All Categories

Trump makes Florida boy cry…shows how he will lose nomination

10/27/2015

This past weekend I took my son to a political rally. Though he just turned twelve years of age, he is a bit of a political veteran. By the nature of my job he has been exposed to a number of high profile politicians, entertainment stars and athletes. In 2011 at the age of eight he conducted an interview of Herman Cain. In 2012 I took him to see and meet the GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Romney was extremely kind and gracious and the memory is forever etched in the mind of my son.

This year my son determined Donald Trump was his candidate. He liked Trump’s no nonsense approach and hung on The Donald’s self proclaimed success story. He argued for Trump in his circle of friends and was quite enthusiastic when I asked if he’d like to go see Trump speak, and maybe, just maybe, meet him.

While we had no formal meeting scheduled with Mr. Trump, I was able to maneuver us to a location where the candidate had to pass on his way to the stage, all but ensuring an encounter for my boy. As we waited, my son grew more excited. He wore a Trump button, clutched a Trump campaign sign and had a pen at the ready for an autograph. As the moment of Trump’s arrival drew closer, Michael’s surety that Donald Trump was the right man for President had never been more pronounced.

Then came Trump. He walked the narrow path to the stage with a small line of admirers to his right. He high fived and touched hands. Then he came upon the twelve year old boy with stars in his eyes. My son handed him the sign and pen. Trump took the pen, wrong side up, with the point of the pen facing him rather than facing the sign. He tried to scribble a signature but the wrong end of the pen didn’t allow it. What happened next changed my son’s perception of Donald Trump forever.

Frustrated that the pen wasn’t working, Trump thrust the sign back to my boy, literally threw the pen at him and hollered “Where’s the pen?”. And I do mean hollered.

He hollered at a twelve year old boy. In that instant the young, avid Trump fan became quite the opposite. He was hurt, he was disappointed and he was stunned, all thanks to Donald Trump. My boy turned to me with anguish in his eyes. With a shaky voice and watery eyes he looked up at me and said “He threw the pen at me! Why Dad? Why? Why did he do that?” As I offered comfort to my wonderful little guy, he made an amazing observation.

“He doesn’t care.” he said of Trump. “He doesn’t care. He is just going through the motions.” His tears were in full bloom now. “All he cares about is himself”

In a matter of seconds Donald Trump had taken someone who admired him and thought he was the best candidate on the planet and twisted those feelings 180 degrees. Through his own actions Trump had lifted the veil of all the braggadocio and money and shown this little boy something far more important. “All he cares about is himself”

Losing the support of a 12 year old boy won’t cost Donald Trump the nomination. But the brash, narcissistic attitude will. Much the way the veil was lifted for this child, the veil will be lifted for the American public.

There are those that like his abrupt manner. They like the attacks on the mainstream media and political correctness. But Trump’s attacks on Carly Fiorina’s looks and on Ben Carson’s religion aren’t something to be admired. Making a boy cry was inexcusable.

As that same veil lifts for all of America and they see what became obvious to my 12 year old son, that Trump cares primarily about Trump, look for their turnaround in support to be every bit as swift and final as Michael’s. As the nation recognizes the narcissist, his poll numbers will plummet. I saw the end of Donald Trump’s candidacy this past weekend. It’s coming soon.

6 Comments

Clinton Honest and Trustworthy? You Decide...

10/22/2015

1 Comment

The airwaves and online pages are filled with assessment of the performance of Hillary Clinton before the House Oversight Committee on Benghazi. She was cool, calm and some have said, Presidential, in handling the questions, the glare of the lights and the unequaled attention of the media.
Headlines scream things like “Hillary escapes unscathed” but did she?

Hillary Clinton’s greatest liability with voters has been honesty and trustworthiness. As the post-game chatter looks at her every word, we’re left with one unmistakable reality. Hillary isn’t honest.

On Sept 11, 2012 at approximately 4 PM she was told of the attack in Benghazi. By 10 PM she had talked to the President and released a statement indicating a YouTube video was to blame for the attack on our consulate and death of our Ambassador.

At 11 PM she sent a note to her family, telling them two of our officers were killed as the result of an al-quaeda type attack. In the ensuing hours Clinton communicated with the leadership of Libya and Egypt, saying, and I quote “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack - not a protest.”

A couple days later she personally promised family members of the four dead Americans that the US would fully prosecute the maker of that YouTube video...and for weeks after Susan Rice, President Obama and Secretary Clinton continued to repeat the YouTube video narrative on national television programs even though they knew the attack had nothing to do with the film.

Honesty and Trustworthiness? You decide.

Immediately after his death, Clinton referred to Ambassador Christopher Stevens as a close friend. She repeated that assertion multiple times during the hearings, yet when asked, she was forced to admit Stevens didn’t have her phone number or her email. In fact she acknowledged that during his time as Ambassador, she can’t recall ever talking with her “close friend”
Honest and Trustworthy? You decide.

After making a carefully crafted statement that as Secretary of State she was ultimately responsible, she went on to stress nearly a dozen times that Chris Stevens knew the risks when he took the job. She pointed out that security decisions were not made by her, but by underlings. She was responsible, but she we shouldn't hold her accountable.

Honest and Trustworthy? You decide.

Clinton repeated what has become a stock line for her...that she has been as transparent and forthcoming as possible... yet never explained why it took her nearly two years to turn over the emails as required by law when she left office or why when she finally did, those emails were printed on paper rather than transferred electronically. Neither indicates cooperation or transparency.

Honest and Trustworthy? You decide.

Clinton’s stories have changed or been incomplete on her server, her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who and why she deleted emails, whether or not al quaeda was involved in the Benghazi and attack and whether the Obama/Clinton State Department was negotiating with Al Quaeda.

Bottom line...was she smooth and calm during much of her testimony? Yes. But was she honest and trustworthy?

You decide.

1 Comment

17 Questions the Committee SHOULD Ask Hillary

10/21/2015

2 Comments

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Benghazi on Thursday. The committees stated purpose is to find out why four Americans, including our Ambassador, were killed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 just seven weeks before Barack Obama was reelected to the Presidency of the United States.

Though we don’t know yet what triggered the attack, who was involved or why there was no US response to try and defend our own, the committee has been accused by Democrats and by Clinton herself of being a partisan witch hunt out to get Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary once famously asked “What difference does it make anyway?” as to how, why and by whom the Americans were killed. A shocking response from the woman who was Secretary of State, responsible for our embassies and the safety of State Department employees worldwide. The answer to her question is that it makes a great deal of difference. The death of four Americans could have been prevented. In order to assure it never happens again, we must have a clear understanding of how and why the 2012 attack happened. In order to have a full picture, we certainly need to hear from the then Secretary of State. There is nothing partisan about that.

But Hillary won’t be the one asking the questions on Thursday. The questions will be directed at her. The members of the committee will. The mystery is what will they ask her? It may be tempting to spend a great deal of time on how and why she set up her own server and not only used it for her own email, but also assigned email on the server to her top aides as well. The email questions, under the banner of national security, have some merit. But the bulk of the questions should focus on Benghazi and the Secretary’s role.

Among the questions Hillary should be asked are:

Did Ambassador Stevens request additional security for himself, his team and American locations in Libya?
Why did the State Department turn down those requests?
Where were you when you first heard of the attack on Benghazi? Was a request made for back-up to quell the attack? Did you communicate with President Obama and/or other members of the administration that evening? If so, with whom and by what means? Phone? Text? Email? In person?
When did you hear of Ambassador Stevens death? From whom?
When did you first hear of the YouTube video? From whom?
When did you first learn the YouTube video was most likely not the cause of the attack?
When did you first hear of Ansar Al Sharia terrorist group’s potential involvement?
Did you promise the families of the four victims that you’d get the maker of the YouTube video? Even if the YouTube video had been what stoked the attack, which we now know it was not, why is the video maker to blame for their actions?
Was Chris Stevens talking, communicating in any way, with Syrian rebels? Were they al quaeda? What was the purpose of those conversations?
During your time as Secretary, did the State Department approve the sale of weapons to any rebel groups in the middle east? What groups? How did you establish contact with them? Were any of these groups al quaeda affiliated?
Did you communicate with anyone via email or text message about the attack in Libya. If yes, with whom?
As Secretary of State, did you understand how to recognize classified information, even if it wasn’t marked as such? Did you understand what information you might send yourself, which obviously wouldn’t be marked at the time you initiated it, would be considered classified? Please elaborate. Did you ever send classified information on your home brew server?
You have stated that you deleted more than 30,000 emails. Were any emails deleted work related?
Who reviewed the emails for content before being deleted? Was that person (or persons) cleared to handle classified information?
It has been reported that your attorney David Kendall had a USB with a copy of your emails on them. Is that true? If so, did any of the emails on the USB contain classified information? Does Mr. Kendall have the proper security clearance to handle Top Secret, or other classified information?
In addition to yourself, it is reported you set up email accounts for top aides of yours at the State Department on your home server. Is that true? Who did you set up accounts for? Why did you establish email addresses on your home server for your Chief of Staff and top aides? Have those aides turned over all work related emails for retention in the public record?
As Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible for the safety of State Department employees around the globe? Who in our State Department bears responsibility for the policies in Libya? Who in our State Department bears responsibility for the attack in Benghazi?

The list is no where near complete, but it includes important questions that are factual in nature and fill in a lot of the blanks. Despite Mrs. Clinton’s claims that she has answered all the questions about this, she hasn’t . In fact, she has avoided allowing many questions on Benghazi. Let’s hope the Members of the House Select Committee take their job seriously and ask fact based questions. Further, let’s hope Clinton actually answers them.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Tim Constantine

Tim Constantine is a political and broadcasting veteran. He was a Political Science major at the University of Southern Maine, was twice elected to public office and has been a top ranked broadcaster in multiple markets.

The Capitol Hill Show with Tim Constantine is not only seen in the United States, it broadcasts on television in 119 countries worldwide. Tim's guests include some of America's highest profile public officials.

Tim Constantine's Capitol Hill Show (radio) broadcasts daily from Washington DC and is heard throughout the country.

Constantine also partners with The Washington Times on a variety of projects, including a weekly column.