The Friday New York Times editorial, "Mr. Trump's War on the Truth," ties in with their Sunday hit piece on President Trump by former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright. That piece starts on the first page of the Sunday Review section of the paper, and is entitled "Fascism on the March." The premise of these articles is that Trump is a threat to democracy. Let's see where the threats lie.
In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!
This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.
Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.
Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."
Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?
The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?
I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?
Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Israel Under Attack - Blame Israel
On Friday, March 30, approximately 30,000 Gazans massed at the border with Israel. As it was not an entirely peaceful demonstration, with some members of the Hamas military wing trying to breach the border, and throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli Defense Forces, Israeli forces, in return, used live fire aimed at those people. Some 16 or 17 people were killed, with as many as 1000 or so injured. Just to give some perspective to the numbers, 30,000 people at Israels's border, with Israel having 8.6 million people, would be like 1.15 million people massing on the US border; the US being a country of 330 million people.
The Palestinians refer to these yearly demonstrations at the border as their "March of Return." Hamas expects a "right of return" for the remaining survivors who were displaced in the 1948-1949 Israeli War for Independence, and for their millions of descendants. Such an influx would mean the end of Israel as the only Jewish state in the world. Make no mistake - the end of Israel is what Hamas seeks. Said the Hamas chief in Gaza: "The March of Return will continue...until we remove this transient border...our people can't give up one inch of the land of Palestine."
Trump spokesperson Jason Greenblatt said this: "Hamas should focus on desperately needed improvements to the lives of Palestinians in Gaza instead of inciting violence against Israel..." Not surprisingly, the rest of the world does not blame Hamas; rather, they blame Israel. "The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response." So said Bernie Sanders, who apparently does not believe that a country has the right to protect its borders against potential terrorists. Oh yeah, no different from Bernies's attitude about the US border.
Kuwait was able to get an emergency session of the UN Security Council. Thanks to President Trump, they were unable to pass a resolution condemning Israel. However, that did not stop Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from calling for an "independent and transparent" investigation of the deaths and injuries. In other words, an investigation into Israel's actions. This emergency session was held on Friday night. Aside from Friday night being the start of the Jewish Sabbath, Friday night was also the first night of Passover, with Jews around the world celebrating our liberation from Egypt over 3000 years ago at Passover Seders. Consequently, no Jewish representatives were present to argue against Security Council action. Again, thank G-d for Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, several European countries expressed their dismay, and even displeasure, with Israel. Turkey's Islamist leader, Recep Erdogan, condemned Israel for its "inhumane attack." In return, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu replied: "The most moral army in the world will not be lectured to by someone who for years has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations."
Some additional history. Arabs were not the only ones displaced during and after Israel's War for Independence. Approximately 800,000 Jews who were citizens of the surrounding Arab countries were either forced out or had life made so difficult they left. Most were resettled in the new land of Israel, becoming Israeli citizens. As Egypt controlled Gaza after the 1948-49 war, and Jordan controlled the West Bank, you would have to ask those two countries why they did not make their fellow Arabs citizens of their countries. Perhaps better to use them as pawns in their ongoing struggles against Israel, than to help them become citizens of Egypt or Jordan.
In 1976, Israel did take some Arab land in the area of the Galilee. Looked at in context, this was land that Israel won in the 1967 Six Day War. Looked at in further context, Israel had to fight much of the Arab world in their War for Independence. They fought again in 1956, 1967, and in 1973's Yom Kippur War. To say that Israeli leaders were concerned about the security of their people, and being able to defend their tiny country against the much larger Arab armies, would be an understatement. While some may feel the taking of land was indefensible, others saw it as protection from an Arab population continuously seeking their annihilation. As the Hamas in Gaza leader said, they are seeking all the land of Palestine. The British Mandate in Palestine included land that now makes up the country of Israel. There was never a country of Palestine. It was a geographic area controlled for nearly 2000 years by foreign invaders. Palestine was also the homeland of the Jewish people, having been displaced from the ancient land of Israel some 2000 years ago.
Finally, we need to remember that in 2005, Israeli P.M. Ariel Sharon ordered the forcible removal of all Jews living in Gaza. That territory was turned over to the Arabs. In return, what did Israel get? Constant rocket and missile attacks, and numerous underground tunnels used by the Arabs in an effort to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. And this repeated yearly effort on "Land Day" to breach the Israeli border. Unlike our Arab neighbors, we Jews are taught that we do not celebrate any deaths, even of our enemies. But that does not mean that Israelis should not be able to defend themselves and their borders.
The Palestinians refer to these yearly demonstrations at the border as their "March of Return." Hamas expects a "right of return" for the remaining survivors who were displaced in the 1948-1949 Israeli War for Independence, and for their millions of descendants. Such an influx would mean the end of Israel as the only Jewish state in the world. Make no mistake - the end of Israel is what Hamas seeks. Said the Hamas chief in Gaza: "The March of Return will continue...until we remove this transient border...our people can't give up one inch of the land of Palestine."
Trump spokesperson Jason Greenblatt said this: "Hamas should focus on desperately needed improvements to the lives of Palestinians in Gaza instead of inciting violence against Israel..." Not surprisingly, the rest of the world does not blame Hamas; rather, they blame Israel. "The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response." So said Bernie Sanders, who apparently does not believe that a country has the right to protect its borders against potential terrorists. Oh yeah, no different from Bernies's attitude about the US border.
Kuwait was able to get an emergency session of the UN Security Council. Thanks to President Trump, they were unable to pass a resolution condemning Israel. However, that did not stop Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from calling for an "independent and transparent" investigation of the deaths and injuries. In other words, an investigation into Israel's actions. This emergency session was held on Friday night. Aside from Friday night being the start of the Jewish Sabbath, Friday night was also the first night of Passover, with Jews around the world celebrating our liberation from Egypt over 3000 years ago at Passover Seders. Consequently, no Jewish representatives were present to argue against Security Council action. Again, thank G-d for Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, several European countries expressed their dismay, and even displeasure, with Israel. Turkey's Islamist leader, Recep Erdogan, condemned Israel for its "inhumane attack." In return, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu replied: "The most moral army in the world will not be lectured to by someone who for years has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations."
Some additional history. Arabs were not the only ones displaced during and after Israel's War for Independence. Approximately 800,000 Jews who were citizens of the surrounding Arab countries were either forced out or had life made so difficult they left. Most were resettled in the new land of Israel, becoming Israeli citizens. As Egypt controlled Gaza after the 1948-49 war, and Jordan controlled the West Bank, you would have to ask those two countries why they did not make their fellow Arabs citizens of their countries. Perhaps better to use them as pawns in their ongoing struggles against Israel, than to help them become citizens of Egypt or Jordan.
In 1976, Israel did take some Arab land in the area of the Galilee. Looked at in context, this was land that Israel won in the 1967 Six Day War. Looked at in further context, Israel had to fight much of the Arab world in their War for Independence. They fought again in 1956, 1967, and in 1973's Yom Kippur War. To say that Israeli leaders were concerned about the security of their people, and being able to defend their tiny country against the much larger Arab armies, would be an understatement. While some may feel the taking of land was indefensible, others saw it as protection from an Arab population continuously seeking their annihilation. As the Hamas in Gaza leader said, they are seeking all the land of Palestine. The British Mandate in Palestine included land that now makes up the country of Israel. There was never a country of Palestine. It was a geographic area controlled for nearly 2000 years by foreign invaders. Palestine was also the homeland of the Jewish people, having been displaced from the ancient land of Israel some 2000 years ago.
Finally, we need to remember that in 2005, Israeli P.M. Ariel Sharon ordered the forcible removal of all Jews living in Gaza. That territory was turned over to the Arabs. In return, what did Israel get? Constant rocket and missile attacks, and numerous underground tunnels used by the Arabs in an effort to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. And this repeated yearly effort on "Land Day" to breach the Israeli border. Unlike our Arab neighbors, we Jews are taught that we do not celebrate any deaths, even of our enemies. But that does not mean that Israelis should not be able to defend themselves and their borders.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
A Bundle of News
A little over one week ago, the city council of Los Alamitos, in Orange County, California, voted to opt out of California's sanctuary state law. This week, the Orange County supervisors voted to fight the California sanctuary law. Meanwhile, the Orange County sheriff indicated that the Sheriff Department will post online the names of the prisoners about to be released. This will allow ICE to be able to pick up those criminals here illegally who should be deported, without violating the state law by directly communicating with the Feds.
In the 3/28/18 LA Times, a front page headline tells us that "O.C.'s conservative side is alive and well." My first question is: why do liberals want to protect criminal aliens here illegally? The article tells us that the vote by the County supervisors "added a powerful voice to a growing backlash against California's pro-immigrant policies." My next question: why does the LA Times lie? I do not know conservatives who oppose legal immigration of non-criminals. But for the mainstream media, immigrant = illegal immigrant = criminal illegal alien, including those guilty of violent crimes. Yes, let's protect those people.
Meanwhile, retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times this week, opining that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer defensible. Said the Justice: "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" was the original rationale. "Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century." We already have 4 Justices who would not interpret the Second Amendment to allow an individual to own a firearm. Hence, another example of the significance of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In what comes as no surprise for those who follow the goings on of the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council (ironically named) passed 5 resolutions last week against Israel. But, under President Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the US voted against all 5 resolutions. Quite a change from the team of Obama, Kerry and Power. Australia was the only other country voting against all the resolutions.
In a recent telephone call to Vladimir Putin, President Trump congratulated Putin on his recent reelection. It is something that world leaders tend to do. Obama did the same thing with Putin. But the MSM (mainstream media) says things are different today, with the Russian collusion story and all. Therefore, they had yet another reason to criticize Trump. Personally, I would have preferred that Trump did not congratulate Putin on his farcical reelection. But, it hardly warranted the attention it received.
President Trump recently announced that he was replacing General McMaster as National Security Adviser with former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. The Left and the MSM are nearly apoplectic over the announcement. They cast Bolton as a warmonger. I have seen Bolton numerous times on TV. I have repeatedly heard Bolton discuss diplomacy and sanctions. Bolton: "If you want to punish a country for behavior you don't accept, you need punishing sanctions that are broad, not targeted,and they need to be enforced."
Bolton did oppose Bill Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, which did prove to be a failure - given the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. Bolton also opposed Obama's nuke deal with Iran, fearing that the end result will be the same as with North Korea.
And, in what is today an affront to the Left and many Democrats, Bolton is a tremendous supporter of Israel. He does not believe in the two state solution; although he has discussed the possibility of a three state solution, with Egypt again taking control of Gaza and Jordan resuming control over the West Bank. I do not necessarily concur, but Bolton understands that there is no deal to made with the Arabs of Palestine. Bolton: "From the very creation of Israel as a state, it has been mistreated at the UN, the most flagrant example of the UN's capacity to distort reality." (Quote from Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option.") Bolton was also instrumental in getting a reversal of the UN's 1975 resolution declaring Zionism to be racism.
A final note. I care not at all about what relations Trump may have had with Stormy Daniels, just as I did not care about Bill Clinton's interactions with Monica Lewinsky. I am bewildered by those who equate a politician's sexual dalliances with the capability to govern. When we vote for President, it is not the same as naming a Pope or Chief Rabbi or the like. Would I prefer that every President be of fine moral character? Sure. But it is more important that they be a strong leader for the USA.
In the 3/28/18 LA Times, a front page headline tells us that "O.C.'s conservative side is alive and well." My first question is: why do liberals want to protect criminal aliens here illegally? The article tells us that the vote by the County supervisors "added a powerful voice to a growing backlash against California's pro-immigrant policies." My next question: why does the LA Times lie? I do not know conservatives who oppose legal immigration of non-criminals. But for the mainstream media, immigrant = illegal immigrant = criminal illegal alien, including those guilty of violent crimes. Yes, let's protect those people.
Meanwhile, retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times this week, opining that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer defensible. Said the Justice: "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" was the original rationale. "Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century." We already have 4 Justices who would not interpret the Second Amendment to allow an individual to own a firearm. Hence, another example of the significance of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In what comes as no surprise for those who follow the goings on of the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council (ironically named) passed 5 resolutions last week against Israel. But, under President Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the US voted against all 5 resolutions. Quite a change from the team of Obama, Kerry and Power. Australia was the only other country voting against all the resolutions.
In a recent telephone call to Vladimir Putin, President Trump congratulated Putin on his recent reelection. It is something that world leaders tend to do. Obama did the same thing with Putin. But the MSM (mainstream media) says things are different today, with the Russian collusion story and all. Therefore, they had yet another reason to criticize Trump. Personally, I would have preferred that Trump did not congratulate Putin on his farcical reelection. But, it hardly warranted the attention it received.
President Trump recently announced that he was replacing General McMaster as National Security Adviser with former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. The Left and the MSM are nearly apoplectic over the announcement. They cast Bolton as a warmonger. I have seen Bolton numerous times on TV. I have repeatedly heard Bolton discuss diplomacy and sanctions. Bolton: "If you want to punish a country for behavior you don't accept, you need punishing sanctions that are broad, not targeted,and they need to be enforced."
Bolton did oppose Bill Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, which did prove to be a failure - given the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. Bolton also opposed Obama's nuke deal with Iran, fearing that the end result will be the same as with North Korea.
And, in what is today an affront to the Left and many Democrats, Bolton is a tremendous supporter of Israel. He does not believe in the two state solution; although he has discussed the possibility of a three state solution, with Egypt again taking control of Gaza and Jordan resuming control over the West Bank. I do not necessarily concur, but Bolton understands that there is no deal to made with the Arabs of Palestine. Bolton: "From the very creation of Israel as a state, it has been mistreated at the UN, the most flagrant example of the UN's capacity to distort reality." (Quote from Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option.") Bolton was also instrumental in getting a reversal of the UN's 1975 resolution declaring Zionism to be racism.
A final note. I care not at all about what relations Trump may have had with Stormy Daniels, just as I did not care about Bill Clinton's interactions with Monica Lewinsky. I am bewildered by those who equate a politician's sexual dalliances with the capability to govern. When we vote for President, it is not the same as naming a Pope or Chief Rabbi or the like. Would I prefer that every President be of fine moral character? Sure. But it is more important that they be a strong leader for the USA.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Is Trump an Authoritarian?
As mentioned in the prior post, the 3/18/18 Book Review section of the New York Times has an analysis by Andrew Sullivan on two new books. The one authored by Cass Sunstein on impeachment is discussed in the prior post. This post discusses "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," which was edited by Cass Sunstein. Sullivan/Sunstein (again, it is not clear who is speaking) do not expect Trump to become an outright dictator. No, the suggestion is that he would be an authoritarian in the manner of Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
That is curious. Back in Obama's first term, in January, 2012, Obama gave an interview to Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine. When asked about close relationships he has developed with other world leaders he names, among others, Recep Erdogan. One may recall that Obama liked the "authoritarian" Erdogan a whole lot more than he liked the democratic Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of the ways Trump might be helped in exerting this authoritarian control are "ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News."
Once again, you have to admire the artful characterization of conservative media; all the while ignoring how virtually the entire mainstream media, with the New York Times leading the way, was in the tank for Obama. Or, to put it the way Sullivan/Sunstein might, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC all acted as propaganda arms for the Obama Administration. It is also essential that the point be made that this Sullivan/Sunstein article views conservative news outlets as being bad. The Left has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Trump calls the mainstream media the "fake news." But many of their articles are fake in the sense of pushing the Left-wing agenda ahead of honest reporting. But recall that it was Obama who, along with his top aids, repeated the same line about Fox not being a real news organization. It was as if Obama had declared war on Fox News. Why? Because Fox would not adhere to the Obama/Democrats party line. And talk radio? Obama also expressed his dissatisfaction with Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for conservatives. When Obama went after the media, that was acceptable. Only when Trump attacks the media does it become a sign of authoritarianism.
The article then discusses the "wreckage" caused by Trump in his first year. They say that Trump has gone after the FBI, the CIA, the media, judges, and so on. In case you were wondering - no, Trump has not done one single positive thing; at least, the article did not suggest that he did. Why shouldn't Trump attack the bias of the FBI? Think Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe. The CIA past and present is always nonpartisan, right? It is hard to believe that any CIA Director would ever make this comment about the President of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." Actually, former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, just made those remarks.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Brennan feels that way about Trump. However, I care a great deal when we have high government officials, past or present, publicly making such distasteful and repulsive comments that add nothing to the civil discourse of real issues.
The article concludes with the assertion that the American people "voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist..." And I thought it was Obama who told us that "we're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Yes, no point in waiting for the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass bills. Who's the monarch?
That is curious. Back in Obama's first term, in January, 2012, Obama gave an interview to Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine. When asked about close relationships he has developed with other world leaders he names, among others, Recep Erdogan. One may recall that Obama liked the "authoritarian" Erdogan a whole lot more than he liked the democratic Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of the ways Trump might be helped in exerting this authoritarian control are "ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News."
Once again, you have to admire the artful characterization of conservative media; all the while ignoring how virtually the entire mainstream media, with the New York Times leading the way, was in the tank for Obama. Or, to put it the way Sullivan/Sunstein might, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC all acted as propaganda arms for the Obama Administration. It is also essential that the point be made that this Sullivan/Sunstein article views conservative news outlets as being bad. The Left has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Trump calls the mainstream media the "fake news." But many of their articles are fake in the sense of pushing the Left-wing agenda ahead of honest reporting. But recall that it was Obama who, along with his top aids, repeated the same line about Fox not being a real news organization. It was as if Obama had declared war on Fox News. Why? Because Fox would not adhere to the Obama/Democrats party line. And talk radio? Obama also expressed his dissatisfaction with Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for conservatives. When Obama went after the media, that was acceptable. Only when Trump attacks the media does it become a sign of authoritarianism.
The article then discusses the "wreckage" caused by Trump in his first year. They say that Trump has gone after the FBI, the CIA, the media, judges, and so on. In case you were wondering - no, Trump has not done one single positive thing; at least, the article did not suggest that he did. Why shouldn't Trump attack the bias of the FBI? Think Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe. The CIA past and present is always nonpartisan, right? It is hard to believe that any CIA Director would ever make this comment about the President of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." Actually, former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, just made those remarks.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Brennan feels that way about Trump. However, I care a great deal when we have high government officials, past or present, publicly making such distasteful and repulsive comments that add nothing to the civil discourse of real issues.
The article concludes with the assertion that the American people "voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist..." And I thought it was Obama who told us that "we're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Yes, no point in waiting for the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass bills. Who's the monarch?
Russia, Trump and Impeachment
Starting on the first page - in large print - of the Book Review section in today's New York Times, is an analysis by liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan of two books. One, written by former Obama aid and confidante Cass Sunstein, is entitled "Impeachment, A Citizen's Guide," and is the subject of this post. The other, edited by Sunstein, is entitled "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," and is the subject of the next post. Sullivan starts his piece discussing the four times impeachment proceedings were begun, along with a general review of when impeachment might be proper.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Guns - Comments From the Commentators
(Note: On 1/12/13, only one month after the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, I wrote a post entitled "Guns." As with all my posts, that post is still up on the blog, and the points discussed there are just as pertinent today following the latest school shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Reading of that post would be a good intro, if you will, to the current post. In case those who disagree with me on the issue think that I do not care, let me state how horrific and terrible any school shooting is, and any murder is.)
After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, it appeared that many took up their usual positions on the issue of guns. I read and heard countless opinion pieces, letters to the editor and stories from people about how evil the NRA is. I have heard it said that NRA members should have to suffer the loss of a child. What a terrible thing to wish on someone. Here is what I have not heard from many on the Left - an actual analysis. The first question that I would ask is are there in fact more school shootings today than there were before? Assuming that there are, the next logical question would be: why?
Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of venom directed at the NRA, with virtually none directed at the actual perpetrator. Not only is religious affiliation and attendance at religious services down in the US, but the religious belief that we are responsible for own actions seems to have vanished from our society. The Ten Commandments give us some basic instructions on proper behavior. But the Ten Commandments are no longer allowed in public schools nor anywhere in the public square. Beginning in the 1960's, we started to blame "society" for the misbehavior, and even criminal behavior, of offenders. Also worthy of note is that in the year 1960, only 5% of all births were outside of marriage. However, by the mid-2000's, that number had jumped to 40%. Does any of this matter?
In an interesting Op-Ed in the 3/2/18 Ventura County Star, Jay Ambrose tells us that the shooters in Parkland, Newtown and at the Charleston, South Carolina church were all carried out by young men raised without involvement from their fathers. Ambrose cites a CNN report regarding the "deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history," noting that seven of the killers were under the age of 30 - and only one of them was raised with a father throughout his childhood. Ambrose cites a federal study concluding that suicides by young people mostly occur in fatherless homes - 63% of the time. Many of us recall the TV show Murphy Brown (played by Candace Bergen), with Brown, as a single Mom, giving birth to a baby boy. Then Vice President Dan Quayle said that by giving birth as a single Mom, Brown was "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Quayle was heavily criticized by the Left. Of course, countless studies since then have demonstrated the importance of fathers being in the home - from lower poverty rates, lower school dropout rates, less drug involvement, and so on.
In a 2/27/18 Op-Ed in the LA Times, Devin Hughes and Mark Bryant opine that: "In reality, the best research shows what common sense tells us: More guns mean more crime and more death." Except, that does not appear to be the case. The number of guns in private hands in the US is at an all time high, yet the murder rate and overall crime rate has been going down. Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December, 2012, the liberal magazine, The Atlantic, reported that 75% of the guns used in the US in mass shootings were obtained illegally. And Fox and the WSJ reported that only 11% of the time were legally obtained guns used in gun crimes. But how surprising should it be that someone intent on doing evil is also willing to break the law in order to obtain their instruments of killing.
Peggy Noonan had a different take from Messrs. Hughes and Bryant in her weekend (2/17-2/18/18) column in the Wall Street Journal. After asking what has changed in society in the last 40 years that would account for all these mass killings, she declares this: "The family blew up - divorce, unwed childbearing. Fatherless sons. Fatherless daughters, too. Poor children with no one to love them. The internet flourished. Porn proliferated. Drugs, legal and illegal. Violent videogames...The abortion regime settled in...An increasingly violent entertainment culture..." Some of us recall the Westerns where, when the bad guys got shot, say in the stomach, they would grab their stomach and fall. We never saw a single drop of blood. Now, we can witness the most horrific gun violence, with blood spurting everywhere, as if it was all real. I fail to see the benefit of that, as it undoubtedly hardens at least some young people to the effects of such violence.
In yet another Op-Ed, in the 2/21/18 NY Times by Amy Barnhorst, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UC, Davis, we are told that "The mental health system doesn't identify most of these (potentially violent) people because they don't come in to get care. And even if they do, laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person's will." Then, she makes this telling comment: "But there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred." Maybe not, but religion can teach that we do not get to do whatever we want against whoever we want. And "entitlement?" We have seen far too much of that attitude in our society. It is now passe to say that one should have to work for what they get. Even more importantly, one should always be grateful for what they have, not stress over what they do not have. But religion teaches that.
Karen Lehrman Bloch has a regular column in the LA Jewish Journal. She writes that: "In New York City, so-called progressive groups are succeeding at removing metal detectors from high schools. Why? Because they consider them 'racist.' That's right. Racist metal detectors." (As an aside, and not to make light of this serious topic, my doctor just put me on a "no whites" diet - no white bread, no white rice, no white flour and the like. Nothing white. Racist?)
I cannot end this post without noting the failure of the "if you see something, say something" maxim. So many people said something- to the school, to the local police, and even to the FBI. Then again, the FBI has failed us so many times before it is hard to keep track. And what about the sheriff who was on the scene and the three who arrived shortly thereafter - yet failed to confront the shooter. My friend who is a retired cop, explained that during the time a shooter has to turn his weapon away from the victims to the person shooting at him, gives precious seconds to the students allowing them to run and escape. That same friend asks this: "Who would you rather have carrying a gun during the Florida incident? The three police officers who cowardly hid while the shooting was taking place and kids were being massacred? Or, the coach who bravely went after the gunman without being armed?"
You see, that friend was involved in 4 shootouts during his career. He has seen cops conveniently arrive late to the scene of an active shooter. Therefore, when many on the Left say only the police should be armed, he gets infuriated. He knows that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." And, even then, it is quite clear that we cannot always rely on the police.
After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, it appeared that many took up their usual positions on the issue of guns. I read and heard countless opinion pieces, letters to the editor and stories from people about how evil the NRA is. I have heard it said that NRA members should have to suffer the loss of a child. What a terrible thing to wish on someone. Here is what I have not heard from many on the Left - an actual analysis. The first question that I would ask is are there in fact more school shootings today than there were before? Assuming that there are, the next logical question would be: why?
Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of venom directed at the NRA, with virtually none directed at the actual perpetrator. Not only is religious affiliation and attendance at religious services down in the US, but the religious belief that we are responsible for own actions seems to have vanished from our society. The Ten Commandments give us some basic instructions on proper behavior. But the Ten Commandments are no longer allowed in public schools nor anywhere in the public square. Beginning in the 1960's, we started to blame "society" for the misbehavior, and even criminal behavior, of offenders. Also worthy of note is that in the year 1960, only 5% of all births were outside of marriage. However, by the mid-2000's, that number had jumped to 40%. Does any of this matter?
In an interesting Op-Ed in the 3/2/18 Ventura County Star, Jay Ambrose tells us that the shooters in Parkland, Newtown and at the Charleston, South Carolina church were all carried out by young men raised without involvement from their fathers. Ambrose cites a CNN report regarding the "deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history," noting that seven of the killers were under the age of 30 - and only one of them was raised with a father throughout his childhood. Ambrose cites a federal study concluding that suicides by young people mostly occur in fatherless homes - 63% of the time. Many of us recall the TV show Murphy Brown (played by Candace Bergen), with Brown, as a single Mom, giving birth to a baby boy. Then Vice President Dan Quayle said that by giving birth as a single Mom, Brown was "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Quayle was heavily criticized by the Left. Of course, countless studies since then have demonstrated the importance of fathers being in the home - from lower poverty rates, lower school dropout rates, less drug involvement, and so on.
In a 2/27/18 Op-Ed in the LA Times, Devin Hughes and Mark Bryant opine that: "In reality, the best research shows what common sense tells us: More guns mean more crime and more death." Except, that does not appear to be the case. The number of guns in private hands in the US is at an all time high, yet the murder rate and overall crime rate has been going down. Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December, 2012, the liberal magazine, The Atlantic, reported that 75% of the guns used in the US in mass shootings were obtained illegally. And Fox and the WSJ reported that only 11% of the time were legally obtained guns used in gun crimes. But how surprising should it be that someone intent on doing evil is also willing to break the law in order to obtain their instruments of killing.
Peggy Noonan had a different take from Messrs. Hughes and Bryant in her weekend (2/17-2/18/18) column in the Wall Street Journal. After asking what has changed in society in the last 40 years that would account for all these mass killings, she declares this: "The family blew up - divorce, unwed childbearing. Fatherless sons. Fatherless daughters, too. Poor children with no one to love them. The internet flourished. Porn proliferated. Drugs, legal and illegal. Violent videogames...The abortion regime settled in...An increasingly violent entertainment culture..." Some of us recall the Westerns where, when the bad guys got shot, say in the stomach, they would grab their stomach and fall. We never saw a single drop of blood. Now, we can witness the most horrific gun violence, with blood spurting everywhere, as if it was all real. I fail to see the benefit of that, as it undoubtedly hardens at least some young people to the effects of such violence.
In yet another Op-Ed, in the 2/21/18 NY Times by Amy Barnhorst, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UC, Davis, we are told that "The mental health system doesn't identify most of these (potentially violent) people because they don't come in to get care. And even if they do, laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person's will." Then, she makes this telling comment: "But there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred." Maybe not, but religion can teach that we do not get to do whatever we want against whoever we want. And "entitlement?" We have seen far too much of that attitude in our society. It is now passe to say that one should have to work for what they get. Even more importantly, one should always be grateful for what they have, not stress over what they do not have. But religion teaches that.
Karen Lehrman Bloch has a regular column in the LA Jewish Journal. She writes that: "In New York City, so-called progressive groups are succeeding at removing metal detectors from high schools. Why? Because they consider them 'racist.' That's right. Racist metal detectors." (As an aside, and not to make light of this serious topic, my doctor just put me on a "no whites" diet - no white bread, no white rice, no white flour and the like. Nothing white. Racist?)
I cannot end this post without noting the failure of the "if you see something, say something" maxim. So many people said something- to the school, to the local police, and even to the FBI. Then again, the FBI has failed us so many times before it is hard to keep track. And what about the sheriff who was on the scene and the three who arrived shortly thereafter - yet failed to confront the shooter. My friend who is a retired cop, explained that during the time a shooter has to turn his weapon away from the victims to the person shooting at him, gives precious seconds to the students allowing them to run and escape. That same friend asks this: "Who would you rather have carrying a gun during the Florida incident? The three police officers who cowardly hid while the shooting was taking place and kids were being massacred? Or, the coach who bravely went after the gunman without being armed?"
You see, that friend was involved in 4 shootouts during his career. He has seen cops conveniently arrive late to the scene of an active shooter. Therefore, when many on the Left say only the police should be armed, he gets infuriated. He knows that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." And, even then, it is quite clear that we cannot always rely on the police.
The Incivility of the Uncivil Left
(Note: As regular readers of this blog know, I recently wrote two posts discussing this issue. See the 1/30/18 post "The Last Acceptable Prejudice," as well as the next one of 2/6/18 entitled "In Case Anyone Needed Further Proof...". As a result of some personal interactions, along with an LA Times Op-Ed, I was prompted to write this further post on the incivility of the Left.)
A Ron Berler wrote an Op-Ed that appeared in the 2/18/18 LA Times. He is 68 years old and was having dinner with a long time friend, a man who had been at his wedding, a man whom Berler said "was important to me." Berler describes their friendship as having "frayed" over a period of 18 months because of Donald Trump. Although they had agreed not to discuss politics, Berler says he "just couldn't help it."
Berler wrote that he just had to have an answer about Trump's character: "...the things he's said and done - the race-baiting, the name calling, the womanizing, the divisive attacks on immigrants and refugees and everyone who opposes him - doesn't that make you question his character?" Of course, what Berler was really asking his friend was this: "What is wrong with you? How can you not detest Trump?" His friend, clearly being more civil, answered as follows: "I don't judge people." While that may be unlikely, I suspect that his friend was trying to politely avoid politics - a topic that they had agreed they would not discuss.
Had Berler asked that question of me, I likely would have given this answer: "How in the world did you support Obama? (He does not say that he did, but it seems to be a fair assumption.) His race-baiting of the Cambridge police, the Ferguson police, and every time a black man was involved with the police. Race relations were set back decades thanks to Obama. What about Obama's name calling and demonization of those who opposed him? From day one he attacked Fox News. He attacked the Tea Party. He attacked all Republicans as wanting dirty air and dirty water, among other accusations. He favored immigrants over American citizens, and mocked Americans who 'cling to their guns and religion.' And lies? Sure, Trump lied about things like the size of the crowd at his inauguration. But Obama lied about important policy decisions. Obama told us: 'If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.' Now, what were you asking me about Trump?"
Berler next revealed his true contempt for those who might disagree with him. He consulted with three psychology professors claiming to seek an explanation for the "chasm" that had developed between him and his friend. But his real motivation was revealed a few paragraphs later as he asked one of the professors this question: "Why will a person go to irrational lengths to defend an act that he or she knows is indefensible?" Once again, Berler's real question is: "What is wrong with my friend?" And: "How can anyone defend Trump?" And then Berler asks the third psychologist this question: "What is the likelihood that my friend will return to rational thought?" What sheer arrogance! Berler agreed not to discuss politics with his friend. Having broken that agreement, his friend refused to take the bait. And his friend is the one lacking in rational thought? This is just another example of a Leftist abandoning a long term friendship because they are unable to accept the notion that someone - anyone - might not share their viewpoints. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives.
On a more personal level, I recently ran into a man I have known for 40 years. He is older than I am, and not having seen him in a while, and out of my respect and fondness for him, I approached him and gave him a hug. He was standoffish. I mentioned something about him and his wife getting together with me and my wife. He has known my wife for probably 38 years. He deflected my invitation. Subsequently, I sent him an email indicating that I wanted to apologize for whatever I may have said or done to upset him. Basically, I did not do or say anything. Having read some of my blog posts, he just could not understand my politics. Disappointing? Yes. Hurtful? Yes again. But, as a conservative it is something that I have come to expect from those on the intolerant and uncivil Left.
One more personal note. Our youngest daughter recently went out on a date. During the course of the conversation, the young man uttered these words: "I hate Republicans." Maybe in California he thought it was a safe bet to assume that everyone is a liberal Democrat (which is a Leftist today). While my daughter is definitely more liberal than her Dad, she also loves her Republican Dad. I would like to suggest that this young man might benefit from taking a look at "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
In what may be a rare instance of agreement with Nicholas Kristof, he ended his 2/18/18 column in the NY Times with this: "Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
A Ron Berler wrote an Op-Ed that appeared in the 2/18/18 LA Times. He is 68 years old and was having dinner with a long time friend, a man who had been at his wedding, a man whom Berler said "was important to me." Berler describes their friendship as having "frayed" over a period of 18 months because of Donald Trump. Although they had agreed not to discuss politics, Berler says he "just couldn't help it."
Berler wrote that he just had to have an answer about Trump's character: "...the things he's said and done - the race-baiting, the name calling, the womanizing, the divisive attacks on immigrants and refugees and everyone who opposes him - doesn't that make you question his character?" Of course, what Berler was really asking his friend was this: "What is wrong with you? How can you not detest Trump?" His friend, clearly being more civil, answered as follows: "I don't judge people." While that may be unlikely, I suspect that his friend was trying to politely avoid politics - a topic that they had agreed they would not discuss.
Had Berler asked that question of me, I likely would have given this answer: "How in the world did you support Obama? (He does not say that he did, but it seems to be a fair assumption.) His race-baiting of the Cambridge police, the Ferguson police, and every time a black man was involved with the police. Race relations were set back decades thanks to Obama. What about Obama's name calling and demonization of those who opposed him? From day one he attacked Fox News. He attacked the Tea Party. He attacked all Republicans as wanting dirty air and dirty water, among other accusations. He favored immigrants over American citizens, and mocked Americans who 'cling to their guns and religion.' And lies? Sure, Trump lied about things like the size of the crowd at his inauguration. But Obama lied about important policy decisions. Obama told us: 'If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.' Now, what were you asking me about Trump?"
Berler next revealed his true contempt for those who might disagree with him. He consulted with three psychology professors claiming to seek an explanation for the "chasm" that had developed between him and his friend. But his real motivation was revealed a few paragraphs later as he asked one of the professors this question: "Why will a person go to irrational lengths to defend an act that he or she knows is indefensible?" Once again, Berler's real question is: "What is wrong with my friend?" And: "How can anyone defend Trump?" And then Berler asks the third psychologist this question: "What is the likelihood that my friend will return to rational thought?" What sheer arrogance! Berler agreed not to discuss politics with his friend. Having broken that agreement, his friend refused to take the bait. And his friend is the one lacking in rational thought? This is just another example of a Leftist abandoning a long term friendship because they are unable to accept the notion that someone - anyone - might not share their viewpoints. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives.
On a more personal level, I recently ran into a man I have known for 40 years. He is older than I am, and not having seen him in a while, and out of my respect and fondness for him, I approached him and gave him a hug. He was standoffish. I mentioned something about him and his wife getting together with me and my wife. He has known my wife for probably 38 years. He deflected my invitation. Subsequently, I sent him an email indicating that I wanted to apologize for whatever I may have said or done to upset him. Basically, I did not do or say anything. Having read some of my blog posts, he just could not understand my politics. Disappointing? Yes. Hurtful? Yes again. But, as a conservative it is something that I have come to expect from those on the intolerant and uncivil Left.
One more personal note. Our youngest daughter recently went out on a date. During the course of the conversation, the young man uttered these words: "I hate Republicans." Maybe in California he thought it was a safe bet to assume that everyone is a liberal Democrat (which is a Leftist today). While my daughter is definitely more liberal than her Dad, she also loves her Republican Dad. I would like to suggest that this young man might benefit from taking a look at "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
In what may be a rare instance of agreement with Nicholas Kristof, he ended his 2/18/18 column in the NY Times with this: "Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)