Republicans kick National Review magazine out of February debate

An American conservative magazine found itself disinvited from co-sponsoring a presidential primary debate Thursday night after it published an entire issue devoted to tearing down Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Speaking to during a press conference in Las Vegas, Trump dismissed the 60-year-old publication, National Review, as washed-up and irrelevant.

'Its circulation is way down. Not very many people read it anymore,' he said at the Venetian Hotel and Casino before making an appearance on stage at the Outdoor Sportsman Awards, where he accepted the endorsement of 'Duck Dynasty' star Willie Robertson.

'I mean, people don't even think about the National Review,' Trump said. 'So I guess they want to get a little publicity. But you know, it's a dying paper. It's pretty much – I've gotta tell you David, it's pretty much of a dead paper.'

Read more: 

Views: 792

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As a former subscriber to the NR I feel I can say with all fairness and personal experience that It was a "dead paper" when it failed to call Obama on his ineligibility for the office.  But then, that showed its true colors.  It was founded by Trotskyites; it is still run by Trotskyites.  Who in this day and age are called proponents of the New World Order.  

R.I.P., NR.  You are irrelevant, to the REAL answers for the future.  Of this nation.  And the world.

Not exactly an elegant or eloquent attack on National Review, Donald. In any event, it is entirely appropriate that the RNC took the action it did.

Jim the 3rd grade teacher

Where was the National Review when Senators like Mitch McConnell was selling the American people (who allowed him to stay in his corrupt leadership with their votes) down the river with his Obama capitulation bills.

Screw the individuals in the National Review. Typically they support RINOs. A FACT, folks! Here's a News Flash for the self proclaimed conservative magazine 'National Review'. We're perfectly capable of making our own decisions regarding the 2016 presidential candidates. We cull the necessary information required to make that important intelligent decision. Within the next 4 years, the National Review magazine may not even be in circulation. Tsk Tsk.

Gee, I wonder how that could happen??? Irreverent could be a possibility. So many had to get in on this, and it sure buries the ones, who joined in. I immediately canceled my subscription to Glenn Beck, if he's dumb enough to back this, he and the Others represent somebody beside me. The American People are Fed-Up, and we're extremely angry, with cause. To see the deliberate destruction of all our Values, our Culture and our Rule of Law, is not what we are going to stand by and watch any longer.

Over the past 60 years, National Review has survived in Sodom and Gomorrah on the Potomac by settling into its niche as the Inside the Beltway conservative journal of record.  Twenty trillion dollars later, we as a nation are hurtling toward oblivion at warp factor four.  Heck lot of good we've have National Review as our lap, er, watch dog all these years, eh?

Enter Donald Trump - the business man.  He specializes in real estate development -- with an uncannily good eye for a "fixer upper".  Donald Trump will take to Washington D.C. like a wrecking ball to the old Sands Hotel on the Las Vegas strip.  And the comfortably entrenched powers-that-be can see it coming. 

Hey National Review, have you ever heard of Joseph Schumpeter's term "Creative Destruction"?   Well if so or even if not, I'd offer you one word of advice -- don't forget to duck. 

Love it!! One of my favorites, Charles Bronson. I wish I had the talent on this thing, some of you do A "Wrecking Ball" is need in Washington. Clean it out, disinfect it, sanitize it, and begin to work for the People like intended. It is the biggest "Fixer-Up" I have ever seen, and I was in the Business.

I thought Duck Dynasty endorsed Cruz..maybe they are endorsing both. Either way the RINOs sure are showing "their colors" and they are NOT red, white and blue...I would say one worlder red only. Saw where kasich was cozied up to chamber of commerce

The father endorsed Cruz, his son Trump.

GOOD...!!! IT is SUPPOSED to be the AMERICAN PEOPLE who picks the Candidates NOT A magazine or the MEDIA....!!  POPULAR VOTE IS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS WORKED....!! The ELITES HAVE ONE VOTE JUST LIKE US.....!!

What Trump should have done and he wouldn't have had to remove the dots, he should have ran on the Democratic ticket. 

just remember what the establishment did to try to disprove jesus




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service