NOW Trump Must Ask God For Forgiveness?

He has accused President Obama of lying about his American birthplace.

He has forgotten he knew who David Duke was.

He has condemned John McCain and other POWs for not living up to draft-evading Trump’s standards of what a war hero is—not getting captured in the first place.

He has called Mexicans “rapists” and lied about getting Mexico to pay for a big, beautiful wall to keep those rapists out of our country.

He has attacked a federal judge born in Indiana by calling him a “Mexican.”

He has said countless horrible things about women.

He has said we should punish women who get abortions.

He has mocked a disabled reporter.

He has enthusiastically embraced a Russian thug who has ordered the murder of reporters.

He has called Pope Francis “disgraceful.”

He has suggested Ted Cruz’s father was involved in killing John Kennedy.

He has invited a hostile foreign government to spy on Hillary Clinton on his behalf.

He has suggested doing away with the Geneva Conventions.

He has said “NATO is very obsolete.”

He has expressed a strange and disturbing interest in using nuclear weapons.

He has promised to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

He has said he would intentionally kill the families of suspected terrorists.

He has said our military is a “disaster.”

He has smeared U.S. troops by haphazardly accusing “soldiers” of stealing money in Iraq.

He has attacked the mother and father of a fallen American soldier.

He has said the father of that fallen soldier had “no right” to attack him.

He has handled what he thought was a genuine Purple Heart medal like it came out of a Cracker Jack box.

He has said he “always wanted” a Purple Heart.

He has lied with such audacity and frequency that fact-checkers are applying for disability.

He has said and done all this and much, much more. And he has said and done such things without the slightest urge to apologize or seek forgiveness from the gold-plated God he says he worships. But now things are different. He may need to get down on his cowardly knees in Trump Tower—Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, Jr., at his side—and beg the Almighty to forgive him for this:

Trump refuses to endorse Paul Ryan in GOP primary: ‘I’m just not quite there yet’

He can be a racist. He can be a bigot. He can be a misogynist. He can make fun of disabled people. He can embrace authoritarian thugs. He can insult war heroes and disparage our military and Gold Star families and treat a Purple Heart like a trinket. He can tell lies at light speed. He can demonstrate breathtaking ignorance about the world. But, by God, he has gone too far by withholding his blessing from a white Republican from Wisconsin.




  1. Of course, the other scary side of The Donald is his followers. A veteran with a purple heart turns over his medal to Trump? WTF??? It’s this guy and his fellow Trumpeters that ought to scare the shit out of all of us! What a nightmare. I’m almost sympathetic with the GOP.


    • I thought the same thing, Herb. What was that guy thinking? It was, though, a replica, not the real thing. And Trump lied at the rally about it, saying the guy told him it was real. The guy said after it was over that he told Trump it was, indeed, a copy. But it remains a strange thing that he would hand him even a replica.

      Oh, I don’t almost feel sorry for the Republicans. They have cultivated this moment and deserve what they are getting. If Trump leads the GOP to a massive defeat this November, maybe it will change the party. But I have my doubts. The Billy Longs of the country will still get about 65% of the vote in places like Southwest Missouri, even as he spends donors’ money on drinking, eating, and gambling, all the while passing meaningless bills in the House.



  2. Anonymous

     /  August 3, 2016



  3. Duane,

    Depressing isn’t? You hit the nail on the head with regard to Billy “well fed” Long


    • It’s depressing for sure. Around here in Joplin we don’t hear much about Ozark Billy until just before it’s time for him to get reelected. Then his name and face is all over the place. In between, though, he doesn’t much care about doing things like town halls and other events where people can ask him questions. By the way, as I recall when he first ran, he wanted to be the “citizen” legislator who would only serve three terms. How funny that was!

      And it’s depressing that our local paper, the Globe, at least when I was actually reading it, almost never mentioned what Long was doing or tried to find out much about what he was doing. It was as if we didn’t really have a congressman representing us. And although there was plenty to report on, in terms of his habits of spending the money of donors on trips to Vegas and so on, I can’t recall one article about any of it. That’s how he gets away with it, although at this point it wouldn’t matter to his voters. They will keep sending him back no matter what.



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  August 4, 2016


    You and your “list” reflect the consternation (anger, disgust, etc) of about 60% or more of the electorate according to polls. Count me as one of those 60%. But Hillary as well has the same disdain from well over half the electorate according to polls. Count me as one of them as well.

    I can assure you I will NEVER vote for Trump for any elected office in the land, period. What I am trying to find is a good reason to vote FOR Hillary. In a previous blog I tried to explain my continuing consternation (anger and disgust) over the actions of the National Command Authority DURING the attack on the Benghazi consulate. You will recall it is the same concern I express in the fall of 2012. Your responses to my expressed views always follow the Democratic Party talking points, including “Why are we arguing about this NOW”.

    Pardon the length of this response but I offer another book that supports my consternation. It is “my history”, how events in the Middle East have evolved during my adult lifetime. I encourage you and “yours” to take a look at it. The author is Andrew Bacevich, West Point 1969, 23 years active duty, PhD from Princeton and a couple of decades as a history professor at West Point, John’s Hopkins and Boston College. Its title is AMERICA’S WAR, For the Greater Middle East and it was published in 2016.

    One of the endorsements for the book came from James Webb, a short time candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Both men with an educational background and on the ground military experience similar to my own write of geopolitical events since the early 60’s with great acumen and authority, in my view. Believe you me NO party partison, Dem or GOP, will like what Bacevich has to say about the Middle East. Most did not like Webb’s brilliant analysis of Vietnam, either.

    A pundit whom I admire, David Brooks, has now long expressed amazement over Trump’s rise. He remains confused over how Trump has been able to pull it off. Well with the same level of electoral primary support (40% or so) caused Bernie to almost pulled off an “out of nowhere” win for the nomination. The simple fact is the extremes of both Parties today hold significant sway over about 40% of voters, my “dumb bell theory” of American politics today.



    • Anson, I’ve been a follower of Bacevich for many years now. He is a frequent contributor to, which I subscribe to, and I receive new posts every week. I haven’t read his book but from what I’m reading on TomDispatch, he’s obviously very well informed, makes good sense and is an excellent writer. Anyway, if you haven’t checked it out, here is the latest post:


      • Bacevich was right about some things and wrong about others. I don’t have time to go into detail, but he goes to a lot of trouble pointing out how “conventional” she is on foreign policy. Dammit, yes! I want someone to start from “conventional” and then be persuaded by the facts on the ground to alter the approach. I don’t want someone to start from a novel foreign policy and then make it fit the facts on the ground.

        And as far as convention, Bacevich’s critique of Clinton’s untrustworthiness was, well, quite conventional. But he got it wrong. He said Clinton was “widely disliked and mistrusted even by many of her fellow Democrats.” Bullshit. In the latest CNN poll (this didn’t get any coverage because it doesn’t fit the narrative) 85% of Democrats rate her “favorable,” as opposed to 11% who don’t. That doesn’t demonstrate that she is “widely disliked” among Democrats. And 93% of Democrats think she will move the country in the “right direction”; and 97% of Dems think she has “the right experience”; 88% of Democrats would be “proud” to have her as president; and on the “honest and trustworthy” issue, 76% of Democrats say she is and only 22% say she isn’t. So, Bacevich wasn’t anywhere close, although he did a good job of sticking to the “conventional” narrative about Clinton.

        My last beef with him is on Libya. Hillary now gets all the blame for what went wrong there. That is utter bullshit. It is easy to look back now and criticize the decision to intervene against the slob dictator there. But imagine if we hadn’t intervened and he slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people, which would have led to a certain civil war anyway. Clinton and Obama would have received the blame for that outcome, too, just like what has happened in the Syrian situation. Embracing counterfactuals is a nice and easy way of making yourself look smart and Bacevich seems to be in that camp. But some of us aren’t so easily persuaded by such a nice and easy post-event critique.


        • King Beauregard

           /  August 8, 2016

          If I tell you that a stranger with an axe chopped down someone’s door and dragged two children out of the house, he’s a psychopath. But if I failed to tell you that the stranger is a fireman, the house was on fire, and those two children would have been doomed without him … well, I went way the hell out of my way to mislead you, didn’t I?

          That’s how I view 99% of the Libya coverage. BTW, a civil war was ALREADY in progress in Libya, so it’s not even a matter of a civil war being a consequence of then-current events.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Bacevich writes with clarity. He despairs of what the political process has become since Ike and Adlai because he sees all of Hillary’s flaws, but that is irreversible because of technology. Any candidate now becomes too familiar. I can’t think of anything to be done about this.

    The test of our political system is whether political structure can withstand exposure of personal flaws. If we can’t fully trust the candidate, we must still trust the principles laid down in Mr. Khan’s little book. The choice this year is between the instincts of a narcissist and one committed to original principle.

    In Herb’s link, Bacevich omits a vital factor that must be considered by any thoughtful voter who might still be wavering between the Jesse Ventura effect and the Washington playbook, i.e., the lasting effect on the Supreme Court.


    • Despite how sensationalist this sounds, I am in agreement with Bill Maher: “There’s no room for boutique issues in an Armageddon election.” I am sick of people, like the Jill Stein followers or Libertarians, smugly telling us that they are voting on principle. Bullshit. They are throwing away their principles because they are making it possible for Trump to become president, which will not only make us less safe, but will turn back the clock on issues Green Party folks and libertarians say–say–they care about. My observation is that they care much more about casting a vote against a hated Hillary Clinton than anything else.

      Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: