Curious. How is that possible? The twain is never supposed to meet.

You should be. He is backing a Establishment Elitist in Strange. Gold medal in mental gymnastics, Dave

Pretend you have something to say, like your prosecuting me for a hit piece on Trump, for errors and lies. Give evidence. This man was a highly respected and influential voice for Conservatives for twenty-five years. You cannot bully or dismiss what he has to say. That he doesn't fit what you think is Conservative--meaning you embrace everything he finds wrong with what can now be described as "neo-Conservatives" or more aptly put the "Alt-right"--means that you lost its true meaning.

We are speaking of a Conservative and what that means. Those values were dumped by Trump. He said, instead, he would drain the swamp of those RINOS. Most of the early staff he hired came from Lobbyist Pool, where the penultimate Swamp Denizen dwell. Drain the swamp? Trump is backing an Establishment Elitist, Strange. Can you still not see Trump is only for Trump?

Article by By Charles Sykes On 9/21/17 at 8:00 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/29/right-lost-mind-embraced-donald-trump-668180.html

This is a painful story for me to write.

For a quarter of a century, I was a major part of the conservative movement. But like many on the right, in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory I had to ask some uncomfortable questions. The 2016 p**********l campaign was a brutal, disillusioning slog, and there came a moment when I realized that conservatives had created an alternate reality bubble—one that I had helped shape.

During the 2016 e******n, conservatives turned on the principles that had once animated them. Somehow a movement based on real ideas—such as economic freedom and limited government—had devolved into a tribe that valued neither principle nor t***h; luminaries such as Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. had been replaced by media clowns such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Icons such as Ronald Reagan—with his optimism and geniality—had been supplanted by the dark, erratic narcissism of Donald Trump. Gradualism, expertise and prudence—the values that once were taken for granted among conservatives—were replaced by polls and ratings spikes, as the right allowed liberal overreach in the Obama era to blind them to the crackpots and bigots in their midst.

Some have argued that the e******n was a binary choice, that Hillary Clinton had to be defeated by any means. I share many of their concerns about Clinton, but the price was ruinous. The right’s e*******l victory has not wiped away its sins. It has magnified them, and the problems that were exposed during the 2016 campaign haven’t disappeared. Success does not necessarily imply virtue or sanity. Kings can be both mad and bad, and the courtiers are usually loath to point out the obvious—just look at Caligula or Kim Jong Un.

Today, with Trump in office, the problems of the right are the problems of all Americans. And the worst part of it is that we—conservatives—did this to ourselves.
Donald Trump is the president we deserve.

Trump, however, exploited such divisions for his own gain. He tapped into something disturbing that we had ignored and perhaps nurtured—a shift from freedom to authoritarianism, from American “exceptionalism” to nativism and xenophobia. From his hard line on immigration and rebuttal of free trade to his strange fascination with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump represented a dramatic repudiation of the values that had once defined the movement.
If Reagan were alive, he would hardly recognize his party—or the walls it had erected.

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving p**********l decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

Okay.

I never said nor indicated a Christian greeting could not be expressed. Where did you get that strawman?

I did not suggest (do you have your glasses) that "Merry Christmas" be disallowed.

Are you paranoid enough to think it was plot to choose that bakery? We may never know either way. But your assumption speaks volumes of prejudice. The fact that there may have been dozens of bakeries happy to have their business, does not mean anything. It is a non sequitur. They walked into this one. Make it a conspiracy and not a matter of discrimination. Mental gymnastics.

I have a pretty good classical education with the Jesuits in high school. And then again at the College of Santa Fe. Followed by a clinical psychology degree at Southwest College. To assume I am an i***t unknowing of a "vestal virgin" is a stupid mistake to make. It was ("giving oneself up to vestal virgins"), if you knew more, a humorous statement. You are not that smart.

You cannot possibly be that intolerant. How respectful of the f**g would be a Cherokee walking the Trails of Tears? To bother to protest instead of just leave, as you suggest, proves respect for the principles of this nation. If a useless act or without a belief we stand by our laws, why bother to protest? The protest testifies it believes in this nation.

What is best to remember? An action protesting the f**g or the freedom to do so? Think about it. Where else but here is that possible. I call that majestic.

Always smart to demean and insult someone to engage in debate. Thinking by the g*****ls is nothing new. It is not a liberal 21st Century, American phenomenon. You make the classic mistake that undermines the true strength of this country with this fairyland assessment: "Americans knew there were limits and that self control, self discipline, hard work, initiative, traditional American morals, values and spirituality built a strong nation and people." Too funny. Americans had one thing: they were allowed to "could". Nowhere else in the world was this possible at that time, and it is still mostly limited throughout the world. It did not get into their souls but our Constitution awakened what God had placed there. We were a nation unique in offering this gift. I could prosper and be better off. I could be all I was meant to be. I could rise above my background. I could find and express my full creativity. I could worship as I want. I could live in peace for who I am. I could marry who I wanted. I could freely go where where I wanted. A thousand "I coulds" humanity had never known before. America made them possible.

What we gave to the world and no one else did, was the Freedom to Thrive!

It is not the document that is "the reason this country is the place most of the people in this world want to live," it is the God-given spirit of liberty instilled in every heart that seeks what we have. That is our sacred trust. That is what should unite and propel us to be the welcoming arms and beacon of freedom.

Perfectly not stated.

I have. Read Richard Rohr; he referenced me.