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.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Thursday, August 11, 2016
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."
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."
Monday, August 8, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, August 1, 2016
An Email Exchange With the Woman Attorney From the Last Post
Following the last post, I have had an email exchange with the woman attorney who started to get up to open the door to the courtroom, but then sat back down. I promised her the last word if she would allow me to post the exchange. Therefore, while I would otherwise have much to say about her last email to me, I will keep my word and not pursue it further on the blog. Anyone who wishes to have a further discussion can email me directly.
Me: "You got up to open the door to the courtroom, and then sat down before doing so because the other attorney said not to because I'm a Republican. Seriously? Is that what we've come to? I was very disappointed. Call if you'd like."
The woman attorney: "I think I was in total disbelief that you could possibly be a Republican supporting Trump, which is what I gleamed from the other attorney's comment. I can't imagine how you can support the views that comes out of that man's mouth. To me anyone that supports him disrespects women, minorities, humanity and simply the decency of this country and its' security."
"It is very telling and quite frankly, it has come to this. Apparently you believe Trump should be the one nominating our next Supreme Court Justices, and that absolutely sickens my stomach. This isn't a Republican v Democrat thing. There are plenty of Republicans who repudiate everything that Trump stands for. You may have been very disappointed and I am sorry that you felt this way, but really, anyone who could support Trump and especially an observant Jew; (who knows what happens when you persecute groups of people) really blows my mind. Enough said."
Me: "Please give me the courtesy of a few words in reply. How well do we really know each other? Like you, I represent injured workers. We have three adult children - 2 daughters and 1 son. We encouraged our daughters to achieve, same as our son. One daughter is back in school getting an MBA. The other daughter has a Masters in mathematics and works at an aerospace company. (As an aside, she has a "secret" security clearance, and if she did what Hillary did she'd be in prison already.) I love my daughters and they love me."
"I raised all our kids with what I called the No. 1 Rule - always do the right thing, regardless of what anyone else is doing. Now, to your issues. Yes, I am a Republican. Trump was never my first, second, tenth or any choice. I have said, and I said to the other attorney, that I believe we have the worst two choices for President in my lifetime. I am, at times, disgusted by the words that leave Trump's mouth."
"So, here are a few questions for you. Do you prescreen all applicants (injured workers) before agreeing to take their case and ask if they are a Democrat or Republican? Aside from all my usual aches and pains from my chronic orthopedic problems, my knees have been bothering me. As the other attorney was near the door I asked him to prop it open. When I enter or leave any public place I hold the door open for everyone - male, female, young, old, everyone. I do not ask their party affiliation first."
"What should I make of your support for Hillary? After all, she defended her husband, the sexual predator, against many women who made serious allegations against Bill. What should I make of Obama and Hillary's mistreatment of the Israeli leader? Do you know who Sidney and Max Blumenthal are? Do you agree that Jews should leave Israel because the land belongs to the Arabs?"
"Are you aware of the tremendous shift the Democratic party has taken away from Classical Liberalism? Did you see the Palestinian flag at the Democratic convention? Did you see them burning the Israeli flag outside? I write a political blog. Yes, it's conservative. But attorneys on your side of the fence read it. Aside from my opinions, I provide a lot of information that you may not find in the mainstream media. Before you get "sick to your stomach" why not see what I have to say? If you have any interest, it is at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com By the way, my daughters set up and named the blog for me."
"I would like to ask a favor. I would like to post our email exchange on my blog. If you allow me to do so, I will not put your name anywhere, and I will give you the last word if you want to reply to this, without further comment by me."
"One more question. If I was walking out of the Court one day and saw you being assaulted by someone, should I stop and help? Or, now that I know your feelings towards Republicans, should I just keep walking? It's just a rhetorical question. After all, all three of my kids would be extremely disappointed in me if I did not follow the No. 1 Rule. All the best, Mike"
The woman attorney: "Certainly you can post my email without my name. For starters, the reason you asked that the door be propped open was because it was stuffy in the room. If you had been unable to open the door I would have opened it for you and without asking your party affiliation. While I may not agree with your views about Secretary Clinton or President Obama, I certainly don't understand your willingness to support Trump. This has nothing to do with Hillary. The fact that you could support Trump Is what I have difficulty with. I don't care if he wasn't your 1st or 50th choice."
"The fact that he is clearly unqualified, a racist, misogynist, a liar, dangerous to our national security, volatile, and far too many despicable things to list here that signify his inability to run this country is what troubles me with your decision. I myself have two amazing children. My son did his undergrad at UPenn and obtained a degree in Finance from Wharton. He then taught school for 3 years through Teach for America and obtained a Masters in Education. He just graduated from Stanford Law School. I have taught him to always give back to your country, which he did through Teach for America. He taught many amazing children from undocumented parents who only wanted their kids to get the best education possible. I couldn't be prouder of his choices in life. My daughter has her Masters from USC and manages a museum."
"Both my kids have lived in Israel. My children are Israeli citizens as is my husband along with being proud Americans, and we stand proudly in support of Hillary. I know of personal situations where Hillary has helped friends of mine including healthcare issues. This was not in front of cameras or for publicity. It is just who she is. No candidate is ever perfect. This isn't about Bill Clinton or the naked photos of Melania Trump or her plagiarized speech. This isn't about the fact that Trump has 5 children with 3 wives. This is about the safety and security and future of the country that I live in. This is not a reality TV show. When you have David Duke and Duck Dynasty supporting you and you lie about even knowing who David Duke is, and then back track and say you do, well that says it all. Let's add treason to the list if we want to talk offenses. In my world if I were a Republican in this election and didn't want to vote for Hillary, I would never, ever in a million years no matter what, vote for Trump. I have too much self respect as a woman, a mother, a daughter, a wife, a Jew, and an attorney."
"I will not address your issues with Hillary as I have said I don't agree with you, but this isn't about her. It's about your decision to support a candidate who spews hate of the worst kind and is divisive, and simply not qualified. So I guess you go for the candidate who mocks those with disabilities when you yourself obviously know what it is like. I guess you support the guy who is a misogynist when you have daughters and a wife and think that's okay. Thankfully and proudly my husband is outraged by Trump's comments about women, minorities and the disabled. It is no laughing matter. As a Jew, I was raised to help and support the underdog as we were for so long. I'm not here to build a wall and kick out the people who live here or to ban people who have a right to enter our country. You had no problem making a living off those people nor did Trump. Hypocrisy at its worst. I don't want to engage in a political battle with you. I just don't think you should commit political suicide." (There was no sign off.)
Me: "You got up to open the door to the courtroom, and then sat down before doing so because the other attorney said not to because I'm a Republican. Seriously? Is that what we've come to? I was very disappointed. Call if you'd like."
The woman attorney: "I think I was in total disbelief that you could possibly be a Republican supporting Trump, which is what I gleamed from the other attorney's comment. I can't imagine how you can support the views that comes out of that man's mouth. To me anyone that supports him disrespects women, minorities, humanity and simply the decency of this country and its' security."
"It is very telling and quite frankly, it has come to this. Apparently you believe Trump should be the one nominating our next Supreme Court Justices, and that absolutely sickens my stomach. This isn't a Republican v Democrat thing. There are plenty of Republicans who repudiate everything that Trump stands for. You may have been very disappointed and I am sorry that you felt this way, but really, anyone who could support Trump and especially an observant Jew; (who knows what happens when you persecute groups of people) really blows my mind. Enough said."
Me: "Please give me the courtesy of a few words in reply. How well do we really know each other? Like you, I represent injured workers. We have three adult children - 2 daughters and 1 son. We encouraged our daughters to achieve, same as our son. One daughter is back in school getting an MBA. The other daughter has a Masters in mathematics and works at an aerospace company. (As an aside, she has a "secret" security clearance, and if she did what Hillary did she'd be in prison already.) I love my daughters and they love me."
"I raised all our kids with what I called the No. 1 Rule - always do the right thing, regardless of what anyone else is doing. Now, to your issues. Yes, I am a Republican. Trump was never my first, second, tenth or any choice. I have said, and I said to the other attorney, that I believe we have the worst two choices for President in my lifetime. I am, at times, disgusted by the words that leave Trump's mouth."
"So, here are a few questions for you. Do you prescreen all applicants (injured workers) before agreeing to take their case and ask if they are a Democrat or Republican? Aside from all my usual aches and pains from my chronic orthopedic problems, my knees have been bothering me. As the other attorney was near the door I asked him to prop it open. When I enter or leave any public place I hold the door open for everyone - male, female, young, old, everyone. I do not ask their party affiliation first."
"What should I make of your support for Hillary? After all, she defended her husband, the sexual predator, against many women who made serious allegations against Bill. What should I make of Obama and Hillary's mistreatment of the Israeli leader? Do you know who Sidney and Max Blumenthal are? Do you agree that Jews should leave Israel because the land belongs to the Arabs?"
"Are you aware of the tremendous shift the Democratic party has taken away from Classical Liberalism? Did you see the Palestinian flag at the Democratic convention? Did you see them burning the Israeli flag outside? I write a political blog. Yes, it's conservative. But attorneys on your side of the fence read it. Aside from my opinions, I provide a lot of information that you may not find in the mainstream media. Before you get "sick to your stomach" why not see what I have to say? If you have any interest, it is at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com By the way, my daughters set up and named the blog for me."
"I would like to ask a favor. I would like to post our email exchange on my blog. If you allow me to do so, I will not put your name anywhere, and I will give you the last word if you want to reply to this, without further comment by me."
"One more question. If I was walking out of the Court one day and saw you being assaulted by someone, should I stop and help? Or, now that I know your feelings towards Republicans, should I just keep walking? It's just a rhetorical question. After all, all three of my kids would be extremely disappointed in me if I did not follow the No. 1 Rule. All the best, Mike"
The woman attorney: "Certainly you can post my email without my name. For starters, the reason you asked that the door be propped open was because it was stuffy in the room. If you had been unable to open the door I would have opened it for you and without asking your party affiliation. While I may not agree with your views about Secretary Clinton or President Obama, I certainly don't understand your willingness to support Trump. This has nothing to do with Hillary. The fact that you could support Trump Is what I have difficulty with. I don't care if he wasn't your 1st or 50th choice."
"The fact that he is clearly unqualified, a racist, misogynist, a liar, dangerous to our national security, volatile, and far too many despicable things to list here that signify his inability to run this country is what troubles me with your decision. I myself have two amazing children. My son did his undergrad at UPenn and obtained a degree in Finance from Wharton. He then taught school for 3 years through Teach for America and obtained a Masters in Education. He just graduated from Stanford Law School. I have taught him to always give back to your country, which he did through Teach for America. He taught many amazing children from undocumented parents who only wanted their kids to get the best education possible. I couldn't be prouder of his choices in life. My daughter has her Masters from USC and manages a museum."
"Both my kids have lived in Israel. My children are Israeli citizens as is my husband along with being proud Americans, and we stand proudly in support of Hillary. I know of personal situations where Hillary has helped friends of mine including healthcare issues. This was not in front of cameras or for publicity. It is just who she is. No candidate is ever perfect. This isn't about Bill Clinton or the naked photos of Melania Trump or her plagiarized speech. This isn't about the fact that Trump has 5 children with 3 wives. This is about the safety and security and future of the country that I live in. This is not a reality TV show. When you have David Duke and Duck Dynasty supporting you and you lie about even knowing who David Duke is, and then back track and say you do, well that says it all. Let's add treason to the list if we want to talk offenses. In my world if I were a Republican in this election and didn't want to vote for Hillary, I would never, ever in a million years no matter what, vote for Trump. I have too much self respect as a woman, a mother, a daughter, a wife, a Jew, and an attorney."
"I will not address your issues with Hillary as I have said I don't agree with you, but this isn't about her. It's about your decision to support a candidate who spews hate of the worst kind and is divisive, and simply not qualified. So I guess you go for the candidate who mocks those with disabilities when you yourself obviously know what it is like. I guess you support the guy who is a misogynist when you have daughters and a wife and think that's okay. Thankfully and proudly my husband is outraged by Trump's comments about women, minorities and the disabled. It is no laughing matter. As a Jew, I was raised to help and support the underdog as we were for so long. I'm not here to build a wall and kick out the people who live here or to ban people who have a right to enter our country. You had no problem making a living off those people nor did Trump. Hypocrisy at its worst. I don't want to engage in a political battle with you. I just don't think you should commit political suicide." (There was no sign off.)
Friday, July 29, 2016
A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance
The other day I was sitting in Court minding my own business while awaiting opposing counsel. With other attorneys in the courtroom, but not the Judge, one attorney asks me if I'm going to have lunch with my buddy Putin soon. This attorney had recently run into me at a restaurant while I was having lunch with another conservative, Jewish attorney. I only recall saying then that I believe we have the worst two choices for President in my lifetime. He replied that one of them was the worst, anyway. So, he likes Hillary.
Back to the courtroom. As my knee is bothering me, and it was getting stuffy in the courtroom, I asked that attorney, who was standing by the door, if he would prop it open. He replied that he would not do it for me. Another attorney stood up and said she would do it. But when the first attorney told her not to do it because I'm a Republican, she sat back down.
Just because Trump made some ridiculous comment about Putin does not mean if I vote for Trump that I like Putin. I wonder what this attorney thought of Obama's dumb comment to Medvedev before the 2012 election: "Tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Putin then took Obama for the weak leader that he is, and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Back to the courtroom again. The attorney stood up again, and in an angry, hostile tone said: "I've had it up to here," putting his hand at the level of his neck. He continued: "I lived through Nixon, I lived through Bush, and I've had it up to here." He then asked to speak with me in the hallway. I thought that was better than continuing in the courtroom, so I stepped into the hallway with him. He said he had two questions for me.
The first question: "If you needed open heart surgery, would you go to someone with 30 years experience who had done thousands of such surgeries, or would you go to your local plumber." As the question was ridiculous I replied: "Can I have some time to think about it?" He got the point and moved on to his second question: "What was wrong with Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court? Who do you want filling that seat on the Supreme Court." I replied that I would like to see someone like Scalia appointed, and that only Trump would appoint such an individual.
His anger continued to rise. It was clear he was far too angry to have a conversation. I asked if he would like to read my blog for my viewpoints, pointing out that others on his side of the fence do read it. He said he knew about it and did not want to read it. I then inquired about what he did read - just the LA Times or NY Times? He replied that he read nothing. After suffering through his harassment and hostility, and admittedly not my finest moment, these words then left my mouth: "So, you're stupid then." At that, he stormed off.
If I run into this attorney again, I would apologize. I always prefer to keep things professional. However, it gets rather annoying that people think they can harass me or mock me because of my beliefs. I will never back down, however. People like this attorney need to read the July 17th post on "Classical Liberalism." The problem is, they probably still would not get it.
I have discussed this problem on a number of occasions - the left no longer believes in the fundamental American values. That is why they see no problem in saying they want to ban or shut down Chick-fil-A, because the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. It's always the "issue" at hand (gay marriage, or any other issue) taking precedence over the "fundamental value" - in this case, free speech and the First Amendment. And the fundamental value that people are allowed to hold opposing views without feeling a need to hurt them or threaten them physically or economically. But it explains why this attorney had no problem being openly hostile towards me because I disagree with him.
One friend told me that the gay Republican commentator, Milo Yiannopoulos, said it is easier for him to admit being gay than it is to admit being a conservative/Republican. I would not be surprised. That is certainly the case in Hollywood. And it may be the case in leftist areas of the country like California, New York City and other places. I will never back down. But the larger issue remains - can the Democratic left ever again return to being a party of tolerance, with a belief in Classical Liberalism and the fundamental American values?
Back to the courtroom. As my knee is bothering me, and it was getting stuffy in the courtroom, I asked that attorney, who was standing by the door, if he would prop it open. He replied that he would not do it for me. Another attorney stood up and said she would do it. But when the first attorney told her not to do it because I'm a Republican, she sat back down.
Just because Trump made some ridiculous comment about Putin does not mean if I vote for Trump that I like Putin. I wonder what this attorney thought of Obama's dumb comment to Medvedev before the 2012 election: "Tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Putin then took Obama for the weak leader that he is, and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Back to the courtroom again. The attorney stood up again, and in an angry, hostile tone said: "I've had it up to here," putting his hand at the level of his neck. He continued: "I lived through Nixon, I lived through Bush, and I've had it up to here." He then asked to speak with me in the hallway. I thought that was better than continuing in the courtroom, so I stepped into the hallway with him. He said he had two questions for me.
The first question: "If you needed open heart surgery, would you go to someone with 30 years experience who had done thousands of such surgeries, or would you go to your local plumber." As the question was ridiculous I replied: "Can I have some time to think about it?" He got the point and moved on to his second question: "What was wrong with Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court? Who do you want filling that seat on the Supreme Court." I replied that I would like to see someone like Scalia appointed, and that only Trump would appoint such an individual.
His anger continued to rise. It was clear he was far too angry to have a conversation. I asked if he would like to read my blog for my viewpoints, pointing out that others on his side of the fence do read it. He said he knew about it and did not want to read it. I then inquired about what he did read - just the LA Times or NY Times? He replied that he read nothing. After suffering through his harassment and hostility, and admittedly not my finest moment, these words then left my mouth: "So, you're stupid then." At that, he stormed off.
If I run into this attorney again, I would apologize. I always prefer to keep things professional. However, it gets rather annoying that people think they can harass me or mock me because of my beliefs. I will never back down, however. People like this attorney need to read the July 17th post on "Classical Liberalism." The problem is, they probably still would not get it.
I have discussed this problem on a number of occasions - the left no longer believes in the fundamental American values. That is why they see no problem in saying they want to ban or shut down Chick-fil-A, because the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. It's always the "issue" at hand (gay marriage, or any other issue) taking precedence over the "fundamental value" - in this case, free speech and the First Amendment. And the fundamental value that people are allowed to hold opposing views without feeling a need to hurt them or threaten them physically or economically. But it explains why this attorney had no problem being openly hostile towards me because I disagree with him.
One friend told me that the gay Republican commentator, Milo Yiannopoulos, said it is easier for him to admit being gay than it is to admit being a conservative/Republican. I would not be surprised. That is certainly the case in Hollywood. And it may be the case in leftist areas of the country like California, New York City and other places. I will never back down. But the larger issue remains - can the Democratic left ever again return to being a party of tolerance, with a belief in Classical Liberalism and the fundamental American values?
Sunday, July 24, 2016
A Few Words on the Blog and Spin
I started writing this blog shortly after Obama became President. It was actually set up and named by my daughters, who saw that I had been sending political emails to maybe 10-12 people I knew. Now, one daughter just added an email address for readers to be able to email me directly; as many readers are reluctant to post public comments. The email is in my profile, "About Me," and is mike.truthuncensored@gmail.com. My daughters also want to get my blog linked to other sites in order to increase readership. Stay tuned and I will let you know.
My last post discussed Melania's speech and the plagiarism issue. It was mentioned by some on the right that both Obama and Biden had been guilty of plagiarism. Why didn't I bring it up? The answer is because the plagiarism by Obama and Biden was irrelevant. Plagiarism is wrong. As with anything else that is wrong, it is not a defense to say "but other people do it also." Is stealing okay because others do it? Obviously not. I had no interest in defending Melania's partial copying of Michelle Obama's speech. What was significant was the difference in genuine beliefs of the Trumps versus the Obamas.
Similarly, an issue arose in one of the group emails in which I participate. One reader was incensed that I would not condemn Trump for accusing a judge of bias just based on his ethnicity (Hispanic) alone. I believe that reader was just so upset with my conservative views (this particular group email consists of mostly liberals) that he missed my very first comment about the issue. I had said that Trump's accusation of bias on the basis of ethnicity with no facts to support the bias was unconscionable. That participant in the blog had no interest in discussing any of Hillary's problems. He just wanted to make sure that I said Trump was wrong.
A friend recently just told me that he was watching the Republican convention on CNN, but would also switch to FOX periodically. He felt that he was entering into a different universe each time he switched from one station to the other. CNN commentators had nothing good to say about the convention or Trump's speech. On the other hand, the FOX commentators were gushing over Trump's speech as one of the best political speeches ever. Both views are nonsense.
Trump hit many issues that concern the average American: law and order, terrorism, the economy, jobs and manufacturing, taxes, education and school choice and school debt, veterans, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment and foreign affairs. Along the way, he threw in his criticisms of Hilary Clinton. It was, substantially, a populist speech, with a fair number of issues that would ordinarily appeal to Democrats. That made it all the more obvious that CNN and FOX were simply defending "their side," rather than giving a fair analysis. Which is why I encourage people, especially young people, to read different viewpoints. Which is also why I enjoy talk radio shows that have many callers, and make it a point to read letters to the editor. Those sources provide many different viewpoints.
Question: then weren't you justifying Trump's attack on the press when you answered with Obama's behavior towards the press? (See the 7/20/16 post "Get Ready For All The Lies.") Weren't you doing what you said you would not do because if something is wrong, it is wrong? Answer: not at all. The point of that post was not to defend Trump. Rather, it was to show the incredible bias of the elitists in the universities who were making Trump out to be the worst potential president for the First Amendment and freedom of the press, while ignoring the very real attacks on the press by a man who has actually been President for 7 1/2 years. The bias of the academy, like the bias of the media, is a very real and serious issue, and this blog has addressed it on multiple occasions.
The bottom line, of course, is that this blog has a conservative viewpoint. But I do my best to provide facts and information, not just my opinions. And, as long term readers of the blog will know, I have posted a number of exchanges between myself and others in order to present both sides of an issue. If any reader would like to engage in an exchange on a particular issue, email me and I will do my best to post it. Your name would not be posted, you would only be identified as "Reader," unless you preferred otherwise.
My last post discussed Melania's speech and the plagiarism issue. It was mentioned by some on the right that both Obama and Biden had been guilty of plagiarism. Why didn't I bring it up? The answer is because the plagiarism by Obama and Biden was irrelevant. Plagiarism is wrong. As with anything else that is wrong, it is not a defense to say "but other people do it also." Is stealing okay because others do it? Obviously not. I had no interest in defending Melania's partial copying of Michelle Obama's speech. What was significant was the difference in genuine beliefs of the Trumps versus the Obamas.
Similarly, an issue arose in one of the group emails in which I participate. One reader was incensed that I would not condemn Trump for accusing a judge of bias just based on his ethnicity (Hispanic) alone. I believe that reader was just so upset with my conservative views (this particular group email consists of mostly liberals) that he missed my very first comment about the issue. I had said that Trump's accusation of bias on the basis of ethnicity with no facts to support the bias was unconscionable. That participant in the blog had no interest in discussing any of Hillary's problems. He just wanted to make sure that I said Trump was wrong.
A friend recently just told me that he was watching the Republican convention on CNN, but would also switch to FOX periodically. He felt that he was entering into a different universe each time he switched from one station to the other. CNN commentators had nothing good to say about the convention or Trump's speech. On the other hand, the FOX commentators were gushing over Trump's speech as one of the best political speeches ever. Both views are nonsense.
Trump hit many issues that concern the average American: law and order, terrorism, the economy, jobs and manufacturing, taxes, education and school choice and school debt, veterans, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment and foreign affairs. Along the way, he threw in his criticisms of Hilary Clinton. It was, substantially, a populist speech, with a fair number of issues that would ordinarily appeal to Democrats. That made it all the more obvious that CNN and FOX were simply defending "their side," rather than giving a fair analysis. Which is why I encourage people, especially young people, to read different viewpoints. Which is also why I enjoy talk radio shows that have many callers, and make it a point to read letters to the editor. Those sources provide many different viewpoints.
Question: then weren't you justifying Trump's attack on the press when you answered with Obama's behavior towards the press? (See the 7/20/16 post "Get Ready For All The Lies.") Weren't you doing what you said you would not do because if something is wrong, it is wrong? Answer: not at all. The point of that post was not to defend Trump. Rather, it was to show the incredible bias of the elitists in the universities who were making Trump out to be the worst potential president for the First Amendment and freedom of the press, while ignoring the very real attacks on the press by a man who has actually been President for 7 1/2 years. The bias of the academy, like the bias of the media, is a very real and serious issue, and this blog has addressed it on multiple occasions.
The bottom line, of course, is that this blog has a conservative viewpoint. But I do my best to provide facts and information, not just my opinions. And, as long term readers of the blog will know, I have posted a number of exchanges between myself and others in order to present both sides of an issue. If any reader would like to engage in an exchange on a particular issue, email me and I will do my best to post it. Your name would not be posted, you would only be identified as "Reader," unless you preferred otherwise.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
A Couple of Observations
Much has been made of Melania Trump's convention speech apparently tracking an earlier speech by Michelle Obama. When you put the speeches side by side, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Michelle Obama's speech was, indeed, copied in part. Such copying of words, without giving recognition to the original speaker, is unacceptable. The New York Times made this their lead story in today's paper. I am sure glad that the Times wants to keep this front page news. Slightly different from one of the actual candidates being blasted, and essentially being called a liar, by the Director of the FBI. For that important story it was basically "nothing to see here, let's move along."
So, the Times accused Melania not only of "word-for-word repetition," but also of "borrowed themes." What? Ideas cannot be owned. They can not be copyrighted. And they can not be plagiarized. Both Melania and Michelle spoke of achieving one's goals through hard work. That is a universal theme. There is one important difference. The Trumps actually believe it. We see it in the way the Trump children all work; they work for their father, but they work. They are family oriented. I have not heard of problems with drugs, alcohol or the law. Think of other very wealthy families and their children. Compare Ivanka Trump with Paris Hilton. Two billionaire fathers. I'd say one clearly did a better job of parenting.
Listening to Donald Trump Jr's speech, it was obvious that Trump Sr encouraged his children to work. He taught them to learn from the people who actually do the work, not just the MBAs sitting in some distant office. Trump took his kids to job sites, and they learned from those workers. That gives a certain appreciation and respect for working men and women. I loved his line that "We didn't learn from MBAs. We learned from people who had doctorates in common sense...It's why we're the only children of billionaires as comfortable in a D10 Caterpillar as we are in our own cars."
I said that the Trumps actually believed Melania's words about hard work - contrary to the Obamas. Everyone remember Obama's thoughts on hard work and running a business? "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Or, "...if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." So much for Michelle's achieving one's dreams through "your willingness to work for them."
A final thought. Our oldest daughter got us involved in a show called "Orphan Black." In one episode, there is a child in the room with several adults. One of the adults mentions "Republicans." The child asks "what is a Republican?" And the adult replies to the effect that it's best not to tell her so as to not give her nightmares. This non-stop mocking of conservatives and Republicans is what passes for intellectual debate from the left. It also reflects the truth that unlike "classical liberals" (see the July 17 post) leftists (today's liberals) have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
So, the Times accused Melania not only of "word-for-word repetition," but also of "borrowed themes." What? Ideas cannot be owned. They can not be copyrighted. And they can not be plagiarized. Both Melania and Michelle spoke of achieving one's goals through hard work. That is a universal theme. There is one important difference. The Trumps actually believe it. We see it in the way the Trump children all work; they work for their father, but they work. They are family oriented. I have not heard of problems with drugs, alcohol or the law. Think of other very wealthy families and their children. Compare Ivanka Trump with Paris Hilton. Two billionaire fathers. I'd say one clearly did a better job of parenting.
Listening to Donald Trump Jr's speech, it was obvious that Trump Sr encouraged his children to work. He taught them to learn from the people who actually do the work, not just the MBAs sitting in some distant office. Trump took his kids to job sites, and they learned from those workers. That gives a certain appreciation and respect for working men and women. I loved his line that "We didn't learn from MBAs. We learned from people who had doctorates in common sense...It's why we're the only children of billionaires as comfortable in a D10 Caterpillar as we are in our own cars."
I said that the Trumps actually believed Melania's words about hard work - contrary to the Obamas. Everyone remember Obama's thoughts on hard work and running a business? "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Or, "...if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." So much for Michelle's achieving one's dreams through "your willingness to work for them."
A final thought. Our oldest daughter got us involved in a show called "Orphan Black." In one episode, there is a child in the room with several adults. One of the adults mentions "Republicans." The child asks "what is a Republican?" And the adult replies to the effect that it's best not to tell her so as to not give her nightmares. This non-stop mocking of conservatives and Republicans is what passes for intellectual debate from the left. It also reflects the truth that unlike "classical liberals" (see the July 17 post) leftists (today's liberals) have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)