Will I Still Vote for Trump?

Not knowing there was an open mic, in 2005 Trump was heard to say, among other things, these words: "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait...and when you're a star they let you do it...You can do anything...grab them by the p...., you can do anything."

So, did Trump actually do these things, or was he simply bragging about his sexual prowess to a young Billy Bush? Who knows. I do not speak in that manner. But let's get real. Many men do. I am not just talking about uneducated men. I have heard men with college degrees and higher use similar language. How many of you believe you are voting for saint?

Many of you may be familiar with some of the transgressions of prior presidents. FDR had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby. Kennedy? We may never know all the women with whom he had extramarital sexual relations. Johnson had an affair with Madeleine Brown, who had a child by LBJ.

Then we come to Bill Clinton, who will be back in the White House should Hillary win. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey says Clinton groped her, without her consent. Paula Jones claims he exposed himself to her and and sexually harassed her. We know he had extramarital sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. How many of you voted for him anyway?

How many of you will vote for Hillary notwithstanding her verbal attacks against the women Bill sexually harassed? Such as: "They're trash, nobody's going to believe them." Now, we have some leaked comments made by Hillary in some of her paid political speeches. To Brazilian bank executives, Hillary said this: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders..." Open borders. Anybody think open borders is working well in Europe? I guess, if you believe in the Islamization of Europe. So, sneak into Mexico or Brazil, say, and you automatically gain access to the US? In the age of terrorism, why is that a good idea?

So, I am hearing much greater outrage over Trump's words than I recall hearing about Bill Clinton's actions. But Hillary Clinton is the Clinton running now. Fine, here is a brief summary of some of her words and deeds. At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary met with the families of those killed in Benghazi. Recall she and Obama pushed the false narrative of the Benghazi attack not being a planned terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous demonstration against some anti-Muslim video. So, she promised those families: "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." And she and Obama did! Even though she immediately admitted privately to the Egyptian President: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." How do you lie to the faces of the families of American heroes who died because of her inaction? How do you have an innocent man arrested? Anything to help Obama win reelection, as this all occurred only two months prior to the 2012 election.

Hillary was wrong on virtually every major issue while serving as Secretary of State. She supported the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mubarek for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, a dictator, yes, with the result being a failed state run by Islamic terrorists. We know about her "reset" with Russia, which Putin took as a green light to take over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And she supported the giving of nukes to the Iranian Ayatollahs. I could easily write several posts on all of Hillary's scandals - her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, the millions she collected for giving speeches - a convenient end run around campaign finance laws.

And then there is this - the undoing of Western Civilization by the left and radical Islamists (and those who support them and support Sharia law). Where has the left created greater freedom and greater economic success? No, the left will and does work hand in glove with Islamists to bring less freedoms and less economic growth, and certainly less security. Jews have had to leave Europe in increasing numbers. How long will European countries as Western societies even survive? So, will I still vote for Trump? Yes, because I understand that I am not voting for Saint-in-Chief.

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part II

I do not believe there should be a political litmus test for the right to do business in this country. It smacks of McCarthyism - but I guess the left only cares when the other side is doing it. (For those who missed it, many Democratic elected officials expressed a desire to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to do business based on the owner's expressed belief in traditional marriage.)

I oppose Obamacare, and any expansion of it. Not surprisingly, it is failing, with more and more insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare market. The ACA resulted in many people losing their insurance, and no longer being able to see their same doctors. If the government did not waste so much money they might be able to afford a catastrophic care fund, leaving competition in the rest of the market.

I do not believe we should undo the economy of the USA (or the world) in order to lower global temperatures by one tenth of a degree - or even one whole degree.

I do not believe it is healthy for society when the Fourth Estate acts as the propagandist-in-chief for its left-wing agenda, instead of reporting the news, and challenging abuse of government power.

I do not believe in the tax and regulate mentality, which has resulted in eight consecutive years of low growth.

I do not believe the federal government, or state or local government for that matter, should dictate what kids are allowed to eat in school.

I do not believe it is the job of government to tell me what size soda I may buy. Or what type of light bulb I may buy.

I do not believe we should have given the Iranians a clear path towards obtaining nuclear weapons. They repeatedly express their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the United States.

I do not believe in political correctness. While I do not believe in unnecessarily insulting others, I also do not like being told what I may say or think.

I do not believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth. Let me repeat: "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe in any utopia, socialist or communist or otherwise. Utopias at best tend to enforce conformity (are we there already?) and at worst have resulted in millions of deaths.

But, maybe for some the policies of the candidates are less important than the personalities and records of the candidates. Hillary was a US Senator. According to National Review, her biggest accomplishment as Senator was getting a US courthouse renamed the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.

But she was Secretary of State. She supported the "Arab Spring," resulting in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in a failed state in Libya controlled by terrorist groups. And let's not forget Benghazi. She supported the "reset" with Russia, allowing Russia to seize the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. She supported the Iran nuke deal.

Hillary said that she and Bill left the White House in 2001 broke. In the last 15 years they have managed to become multi-millionaires, being paid exorbitant amounts to speak to Wall Street and foreign countries. Of course, all those people expect nothing in return for all the money paid to the Clintons. Just like the many contributors to the Clinton Foundation who did, in fact, get special treatment following their "donations."

But Hillary supports women. Like when she called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon." Or when she blamed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all the women sexually harassed by Bill. She even threatened "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."

So, I do not support the policies of the Democratic party. But maybe you believe Hillary will deviate from those policies. I do not believe she is the shining example for women to emulate. But she is smart. All I can say to that is shame on you if you believe IQ is more important than good values - like honesty and integrity. Can I say that Trump has good values? Probably better than Hillary's. But I do not vote on that basis. These people are not saints. That is why I ignore these issues and vote based on policies.

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part I

When it comes to voting for President of the United States, many people decide on which candidate is the "best" in their minds, which candidate is more "Presidential." Not me. There are countless reasons why I could not support any Democratic candidate. Here are some of my reasons. (For factual support of my propositions, see the 262 blog posts that I have written to date; or at least peruse those from this year.)

I do not believe in big government. I believe the bigger the government, the less freedoms we have.

I do not believe in the platform of Black Lives Matter. It is anti-America and anti-Israel. It is based on a lie regarding police shootings. (Yes, I agree some shootings are unjustified.) Let me ask, how often do you see on TV or in the papers pictures and stories about all the whites that are shot and killed by police?

I do not believe that we should deny that "radical Islam"/"Islamic terror" exists. I do not believe they should have removed those phrases from military and security agency's training manuals.

I do not believe that we should ban "offensive" speech. I do not believe college students - adults - should be mollycoddled. They need to grow up and accept that not everyone agrees with them. That's life - deal with it.

I also do not believe in banning political speech. Yes, the Dems do, with their proposal to Amend the First Amendment in order to overturn the Citizens United case.

I support Israel. I do not support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. I do not believe in the two-state "solution." I stopped believing in it when the Palestinians showed they did not believe in it either, with the 2000 intifada, and their repeated declarations regarding taking over all of Israel, and killing all the Jews.

I do not believe in open borders. All countries protect their borders; well, almost all. It appears that the Europeans have given up on that of late. But vote for Hillary if you like the Islamization of Europe, because she will carry on what Obama started and bring hundreds of thousands more "refugees" here.

I do not believe in "income equality," especially not if it is mandated by the government. This country affords you the opportunity to succeed like no other. Get an education. Work hard. As my father always said, "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe America is essentially a racist country. Did I miss something, or did we not elect a black man to be President of the United States twice.

I do not believe in "free" college education. As an adult, I know that there is no such thing. Someone always pays.

I do believe in the Second Amendment. I do not believe in denying law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not believe that the Democratic Attorney General of the United States should have threatened to prosecute people who use "anti-Muslim rhetoric." That type of speech is protected by the First Amendment - for now, at least.

Racism and Stupidity - From the Left

Obama recently gave his final speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. Obama: "I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community (blacks) lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election." What is Obama talking about? Is he simply saying that blacks should get out and vote? Even if they vote for Trump?

That seems highly unlikely. How would voting for Trump protect Obama's legacy, when Trump says he will undo much of what Obama has done? No, Obama clearly means blacks must vote for Hillary in order to protect (not insult) his legacy. Can anyone possibly think of a more racist appeal than that? Then again, such a comment is consistent with Obama's repeatedly racist and anti-white comments during the last eight years.

Not to be outdone, retiring US Rep. (D-NY) Charles Rangel said this: "His (Trump's) hatred and his bigotry has pulled the rug off and the sheet off the Republican Party so we can see it for what it is." The sheet off? There you have it - Republicans are members of, or support, the KKK. There is no other possible explanation for his reference to "pulling the sheet off." Elected officials who are Democrats have no problem accusing Republicans of the worst behaviors and intentions. Disgusting!

The 9/20/16 headline in the northern New Jersey newspaper, The Record, had this headline after the capture of the man accused of the recent terror attacks in New York and New Jersey: "Motive a mystery." The suspect was a Muslim and was from Afghanistan. He had made recent trips to Afghanistan, and had become more religious and conservative in his dress. We know this because the article following the headline told us.

The subheadline was "Friends say they saw changes after trip to Afghanistan." So, how is it that the motive is a "mystery?" They could have said it "appears" to be terrorism. They could have said "possible" terrorism. But a mystery? Only the blind and self-delusional left and left-wing media would say the motive is a "mystery."

What's in Your Basket (of Deplorables)?

Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables - the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." Bill Press is a longtime liberal political commentator, and was Chair of the California Democratic Party from 1993 to 1996.

In support of Hillary's attack on Trump supporters, Press wrote this: "...the closer you look at Trump supporters, the more you realize how correct she is." Why is that? In support of Hillary's comment, Press tells us: "A recent Pew survey, for example, found that 87% of Trump supporters are white." Perhaps you did not know that being white is, apparently, evidence of you being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic. White privilege and all.

Clearly, it makes no difference that large numbers of whites voted for Obama twice. Those people are now racists, among other things. Does the fact that blacks vote overwhelmingly as a group (96% voted for Obama in 2008 and 93% did in 2012) make them racist? Or those other condemnable things? Of course not.

Press was not done with his ridiculous analysis: "...and 57% of them (Trump supporters) believe Muslims should get more scrutiny by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service." I will not repeat the large percentages of Muslims from Muslim countries who support making Sharia law the official law of their countries. Sharia law is, in many instances, contrary to US law and the US Constitution. I will not repeat all of the terrorist attacks that have been carried out by Islamic terrorists here within the United States.

But why should we care about people who come here with the intent of pushing Sharia law, or worse, inciting and carrying out violence against Americans and America? We know, even if Obama and other leftists refuse to acknowledge it, that most terror attacks are carried out by Muslims. So, the question should be: who would not want increased scrutiny of a group known to kill those who are not like them? Only political correctness prevents the rest of the people from seeing the logic of increased scrutiny.

Press: "In June, Reuters reorted that nearly half of Trump voters described African-Americans as more "violent" than whites..." Heather MacDonald reprts that in Chicago blacks constitute 35% of the population, but committed 76% of the homicides. In Los Angeles, blacks make up 10% of the population, but commit 42% of robberies and 34% of the felonies.

As someone who is in the "basket of deplorables," I can only say that I would rather be in that basket than in the basket of the politically correct delusional leftists.

Why Don't They Want You to Know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Left Wing Tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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