and bad). However, this one article missed the mark by summarizing the entire exchange at “Meet the Press” with the inaccurate title of “Trump: I Get My Military Advice from Watching Shows”. As with any candidate, we would expect Trump to eventually tap military and foreign affairs advisers to assist him in handling matters.

7. Trump Misheard “Kurds” for “Quds” In An Interview –  This well-publicized gaffe is no reason to dump Trump. It simply fails to undo Trump, particularly in light of his clear,well-reasoned objectives in Iraq against ISIS. Never mind that conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt admitted on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that he was the one at fault for framing the question wrong.  The exchange between Trump and Hewitt is here.

Trump thought Hewitt said “Kurds” – but he had said “Quds”. Trump went on to talk about the Kurds as well as the Iran deal, but not the green berets of Iran. Knowing that “Quds” is the special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is hardly as important as knowing who the “Kurds” are and how ISIS is hunting them down near the oil fields of Iraq. Anti-Trump neocons and liberals are eager for an “a-ha!” gotcha moment that will prove once and for all that Trump can’t tell the difference between France and French Onion soup. But here’s the truth: Most Americans will tell you that ISIS is evil and that Iran would be even more dangerous with nuclear weapons. Trump has clearly shown he understood that in September 2015.

Hewitt was testing Trump’s credentials on being an expert in the Middle East. The shocking conclusion? Trump knew then what was going on in Iraq, Syria and Iran, despite not having a Ph.D. in international affairs. Trump was not an expert on Nasrallah, al-Zawahiri, al-Julani or the elusive Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Yet I doubt the average American could accurately and concisely sum up the backgrounds of these men, let alone General Soleimani. Trump, like the other private-sector (and governor) candidates, has a learning curve in Middle East politics. We should expect him to soon learn most players in the field. But this gotcha interview did nothing to prove Trump incompetent on foreign affairs overall…to Rosenberg’s dismay.

8. Putin Didn’t Actually Endorse Trump – This is perhaps Rosenberg’s most silly attack thus far. In December 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a lengthy and wide-ranging interview about Russian troubles. Amid Putin’s verbose monologues, a reporter asked him his thoughts on Trump. What followed was hardly what the Washington Post sensationally claimed was an endorsement. It was certainly not a press conference in which a U.S. rival officially endorsed a candidate for U.S. commander-in-chief. No such statement ever appeared from Putin’s office to that effect.

Nonetheless, Putin did offer some reserved praise for Trump. He said Trump was the “absolute leader in the presidential race.” This should come to no  one’s surprise at the time. Trump was leading then in every poll in Iowa and nationally. Additionally,  polls considered him the winner of the first GOP debates. This was hardly an endorsement so far. Putin then remarked, “He’s a very lively man, talented without doubt.” Stop the presses! No one ever expected the star of The Apprentice and the builder of Trump Tower could in any way be “lively” or “talented”!

Lastly. Putin then revealed that Trump will actually seek “closer, deeper relations with Russia.” At this point I will say the Washington Post unjustifiably claimed Putin endorsed Trump. In comparison to Obama’s failed record with Russia, Trump would certainly be a  breath of fresh air for Russians and Americans. Rosenberg wrongly sought to vilify Trump as a Russian sympathizer via Putin. But his accusative “reason” is nothing but a waste of space on his blog.

9. Trump Doesn’t Idolize Putin Or His Unproven Hostility Toward Reporters – Rosenberg tried to convince us that Trump is just another Bolshevik butcher. He offered two links beyond the baseless assertion that Putin endorsed Trump. (See down below my additional response to narcissist Glenn Beck’s wild claims in paragraph #32.) Unfortunately, we’re going to look at this in a less hysterical manner.

a) CNN published the rather biased title: “Donald Trump lavishes praise on ‘leader’ Putin”. This article appeared only one day after Putin’s so-called “endorsement”. Trump returned the favor by publicly speaking well of Putin (at a low point in Obama-Russia relations I might add). But Trump hardly lavished “praise” on Putin either as the best president Russia could elect…or as the poster-child for the ethical treatment of vodka-drinkers. In an obvious critique of Obama that would unsettle any CNN journalist, Trump said of Putin: “He’s running his country and AT LEAST he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.” [Emphasis mine.] Did you see what he did there? This was clearly less an adulation of Putin and more a sharp jab at our failed president. Trump’s hard hit wasn’t so much praising a tin-pot dictator, as it was contrasting Putin’s globally-recognized leadership with our apologizer-in-chief.

b) won the sensational headline of the day, implying that Trump endorses the murder of journalists. But there’s a problem. No court in Russia or talking head in America has ever proven that Putin assassinated even one Russian reporter or even his critics. According to “Overall, Trump is right that no one has proven Putin to have ordered assassinations of dissidents“. Rosenberg must not have read that memo! But let’s assume (for argument’s sake) that a Russian court *had*, in fact, convicted Putin of numerous counts of murder. Even if that were true, Trump still did not condone any of Putin’s alleged actions as “a leader”. In answering Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, Trump bypassed specifics on Putin and spoke generally: “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country…” When pressed by Scarborough on alleged killings, Trump replied in an even more general answer: “Well I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. So, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on, a lot of stupidity.” But the media often downplayed the important clarification that when asked whether he would condemn Putin’s hostility toward journalists, Trump said, “Oh sure, absolutely.

So let’s sum this up. It’s a fact that Trump doesn’t believe in any hostility toward journalists. When asked about Putin’s alleged killings, Trump wisely avoided the issue altogether. Instead he contrasted two presidents. He admitted that people are also killed in the U.S. If anti-Trump bloggers are looking for a smoking gun to prove Trump supports the murder of journalists, this isn’t it.

10. Trump Will Shrink (Not Grow) Obama’s Runaway Debt– It takes a lot of gumption to claim that the same candidate who critiques Obamanomics will certainly doom America by increasing our debt a whopping 53 percent over a decade. Let’s see if this nightmarish prediction is even remotely true.

Although Trump (an opponent of the Iraq War in 2004) said he would make our military bigger and stronger, he also said he would be making our government more efficient and reduce incompetency. In other words, what doesn’t work is going to go. This is anathema to big-government Republicans and progressives who only see a powerful centralized elite in D.C. capable of solving America’s problems. Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said that  Trump’s tax plan would require “substantial budget cuts” to make up for lost revenues. Most Americans would agree that an overly bureaucratic federal government with sky-high D.C. real estate prices could benefit from some waist-trimming and efficient streamlining.

This means is that in order for Trump’s tax plan to be revenue-neutral there will have to be budget cuts…and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Trump has already vowed to protect Medicare and Social Security. While repealing the disaster that is Obamacare, he will replace it with market-based options without mandates that would insure no American dies for lack of affordable healthcare. In contrast, Trump stated that “Congress must reduce spending further to address impending increases in the deficit.”

So far liberals and conservative critics can’t prove Trump will remove America’s safety net in order to trim the federal hog. But what about the revenue side? Trump has already revealed his hand on how he plans to increase American jobs, stop corporate inversion and force China, Mexico and other nations to make trade deals that pay some tariffs for the privilege of doing business in America and to protect our own industries.

Trump’s tax plan is only one piece of his bold economic plan despite the chicken-little warnings of the “pro-business” Tax Foundation. Trump is going to give CPR to the U.S. economy by: 1) reducing or eliminating some individual and corporate tax preferences; and, 2) repatriating corporate cash held overseas. That’s how Trump confidently says his “tax cuts are fully paid for” in his position statement. Many who believe that capitalism (not Sanders’ socialism) is the engine for economic growth agree with Trump, who said, “With moderate growth, this plan will be revenue-neutral.”

The bottom line is this: If you fall into a socialist line of thinking then Trump’s tax plan will likely not work; the rich will eat the poor and Obama’s debt will grow. But if you’re willing to concede that capitalism might be one of the reasons America was great in the first place, you should concede Trump’s plan has a winning chance. We already know that 25 percent of federal workers plan to quit if Trump wins. That’s a decent start.

11. Trump Will Stand Up To China on Trade & Tariffs – In backing the People’s Republic of China, Rosenberg fails to convince us that Trump potentially charging China up to a 45 percent tariff will cause America to end as we know it.

Aside from the hit-and-run nature of this link, it fails for one reason: It’s “mostly a lie”. According to, Trump “did not claim [a 45 percent tariff] as an ironclad rule that should be used against China per se.” But even assuming it was Trump’s ironclad plan, Rosenberg failed in wrongly assuming (and pontificating) that any form of protectionism is evil and that we must submit to inevitable free-trade globalism. If we look at this calmly and rationally (like a good businessman would), we note either way that Trump fired a brilliant across-the-bow warning to the Chinese Dragon: “We don’t have to continue to lose $550 billion as a trade deficit for the privilege of dealing with China. … We have to be smart.” (Let’s not forget that in 2013, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated we lost 2.8 million jobs to China since 2001.)

In other words, China’s should no longer exploit the American people with their cheap labor, devalued currency and unfair trade imbalances. A corrective tariff (if used) would mean higher prices on CHINESE-imports in the short run but a boom for American businesses, goods and workers. This understandably scares people who either care little for capitalism, patriotism or globalist dangers. But those of us committed to an America First policy know what this means. If China continues its current course of taking advantage of our import-export imbalances and charging high tariffs to U.S. business looking to trade in their backyard, then Trump will rightly slap tariffs that will economically squeeze China’s Communist Party and its business partners into fair-dealing. The naysayers talk about a “deadweight loss”, which we should actually reclassify as special interests in both parties crying about losing out on cheap labor and junk goods. This is no laughing matter.

Clinton’s NAFTA and Bush’s globalism created huge holes in the U.S. economy that literally sucked businesses, factories and jobs into third-world ports like China. And it’s time to put an end to that. I, for one, appreciate Trump’s tough economics on this matter…and I say it’s about time.

12. Trump’s Tax Ideas Were Never Marxist – Rosenberg reached all the way back to 1999 to try to prove Trump is a closet Marxist who will force billionaires to pay the highest progressive taxes in history. Sadly, this claim is as boring as it is misleading.

Seventeen years ago, Trump was only thinking about running to be the nominee of the now-defunct Reform Party. In a move to show how he would wipe out the national debt, Trump told CNN he was considering levying a ONE-TIME tax on billionaires like himself. To the chagrin of Bernie supporters everywhere, Trump abandoned that unofficial tax idea and made it clear in his 2016 position statement that no such thing will happen.

What’s even more interesting is that any ONE-TIME tax on the rich contradicts Marxism, which requires a CONTINUAL progressive tax to redistribute the wealth to the oppressed masses, i.e. the Permanent Revolution.

Of course, this dose of historical reality isn’t enough for those who hate Trump’s popularity in the polls or social media. Folks like Rosenberg simply dusted off an unofficial, non-progressive 17 year old proposal from a businessman as a scare tactic to pray Trump away. Sorry. This one fell flat. Progressives and the news media still see Trump as their capitalist enemy. That’s a good indication that just like the pro-life issue, Trump has indeed changed and improved.

13. Trump Plans Universal Coverage But Not Single-Payer – There is a huge difference when it comes to healthcare. I’ll start by explaining that single-payer means that only the U.S. government will pay into the healthcare system, not consumers or the market. That being said, Rosenberg’s blog misled its readers by claiming Trump is PUSHING for single payer healthcare and a tax increase on the wealthy. (Note: as explained in #12, Trump dropped his 1999 unofficial proposal for a one-time tax on the super rich.)

In 1999, Trump told CNN’s Larry King: “I believe in universal healthcare.” His 2000 book The America We Deserve argued for universal health care. Trump then admired Canadian universal healthcare, which remains to this day a single-payer system.

But over the next 12 years, Trump dropped his affinity for Canadian-style single-payer. By 2011 (in the aftermath of Obamacare) he moved away from the position as confirmed in an interview with the New York Times. Once again, Trump improved his positions (just like he did on other issues). Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it with something that makes sense for people in business and not bankrupt the country.”

In 2015, Trump continued to advocate universal healthcare but never went back to supporting Canadian single-payer. In July 2015, confirmed that 10 years after Trump wrote his book he had in fact changed his position on single-payer. Two months later, rated Congressman Reid Ribble’s attack on Trump regarding single-payer as only “half true”. Ouch. The article cited that failed presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry wrongly claimed on Aug. 2 that Trump was still “for single-payer”. This was “essentially a present-tense version of the columnist’s claim.”

In contrast to single-payer socialized medicine, what Trump really wants (according to his official spokesperson) is “‘a universal ‘market-based’ plan that would offer a range of choices.” Let’s keep in mind that countries like France, Germany and Australia already have a hybrid public/private healthcare partnership that is not a single-payer system like Canada, or even a truly socialized system like Scotland and the rest of the U.K. Let’s not forget our country (for better or worse) already runs Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability and the Veteran’s Administration as single-payer systems.

Conclusion: Rosenberg’s claim that Trump is “pushing” single-payer and an increase on the wealthy has been untrue since before 2011.

14. Trump Changed his 1999 Pro-Choice position to Pro-Life – No American (including Morma McCorvey of Roe v. Wade) should ever be ashamed that having once supported excuses for abortion they later became pro-life — especially if that person happens to be a woman who had an abortion and later regretted it.

Rosenberg should ask himself if he’s truly willing to forgive people who used to support reasons to kill the unborn but now publicly champion pro-life instead. It’s easy to throw stones from glass houses. Trump has been publicly and consistently pro-life in at least the last four years. Even former pastor Mike Huckabee defended Trump’s change to a pro-life position. Trump has openly stated he sees no “abortion rights” in the U.S. Constitution.

Conclusion: Trump is no longer for pro-choice abortion, period.

15. Trump Is Not Picking Past Pro-Choice Sister To SCOTUS – Rosenberg’s claim that Trump praised his 78 year old sister, Maryanne Barry, is somewhat true. But his claim that Trump plans to appoint her as a another pro-abortion justice on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is patently false.

Sadly, Rosenberg’s warning here has even less gravitas with me (as a pro-lifer) due to his carelessness in listing his #14 reason. Ironically, this claim is nothing but a fantasy from that nepotism-in-action Governor Jeb Bush created. Our Jeb-come-lately’s spokesman tweeted the bold lie “sexing it up a bit to say that Trump actually wanted to put his sister on the bench,” as reported by David Weigel in the Washington Post. Seeing that Trump is now vigorously pro-life, let’s consider whether Trump planned to put his soon-to-be retired sister on the U.S. Supreme Court for the purpose of killing the unborn.

First, we know that failed candidate Jeb lied because Trump had already told Mark Halperin of Bloomberg that he “would have to rule out” his older sister as a nominee to the Supreme Court. David Lat thought that the reason Trump will rule out his sister (born 4/5/1937) as nominee was “perhaps because she’s 78, and perhaps because of the nepotism problem.” There’s no argument there.

Second, although Judge Barry wrongly decided in 2000 in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion, we don’t really know if she still holds that position today. As a pro-lifer, I find her opinion unreasonable and unconscionable. But we’re no longer in 2000. Trump clearly changed his mind since 1999. Did Judge Barry changed hers? We don’t know yet. All we know is that Trump (an avid pro-life, anti-establishment candidate) has publicly spoken well of his sister as a “great”, well-seasoned federal judge.

We know Judge Barry had conservative credentials in 1983. That’s when Ronald Reagan appointed her a Judge of the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. She ruled on other cases besides abortion. In 1989, she presided over the conviction of Louis Manna, the Genovese crime family boss accused of plotting to assassinate rival John Gotti. While yet a Republican, Bill Clinton appointed her in 1999 as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit). Both sides of the aisle in the U.S. Senate unanimously approved her . In 2011, she assumed her position to Senior Judge of that Court.

I will point out that Trump recently made two mistakes in defending his sister’s tenure during the last Republican debate. The first is that Trump misspoke when he said his sister-judge signed a bill. He clearly meant to say Judge Barry signed off on a judicial opinion about the bill in question. That was a public gaffe. But it was hardly fatal for a non-lawyer. The second mistake is that Trump claimed that Justice Samuel Alito (when a lower federal judge) agreed with his sister on the partial-birth abortion bill. This was not true. It’s unclear whether or not Trump knew it was untrue or whether he was genuinely mistaken. Unlike Ted Cruz’ baseless claim that he had no idea he was a Canadian citizen until 2013, Trump never went to law school and may have tried to look up the opinion on his own. Unless someone can prove that Trump was intentionally lying to people about Alito, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was just plain wrong and should correct himself in the future.

There is no doubt that Judge Barry has the seniority and tenure to be qualified to be on the Supreme Court. But it remains a question whether her conservative-turned-liberal opinion on abortion is the same 16 years later. And even if she remained pro-choice (unlike her younger brother), President Trump has already said he will not appoint her. (Goodbye, Jeb!)

Conclusion: Although it would be helpful to learn more about Judge Barry’s current positions, Rosenberg has made a misleading claim. Trump is not considering his sister as a Supreme Court justice (assuming she even lived long enough). And he certainly never considered it for the sake of killing the unborn. That was her liberal position in 2000 after conservative icon Reagan appointed her as a federal judge. Trump made two mistakes when defending his sister’s tenure, neither of which is a fatal error to his campaign.

16 & 17. – Trump Detests Planned Parenthood’s Killing the Unborn And Won’t Fund Its Abortion Services – Here we can knock out two birds with one stone. It’s amazing that in reason #16, Rosenberg cited (of all places) a “Huffington Post Entertainment” article to prove Trump is not pro-life but villainously “defends Planned Parenthood.” He followed with reason #17 claiming that Trump “waffles” on the complete defunding of Planned Parenthood (PP), which claim no doubt causes Christian readers to wrongly assume that Trump is a closet, pro-abortion liberal. But nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s consider why this claim is false.

First, we associate PP with the immoral practice of abortion, but many people don’t know that the non-profit provides other health services to women, even though it may be a minimal percentage of services. Trump knows many liberals and independents don’t want these kinds of other services to end for women who need it. Therefore, Trump has condemned its abortion factory on one hand (which he won’t fund), while acknowledging important health services to women on another. To call this realistic acknowledgment an endorsement of PP’s eugenic march to abortion (as Cruz wrongly claims) is silly.

Keep in mind that if Trump’s plans for universal healthcare coverage replaces Obamacare then PP’s health services will most likely become obsolete. There simply won’t be any need to fund them (whether you’re a conservative or a liberal). Trump is running for the general election and is no doubt speaking to moderates and liberals when he spoke of PP’s non-abortion practices. This is smart across-the-aisle politics, especially for a pro-lifer. Trump therefore can publicly say to the media, I’m totally against the abortion aspect.

Conclusion: I find Rosenberg’s claim that Trump refused to defund PP only because he defends PP to be the same dishonest nonsense as his other claims.

18. – It’s No Surprise Some Republicans Dislike Trump – Although Rosenberg’s reason #18 is similar to #16 and #17 in that it references abortion, let’s look at this claim separately because it’s an obnoxious below-the-belt hit. Rosenberg disingenuously adopted liberal NBC News’ entire headline, “Anti-Abortion Leaders To Iowa Republicans: ‘Anyone But Trump’.” The problem here is that the corporate media tried to play down Trump’s evangelical opposition in order to sensationalize the news and to make yet another Republican candidate look bad. It’s not that the media loves Canadian-born Ted Cruz, but it’s clear these particular evangelicals dislike Trump and are now all in for Cruz (following Carson’s New Year’s disaster in his campaign).

Because the anti-Trump wing of the GOP doesn’t have a leg to stand on in claiming Trump is a pro-abortion, they tried to throw everything but the kitchen sink at him. Hillary Clinton is trying to do the same thing to Bernie Sanders. NBC’s headline claims to demonstrate a consensus among pro-life evangelicals. However, the truth is that Trump already has broad support from pro-life evangelicals. According to The Atlantic, Trump is “one of the top picks for president among evangelical Christians“. The Washington Times went farther by saying that Trump’s “success with the religious right has come more from bucking political correctness and railing against America’s decline.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for Rosenberg to publicly admit this important fact.

Here’s the truth: A handful of anti-Trump malcontents (e.g. Marjorie Dannenfelser, Jenifer Bowen and Beverly LaHaye) waved their pro-life flags in an attempt to intervene into the same Iowa Caucus in which Trump took second-place. This is the same caucus in which Cruz deceitfully stole fellow evangelical Carson’s votes to take first and then lied about what he did and what CNN reported.

As we have discussed in detail, Trump is clearly pro-life. So the shrieking cries of these particular “leaders” fall flat. They are therefore left to resort to baseless, liberal and feminist attacks on Trump like: 1) when he stood up to media shill Megyn Kelly (who was more than happy to bash Trump with Michael Moore); and, 2) when he legitimately knocked down Carly Fiorina in a debate (a woman who, by the way, publicly criticized Kim Davis for not doing her job as an “arm of the government”). How is it then that “Anti-Abortion Leaders” coalesced against the villainous Trump? Answer: they didn’t.

Conclusion: A minority of pro-life evangelicals tried to coalesce an opposition against Trump in Iowa that clearly failed. Meantime, Trump continues to garner votes from pro-life evangelicals across the country.

19. Trump Opposes Same-Sex Marriage & Wants It Left To The States – You would never know Trump supports traditional marriage if you base your political opinions on Rosenberg’s blog (which undoubtedly some have done).

Rosenberg adopted yet another liberal headline to attack Trump. He didn’t realize that one shouldn’t judge an article (and more importantly its facts) by its headline. The liberal title reads: “Of Course Donald Trump Is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate.”  But the article’s last line tells what he really meant: “And by saying very little about gay people, Donald Trump has accidentally become the Republicans’ most gay-tolerant candidate.” [Emphasis mine.] The Salon author admitted that Trump publicly opposes same-sex marriage.

So in other words, the article is saying that it’s Trump’s supposed silence on gay marriage that allegedly makes him the most “gay-tolerant” candidate — not his actual candidate positions on same-sex marriage. Sorry, but that’s not the same thing as “pro-gay”, as Ted Cruz would like you to believe. He issued deceitful robo-calls in South Carolina falsely claiming Trump was in favor of “forcing clergy to officiate” gay weddings.

Let’s look at what Trump actually supports: 1) he’s been a consistent opponent of same-sex marriage ; 2) he wants domestic partnership benefits instead; 3) he believes marriage should be “a states’ rights issue and that’s the way it should have been ruled on“;  4) his first priority if elected would be to “preserve and protect our religious liberty“; 5) he expressed support for the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which LGBT militants falsely claim will discriminate them; 6) he said he would “strongly consider” appointing judges to overturn the same-sex marriage decision;  7) despite having gay friends, he dislikes the idea of same-sex marriage because he is “a traditionalist”; 8) he told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts that he’s still “for traditional marriage”;  9) he publicly stated he will rescind a lot of Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders (which to the dismay of LGBT radicals likely includes Executive Order 13672 on sexual orientation); and , 10) over the last 16 years Trump has quietly abandoned his support for a ban on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

20. Trump the Businessman Supported Politicians of Both Parties–  Rosenberg posted a hit-and-run link about one (yes, just one) of Trump’s past charitable contributions. Perhaps, he thought, if I can tie Trump to the Clintons his supporters will run to Cruz! Granted, Trump’s contribution was a political one. But let’s explore if Trump is beholden to the Clintons as the blogger wants us to think he is.

Sometime between 2001 and 2012, Trump donated at least $100,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation. But here’s the interesting thing. Trump hasn’t hidden any of his past social connections to the Clintons, Michael Bloomberg. George Pataki, Bill O’Reilly, or Rudy Giuliani, or any other of the diverse New York political icons. Hillary Clinton was a U.S. Senator in New York from 2001 to 2009. We can therefore safely assume Trump as a private sector businessman made his donation to the foundation during those 8 years. He openly admitted what political experts already knew about his business-friendly contributions: that he supported politicians on both sides of the aisle since 1990. Even Republican Governor Nikki Haley asked Trump for a campaign contribution. Trump even gave Ted Cruz $5000. (New York values!)

Conclusion: Making political contributions is nothing new for businesses. Microsoft Corporation and Apple Incorporated donated tens of millions to both political parties. Trump parted with a tiny fraction of his wealth to both political parties which some years ago also included Bill Clinton’s “foundation”. There’s nothing new here.

21 & 22. Trump Donated To Democrats & Republicans Proportionally – Now that we established that Trump donated to both parties, the issue became whether Trump’s support was disproportionate and unfair to the detriment of Republicans controlling Congress. Rosenberg cited links claiming that Trump as a businessman donated “heavily” to the Democrats causing crucial Republican losses which led to the sinister rise of Reid and Pelosi. The Daily Caller article has a very eye-catching title but fails to deliver on its sensationalist accusations. Let’s examine this claim.

These are the facts we can piece together from the article: 1) Trump made political contributions to both parties between 1994 and 2012; 2) Trump gave Republicans $290,600 between 1989 and 2010, many from his home state of New York.; 3) the article lumped together contributions from Trump and his son Donald Jr. to Democrats in 2004 and 2006; 4)  the two also gave $1,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRSC) in 2006; 5) Way before Obamacare, Trump made his modest donation of $4300 to Democrat Anthony Weiner (i.e. Democrats wanted single-payer but instead got the insurance industry’s Obamacare); 6) Trump said the Clintons begged him for his donation making them beholden to him and not vice-versa; 7) Over 27 years, Trump donated a total of $26,250 to Democrat Charles Rangel (i.e. a whopping $972 average per year from a billionaire); 8) Trump contributed $8,600 to Sen. John McCain, mostly for his 2008 presidential race; 9) Trump gave then-Republican Arlen Specter $8,300 between 1989 and 2008; 10) he gave $50,000 to Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads; and, 11) In 2012 he gave $100,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC helping Republicans elected to the House.

Conclusion: Trump was not the liberal that his critics want to make him out to be. He gave a lot of money to both sides of the aisle, as the facts clearly show. If the Republicans lost their majorities in Congress then perhaps the fault should lie with President George W. Bush and his sinking poll numbers from 2004 to 2008 due to his liberal domestic policies, such as amnesty, expanding Medicaid and his foreign policy woes. Rosenberg’s #20 claim doesn’t hold any water (on either side of the aisle).

23. Trump Cherishes & Admires His Successful Daughter IvankaOn a 2006 episode of “The View”, Donald Trump publicly joked that if Ivanka, a successful model, was not his daughter he would consider dating her. This was obviously a joke to: 1) boast of his daughter’s beauty; and, 2) to poke fun at himself on his reputation for dating women younger. Joy Behar, along with others, laughed and then joked back asking if Trump was trying to imitate Woody Allen. But these jokes sparked no small backlash then or now. Some considered the joke tasteless. Others went as as far as to claim that Trump is a pedophile. Let’s consider the facts.

First, Ivanka has always had a close, admirable and healthy relationship with her father.  Ivanka has praised her father, complimenting his leadership skills and saying he empowers other people. She is also a millennial adviser to her father’s campaign. Speaking of growing up as a billionaire’s daughter, Ivanka confidently said in a 2003 documentary, “It’s not a bad shadow to be under.”  At a Fortune magazine “Most Powerful Women Summit”, Ivanka remained unfazed by any of her father’s jokes, calling him an “unbelievable leader” and that she’s “incredibly proud” of him. (Leave it to the liberal media to imply a pedophile obsession where none exists!)

Second, Trump has always expressed admiration of his daughter’s abilities beyond just her recognized beauty. He chose her to introduce him when he announced his presidential campaign. Ivanka helped Trump strategize even during the GOP debate breaks. Trump also suggested Ivanka for a place on the $10 bill. Trump referenced Ivanka and his wife Melania as ladies who have attested to his “great respect for women.” According to Business Insider, Trump is his daughter’s number 1 fan. What father wouldn’t be prouder of his daughter’s intelligence, savviness and beauty?

Third, Ivanka (born October 30, 1981) is not a helpless billionaire’s daughter. She is a serious business executive, mother, political adviser, speaker and writer, as well as a former model. She graduated cum laude from UPenn with a BS in Economics. On October 25, 2009, she married Jared Kushner, owner of The New York Observer, after dating him for two years. She was 27 years old at the time. Ivanka is no brainless slouch at the mercy of her father. She was voted Top Choice Awards Businesswoman of the Year in 2012.

Fourth, Ivanka has a determined mind of her own as a wholesome person, not an obsessed-over trophy child of a celebrity. She chose on her own to convert to Judaism despite her father’s Presbyterian background. She confidently said of taking part in her father’s real estate empire: “My brother and I are probably the only sons of billionaires who can operate a D-10 Caterpillar.” Even Chelsea Clinton once said of Ivanka: “There’s nothing skin-deep about Ivanka. And I think that’s a real tribute to her because certainly anyone as gorgeous as she is could have probably gone quite far being skin-deep.”

So let’s now put the pieces together. Trump said that “if” Ivanka wasn’t his daughter that he would date her…not sleep with her. There’s no doubt that Trump boasts about her good looks. But there’s nothing inherently disturbing or sexual in highlighting his daughter’s beauty. There’s nothing evil in his thinking so highly of her that he thinks she is exactly the kind of girl he would date. He didn’t say he wanted to date Ivanka or wished he could sleep with her. That’s a disturbing and disgusting stretch. Of course, those of us who understand how liberal journalists work are not surprised.

Therefore, although Trump’s 2006 joke on The View may be considered tasteless, there is nothing wrong with his consistent and public admiration of his daughter as a person, including her beauty, intelligence, wisdom and loyalty. There is no pedophile abuser on the planet who could cherish their victim like this loving father has rightly loved his daughter. The proof is in the pudding.

Conclusion: We find this claim by Rosenberg to be tasteless, weak and just desperate.

24. Melania Trump Will Be The Next Jackie Kennedy Despite Past – Rosenberg is so willing to stop Trump at any cost that he even goes after his wife of 16 years in an unmanly (and ungodly) way – by dredging her past photo shoots as a former European model.

Melania is a jewelry and watch designer, a businesswoman, a mother and a devoted wife. But prior to Melania becoming Mrs. Trump in 2000, she posed nude for the British edition of GQ. At the time of the shoot, she was neither the wife of a businessman nor a wife of a U.S. president. Since then she has not done any such photos.

Melania has in every way demonstrated herself to be classy, elegant and a formidable businesswoman. In 2005, Barbara Walters invited Melania to co-host several episodes of The View. Melania has done a lot of charity work. The American Red Cross even awarded her with the title of Goodwill Ambassador. There is nothing about her past modeling career (including the nude shoot) that would stop Melania from being a successful representative of her husband, the White House or her country.

So in all fairness, let’s see how Melania compares with our current First Lady:

a. Fashion disaster Michelle Obama fudged data to falsely claim that due to her socialist program Let’s Move, obesity in children between ages 2 and 5 fell from 13.9% to 8.4%. But the American Medical Association released an obesity study in 2014 that revealed that rates have actually changed less than they did in the previous decade.

b. A secret service agent assigned to serial-vacationer Michelle Obama is embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal involving text messages sent to a staffer while on assignment.

c. The official White House florist, Laura Dowling, suddenly quit and got a lawyer, while Michelle Obama was blamed for the ugly scandal over floral picks.

d. During the VA Scandal, Michelle Obama distracted the media away from her derelict husband, who was too busy golfing and fundraising. She did this by giving a speech for homeless vets while failing to mention the countless veterans that the VA abused and neglected.

e. During Michelle’s reign, one million U.S. schoolchildren stopped school lunch due to her “food standards”. Michelle made the menus either too expensive or unpalatable, while causing problems for cafeterias trying to comply with her “rules”.

Lastly, let’s not forget that Heidi Cruz (another potential First Lady) is a former member of the anti-American, globalist Council for Foreign Relations, and a GOP establishment loyalist as a former deputy adviser to Condoleeza Rice in the Bush Administration and a former campaign worker (along with Ted) for Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. Unsurprisingly, she then sold her soul to Wall Street as managing director for multi-millionaires at giant Goldman Sachs. Her investment firm, in turn, lent her Canadian citizen husband campaign money that he failed to disclose to the federal government. Indiscretions, indeed.

I’d rather have Melania as a First Lady than Michelle, Heidi or Bill Clinton.

25. Trump Has Been Successfully Married Since 2000 Despite His Past – But that doesn’t stop Rosenberg from digging up the past that Americans have known for years since 1989. One would think that the anti-Trump wing of the GOP could come with a new, fresh indiscretion since 2000…but they simply can’t. So let’s look at the link Rosenberg provided us in which Trump openly admits that his past indiscretion is “fair game” for reporters to ask about.

First, unless you’ve been hiding in a hole for the past 27 years, everyone knows that Trump had trouble in his marriage with his first wife Ivana and left her to marry his girlfriend Marla Maples. Unsurprisingly, the second marriage did not work out and they divorced as well.

That’s it. That’s the scandal Rosenberg wants you to remember in case you were stuck with Tom Hanks on an island in “Cast Away”. Trump, instead of running away from the questions, openly addressed them. Unlike Bill Clinton’s abuse of Paula Jones and others, Trump did not sexually assault anyone. End of story.

Christians should not try to torpedo Trump’s current marriage because of the bad decisions that he and his former wives made over 20 years ago. Many sit among us in the church pews who are divorced, were cheated on, did cheat, fornicated, supported prostitution,  dabbled in homosexuality, engaged in pornography or even lived in sin with another. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Let’s cheer for the real marriages that do exist, like Donald and Melania’s.

26. GOP Establishment Tool Ben Sasse Hit Trump on a 1997 Book Quote – Never to be outdone by the likes of creepy elites like Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush, creepy Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse (R) went after Trump in January trying to make Trump look as disturbing as Sasse and his establishment buddies on the Hill.

Rosenberg eagerly cited this link as some kind of proof that Trump is a home wrecker boasting on past affairs. Ironically, Rosenberg never mentioned that clueless liberal Senator Sasse also attacked Trump his calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. until links to Islamic terrorism are investigated.

See a problem, yet? We do. This CNN article is nothing but a progressive hit-piece aimed at attacking Trump. Sasse is the willing stooge. The left and the Republican establishment desperately want to prove Trump is a racist, xenophobic Islamaphobe. So the way to expose Trump was to make him look like as evil as possible. (Wagging the dog rather works in political journalism.)

Sasse, a sorry excuse for a Senator (or a Republican) decisively stumped in Iowa last month with Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio to help bring down Trump. (But that didn’t work out so well for Sasse, Carly or Rubio. Cruz stole votes to win first.)

So what was Sasse’s bombshell revelation about Trump that spelled certain doom for the America? It was Trump’s sensational tease to readers in his book, The Art of the Comeback, about his social life…years before its publication in 1997. No details are spelled out in the one sentence referencing women who were supposedly “happily married” and “important”. We don’t know who these women were, but we do have a clue if we read other passages from Trump’s book. Sasse failed to mentioned two separate incidents in which Trump recounted two married women aggressively soliciting him, one at a social dinner and the other in his limousine. He wrote that he rebuffed the unwelcome advances. So based on a misunderstood 1997 line meant to get readers to buy his book, Sasse unjustly tried to label Trump an oathbreaker.

Speaking of breaking oaths (like to the U.S. Constitution, for instance), I wonder what anti-Trump constitutional pundit Mark Levin thinks of Ben Sasse. Here’s Levin’s audio clip exposing Sasse as RINO liberal. We tweeted that Levin went on to call Sasse a “fraud” and “phony” for backing the GOP establishment’s budget. Keep that in mind the next time any Republican brings up a decades old vague sentence in a book to try to derail a presidential campaign.

Conclusion: Trump has not boasted about his affair with second wife Marla Maples or any alleged additional affairs.

27. Trump’s Taj Mahal Leases Space To Various Restaurant Tenants – Besides regular restaurants in all of Trump’s casinos one of his Atlantic City tenants is a strip club franchise from New York. The question lingers as to whether or not Rosenberg’s title “Trump casino in Atlantic City to open strip club” is entirely true given the facts. I contend that it is only partially true, while partially misleading.

When Philadelphia Magazine got word in 2012 that the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City was leasing space to strip club franchise company “Scores” the liberal rag couldn’t contain itself with glee to disdain Trump. It’s not because the magazine had any moral qualms with a gentleman’s club (as most Christians do) but because it was worried about its New Jersey sister-city having a tarnished reputation — this coming from a crime-ridden city with events like the Philadelphia basement kidnapping 3 months earlier, when four mentally disabled adults were held in a basement.

So let’s look at some facts:

First, neither Trump nor Taj Mahal owned any Scores Holding Company franchise that Trump was “to open”. It was Scores that applied to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and received approval in 2011 to open a club that also includes a sports bar, a nightclub, and a lounge.

Second, Taj Mahal has other commercial restaurant tenants such as Dynasty, Il Mulino New York, Moon at Dynasty, Safari Steakhouse, and Hard Rock Cafe.

Third, New Jersey prohibits nudity, lap dances, touching or sexual activity in any club whatsoever unlike other States that permit it. That means people see more nudity in an R-rated or NC-17 movie and (disturbingly) get more touching on other dance floors.

Fourth, despite family-friendly attractions like Steel Pier amusement park, the Miss America pageant and free outdoor light shows, Atlantic City already has had a century-old reputation as an adult playground.This helps explain why the State of New Jersey easily approved the strip club tenant in the first place. In other words, Trump did not approve a strip club tenant in an already family-friendly city.

Trump’s Taj Mahal leases to the Scores franchise with prior approval of the State of New Jersey. However, Scores must comply with strict state laws when it comes to minors, alcohol, nudity or sexual activity on premises. Scores spent its own $3 million and two years in a risky and immoral venture as a commercial tenant. Trump’s casino leased the space but he did not himself “open” it as his own business. I think that’s an important clarification to make.

Conclusion: I don’t find Trump’s landlord decision to make unfit to be president, although I would have encouraged him to take the high moral ground and not do it.

28. Despite Hysterical Media Claims of Misogyny, Trump Respects Women – Leave it to Rosenberg and the Huffington Post to list a laundry list of 18 (yes 18) Trump quotes to settle once and for all that Trump allegedly hates, abuses and demeans women. Did Rosenberg even read any of these rabid, left-wing attacks on Trump (or the male gender)? We simply don’t have time to deal with each liberal point of nonsense in this male-bashing Huff Post attacking prenuptials, gender roles in the military, male preferences in women’s looks, claims about female gold-diggers, or Trump’s counter-punches to left-wing disciple Rosie O’Donnell.

I will discuss though, as cited in the article, how overpaid media darling Megyn Kelly unsuccessfully tried to play the misogyny card on Donald Trump after she hypocritically posed for racy photos taking advantage of her own feminine appeal. She then hugged it out with Michael Moore live on air as they both giggled and attacked Trump. Without citing her sources, Kelly claimed Trump targeted women with comments such as “fat pigs”, “dogs”, “slobs”, and “disgusting animals”. The truth is that Trump hits back hard at anyone who hits him of either gender. (Just ask Rosie.) That’s why Trump called Kelly a “bimbo”, which means an attractive but empty-headed young woman, especially one thought a sex object. One might wonder given Kelly’s racy shoot, her perceived looks and her liberal love-fests. I do wonder how Kelly rationalizes Trump being a misogynist when he spends more time calling Rubio and Cruz “liars” and Jeb “low energy”.

Unlike Kelly, Anderson Cooper of CNN admitted to Trump in a New Hampshire interview before a live audience that Cooper and other journalists visited Trump’s offices and spoke with many women executives who were satisfied working for Trump.

Conclusion: I find it laughable that Kelly, Huff Post or other liberal journalists could prove Trump to be a misogynist. He openly supports women executives, including his own wife and daughter. Rosenberg simply bombed this claim.

29. Trump Believes In Marriage, Prenuptials, & That Women Are Strong & Smart – If you aren’t exhausted yet by the litany of Trump quotes that the liberal media takes out of context, Rosenberg sullies our social media with yet another Huff Post piece. With all the sensationalism of a tabloid, this article wants us to agree that Trump is a macho, womanizing, alpha male. This article is simply a string of more out-of-context quotes that are simply unacceptable to the modern progressive. I have already addressed many of these misconceptions earlier in this article.

Trump believes in traditional marriage. As we discussed in reason #19, Trump opposes same-sex Marriage & wants it left to the States.

Trump believes that people with wealth should use prenuptial agreements. This is not just good personal advice but a smart legal strategy when a person is seriously wealthy. There should be controversy about this.

Trump thinks women are not just beautiful, but also smart, aggressive and strong. One would think that feminists would thank him for this but many can’t stand to see a man act macho and bravado about it. Regarding Trump’s supposed bragging about marital affairs take a look again at reason #26 in our article.

Conclusion: Trump’s many quotes and hearsay comments over the last 40 years do not provide clear, convincing or credible evidence that he is a woman-hater or abuser.

30. Donald Trump Respects Muslims But Will Root Out Islamic Terrorism – If there is one issue that the liberal media is absolutely incensed about, it’s this: Trump does what Obama refuses to do by calling the violent acts by extreme Muslims “Islamic Terrorism”. The media wants you to believe that Trump is racist and hates people of other ethnicities other than his own. As we noted earlier, Trump (of German-American ancestry) has a Jewish son-in-law and own his daughter converted to Judaism.

Rosenberg posted a CNN article saying that Trump would “ban all Muslim travel” to the U.S. The title of the article misstates the truth. It leads people to believe that Trump doesn’t want any Muslim (including Americans) to travel into the U.S.

Trump was not talking about Muslims who are already in our country legally. He was talking about a temporary ban on new visa applicants, as well as stopping illegal immigrants who are Muslim.

But the media insists that Trump is racist – except they have a big problem. Islam is not a race. It’s not a branch of the human family. It’s a religion based on Mohammad’s political ideology of conquest, expansion and cultural hegemony. That should come to no surprise to any student of history who sees what Muhammad set out to do in the seventh century. The problem is that it is now politically incorrect to point out the violent origins of fundamentalist Islam or the controversial dictates of the Quran. Trump has openly admitted he has Muslim friends who agree with him about fundamentalist Islam but not so much on the temporary Islamic ban on visas. Nonetheless, Trump will still plan on on that ban, and many Americans are with him.

Fundamentalist Islam, however, does not mean that every U.S. Muslim is a violent jihadist. Most folks are peaceful, law-abiding people. Nonetheless, there is a trend within fundamentalist Islamic mosques to promote violence. This is the fuel behind the Islamic State (ISIS) and those involved in the Paris attacks. Trump is well within reason to put a temporary ban on new Islamic immigrants coming into the U.S. while we review and investigate current visa-holders and assess our vetting of new immigrants.

Trump has never advocated arresting or deporting Muslims who are already in the U.S. legally. He did make the controversial proposal that U.S. Muslims should be kept in a database. As a libertarian-conservative I’m not thrilled about this idea, but I do understand it as a patriot. If Islamic terrorism continues in America, I would consider a proposal with constitutional safeguards for law-abiding Muslims. As ISIS continues to grow in power and influence, we are seeing more Muslims depart spiritual Islam for violent jihad, from Indonesia to Nigeria to Syria. Replacing it is a return to fundamentalist Islam desirous of Shariah law, the subjugation of women, the killing of homosexuals and the taxing (or killing) of non-believers.

I do support the fourth amendment. But I don’t believe that government must bow to every single individual preference or claim of privacy. I  do support the first amendment. But I don’t believe free speech includes violent calls for jihad in America. We shouldn’t allow Islamic fundamentalists to chip away at the Constitution with Sharia Law. I believe that our constitutional government is the only legitimate authority. It is the Law of the Land. Limited government should at least be powerful enough to defend our nation from any outside invader or any domestic terrorist.

When CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Cooper admitted in 1993 he wants the U.S. government to become Islamic in the future we have to ask ourselves if fundamentalist Islam is compatible with our cherished beliefs in a constitutional democracy. We want our republic based on laws, not violent men. I think the U.S. government and the FBI should continue to keep a close eye on radical Islamic mosques and Islamic charities that promote, support or rationalize acts of violent jihad. Anything less is political suicide and the dereliction of duty that we’ve seen in the sorry excuses, misdirections and attacks that the Obama administration makes to this day. Even libertarian Senator Rand Paul agreed Obama went too far in attacking Trump over radical Islam.

Conclusion: Trump is not a racist. He’s not an Islamophobe either. Trump opposes radical Islamic terrorism. Many Americans do. Trump has a real plan on how to deal with it instead of apologetically visiting U.S. mosques. Trump is not permanently barring new Muslims coming to the U.S. It’s a temporary ban to assess and strengthen our national security in light of radicals (like ISIS) among refugees and other visa-applicants. Trump is not going to round up U.S. Muslims into concentration camps as the liberal conspiracy theories want you to believe. U.S. Muslims will still have fourth amendment and due process protections so long as they are not members of jihad-promoting mosques or charities.

31. Trump Likes Mexico and the Mexican People, But Not Mexican Criminals – Rosenberg is apparently so enamored with the race-baiting agenda that he went beyond just calling Trump an Islamophobe. In his eyes (and disgraced Texas governor Rick Perry) Trump is a Hispanic-hating racist as evident from his disrespecting Mexicans. This a serious accusation. Let’s find out if there’s any truth to Rosenberg’s claim.

First, Rosenberg’s link is a Fox News article on failed presidential candidate Rick Perry’s attack on Trump. Let’s not forget that Perry is the same governor who supported Texas-funded coverage for both U.S. and Mexican border residents. Perry supported the globalist Trans-Texas corridor, also known as the NAFTA superhighway. He opposed a border fence, but supported importing Mexican farmers, discounting in-state to tuition to illegal immigrants and rewarding them with a pathway to citizenship. He even forced underage girls to take a controversial and unnecessary HPV vaccine from his elite friends at Merck. We now know that Perry is pro-Mexican with a mixed record on immigration.

Second, in the Fox News article, Perry was actually responding to Trump’s attacks on Perry’s illegal immigration record. This was fair game for Trump. Americans want security at our borders and an end to criminal immigration. Perry’s response to Trump’s criticisms of his own records was to personally attack Trump, claiming he is disrespectful of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Perry offered no specific reasons. We already learned earlier that Perry misspoke when he claimed that Trump supported “single-payer” Canadian-style healthcare.

Third, Trump has repeatedly said, “I love Mexico“. This is hardly the kind of talk you’d expect to hear from someone who is a racist or who is obsessed with disrespecting Mexican people. Trump has repeatedly laid specific plans for dealing with illegal immigration. He has never proposed disenfranchising or harassing Mexican-Americans who either came in legally or were legally born in the U.S.

Conclusion: Perry could offer no specific reasons why Trump is disrespectful of Mexicans. Perry himself has a spotty record on his immigration positions. He made a personal attack on Trump instead of dealing with legitimate criticisms. Trump is not a racist. He opposes illegal immigrants from Mexico who don’t respect our country’s laws.

32. Trump Doesn’t Support Killing Journalists Despite Glenn Beck’s Desperation – As we already laid out in reason #9, Trump has never praised Russian president Putin for his alleged killing of journalists in Russia. Let’s take a look at whether Beck’s outrageous claims about Trump are true when it comes to U.S. journalists.

First, it’s always interesting when one narcissist calls another person the same thing. Beck has a media empire at the that is rife with all kinds of strange personal behavior, corporate in-fighting, employee betrayals and millions of dollars hanging in the balance. In 2000, Beck wildly claimed he received God’s plan for America as if his Mormon faith and popularity somehow qualified to be the new divine mouthpiece after Joseph Smith. This false prophet went so far as to say that God allowed Justice Antoni Scalia to die in order to highlight the importance of electing Canadian-born Ted Cruz.

Sorry, Glenn. That’s not God’s message. Good Christians will call you out on that

Second, according to Rosenberg’s Media Matters link, Beck tried to convince Megyn Kelly that Trump is a “narcissist” and that America would be in “trouble” if he comes to power. His reason was that Trump made it clear he would never support the killing of journalists. However, Trump paused between his two sentences. This is the part that Beck finds so offensive. Beck, ever eager to grasp at straws to support Ted Cruz, never bothered to quote Trump when he said:

I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It’s true.”

Third, the battle between Trump and the news media is well known. Trump has shown his disdain for the media’s inaccurate reporting of his statements and positions. Yet Trump continues to grant interviews and press conferences on a very regular basis. He takes every opportunity he can to clear the air on charges that he is violent, racist, xenophobic and anti-Muslim – all charges which we have shown are utterly untrue.

Bottom Line: Trump has made it consistently clear to any reasonable American that he has no intention or desire to harm U.S. journalists, nor would he applaud the killing of journalists abroad. Beck’s desperate attempt to twist a speech (despite his own twisted jokes) is a sad tactic by a man who claims to hear from God and his chosen one: Ted Cruz, a man who is not funded by God but by Wall Street bankers, and whose homeland is not America, but was born a Canadian subject to the British crown.


I set out in this article to present the good, the bad, and the ugly facts about Trump as a candidate and as a person. Everyone makes obvious mistakes when speaking publicly but a public gaffe or a factual error is not enough to prove someone unfit for office . I don’t necessarily agree with all of Trump’s positions but I found no fact, no statement and no position that would lead me to conclude that Trump is unfit for the office of U.S. President. I can’t say the same about Ted Cruz and others.

Although Rosenberg is endorsed by conservative icons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity he deliberately chose to take cheap shots at a fellow American he doesn’t even understand. Trump just doesn’t belong to his GOP club of friends.

Many conservatives love a tough talker so long as they’re on their side…and as long as it’s not Trump. Even Ted Cruz has done things that make people cringe, whether it’s dirty tricks like stealing Carson’s votes, lying about other candidates’ positions, lying about his Canadian citizenship or failing to disclose million dollar loans from his wife’s Wall Street friends. None of Glenn Beck’s prophecies on Ted Cruz can help him with such deceptions.

I can confidently say Trump respects our Constitution. He understands how Congress works. He opposes the unconstitutional damage and poor decisions made not just by Barack Obama, but by George W. Bush as well. This is a man who is ready, willing and able to stand up to both party establishments, to the United Nations, to Iran, to North Korea, to China, and even the Vatican as well.

Trump puts our country first. In an age of mediocrity, ignorance and lawlessness, Trump puts his angry patriotism, his loyalty to the Constitution, and his love for his countrymen before anyone’s purist ideology. I decided to do the same. So should you. God bless the United States of America and God protect Donald Trump.

 CC: @realDonaldTrump, @KatrinaPierson, @SarahPalinUSA, @JoelCRosenberg @MattWalshBlog @GlennBeck @TedCruz

Like us on Facebook and Twitter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s