There is no limit, it seems, to the mouth frothing pursuit of the media toward the destruction of Donald Trump’s race for the presidency. Regardless of whether you like Mr. Trump or not, it is so obvious. It’s nothing new, really. It’s the modus operandi of the media and Trump just happens to the target-de-jour.
MSNBC actor Chris Matthews (I won’t call him a reporter) posed a hypothetical situation: “IF abortion were made illegal” (note that condition), should a woman who seeks an abortion suffer some sort of punishment. The answer is clearly “yes” and that’s the answer Trump gave. If there is no penalty for doing something illegal (as was posited by Matthews) then the rule of law means nothing. What’s the point?
Underage drinking is illegal. Should there be no penalty for those who are guilty of underage drinking? Perhaps we should just punish those who serve the alcohol and give a gold star to the drinkers. Hunting and fishing have laws regulating those activities. Should there be no penalty for those who are guilty of harvesting a deer out of season … or for the man who catches a number of fish over the limit … in order to feed his family? IF abortion were made illegal, Mr Trump, should women who have an abortion be punished? The answer, according to the law, is easily “Yes”. And that is the answer Mr. Trump gave.
The media, in reporting this, conveniently omits the premise of the question and simply states with breathless astonishment that Mr. Trump believes that women who seek an abortion should be punished. That is not reporting the news. That is selectively shading and shaping the news in a dishonest attempt to further an agenda.
Equally puzzling to me is the “clarification” issued by the Trump campaign which suggested that the medical professionals performing abortions should be punished IF abortion were to be made illegal. However, the clarification suggested that the woman would not because she was a victim, as was the life in her womb. Now there is an interesting idea! The woman seeking an abortion is a “victim”? So then, the woman who enters into a contract with a killer for hire to kill her husband, or her boyfriend because the relationship has gone sour is not a co-conspirator. The hired killer should be punished, but she should not be since she was a victim just like the man who was killed. The logic is befuddling.
Another example of the media’s dishonesty from the same Matthews interview is found in the media’s reporting of Trump’s position on using nuclear weapons, should he become President. There is almost a universal gasp in the reporting of the fact that “Mr. Trump would use nuclear weapons … even in Europe!” Once again, that is not what he said. His response was that he would not take ANYTHING off the table. Personally, I think that is a strong position. One of the weaknesses of this nation in our foreign policy is that we give too much ground and deference to our enemies. It’s like playing cards and letting your opponents see your hand so that they can work to defeat you, playing to your weaknesses. The strong negotiator, the strong nation would prefer to keep his opponent guessing and uncertain. The more you give up, the weaker your position. How well would it work for the local law enforcement officials to declare that they would never arrest you regardless of how fast you were speeding through town. They would never return gunfire until the shooter actually hit one of them … actually killed one of them … actually shot and wounded 10 people, but not before.
I don’t even want to talk about the Lewandowski kerfuffle … it just astonishes me.
We live in very strange times and perhaps my mind is too simple to understand these complexities.
Even so, come Lord Jesus!