Why Don't They Want You to Know?

Could it be that the Left wants such control over our lives that they even believe they should decide what we get to read, to see and to hear? What we get to know? As noted previously in this blog, early in Obama's first term the top people in his Administration told us Fox News was not legitimate, that we should not pay attention to them. And now?

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry, said this: "...perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't quite cover it (terrorism) quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on." What? Why is it preferable that Americans do not know what is going on? One theory is that the Obama team wants Americans to believe terrorism has been defeated, and thereby bolster support for the current Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Then it would look like Hillary was part of the team that defeated terrorism. But how is that going to happen when the media keeps reporting on one terrorist attack around the world after the next? Maybe people will think about giving Trump a try. But the Democrats do not want people thinking for themselves.

California's Democratic legislature has managed to get an anti-speech measure on this November's ballot - Proposition 59. The measure urges all elected California officials to "use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)...to allow for the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings."

The Democrats want to amend the First Amendment, the Amendment that gives us our most cherished rights - free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly and to peaceably protest government actions. After the Citizens United case, there was a proliferation of Super PACs allowed to spend money in support of, or against, a candidate, as long as there was no coordination with the candidate. Perhaps you believe the Democrats are concerned about money in politics. Although, anyone who believes that Clinton's true concern is money in politics, after she and Bill collected tens of millions of dollars just for giving some speeches, is pretty much willing to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese.

Here is another theory. The mainstream media, Hollywood and the universities are overwhelmingly left wing. But it's not enough for the Democrats. That is why they attack Fox News and talk radio - two conservative outlets. That is why they do not want conservative Super PACs disseminating a conservative message. You see, the Democrats only want their message to be heard.

As for the suggestion that any Constitutional Amendment would "ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another," exactly how does that happen? Let us assume that a Constitutional Amendment passes and eliminates all Super PACs. Exactly how does that result in "all citizens" expressing their views? Any citizen who wants to express his or her views may do so now - with a blog, on social media and all the other ways people who want to express their ideas do so already. Eliminating Super PACs will not result in a single citizen being able to express themselves in any way that they are not already able to do.

It is a ruse, all with the express purpose of keeping you from hearing conservative speech, or any speech that the Democrats do not want you to hear. After all, John Kerry told the media they should report less about terrorism, so that "people wouldn't know what's going on."

(For a further discussion of the Citizens United case, see the the 1/23/10 post, "U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits.")

More Left Wing Tyranny

Once in a while I tune in to MSNBC. On the show AM Joy, with Joy Reid, she had four guests. The discussion centered on immigration. One guest, a conservative black man named Paris Dennard, said that Trump was not against immigration, but illegal immigration. After using the word "illegals" several times, another guest, Juan Hernandez, said he was insulted by the term "illegal." At which point the black host, Joy, intoned "I was going to say the same thing."

Mr. Dennard looked perplexed. Mr. Hernandez added: "I really appreciate using the right vocabulary." Excuse me? This is so typical of the left - first, easily insulted, and second, shutting down speech with which they disagree. Added Hernandez: "Nobody is illegal in this world," and "we're all G-d's children." Joy to Dennard: "This (her show) is like being in a family home. So when you're in this home, we ask that you not use terminology that offends people." I consider this to be an intellectual blog, with no use of expletives, but with this leftist enforced censorship I am tempted to say "#%&$ that!"

One residence hall at Rutgers University is considering a policy which encourages students to watch what they say, as part of a "Language Matters" campaign. Clearly, language does matter. There are laws regarding libel and slander. Judaism has many books on the subject of "lashon hara," which prohibits speech which, even if true, is meant to harm another, or carelessly harms another. But AM Joy and Rutgers are concerned with speech that offends those on the left. The Rutgers proposed policy warns against "micro assaults, micro insults, and micro invalidations."

Students are warned that "victims" (is anyone other than white males not a victim to the left?) may be affected "physically, emotionally (and) behaviorally," resulting in an increased "risk for illness and decreased immune system" (response). Students are to ask if what they are about to say is "true," "inspiring," "necessary" and "kind." Clearly, I would agree that people should not go out of their way to insult others. Good behavior would mandate not intentionally seeking to harm others - by word or by deed. Jewish law under lashon hara forbids even true speech if it is being said for an improper purpose.

But the left seeks to ban certain political speech, which is the worst type of censorship. As a country, we are governed by civil, not religious law. Our speech is governed first and foremost by the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, an example of prohibited speech at the Rutgers residence hall is the phrase "illegal aliens."

Milo Yiannopoulos is described by Wikipedia as a "British journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart News." He is also a gay man who regularly criticizes movements he sees as the "regressive left." He was invited by the "Young Americans for Liberty" at...here we go again, Rutgers. Leftist students protested his presence on campus, describing his speech as "hate speech" and covering themselves in blood (although I am not sure of the symbolism in doing so).

In reply, Yiannopoulos said this: "These people do not believe in the free open exchange of ideas. They do not believe in intellectual inquiry, in full open frank discussion of ideas. They don't believe in the basis of classical liberalism, which is one of the founding principles of our civilization." To which I would only add: Amen. But wait, that word would probably be banned at Rutgers as well. Given the religious connotations of "Amen" I am sure that at least some atheists would be offended. So, allow me to rephrase: good for Milo for standing up for American values. But wait, not everyone here is an American, so those who are not American might be offended by that. Can I get a little help here?

Trump on Immigration

This evening, Donald Trump gave his long awaited speech on immigration. His 10 point plan follows.

1. The US will build a wall at the southern border. 2. Trump will end the catch and release policy. Illegals will be detained until they can be deported. 3. There will be zero tolerance for criminal aliens; with Trump noting there are 2 million currently in the US. Trump plans on hiring 5000 more border patrol agents, putting them at the border. He will seek passage of Kate's law, with strong mandatory sentences for criminal aliens, followed by deportation.

4. Trump will block funding for sanctuary cities. I never did understand how local officials could get away with violating federal immigration laws. I do not think Obama or Clinton would allow local authorities to refuse to send tax dollars owed to the Feds. 5. Trump will revoke what he calls unconstitutional executive orders, and actually enforce the laws on the books. There's a concept. There will be no more amnesty for those here illegally.

6. Trump will suspend issuance of visas to any place where the US is unable to conduct an adequate screening process. Immigration from such areas will be suspended until we have a "proper and extreme vetting" procedure in place. Trump made specific reference to Syrian and Libyan refugees. He says that the Gulf states should pay for the creation of "safe zones" for those refugees - in their region. The US would be willing to supervise the process. He noted how Clinton wants to bring hundreds of thousands of those refugees here, with little ability to know what their true intentions are in coming here.

7. Trump will ensure that other countries actually take back those people that we deport. Currently, he says that 23 countries refuse to take their own citizens back. So, we just keep them. Incredibly, according to Trump, the State Department under Clinton kept issuing visas to people from those 23 countries. That's really showing them that the US will not be pushed around. 8. Trump wants to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system, noting that in 2015 500,000 people overstayed their visas. Such a system, per Trump, was recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to enhance national security. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were still here in the US on expired visas.

9. Trump wants to put an end to the incentives for people to come here illegally - for healthcare, education, and various government benefits. He asserted that 62% of illegal immigrants use some form of government assistance. 10. Finally, he wants to see reform of the legal immigration laws in a way that will serve the best interests of the American people. I am not convinced, however, that his plan to renegotiate trade deals is either feasible or in the best interests of the US. He has not convinced me that it is the government's job to tell businesses where they may operate.

Overall, however, Trump has proposed a serious and substantive plan. I expect that tomorrow's headlines in the mainstream media will focus on Trump's trip to Mexico in order to meet with the Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto. I expect that the media will follow Clinton's lead and criticize Trump for making that visit. Then again. Trump went to Louisiana following the terrible flooding there. Obama could not interrupt his golfing vacation, and Clinton was, what, too busy?

Trump: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders." If you disagree with that, please explain how Obama's and Clinton's support for sanctuary cities protects the safety of the American people. Trump: the "central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants...(but) the well-being of the American people."

There is a clear choice in this election. You either believe the United States of America should continue to survive as a sovereign entity, or you do not. If you believe in open borders, then you do not support the sovereignty of the USA, and Clinton is your candidate.

A Few More Odds and Ends

Colin Kaepernick is the star quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners. During this past Friday's exhibition game against the Green Bay Packers, he refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Said Kaepernick: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Clearly, Kaepernick has the absolute right to sit during the playing of the national anthem. It is the type of choice that demonstrates the greatness of our country. Ironically, Kaepernick recently signed a six year $114,000,000 contract with the Niners. Depending on his performance, he may not get the full dollar amount. But tens of millions of dollars still sounds pretty good to me. So I am confused about how a black man can make that kind of money in the United States and still conclude that the country "oppresses" blacks.

Now, there is no doubt that the issue of improper police shootings, Kaepernick's concern, is a legitimate issue. But how does that translate into a condemnation of the entire country? And I would ask him if he does not feel that he is disrespecting the blacks who make up 21.5% of the US Army and 19.3% of the US Navy - men and women who have signed up to defend this "oppressive" country with their lives if necessary.

By contrast, there was a moving story out of the recent Olympics. Sam Kendricks is a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve, and a world class pole vaulter. As he was running down the track with the pole in his hands, about to make a jump, he heard the playing of the national anthem elsewhere in the arena. He immediately stopped running, laid his pole on the ground, and stood at attention.

The anthem was obviously being played during a ceremony for a US Gold medal winner, but in watching the video it is clear that Kendricks could not tell where in the arena the flag was being raised. But he stopped, and stayed at attention until the playing of the anthem was completed. It was an amazing display of patriotism. When the music stopped he picked up his pole and ran to make the jump again. I am pleased to report that 2nd Lieutenant Kendricks won the Bronze medal in the pole vault.

In the May 19, 2016 post (An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II), four comments were made about the post. Just click on "comments" to read them. The last two were by the same person, Theish Fushkindum. This is not someone that I know, although I just found out that, in fact, the two comments were written by a young member of my extended family. She is a young college student, and just told me that she wrote the two comments. I never saw a comment under her name.

It turns out that she used a pseudonym, but I must admit I missed the irony. You see, the intent behind the name was to say "This is Fuckin' Dumb." Now, I appreciate humor as much as anyone, so I will leave the comments as they are. As for the insult, as this blog has noted numerous times, leftists (recall there are almost no liberals anymore) prefer demagoguery, name-calling, demonization and mockery to true debate. Besides, the writer is a college student who knows everything after having had almost no real world experiences. Reminds me of myself at that age.

The Same Tactics From the Left, and Other Observations

Longtime Democratic political commentator, Cokie Roberts, is not too fond of Donald Trump - nor of his supporters. As we have come to expect from the left, anyone with opposing opinions must be demonized. Therefore, if you support Trump, Roberts says you are "morally tainted." Sounds similar to many others on the left, including the woman attorney referred to in the 8/1/16 post.

Princeton University seeks to eliminate use of a really terrible and offensive term - "man." So, words that suggest gender differences are no longer to be used. "Forefathers" becomes "ancestors." No more "husband" or "wife." Rather, use "spouse" or "partner." Then again, California has already eliminated those hateful words from the Family Law Code. "Man hours" becomes "person hours." Although person contains the word "son," so I am confused as to why that is acceptable. Princeton will no longer have "coeds" or "freshmen." (As reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com, 8/19/16.)

Yet another school district has banned use of the words "boy" and "girl." (The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district, again per Todd Starnes, 8/16/16 FoxNews.com.) The push to end all gender distinctions in words and actions has been an entirely predictable consequence of redefining marriage as two men or two women. If two men is the same as two women and the same as a man and a woman, then where are there gender differences? There are none, which is why two men or two women are entitled to have a marriage as opposed to a civil union. These stories continue the trend discussed in two prior posts - "My Ex-Wife" (7/20/14) and "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters" (10/19/14).

At a Trump fundraiser on Friday evening protesters once again thought it was acceptable to attack attendees at the event, with punches and throwing garbage, even at elderly women. (As reported by AOL news, 8/20/16.) Verbal demonization and physical assault from the left - perhaps the first leads to the second.

Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate for President. She says, if elected, she will not give further aid to Israel as long as Israel continues to "occupy land in Palestine." Her attitude is not unlike many on the Democratic left. Which might explain why they support the Black Lives Matter movement, even though the BLM platform not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel, but also accuses Israel of "genocide..against the Palestinian people."

A black officer shot and killed an armed black man in Milwaukee. The subsequent rioting was so serious that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker activated the National Guard. President Obama was vacationing in Martha's Vineyard at the time. However, he nevertheless took time to make a statement to the press. Said Obama: "The police shot a man who refused to drop his gun. The man had a substantial criminal record. The rioting is not only wrong, but has caused injury to other police officers and damage to police cars and businesses. This behavior cannot be justified. People need to respect the police doing their job." Okay, you know I'm just kidding, right? Obama had no time for a statement; or perhaps, no interest in making one. He did, however, make time for a Hillary fundraiser. Of course, if the cop were a white guy...

Hurricane Katrina was a true disaster for the State of Louisiana. At the time, President Bush was on vacation, although he did cut short his vacation by two days, flying over New Orleans on his way back to D.C. He was criticized by the mainstream media for not speaking and acting sooner. Kanye West said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." President Obama did not cut short his vacation to take a look at the recent devastating floods in Louisiana. The criticism from the mainstream media? As the current saying goes, "crickets..."

Recall that early in his term Obama essentially said that America was no more an exceptional country than any other country. As we know, he is a believer in the UN, an entity made up of many dictatorships and non-democratic Muslim states. Like the Europeans, Obama has brought many Muslim "refugees" here, and Clinton says she will do the same. The sovereignty and security of the United States and its citizens do not seem to be of the highest importance to the Democrats. George Soros is the billionaire who contributes millions to Democratic campaigns. Long ago, Soros said this: "Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions." Well, if there is nothing special about the USA, then why not? Why not subordinate our interests to an entity such as the UN, an entity that has passed more resolutions against our ally Israel than all other nations in the world combined.

A Letter to the New York Times

Charles Blow is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. In the August 4, 2016 edition of the Times he had a piece entitled "Trump Reflects White Male Fragility." Essentially, he declares Trump to be a racist; therefore if anyone votes for Trump they must be a racist also. This "thinking" is not unlike that of the woman attorney who expressed her attitude toward anyone who would vote for Trump in her email to me, as set out in the 8/1/16 blog post. In fact, this attitude has been expressed by many on the left.

On 8/5/16 I submitted a letter to the Times commenting on Mr. Blow's article. To date, it has not been published by the Times, nor I have heard that it will be. As such, I am "publishing" it here.

This is my letter:

"According to Mr. Blow, "if you support Trump, you are on some level supporting his bigotry and racism...and acceptance of racism is an act of racism. You are convicted by your complicity."

So, Mr. Blow believes the perceived sins of the candidate can also be attributed to the voters. Using his logic, all those who voted for Bill Clinton can be deemed to be sexual predators, and possibly even rapists. If you vote for Mrs. Clinton you agree with lying to the American people (FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that she was not truthful with the American people with regards to her emails) and, hence, must be a liar yourself. If you vote for Mrs. Clinton you are in support of criminality, or at the least extreme carelessness, as Director Comey described Mrs. Clinton's negligent handling of emails. Therefore, your vote for Mrs. Clinton means you have no concern for our national security.

I could go on. However, the broader point is that the Left would rather demonize than engage in debate. Sadly, the editorial writers of this paper are of the same mindset. For example, if you disagree with gay marriage you are a bigot. Classical liberalism, for the most part, has died. Classical liberals respected those with opposing views; they engaged in debate - not demagoguery. But today's Leftists do not engage in debate. Rather, given their elitism, given their self-righteousness, their retort to opposing views is this: "you are a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe," and on and on.

My biggest disappointment is that the "paper of record" has abandoned liberalism for leftism, and reasoned argument for demonization."

Lying Liars

In his 8/7/16 column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof compares what he says are Hillary Clinton's "fibs" versus Donald Trump's "huge lies." After noting almost equal poll numbers for veracity for the two candidates, Kristof tells us that it is "preposterous" that the two would be considered equally deceptive.

Based on data from Politifact, he states that 27% of Clinton's statements were found to be "false or worse," compared to 70% for Trump. He cites similar numbers from the Washington Post's Fact-Checker. Then, Kristof tells us that "critics ...claim that Clinton lied to the families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi, but fact-checkers have said the evidence is unclear." Really? We know from Clinton's emails that have been released that she was telling others privately afterwards that the attack was a terrorist attack. But publicly, she and others in the Obama Administration were telling the families of the victims and the American people that the attack was because of an anti-Muslim movie trailer. Of course, it was only two months prior to Obama's reelection, and the truth of ongoing terror would not play well with Obama's message that terrorism had been defeated.

Kristof does not excuse her fibbing about her emails, stating "her accounts of her use of private email servers have been consistently false or misleading." He is then "astonished" that "she continues to mislead by claiming that the F.B.I. director, James Comey, judged her answers truthful (he didn't)." So, Clinton does not lie, she simply says false things and is misleading. Kristof: "All this is junior varsity mendacity." Would that be the same way that ISIS is the J.V. team? And in what universe is lying about national security matters just "junior varsity mendacity?"

When Clinton recently appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, she continued her - let's be polite - obfuscation. Clinton: "Director Comey said that my answers were truthful." What the FBI Director said, was that it appeared Clinton was truthful to the FBI. Then again, lying to the FBI is a separate criminal offense by itself. But when Comey testified before Congress he said Clinton did send classified emails on her private server (she denied it), and that the FBI found thousands of work-related emails that Clinton had not voluntarily turned over to them (she claimed that she turned over all of her emails). Recall that Clinton claimed to have set up the personal server, at least in part, because she only wanted to use one electronic device. Comey testified that she used multiple devices.

This past Friday, Clinton responded to a reporter's question about whether she "mischaracterized" Comey's testimony. Clinton: "...what I told the FBI, which he (Comey) said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly." No, it's not. She is still lying! Clinton continued: "So, I may have short-circuited and for that, I, you know, will try to clarify." What in the world does that even mean? Whatever it is, it is world class obfuscation - not "junior varsity mendacity," as Mr. Kristof claims.

In the event you get your news from the New York Times, you should know that the Times had no interest in putting anything about Clinton's continued lying on Fox News Sunday in their paper edition. However, their Public Editor, Liz Spayd did discuss it in her online blog. Entitled "The Clinton Story You Didn't Read Here," Spayd explained how the Times ignored the story. Spayd: "Clinton's remarks were covered by several major news organizations, several of which pointedly challenged the Democratic nominee's candor. But nothing on the interview ever appeared in the Times, either online or in print." Not until Spayd's blog. Good for her.

Spayd gives us yet another instance in which the mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to fairly report the news. Is it newsworthy when one of the two major presidential candidates continues to lie about national security matters? Apparently not nearly as important as Melania Trump copying a few lines from Michelle Obama. That turned out to be a front-page lead story in the New York Times.