My bet is Donald Trump owns stock in a flag manufacturing company. At the very least he may be creating jobs for flag manufacturers.
Before I delve into Trump’s flag controversy, however, I should discuss the Clintons. You’ll see why in a minute.
Admittedly, I got a big kick out of watching the Clintons pretend to be Democrats, as their policy positions were downright Conservative.
Clinton the Vulgarian championed policies that put criminals away for a long time. Though he came along kicking and screaming, he also implemented welfare reform.
The list of good ideas that would have been taken as atrocities against blacks is too long to mention. But Clinton escaped scrutiny at the time, because he was “the first black president.”
Trump’s stance on illegal immigration could be called plagiarism of Clinton, if it weren’t for the media cabal, and their fake news narratives. There isn’t a layer of paint difference between Trump and Clinton when it comes to protecting our borders.
This was true of Bill’s surrogate and “hanger-on-in-chief,” Hillary.
Outside of the Clintons’ “get rich quick” schemes, they politics as conservatives, and were set up men for Trump.
Even Donald Trump’s controversial stance on jailing those who burn the flag is a view shared by the Clintons.
As reported by Mediaite,
Clinton’s stance on flag-burning is complicated to say the least. In theory, she has consistently opposed a flag-burning amendment, and voted against it when it came up for a vote in 2006. But a year earlier, she sponsored a bill that was widely seen as a runaround the Supreme Court precedent outlawing the desecration of flags.
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison. In theory, that was different from previous flag-burning bills, which banned all flag burning. In support for the bill, Clinton cited the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Virginia v. Black, which found that bans on cross-burning were unconstitutional, but constitutional when limited to incitement and threats of violence.
The press will no doubt not mention this, even though the election is over, and Hillary Clinton has been relegated to her rat hole. But they will continue to hammer Trump, and not Hillary Clinton the Conservative warrior.
The bad news for the press is as Trump makes stride after stride, they will find themselves outside looking in. Trump’s impact is already being felt, and he hasn’t even taken the Oath of Office.
Just wait for the first 100 days. As Trump said in the campaign, [pp] “I could kill a person in Times Square and nobody would care!”
So might suggest Trump start with the press.