Lying Donald also is a faking plagiarist

Tom Camfield
Blogger
Posted 9/6/19

Sure, I’m able to say something good about Republican President Ronald Reagan. In fact, I’m pretty sure I voted for him—at least the first time around. I did the same for his …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Lying Donald also is a faking plagiarist

Posted

Sure, I’m able to say something good about Republican President Ronald Reagan. In fact, I’m pretty sure I voted for him—at least the first time around. I did the same for his predecessor, Democrat Jimmy Carter.

And here’s where Donald Trump—exuding white nationalism—with his hard-line anti-immigration policies, stole to serve his own ends the phrase “Make America Great Again.” It is straight from a speech by Republican Ronald Reagan in a presidential campaign almost 40 years ago, on Labor Day 1980 in New Jersey. The thing is: Reagan used the expression in a definite pro-immigrant context. Donald, en route to the GOP nomination in 2016, said in a 2015 interview with MyFox New York: "The line of 'Make America great again,' the phrase, that was mine, I came up with it about a year ago, and I kept using it, and everybody's now using it, they are all loving it. I don't know, I guess I should copyright it, maybe I have copyrighted it.” He even accused Texas Senator Ted Cruz of “ripping him off” when Cruz made use of the phrase in his own presidential campaign announcement.

Typical off-hand hogwash from Donald. I’m surprised he hasn’t claimed writing the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner.

Here’s a fair-sized portion of Reagan’s 1980 speech given in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty: "Through this Golden Door, under the gaze of that Mother of Exiles, has come millions of men and women, who first stepped foot on American soil right there, on Ellis Island, so close to the Statue of Liberty.

“These families came here to work. They came to build. Others came to America in different ways, from other lands, under different, and often harrowing conditions, but this place symbolizes what they all managed to build, no matter where they came from or how they came or how much they suffered.

“They helped to build that magnificent city across the river. They spread across the land building other cities and towns and incredibly productive farms.

“They came to make America work. They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this, this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history.

“They brought with them courage, ambition and the values of family, neighborhood, work, peace and freedom. We all came from different lands but we shared the same values, the same dream. . .

“This country needs a new administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of an America -- an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again! Restoring and revitalizing that dream will take bold action . . .

“I want more than anything I've ever wanted, to have an administration that will, through its actions, at home and in the international arena, let millions of people know that Miss Liberty still ‘lifts her lamp beside the golden door.’

“Through our international broadcasting stations -- the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the others -- let us send, loud and clear, the message that this generation of Americans intends to keep that lamp shining; that this dream, that this dream the last best hope of man on earth, this nation under God, shall not perish from the earth.

“We will instead carry on the building of an American economy that once again holds forth real opportunity for all, we shall continue to be a symbol of freedom and guardian of the eternal values that so inspired those who came to this port of entry.

“Let us pledge to each other, with this Great Lady looking on, that we can, and so help us God, we will make America great again."

Several years later, Reagan signed into law the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. The law allowed about 2.7 million people to get green cards — including people who had been in the United States since 1982 and special agricultural workers.

The Reagan speech was greatly edited and synopsized totally out of actual context, in July of 2018, for emphasis in an ad aired by a political group. “Fake news?” The group was a conservative one supporting legislation favoring immigrants.

DID YOU REALIZE? According to the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit enterprise that tracks gun violence in America, there have been 284 mass shootings in 2019—those in which 4 or more people were killed or injured (excluding the perpetrator).

Comments

20 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Justin Hale

Remember that when the Statue of Liberty was built there were no such things as government assistance programs, the immigrants came in legally and then got to work. Today over half of the immigrants go on government assistance programs.

(https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households)

Tom, there is no such thing as "gun violence" there's only "people violence".

Friday, September 6
Marge Samuelson

That's an old argument. If people don't have access to guns how could they use them? You can't simplify the gun problem in this country. Congress mostly ignores it.

Saturday, September 7
Justin Hale

Marge, it's an old argument because it's a true argument. You can't simplify the gun problem because it's not a "gun problem". I have guns, most of my friends have guns, even Tom C. has a gun, as far as I know not one of these gun owners have ever used them against another person. I do have one friend who has used a gun to harm others, he, in fact, is responsible for killing a large number of people, he was ordered to by the U.S. Government, the same government you want to pass laws restricting our second amendment rights. The second amendment is the citizen's' defense against tyranny, the creators of the Bill of Rights knew this and it's just as valid today as it was in their day.

If you're really concerned about saving innocent lives why not ban cars, more people die in auto accidents, and there is no right to own an automobile.

Saturday, September 7
Tom Camfield

Not having intelligence of their own, guns need someone to tell them what to do. And that someone often or not is someone whose intelligence also is limited.

Guns' mere presence, meanwhile, emboldens and enables those with paranoia and other mental disorders. the manufacturers of assault weapons, and politicians who fail to regulate such things, certainly abet and are complicit in continuing mass murders.

In any case, the main theme of this blog remains glaringly true (no "fake news"): Trump claimed creation of, glommed onto and utilized the expression "Make American great again" for his own purposes. An expression used by another president 40 years ago on behalf of foreign immigrants.

As for medical assistance, to refugees, I'm ashamed that we're crowding kids into pens at the border in unhealthy conditions and aren''t even giving them flu shots. As I recall from recent news, at least several have died of flu.

Saturday, September 7
Justin Hale

"Trump claimed creation of, glommed onto and utilized the expression "Make American great again" for his own purposes....."So what?, Trump borrowed a phrase from Reagan,, do you really care?

"we're crowding kids into pens at the border".... No Tom, the migrants are overtaxing our facilities. If the kids weren't brought there there wouldn't be the overcrowding.

Assault weapons are not legal in the U.S. so who are these manufacturers you speak of? And General Motors is complicit in DUI accidents.

Saturday, September 7
Tom Camfield

Why to I care that Donald stole that phrase? Because he outright lied about it Tin seeking to enhance his egomaniacal image. I repeat, to wit, his very words:

"The line of 'Make America great again,' the phrase, that was mine, I came up with it about a year ago, and I kept using it, and everybody's now using it, they are all loving it. I don't know, I guess I should copyright it, maybe I have copyrighted it.”

It epitomizes both his lying nature and his ongoing idolizing of himself. To whom is this creep supposed to be setting an example as president of the United States? I'm disgusted that there still are people defending his words and actions.

Sunday, September 8
Justin Hale

So what ?, Warren lies, Biden lies, Trump lies.

Sunday, September 8
Marge Samuelson

Another fake argument, more people are killed by cars than guns. Just a way to divert attention from what is happening with guns in the U.S.

The most used guns in mass shootings are semi-automatic rifles and revolvers; semi-automatic rifle and pistol. Hunters can not use semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. except for big game hunting, which is heavily restricted.

So, they are for shooting humans or target practice.

Just once I would like to hear from the gun lobby and Congress why Americans need 120 guns for every 100 persons?

If your a hunter, follow the rules, get a rife and go hunting. Take a course in gun safety first and respect no trespassing rules.

Tell Congress to quit playing political games with people lives. We can restrict guns and we should.

Sunday, September 8
Justin Hale

"Hunters can not use semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. except for big game hunting".....Marge, give it up you obvioulsy don't know what the hel you're talking about.

As I've said many times, you are free to not exercise your second amendment rights, you are not free to deny others their choice to exercise thiers.

Monday, September 9
Marge Samuelson

I am free to not use my 2nd amendment rights.

In your way of thinking, I shouldn't voice an opinion about the fact that the United States is one of the few places in the world where the ownership of guns is limitless. If the person doesn't have a gun how can they shoot people. Common sense restrictions on guns is a sensible reaction. And semi-automatic weapons use depends on the state your in and what your hunting.

Having said that, Justin, what is your problem with having sensible restrictions on gun ownership?

And why can't the 2nd amendment be amended?

Finally, I do have a clue!

Monday, September 9
Justin Hale

And you are free to use your first amendment rights to make uninformed statements about the second amendment and our gun laws. Saying " Hunters can not use semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. except for big game hunting, which is heavily restricted." is just silly. Saying "The United States is one of the few places in the world where the ownership of guns is limitless" is factually wrong. Saying " If the person doesn't have a gun how can they shoot people." is naive. Sometimes people need shooting, the police and the military do it all the time. Are you going to tell me that it's OK for the police to defend themselves against an armed person but it's not OK for me to?

I don't think you and I will ever agree on what is "sensible", but I do support some restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Must be over 18 to own/purchase a firearm, if that's a good age for young men to be armed in the military it should be good for the population at large.

Felons should be restricted for a number of years, maybe in some cases forever.

Red Flag laws, mental illness or a history of violence where documented by the court could lead to confiscation of firearms.

And yes, any amendment is amendable.

Monday, September 9
Tom Camfield

I get what Marge is saying. I have little doubt that I could go the the appropriate part of most any big city and before too long manage to buy some sort of illegal assault-tupe gun. It wouldn't be too difficult to get the word onto the street that I was a monied opponent of government gun takeaways.

For a wideA variety of other guns I could just go to a major gun show . . . also a good place to make contacts for acquiring illegal weapons, clips, etc.

In reality, access is pretty much "unlimited." As I've known users, acquiring hard drugs must also be about as easy.

In any case, I'm not much in favor of a society in which an average citizen must decide whom he needs to outgun and shoot dead. We wouldn't need that in a more gun=free society that could be better regulated by well-trained police. And in no way do I compare an average home-owner with a professional soldier. I've had military training, but I don't want to sit watching TV with gun in my lap.

With enough people like Marge on my side, I'm afraid you'd be superfluous, Justin.

Tuesday, September 10
Justin Hale

Tom, you know full well that buying a firearm off the streets is illegal, that's why you don't do it. It may come as a surprise to you and the Marges of the world but there are many among us who don't give a dam about the laws. So what new law do you want that will stop them?.

Don't like "gun shows"? Why not outlaw them and create another black market, most carry a lot of lethal baggage with them. I bet they will have those illegal bump-stocks, and they won't have any of those pesky background checks, etc. Don't like gun shows?, don't go to one, I wouldn't bother. The more you restrict them, the more you grow the other.

I'm not much in favor of a society in which an average citizen isn't allowed to decide whom he needs to outgun and shoot dead. ".....

the police do it all the time. So as a taxpayer I am paying someone to do something that I shouldn't be able to?.

I don't know anyone who sits around watching TV with a gun in his/hers lap,,,other that the police, who we pay to.

"superfluous".....them's fightin words pardner LOL.

Tuesday, September 10
Justin Hale

Tom, you know full well that buying a firearm off the streets is illegal, that's why you don't do it. It may come as a surprise to you and the Marges of the world but there are many among us who don't give a dam about the laws. So what new law do you want that will stop them?.

Don't like "gun shows"? Why not outlaw them and create another black market, most carry a lot of lethal baggage with them. I bet they will have those illegal bump-stocks, and they won't have any of those pesky background checks, etc. Don't like gun shows?, don't go to one, I wouldn't bother. The more you restrict them, the more you grow the other.

I'm not much in favor of a society in which an average citizen isn't allowed to decide whom he needs to outgun and shoot dead. ".....

the police do it all the time. So as a taxpayer I am paying someone to do something that I shouldn't be able to?.

I don't know anyone who sits around watching TV with a gun in his/hers lap,,,other that the police, who we pay to.

"superfluous".....them's fightin words pardner LOL.

Tuesday, September 10
Tom Camfield

"superfluous"' may not have been quite the right word, and I don't stop to edit these comments. I probably meant something more like "irrelevant" where the issue of guns is concerned.

Wednesday, September 11
Justin Hale

I agree with you Tom if there are enough like you, Marge and every Democrat candidate I saw on last nights debate have your way the second amendment will become irrelevant. That's why I can't vote for any of the Democrat candidates. So that's one of our rights you want to do away with, how about going after the first amendment? after all, you're always railing against Trumps "lies",

Friday, September 13
Tom Camfield

I do believe we'd be better served by gun regulations in tune with the times rather something writte

n in the 1700s. We're not talking today about muzzle-leaders and powder-horns, we're talking about AR-15s and AK47s with enhanced ammunition clips . . . soft-nosed bullets . . .

Friday, September 13
Justin Hale

Tom, AK-47S are not legal, as they are capeable of full auto fire. But it doesn't matter what kind of guns you want to talk about, the principal behind the second amendment is as valid today as it was way back then, it was about fighting tyranny, gaining and maintaining our freedoms. True our weaponry has become more sophisticated than that of the 1700s, but human nature has pretty much stayed the same, at least in my rekoning.

It's funny to me how the Trump haters talk about how he is a existential threat to our Democracy, shades of Nazism, Oligarchy and white supremacy and at the same time they want to restrict our rights to defend ourselves against such a threat.

Friday, September 13
Tom Camfield

Only in their dreams are individual home-owners united only by gun ownership capable of overcoming a well-trained army. If every Jew in 1930s-'40s Nazi Germany, Poland or wherever had possessed a semi-automatic weapon, I don't believe they'd have overcome Hitler's well-trained thugs.

The only looming tyranny we have today is the Trump administration, and it appears gun=owners are on his side. So wherein lies the battle that gun advocates foresee? Against whom should we be arming ourselves.

When the Constitution was written, the U.S. standing army hastily assembled for the first time in 1775 was largely disbanded, and local militias remained in training. There really is no justification for the free proliferation of firearms we have in this day and age.

And we're only splitting hairs when we talk about the exact style of an assault rifle. All manner of weapons out there can kill a great many people within a mere 60 seconds before police are on the scene. Even the plain little old M-1 carbine with which I trained in 1951 (68 years ago). Just making a couple of the worst-type weapons illegal doesn't begin to cut the mustard.

Throughout the country, more and more people are becoming afraid to send their children to school.

Saturday, September 14
Justin Hale

"According to a 2004 analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University, after the Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic, the government that preceded Hitler’s, passed very stringent gun laws that essentially banned all gun ownership in an attempt to both stabilize the country and to comply with the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.

By the time the Nazi Party came around in the early 1930s, a 1928 gun registration law had replaced the total ban and, instead, created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition.". (https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/". .... I'm betting that every resistance group that fought against the Nazi's would have loved to have an AK-47.

"So wherein lies the battle that gun advocates foresee? " Wherein lies the car crash that you hope never happens, and yet you put on the seat-belt to protect yourself against the possibility. Better to have and not need than need and not have.

"All manner of weapons out there can kill a great many people within a mere 60 seconds before police are on the scene.".....that time could be reduced if an armed citizen was firing back. Isn't that why we put U.S. Marshall's on airlines.

Sunday, September 15