Once in a while I tune in to MSNBC. On the show AM Joy, with Joy Reid, she had four guests. The discussion centered on immigration. One guest, a conservative black man named Paris Dennard, said that Trump was not against immigration, but illegal immigration. After using the word "illegals" several times, another guest, Juan Hernandez, said he was insulted by the term "illegal." At which point the black host, Joy, intoned "I was going to say the same thing."
Mr. Dennard looked perplexed. Mr. Hernandez added: "I really appreciate using the right vocabulary." Excuse me? This is so typical of the left - first, easily insulted, and second, shutting down speech with which they disagree. Added Hernandez: "Nobody is illegal in this world," and "we're all G-d's children." Joy to Dennard: "This (her show) is like being in a family home. So when you're in this home, we ask that you not use terminology that offends people." I consider this to be an intellectual blog, with no use of expletives, but with this leftist enforced censorship I am tempted to say "#%&$ that!"
One residence hall at Rutgers University is considering a policy which encourages students to watch what they say, as part of a "Language Matters" campaign. Clearly, language does matter. There are laws regarding libel and slander. Judaism has many books on the subject of "lashon hara," which prohibits speech which, even if true, is meant to harm another, or carelessly harms another. But AM Joy and Rutgers are concerned with speech that offends those on the left. The Rutgers proposed policy warns against "micro assaults, micro insults, and micro invalidations."
Students are warned that "victims" (is anyone other than white males not a victim to the left?) may be affected "physically, emotionally (and) behaviorally," resulting in an increased "risk for illness and decreased immune system" (response). Students are to ask if what they are about to say is "true," "inspiring," "necessary" and "kind." Clearly, I would agree that people should not go out of their way to insult others. Good behavior would mandate not intentionally seeking to harm others - by word or by deed. Jewish law under lashon hara forbids even true speech if it is being said for an improper purpose.
But the left seeks to ban certain political speech, which is the worst type of censorship. As a country, we are governed by civil, not religious law. Our speech is governed first and foremost by the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, an example of prohibited speech at the Rutgers residence hall is the phrase "illegal aliens."
Milo Yiannopoulos is described by Wikipedia as a "British journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart News." He is also a gay man who regularly criticizes movements he sees as the "regressive left." He was invited by the "Young Americans for Liberty" at...here we go again, Rutgers. Leftist students protested his presence on campus, describing his speech as "hate speech" and covering themselves in blood (although I am not sure of the symbolism in doing so).
In reply, Yiannopoulos said this: "These people do not believe in the free open exchange of ideas. They do not believe in intellectual inquiry, in full open frank discussion of ideas. They don't believe in the basis of classical liberalism, which is one of the founding principles of our civilization." To which I would only add: Amen. But wait, that word would probably be banned at Rutgers as well. Given the religious connotations of "Amen" I am sure that at least some atheists would be offended. So, allow me to rephrase: good for Milo for standing up for American values. But wait, not everyone here is an American, so those who are not American might be offended by that. Can I get a little help here?
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Trump on Immigration
This evening, Donald Trump gave his long awaited speech on immigration. His 10 point plan follows.
1. The US will build a wall at the southern border. 2. Trump will end the catch and release policy. Illegals will be detained until they can be deported. 3. There will be zero tolerance for criminal aliens; with Trump noting there are 2 million currently in the US. Trump plans on hiring 5000 more border patrol agents, putting them at the border. He will seek passage of Kate's law, with strong mandatory sentences for criminal aliens, followed by deportation.
4. Trump will block funding for sanctuary cities. I never did understand how local officials could get away with violating federal immigration laws. I do not think Obama or Clinton would allow local authorities to refuse to send tax dollars owed to the Feds. 5. Trump will revoke what he calls unconstitutional executive orders, and actually enforce the laws on the books. There's a concept. There will be no more amnesty for those here illegally.
6. Trump will suspend issuance of visas to any place where the US is unable to conduct an adequate screening process. Immigration from such areas will be suspended until we have a "proper and extreme vetting" procedure in place. Trump made specific reference to Syrian and Libyan refugees. He says that the Gulf states should pay for the creation of "safe zones" for those refugees - in their region. The US would be willing to supervise the process. He noted how Clinton wants to bring hundreds of thousands of those refugees here, with little ability to know what their true intentions are in coming here.
7. Trump will ensure that other countries actually take back those people that we deport. Currently, he says that 23 countries refuse to take their own citizens back. So, we just keep them. Incredibly, according to Trump, the State Department under Clinton kept issuing visas to people from those 23 countries. That's really showing them that the US will not be pushed around. 8. Trump wants to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system, noting that in 2015 500,000 people overstayed their visas. Such a system, per Trump, was recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to enhance national security. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were still here in the US on expired visas.
9. Trump wants to put an end to the incentives for people to come here illegally - for healthcare, education, and various government benefits. He asserted that 62% of illegal immigrants use some form of government assistance. 10. Finally, he wants to see reform of the legal immigration laws in a way that will serve the best interests of the American people. I am not convinced, however, that his plan to renegotiate trade deals is either feasible or in the best interests of the US. He has not convinced me that it is the government's job to tell businesses where they may operate.
Overall, however, Trump has proposed a serious and substantive plan. I expect that tomorrow's headlines in the mainstream media will focus on Trump's trip to Mexico in order to meet with the Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto. I expect that the media will follow Clinton's lead and criticize Trump for making that visit. Then again. Trump went to Louisiana following the terrible flooding there. Obama could not interrupt his golfing vacation, and Clinton was, what, too busy?
Trump: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders." If you disagree with that, please explain how Obama's and Clinton's support for sanctuary cities protects the safety of the American people. Trump: the "central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants...(but) the well-being of the American people."
There is a clear choice in this election. You either believe the United States of America should continue to survive as a sovereign entity, or you do not. If you believe in open borders, then you do not support the sovereignty of the USA, and Clinton is your candidate.
1. The US will build a wall at the southern border. 2. Trump will end the catch and release policy. Illegals will be detained until they can be deported. 3. There will be zero tolerance for criminal aliens; with Trump noting there are 2 million currently in the US. Trump plans on hiring 5000 more border patrol agents, putting them at the border. He will seek passage of Kate's law, with strong mandatory sentences for criminal aliens, followed by deportation.
4. Trump will block funding for sanctuary cities. I never did understand how local officials could get away with violating federal immigration laws. I do not think Obama or Clinton would allow local authorities to refuse to send tax dollars owed to the Feds. 5. Trump will revoke what he calls unconstitutional executive orders, and actually enforce the laws on the books. There's a concept. There will be no more amnesty for those here illegally.
6. Trump will suspend issuance of visas to any place where the US is unable to conduct an adequate screening process. Immigration from such areas will be suspended until we have a "proper and extreme vetting" procedure in place. Trump made specific reference to Syrian and Libyan refugees. He says that the Gulf states should pay for the creation of "safe zones" for those refugees - in their region. The US would be willing to supervise the process. He noted how Clinton wants to bring hundreds of thousands of those refugees here, with little ability to know what their true intentions are in coming here.
7. Trump will ensure that other countries actually take back those people that we deport. Currently, he says that 23 countries refuse to take their own citizens back. So, we just keep them. Incredibly, according to Trump, the State Department under Clinton kept issuing visas to people from those 23 countries. That's really showing them that the US will not be pushed around. 8. Trump wants to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system, noting that in 2015 500,000 people overstayed their visas. Such a system, per Trump, was recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to enhance national security. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were still here in the US on expired visas.
9. Trump wants to put an end to the incentives for people to come here illegally - for healthcare, education, and various government benefits. He asserted that 62% of illegal immigrants use some form of government assistance. 10. Finally, he wants to see reform of the legal immigration laws in a way that will serve the best interests of the American people. I am not convinced, however, that his plan to renegotiate trade deals is either feasible or in the best interests of the US. He has not convinced me that it is the government's job to tell businesses where they may operate.
Overall, however, Trump has proposed a serious and substantive plan. I expect that tomorrow's headlines in the mainstream media will focus on Trump's trip to Mexico in order to meet with the Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto. I expect that the media will follow Clinton's lead and criticize Trump for making that visit. Then again. Trump went to Louisiana following the terrible flooding there. Obama could not interrupt his golfing vacation, and Clinton was, what, too busy?
Trump: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders." If you disagree with that, please explain how Obama's and Clinton's support for sanctuary cities protects the safety of the American people. Trump: the "central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants...(but) the well-being of the American people."
There is a clear choice in this election. You either believe the United States of America should continue to survive as a sovereign entity, or you do not. If you believe in open borders, then you do not support the sovereignty of the USA, and Clinton is your candidate.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
A Few More Odds and Ends
Colin Kaepernick is the star quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners. During this past Friday's exhibition game against the Green Bay Packers, he refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Said Kaepernick: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."
Clearly, Kaepernick has the absolute right to sit during the playing of the national anthem. It is the type of choice that demonstrates the greatness of our country. Ironically, Kaepernick recently signed a six year $114,000,000 contract with the Niners. Depending on his performance, he may not get the full dollar amount. But tens of millions of dollars still sounds pretty good to me. So I am confused about how a black man can make that kind of money in the United States and still conclude that the country "oppresses" blacks.
Now, there is no doubt that the issue of improper police shootings, Kaepernick's concern, is a legitimate issue. But how does that translate into a condemnation of the entire country? And I would ask him if he does not feel that he is disrespecting the blacks who make up 21.5% of the US Army and 19.3% of the US Navy - men and women who have signed up to defend this "oppressive" country with their lives if necessary.
By contrast, there was a moving story out of the recent Olympics. Sam Kendricks is a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve, and a world class pole vaulter. As he was running down the track with the pole in his hands, about to make a jump, he heard the playing of the national anthem elsewhere in the arena. He immediately stopped running, laid his pole on the ground, and stood at attention.
The anthem was obviously being played during a ceremony for a US Gold medal winner, but in watching the video it is clear that Kendricks could not tell where in the arena the flag was being raised. But he stopped, and stayed at attention until the playing of the anthem was completed. It was an amazing display of patriotism. When the music stopped he picked up his pole and ran to make the jump again. I am pleased to report that 2nd Lieutenant Kendricks won the Bronze medal in the pole vault.
In the May 19, 2016 post (An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II), four comments were made about the post. Just click on "comments" to read them. The last two were by the same person, Theish Fushkindum. This is not someone that I know, although I just found out that, in fact, the two comments were written by a young member of my extended family. She is a young college student, and just told me that she wrote the two comments. I never saw a comment under her name.
It turns out that she used a pseudonym, but I must admit I missed the irony. You see, the intent behind the name was to say "This is Fuckin' Dumb." Now, I appreciate humor as much as anyone, so I will leave the comments as they are. As for the insult, as this blog has noted numerous times, leftists (recall there are almost no liberals anymore) prefer demagoguery, name-calling, demonization and mockery to true debate. Besides, the writer is a college student who knows everything after having had almost no real world experiences. Reminds me of myself at that age.
Clearly, Kaepernick has the absolute right to sit during the playing of the national anthem. It is the type of choice that demonstrates the greatness of our country. Ironically, Kaepernick recently signed a six year $114,000,000 contract with the Niners. Depending on his performance, he may not get the full dollar amount. But tens of millions of dollars still sounds pretty good to me. So I am confused about how a black man can make that kind of money in the United States and still conclude that the country "oppresses" blacks.
Now, there is no doubt that the issue of improper police shootings, Kaepernick's concern, is a legitimate issue. But how does that translate into a condemnation of the entire country? And I would ask him if he does not feel that he is disrespecting the blacks who make up 21.5% of the US Army and 19.3% of the US Navy - men and women who have signed up to defend this "oppressive" country with their lives if necessary.
By contrast, there was a moving story out of the recent Olympics. Sam Kendricks is a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve, and a world class pole vaulter. As he was running down the track with the pole in his hands, about to make a jump, he heard the playing of the national anthem elsewhere in the arena. He immediately stopped running, laid his pole on the ground, and stood at attention.
The anthem was obviously being played during a ceremony for a US Gold medal winner, but in watching the video it is clear that Kendricks could not tell where in the arena the flag was being raised. But he stopped, and stayed at attention until the playing of the anthem was completed. It was an amazing display of patriotism. When the music stopped he picked up his pole and ran to make the jump again. I am pleased to report that 2nd Lieutenant Kendricks won the Bronze medal in the pole vault.
In the May 19, 2016 post (An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II), four comments were made about the post. Just click on "comments" to read them. The last two were by the same person, Theish Fushkindum. This is not someone that I know, although I just found out that, in fact, the two comments were written by a young member of my extended family. She is a young college student, and just told me that she wrote the two comments. I never saw a comment under her name.
It turns out that she used a pseudonym, but I must admit I missed the irony. You see, the intent behind the name was to say "This is Fuckin' Dumb." Now, I appreciate humor as much as anyone, so I will leave the comments as they are. As for the insult, as this blog has noted numerous times, leftists (recall there are almost no liberals anymore) prefer demagoguery, name-calling, demonization and mockery to true debate. Besides, the writer is a college student who knows everything after having had almost no real world experiences. Reminds me of myself at that age.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
The Same Tactics From the Left, and Other Observations
Longtime Democratic political commentator, Cokie Roberts, is not too fond of Donald Trump - nor of his supporters. As we have come to expect from the left, anyone with opposing opinions must be demonized. Therefore, if you support Trump, Roberts says you are "morally tainted." Sounds similar to many others on the left, including the woman attorney referred to in the 8/1/16 post.
Princeton University seeks to eliminate use of a really terrible and offensive term - "man." So, words that suggest gender differences are no longer to be used. "Forefathers" becomes "ancestors." No more "husband" or "wife." Rather, use "spouse" or "partner." Then again, California has already eliminated those hateful words from the Family Law Code. "Man hours" becomes "person hours." Although person contains the word "son," so I am confused as to why that is acceptable. Princeton will no longer have "coeds" or "freshmen." (As reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com, 8/19/16.)
Yet another school district has banned use of the words "boy" and "girl." (The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district, again per Todd Starnes, 8/16/16 FoxNews.com.) The push to end all gender distinctions in words and actions has been an entirely predictable consequence of redefining marriage as two men or two women. If two men is the same as two women and the same as a man and a woman, then where are there gender differences? There are none, which is why two men or two women are entitled to have a marriage as opposed to a civil union. These stories continue the trend discussed in two prior posts - "My Ex-Wife" (7/20/14) and "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters" (10/19/14).
At a Trump fundraiser on Friday evening protesters once again thought it was acceptable to attack attendees at the event, with punches and throwing garbage, even at elderly women. (As reported by AOL news, 8/20/16.) Verbal demonization and physical assault from the left - perhaps the first leads to the second.
Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate for President. She says, if elected, she will not give further aid to Israel as long as Israel continues to "occupy land in Palestine." Her attitude is not unlike many on the Democratic left. Which might explain why they support the Black Lives Matter movement, even though the BLM platform not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel, but also accuses Israel of "genocide..against the Palestinian people."
A black officer shot and killed an armed black man in Milwaukee. The subsequent rioting was so serious that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker activated the National Guard. President Obama was vacationing in Martha's Vineyard at the time. However, he nevertheless took time to make a statement to the press. Said Obama: "The police shot a man who refused to drop his gun. The man had a substantial criminal record. The rioting is not only wrong, but has caused injury to other police officers and damage to police cars and businesses. This behavior cannot be justified. People need to respect the police doing their job." Okay, you know I'm just kidding, right? Obama had no time for a statement; or perhaps, no interest in making one. He did, however, make time for a Hillary fundraiser. Of course, if the cop were a white guy...
Hurricane Katrina was a true disaster for the State of Louisiana. At the time, President Bush was on vacation, although he did cut short his vacation by two days, flying over New Orleans on his way back to D.C. He was criticized by the mainstream media for not speaking and acting sooner. Kanye West said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." President Obama did not cut short his vacation to take a look at the recent devastating floods in Louisiana. The criticism from the mainstream media? As the current saying goes, "crickets..."
Recall that early in his term Obama essentially said that America was no more an exceptional country than any other country. As we know, he is a believer in the UN, an entity made up of many dictatorships and non-democratic Muslim states. Like the Europeans, Obama has brought many Muslim "refugees" here, and Clinton says she will do the same. The sovereignty and security of the United States and its citizens do not seem to be of the highest importance to the Democrats. George Soros is the billionaire who contributes millions to Democratic campaigns. Long ago, Soros said this: "Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions." Well, if there is nothing special about the USA, then why not? Why not subordinate our interests to an entity such as the UN, an entity that has passed more resolutions against our ally Israel than all other nations in the world combined.
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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)