Breaking: Anti Trump Newspaper BOOTED From Upcoming GOP Presidential Debate

Breaking: Anti Trump Newspaper BOOTED From Upcoming GOP Presidential Debate

Trump

A New Hampshire newspaper that made headlines for attacking Donald Trump will no longer co-host an upcoming GOP Presidential debate.

The debate, scheduled for February 6th right between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire Primary, will still feature ABC News.

According to The Hill:

ABC is severing its partnership with the New Hampshire Union Leader for the Feb. 6 Republican primary debate, and Donald Trump says he made the network do it.

“I am pleased to announce that I had the Union Leader removed from the upcoming debate,” Trump said on Sunday in a statement to The Hill.

The Republican primary front-runner said the newspaper’s recent criticism of his candidacy constituted a conflict of interest.

The newspaper issued a front-page editorial last month entitled “Trump campaign insults NH voters’ intelligence.”

“This is really unfair and a conflict for all the other candidates,” Trump said in his statement. “I said it should not be allowed and ABC agreed.”

[wpdevfb]

17 COMMENTS

  1. Say it ain’t so! A Mainstream Media outlet having a political bias and its own agenda, rather than fulfilling its Constitutionally protected role as reporter of the news? Nah, couldn’t happen…

  2. Watched CNN, yesterday… discussed Hillary and Bernie, and then the pondered who would be the best to take on the Republican “Bigshots”.

    No bias in our journalism. ..

  3. A front-page editorial? What on earth was these foolish, so-called “journalists” thinking? They have too much disregard for ordinary American citizens and too much regard for themselves and the leftist, progressive propaganda they report as “news” and ideology they espouse.

  4. Trump’s HISTORY of Flip-Flopping on significant issues & incoherent unresponsive rhetoric diversive non answers to relivent questions leads me to NOT TRUST his QUALIFICATIONS as the MOST QUALIFIED candidate to be the nominee or President. One of the most VIVID of these Incoherent rantings NON ANSWERS came when he was asked, by Mr. Hewitt, about his ‘knowledge & position re: our nuclear “triad” capabilities?
    Triad being our AIR, GROUND SILO & SUBMARINE Nuclear defense delivery capabilities !! Trump PLAINLY didn’t have a “CLUE’ & blathered about global warming, .kinda like Bernie Sanders, I plainly DON”T TRUST Trump with ALL that & the ‘OTHER” mandatory issues necessitating KNOWLEDGEABLE decisions to BEGIN the
    RESTORATION of OUR REPUBLIC !!
    I’m supporting Sen. Ted Cruz, TX. for MY “Commander in Chief”…He’s NEVER WAIVERED from his promise to his constituents to DO EXACTLY what he PROMISED…& WON his seat in the Senate. & .adhere to his ‘OATH of Office’..& FIGHT THE ELITIST ingrained “CARTEL” establishment !!
    S/Sgt. John Sharp, USAF SIS, Disabled Korean War Veteran, 1950-1954.

    • Unfortunately, Cruz was born in Canada and (at best) had dual US and Canadian citizenship until he let go of his Canadian citizenship just prior to his run for president. Whatever your take on the exact definition of “natural born citizen”, a person born outside of the US, or a person who has multiple citizenships and has to select among them well after birth — is clearly not a “natural born citizen”. The clear constitutional intent was that only those who have, since birth, had allegiance only to the US and to none other are qualified for the office of president (and thus also vice president). By no stretch of the imagination does Cruz fit that intent. Clearly “natural born citizen” does not mean “no longer a foreign citizen when beginning presidential bid”.

      If you accept Cruz as a “natural born citizen”, then you are saying that Obama would still be a “natural born citizen” even if he was, in fact, born in Kenya, based only on his mother (but not father) being a US citizen. Why did Obama and his team make such a point of his being born in Hawaii if it didn’t really matter? If, like Cruz, his mother’s citizenship conferred “natural born” status even if foreign born?

      I would prefer Ted Cruz if he was qualified to run. But he isn’t.

      • Several legal scholars have recently joined in the “natural born” citizen debate on both sides of the issue.

        Several of them have stated that the term means a person that does not have to be “naturalized” through any legal naturalization process.

        Simple Definition of naturally:

        —used to describe something that happens or exists by itself without being controlled or changed by someone

        —used to say that something is expected or normal

        : because of a quality or skill that a person or animal is born with

        Full Definition of naturally

        1 : by nature : by natural character or ability

        2 : according to the usual course of things : as might be expected

        3 a : without artificial aid b : without affectation

        4 : with truth to nature : realistically

        • Ted Cruz’s US citizenship is not “according the the usual course of things: as might be expected”. “The usual course of things” means to me, in this context, without any action on anyone’s part, other than at birth. Ted acted to renounce his Canadian citizenship (as a US president should not have mixed loyalties), which he did. “As might be expected” means to me, born in the US of US citizen parents. This is true of 80% of US citizens. So the simple meaning of “natural” fits the traditional understanding of “born in the US of citizen parents” (at that time, wives were presumed to be the same citizenship as their husbands, thus “born in the US of US citizen father”.)

          The original intent is the only reasonable rule. The meanings of the words are, I agree, a part of that. But not the whole picture.

          • Are you contending that our current President of the last 7 years has never had “mixed loyalties”? If you are, we are not on the same page. We’ve had all kinds of good and bad Presidents in our history, and some have been a bit too cozy with those who would have loved to dance on our grave, but this President’s history is rooted in communism and communist/socialist sympathizers. You can believe that his history hasn’t affected his philosophy or his vision of what America stands for, but I don’t. The history matters.
            I’ve read the arguments on both sides of the “naturalization” issue, and one thing stands out as abundantly clear, which is that the Founding Fathers failed to clarify what was meant by “naturalized”. My position is that of Mark Levin. It is essentially the same argument as that of the “anchor baby” issue.

      • Bill, children of U.S. Citizens are born in foreign countries all the time, and their citizenship is not even a question. Military families are not rushed to the U.S. For delivery of their children. The “birthers” trying to build a case against Cruz are wasting their time and breath. After the Obama fiasco, I will vote for Cruz with a pristine clear conscience.

        • First of all, as you know but are trying to avoid, the issue isn’t citizenship, but rather natural born citizenship.

          I agree with you that children born to diplomatic and military families are not only citizens, but natural born citizens, assuming that both parents are citizens. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment is a direct reference to those who are within one country but are under the jurisdiction of another nation. Their children should not gain citizenship.of the country of birth, but only based on the parents. They should get a birth certificate from the embassy, not the local country.

          Clearly, in the early history of our nation, both parents had to be US citizens for the child to be natural born. A further requirement of being born within the US appears to be the intent of the writers, but was contradicted by law written later, which leaves that issue unclear.

          Regardless, as I wrote above, the clear intent of the requirement for “natural born” citizenship for the president is to eliminate from eligibility those with split loyalties. If Cruz had, in fact, chosen US citizenship over Canadian on about his 18 birthday (which is the practice), then the only issue would be that he had only a single citizen parent, which is insufficient according to clarifying laws in the early years of the Republic. However, that issue was decided against, in Obama’s favor.. But Cruz did NOT do so . He retained dual citizenship until only a few years ago. He spent nearly his whole life with dual citizenship. I find this troubling, and clearly contrary to the intent of the constitutional provision.

          Here is the practical matter: If Cruz gets the Republican nomination, there will be a lawsuit to disqualify him. If the suit succeeds (a significant risk, given how liberal many judges are), then the timing may make it impossible for the GOP to field any candidate, and give the presidency to Hillary by default. Trump did not say that he knows if Cruz is eligible or not, but only that Cruz should get the matter settled now. Given that, I would support Cruz, because I like his conservative values and reasoned way of handling questions. And I would suppress my discomfort.

          Not as bad, but still grim: If a lawsuit against Cruz fails, the only remaining shred of meaning to “natural born” will be that US citizenship (among others) must exist at birth.

          If being born in a foreign country with only the mother with US citizenship is sufficient (contrary to established law on the subject), then why did Obama bother to prove his Hawaiian birthplace?

    • AbleAmerican, you clearly stated the precise reason I support Ted Cruz. The Washington Establishment is unnerved by a true conservative that grounded in the Constitution and is an undefeated debater. Ted has truly taken his campaign to The People, who WILL be the very ones to do a “reset” to put our country back on course.

  5. Does anyone know why it is that the Republicans are willing to debate on all the Medias while the Democrats will only debate on Media friendly stations???? Why can’t we see Hillary and Bernie debate on FOX NEWS???? What are the Democrats so afraid of??? Even if you don’t like FOX, their debates have been by far, the best. Is it that your candidates can only thrive in a media partisan enviorment???

Leave a Reply