Trump’s Constitution: 100% Inalienable, 60% Of The Time?

Donald Trump is the only candidate that tells the truth. Straight talk. None of that spin from consultants. His followers will tell you this with a straight face. Many of them inexplicably believe it, despite all available evidence to the contrary.  Evidence?  Let’s use Trump’s call for an unconstitutional religious test yesterday as an easy example.  And let’s use Trump’s Georgia Co-Chair’s statement distributed by his (and The Donald’s former Georgia) consultant to demonstrate use of consultants, spin, and something quite less than straight talk.  Ready? Let’s go!

From Senator Michael Williams press release:

“December 8, 2015 – “Donald Trump’s call for a temporary moratorium of Muslim immigration into the U.S. has caused international stir within the media.”

A few problems here already.  “See guys! It’s no problem!  It’s just temporary!” So that freedom of speech you like?  What if the government just took that away from you until all “the problems” are cleared up?  Like, I don’t know, maybe just shutting down the internet?  Maybe we’ll just confiscate your guns until the threat is over. Don’t worry. It’s just temporary.

When anyone from the government says something is temporary, just remind them of the temporary telephone tax of 1812.  It only ran for 108 years.  So when Trump and those that support him try to walk this back, think of whatever constitutional rights you hold most dear.  Understand that Trump and his supporters will tell you it’s OK for them to take them away from you in the short run.  Then remember that in the long run we are all dead.

“Many of the reports paint a false narrative and ignore the problem this proposal attempts to remedy.”

The “false narrative” is a constant claim of the Trump Klan clan.  Trump and others (as you’ll see throughout this release) are now claiming that this proposal only applies to foreign nationals, and that media types are overreaching to portray Trump as supporting something he isn’t.  So how did the lib’rul media and GOP establishment types come up with the idea that Trump meant “all” Muslims, including American citizens?  Well, both from Trump’s original statement, AND a follow up to his official spokesperson seeking clarification on this very point:

Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a “total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.”

Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ ”

Let’s repeat this point again as it’s essential to Trump and his supporters’ claims of victimhood.  Trump sent this out as a written statement.  This isn’t something he said off the cuff.  It’s not something that was misinterpreted.  It was a pre-planned, written statement, that was then officially clarified by his campaign to specifically include American citizens.

Let’s continue on with the next paragraph of that same news story quoted above:

During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan.

“If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different,” Trump said.

This was Tuesday morning.  AFTER Republicans rightfully rebuked Trump for what he said.  And for what his campaign confirmed.  But now, this font of straight talk and truth telling is realizing that many Americans actually take their religious freedom and their Constitution as pretty important things.  So Trump and his minions do what they do best: Capitalize on the crapstorm that they created, and blame others for a perfectly appropriate reaction to someone who would use our Constitution as toilet paper.

So in sum, Trump has decided to get earned media by proposing something blatantly unconstitutional, then walk the terms back to something that is just reprehensible – still using the establishment of a religious test as a litmus test to determine who is allowed to travel to our country. But now it’s just non-citizens.  And his folks are like, “See? All better now!”  Well, No.

Let’s continue with the Williams’ walkback:

“Trump’s call for a temporary ban is due to serious security concerns. The recent acts of radical Islamic terrorism in Paris and now San Bernardino California make it obvious something must be done to protect our homeland from growing threats.”

Again, we covered “temporary”.  Just because it’s to protect us doesn’t make me feel any better about you and your candidate trying to take away my freedom.

“Until a solution is found, a temporary ban would diminish the chance that radicalized Muslims who wish us harm enter our country.”

Now we’ve clarified what temporary means.  “Until a solution is found”.  The last time the west entered a direct war with Islam we engaged for about 200 years. That kind of timeframe makes it look like the folks that paid the temporary telecom tax of 1812 got off easy.  Maybe your great great great grandchildren will enjoy the freedoms you’re about to have temporarily taken away from you when they are given back after this solution is found.  Moving on:

“In the past week, it was revealed that Homeland Security failed to conduct a proper background check on the murderous female terrorist behind the San Bernardino attack. False entries on her application went unnoticed by government screeners. Our government is clearly unable to properly screen immigrants from these nations. This is not a call to end all future Muslim immigration. This is a call for strict immigration enforcement during a time of war to protect the people of America.”

Remember people, you are afraid because of California and Paris.  And let’s slide back in here why you’re supporting Trump to begin with.  It’s because of xenophobia strict immigration enforcement.  Nevermind that Trump has many stories on that too.  Because he’s willing  to flirt with open bigotry, you must assume he’s telling the truth.  Or something.  More statement:

“Pew Research revealed that 7% of U.S. Muslims believe that suicide bombings are “sometimes” justified. That is nearly one out of ten adult Muslims in the United States. The study also reports that only 28% of Pakistani Muslims disapproved of ISIS. How can we possibly screen immigrants from a nation where the vast majority support terrorist groups? In Nigeria, 20% of Muslims stated that they were in-favor of ISIS. These numbers should be frightening to anyone. We cannot put our nation at further risk to appease the politically correct.”

Translation: Remember that freedom of religion thing that we just said this wasn’t about?  Here’s some nasty facts about some people who believe in God a different way than you. So please ignore our attempt to take away their rights. “Everyone – total and complete”. Remember, it’s just tempoarary.  And pay no attention to the fact that some government officials are watching “right wing terror groups“, and that once a precedent is set, changing the words in the “Insert Religion Here” blank is subject to the will of the majority.  But you don’t need to say anything. We’re just coming for the Muslims now.

And to close Senator Williams’ statement we have this:

“Those who claim this unconstitutional overlook an important factor. Who does the U.S. Constitution protect? Last I checked, these rights were reserved for citizens of the United States, not foreign nations.”

Well, again, despite another attempt to misdirect and make this about immigration we’re all talking about protecting individual citizens.  Even the ones that happen to be Muslim.  The ones that Trump and his spokesperson originally said they were talking about.

There’s one side that has been consistent here.  And there’s one side that is using double talk, misdirection, and consulting spin.  It should be clear to everyone but a Trump supporter which side is which.

To those that have decided they need to grab a dose of Donald Trump’s star power, I’ll leave you with something a wise man told me at the beginning of my career:  If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get up with fleas.

And no matter how good the consultant’s walk back attempt is, you’re likely going to have that itch for quite some time.


  1. Wabbit Season says:

    It isn’t a false narrative. The false narrative is our politicians who won’t even acknowledge there is such a thing as ‘radical Islam’ or make anything other than a token effort to secure our borders or control immigration. What it is is an untenable solution. There’s a whole lot of folks who think America would be safer without Muslims in it, but it’d also be safer without guns, trans fats, cars, and pointy things. Getting rid of all that ain’t gonna happen either. Maybe if the electorate wasn’t constantly patronized by the politic things wouldn’t have gotten to this, but what your seeing is people are valuing security over freedom (or the illusion of it) and that should scare everyone.

  2. John Konop says:

    Trump is a product of talk radio/TV hyper talkng point spewing, that drive ratings over solving anything. Life is usually way more gray than black or white. People want a simple solution to a very complicated problem. News flash, no simple solutions to this problem.We all need to take a step back, and realize, no magic bullet solutions.

  3. xdog says:

    Good enough as far as you go, Charlie. I look forward to future posts taking down Cruz, Paul, Jeb!, and Carson for their expressed preferences to limit participation of Muslims in American society.

    Maybe next week you could comment as well on Frank Gaffney’s ‘National Security Action Summit’ with Trump, the four candidates I mentioned plus Rubio, Fiorina, Huckaby, Santorum, and Jindal scheduled to attend, and tell us what those sessions mean re America and the gop.

    • Charlie says:

      Whereas I look forward to those on the left who are applauding me as “reasonable” this week return with that same sentiment when we return to the news that Trump has successfully driven off the front page: That which we have a President who believes laws should only be enforced if they fit his political agenda, the Justice Department should only be used if it can target political enemies, and a Democratic Presidential candidate called for gun confiscation via executive order because Democrats apparently feel just as comfortable being cafeteria constitutionalists just like Trump supporters.

      • D_in_ATL says:

        Hey Charlie a quick yes or no for this question (and Ed Lindsey can play along too)…When Trump becomes the GOP nominee will you endorse him?

        He’s not leaving the front page. You guys should get used to that.

      • xdog says:

        Charlie, I’ll be willing to listen whenever you want to talk about donk excesses but I thought your post addressed Trump’s proposals to infringe on religious liberty and his attempts to walk back his remarks.

        Last I heard Trump was still in the gop so I wondered why you were giving other gop candidates a pass considering their similarly inflammatory and unconstitutional proposals. If you want to dodge that question I understand. I wouldn’t want to defend them either.

        I’ll double down on D_in_ATL’s question for you and Ed: if Ted Cruz is the gop nominee, will you endorse him?

        • Charlie says:

          I’m not going to play the game where I now have to referee every idiot comment any candidate makes from either party. It’s not what I do, and even this post (posts) is a major break from my now standard protocol.

          The difference here as articulated below is that Donald Trump called for a religious test on behalf of the federal government for a specific religion including (as of yesterday) for American citizens.

          That crosses a line of guaranteed religious freedom which is to me the most vital of all of the rights guaranteed to me under the constitution. For that reason (and the fact that Donald Trump has no history of being a Republican, holding Republican ideals, voting for Republicans, or even donating to Republicans) he is singled out as someone that appears to be as much on a mission to destroy the party as he is to win its nomination.

          As for the others, I’m willing to let the primary process play out.

  4. benevolus says:

    “If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different,” Trump said.

    Ah, like the San Bernadino shooters. The husband was American-born and the wife was here legally.
    So how would that work exactly anyway? Do we just ban everyone from so-called “Muslim countries”? And what countries would that be? Or do we ask everyone who shows up if they are a Muslim or not? Do they have to show some proof that they are not a Muslim? What would be acceptable proof?

    • Andrew C. Pope says:

      Easy. Offer everyone who comes through customs a slice of bacon. Those who don’t eat it… BUSTED!!!

      Do Jews wind up getting excluded as a result of this? Sure, but this country had no problem turning them away before. The added bonus is that you prevent vegetarians from coming here… that’s a platform I can really support.

      *For the record, I’m Jewish and I always partake of free bacon.

  5. Andrew C. Pope says:

    I received an email with this press release completely unsolicited this morning. I am not on a Trump email list. I am not on a Senator Williams email list. I am not on a Republican email list. How in God’s green earth did they get my email address?

    I blame Brian Kemp.

  6. Ed says:

    I don’t believe Trump actually thinks Bill Gates can shut down the internet.

    I do believe that he knows the sheer idiocy of his supporters and he knows he can say things like that and the overwhelming majority of them see enough context clues to think it’s an actual policy and then they support him more.

    An actual political psychologist would be able to confirm that in no time.

  7. Stefan says:

    Even if it applies exclusively to non-citizens, it may still be unconstitutional (yes, yes, plenary power, I know). Also, it conflicts with existing law, so a President couldn’t do it without an act of Congress. And even if that happened, you’ve got treaties, etc, which are superior but I don’t even want to go down that road. Ugh.

  8. mjhicks says:

    Here’s the funny part. Moderate gopers (and serious conservatives) are correctly appalled by Trump’s comments and positions. But what he is simply doing is finally shining a bright light on the crazy uncle wing of the GOP that has existed for some time. He is simply pointing out that a significant number of Republican voters and supporters ARE clowns. This is what Democrats have been saying for years: your party consists of a significant number of intolerant, bigoted, people. Trump’s appeal demonstrates that the Republican party has a bad people in it. However, this may be the wake-up call that it needs. Because this fact is now indisputable.

  9. conservativeguy says:

    I have a question. Why is it so important that we allow people from Middle Eastern countries to enter the United States? Apparently, the administration wants 100,000 “refugees” from Syria per year. Is that enough? Do you want more? How many would satisfy you? What are you trying to accomplish?

    • benevolus says:

      Well what about African countries? Or Turkey? Or SE Asian countries? Where do you draw the line? Or South Central Asia?

      If you are trying to keep out Muslims it’s going to have to be a lot more than just Middle Eastern countries. Heck, I think there are probably Muslims in Canada, and England. Do you want to keep them out too? How about Israel? They have Muslims too.

      • conservativeguy says:

        So, what’s your point? For any potential immigrant we should answer a question: Is it advantageous for us to have this person come here? Are they a nuclear scientist, a skilled worker, a good baseball player? Or, they going to be on welfare and living in section 8 housing? We went for hundreds of years and essentially had NO muslim immigrants. Now, since September 11, 2001 we have brought millions of them here . Why?

    • Dave Bearse says:

      “Apparently, the administration wants 100,000 “refugees” from Syria per year.”

      Is 100,000…

      (a) a typo? (I make ’em myself almost everyday.)

      (b) a right wing media number?

      (c) breaking news that the administration increased its goal tenfold from 10,000 to 100,000? (I’m often a day behind on breaking news.)

      • conservativeguy says:

        Are you hung up on the 10,000 that they want immediately? The 10,000 is just part of the 100,000 per year that Obama has promised that we would take every year. Of course, these are the “Syrian refugees” which the Turks admit could come from anywhere in the middle East. That’s in addition to the hundreds of thousands of regular Muslims the state department recruits every year.

  10. seekingtounderstand says:

    Charlie: If you go and listen to Marine Le Pen, she stated that the passports to the terrorist are real because they took over government offices. Once they go to Europe then they can come here.
    Rather than going after Trump, perhaps you could offer better fixes than a
    temporary stop while we figure this out…………would love to hear your ideas.

    • Charlie says:

      I believe if you check my twitter feed from a week or so ago, you’ll see a few arguments from me against those who want unlimited Syrian refugees based on bogus assurances that they are “fully vetted”. I opposed this before San Bernardino, as 1) We’re not an open borders country (at least according to our laws), and it was clear especially after Paris that enemy combatants from ISIS were willing to embed themselves within the refugees using real and/or fake Syrian passports. Given the state of the Syrian government, there is no way to actually “vet” these folks at the moment.

      So let’s be clear: Trump and those who are supporting him on this that want to make it about national security are either too lazy or too intellectually challenged to articulate a way that is legal, moral, and most importantly constitutional way to limit any inflow of non-citizens that may be coming here to do us harm.

      Instead, they’ve decided to appeal via blatant bigotry and xenophobia to an unconstitutional religious test. This is my beef that a line has been crossed that is sacrosanct. There are other points that are quite open to debate. Religious freedom, even for Muslims, especially for US citizens, isn’t one of those points.

  11. seekingtounderstand says:

    Charlie: If they terrorist hit one of our schools as they have promised, are you not going to feel like you helped them get here?
    The 9-11 terrorist trained and lived in Gwinnett County Georgia.

    • benevolus says:

      You defeat your own point. Or are you saying we should throw all Muslims out of the country even if they are here legally?

    • David C says:

      It seems abundantly clear that countless terrorists have hit our schools. They were disgruntled students, disgruntled teachers, disgruntled randos, or mentally ill people, all with access to plenty of weaponry to kill our children. They’ve even happened plenty of times here in Georgia ( But because they weren’t scary Muslim foreigners, you don’t seem to mind. You know who’s committed most of the terrorist murder in Atlanta? Eric Robert Rudolph, a white, Christian terrorist, born in this country.

      • Wabbit Season says:

        So the fact that we can’t do anything about the ones born here means we ought to invite more in?

        • mjhicks says:

          No. It’s just that you offer an overly simplistic solution that is against who we are as a country.

          Secondly, don’t you also see that you’re also being played by the very people you oppose? The radicals WANT the U.S. to respond your way. They want to sow discontent. They want the moderate Muslims to feel ostracized. You are doing their bidding for them when you react this way. Trumps rhetoric is dangerous.

  12. Dave Bearse says:

    The GOP built and has kept engaged a rural Christian Southern white base with anti-government attitude, pandering to extremism to the detriment of the country, ignoring its xenophobic and racist supporters, discrediting the main stream media in the eyes of GOP supporters, and war-mongering against Muslims.

    Is it a wonder Trump continues to ride high as his extremism increases, and the GOP establishment is in a sweat about it?

    Priebus ought to be aware that it may take Limbaugh at al to knock down Trump at this point, but I don’t see that happening in the near future.

    • seekingtounderstand says:

      Dave with all the respect I can give, its the moms worried about schools being taken out because after 9/11 that’s what they promised to do.

  13. Three Jack says:

    I think I’ll go with the Maddow Doctrine on Trump – he realized his supporters are complete wackjobs back when he was leading the birther thing so he knows he can say or do anything and not lose. So he will push the envelope without worry of losing political support while simultaneously knowing each occurrence will add up so the eventually the media howls and overall disdain for his comments will force his campaign to end. My only add to this theory is the likelihood of a reality show based on his campaign experiences to follow, Thursday night at 9 on NBC.

  14. seekingtounderstand says:

    Hope everyone read the NYT story “San Bernardino attackers friend spoke of sleeper cells before rampage”/
    So either we have a real terrorist problem or the Obama Administration is using terrorist to take guns away from the citizens.
    Write about that Charlie, because that is the real issue. Why does the American Government seem to support those entering the country whom want to harm us?

Comments are closed.