The Muslim Question

Standard

A Washington Post opinion piece: “Donald Trump’s sharp contrast from Obama and Bush on Islam has serious implications” written by William McCants, currently appears on the Washington Post website under the subheading: “Acts of Faith.”

This article correctly points out that the essential moral rules of Islam, as proclaimed in the Sharia, are closely and literally followed by some Muslims and, are treated less seriously, more as guidelines rather than commandments, by most other Muslims. This is not news! I think that, by now, most intelligent non-Muslim Amerians understand that not every Muslim is a radical jihadist. We work with Muslims, socialize with Muslims and welcome Muslims to hold important roles in our lives based on their character and behavior, not based on their religion.

The primary point of this article however, implies that proposals such as President-elect Trump’s extreme vetting are not only unnecessary but will lead to more jihadist recruitment. In other words, the implication is: ‘if you fight it, it will only grow larger, so don’t fight it.’ These are not exactly words to live by!

We have, since 9/11/2001, allowed approx. 2 million virtually unvetted Muslims to immigrate to or visit the United States on visas and that has resulted in approximately 50 terrorist acts that are directly credited to radical Islamic teachings, resulting in many hundreds of innocent lives lost (not even counting the thousands lost on 9/11/2001 itself).

Those who oppose Donald Trump have used his positions on border security and on immigration from the Arab world as reasons to label him a ‘racist, an islamophobe, a bigot and even a monster; for the safety of all American citizens, these people and their labels must be ignored! Donald Trump and the people he is naming to his cabinet are dedicated to protecting American citizens from enormous and growing International threats, radical Islam is only one of them.

Note: The author: William McCants, is a fellow at The Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy and is the director of its Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World.

Post-Election Angst on the Left

Standard

Some level of sadness and even depression are expected when a person who has hoped for and worked for an objective for an extended period and, in the end, is unable to attain that objective. The last week taught us that this is especially true if the ‘objective’ in question is either political or social in nature.

I believe that people who are not heavily invested in Liberal or Progressive thought are gawking with amazement, as I am, at the extremes those on the Left have gone to, to corrupt the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution into a justification for illegal assembly, lies,vandalism, social unrest and criminal assault.

 

download

 

 

 

 

 

Make no mistake about it! Our children need to be taught from an early age that it’s OK to loose if you have given your best toward a win.

Resource: Huffington Post: “When everyone gets a trophy –      no one wins.”

Tomorrow (August 8, 2016) is a day of Reality Politics

Standard

27726999166_3b9824feb3_q

Tomorrow the votes can finally be counted and, in spite of the spin the shameful news media has been giving this election, we will be able to proclaim a new United States President. My gut tells me that the election results will not be nearly as close as we are being told now.

Aside from my gut feeling there is this:

The Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP Tracking poll today, widely acclaimed as the most accurate presidential poll in the country over the last several years, shows that Donald Trump has a 2 point lead over Clinton. That’s nice to know — at least it is for those of us who have nightmares over the possibility of a Hillary Clinton win tomorrow.

Even without polling it is obvious that Donald Trump is hosting massive (20,000 to 30,000 attendees) crowds at his rallies while Hillary Clinton, by comparison, is drawing 2,000 to 3,000 attendees at her rallies (see the You Tube report here).

If you haven’t voted yet, tomorrow is your last chance. DON’T stay at home. Remember that the American public was gullible enough to give President Obama two terms to try and destroy our Republic — not voting will give Liberals, Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters a chance to finish the job!

photo credit: Gage Skidmore <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/22007612@N05/27726999166″>Donald Trump sign</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”&gt;photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/”>(license)</a>

What this Election needs is Clarity!

Standard

I concede that, before he became the nominee of the Republican party, Donald Trump was a bit of a playboy; acording to those who oppose him, he was not only a playboy, he was a womanizer. He loved woman and he may have sometimes made some unwanted advances toward them.

That was when Donald Trump was a multimillionaire real estate tycoon and he was free to say whatever he liked.

Today, years later, Donald trump is the overwhelming choice of Republican voters to be the next president of the United States. As president he won’t be perfect in his personal life, no president ever has been or will be. We all know that at least two modern era presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton, were widely known to aggressively pursue women, while in office. Did that make them bad presidents? Did that damage the country? I say no to both questions.

Is that what this election should be about? Again NO!

That is, however, what the Democratic party want’s it to be about because they are running on 8 years of failure in almost every category and, one has to believe that they see these last 8 years as a success.

We have an economy that has not seen the leadership necessary to dig its way out of the hole it went into because of 9-11, both Desert Storms, and bad decision making in the pre-Obama years. Not only did Obama not address our economic problems, he made them worse by creating an environment that led to the United States National Debt being the largest in our country’s history and by driving many companies out of the U.S. over taxes and regulations.

We have lost the respect of the world’s super powers; even that kid that runs North Korea ignores us.

We have the weakest military in decades at a time when it should be the strongest ever, to face the challenges of foreign aggression (i.e., Iran, Russia, and China.),

We have an unbelievable number of illegal immigrants in our country (estimated at 11.1 million for the 6th year in a row).

These are just some of our major challenges. Our next president will be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Which one of them can best address and fix these important problems? THAT is what this election should be about.

Both candidates have personal flaws. They both have said things in the past, as well as during their election campaigns, that are considered by some to be repulsive. They probably have both committed acts in the past that most would find repulsive. We know, for certain, that one of them has jeopardized national security and, if that candidate were not running for president with the full support of the current president and the Justice Department, that candidate would probably be in a Federal Prison. That is not political bias, that is a fact.

So which one of these admittedly flawed candidates will be able to fix the important problems being faced by our nation?

I am admittedly biased toward a Trump presidency! Here’s why:

Donald Trump is a successful businessman and therefore it follows, a successful problem solver. There is no reason to believe that he will not be able to appoint the right people to address the country’s problems, he’s hired thousands of the best problem solvers. There is no reason to believe that he will not successfully interface with world leaders; some say he’s too brash and he will start wars but that is nonsense. Look at it logically, as weak and disrespected as this country has become under Barack Obama’s leadership we are still the most powerful military force on earth; there is no country that would be willing to face the complete destruction that would result from going to war with us.

According to her own proposals, a Hillary Clinton presidency: would be damaging to our economy; would do nothing to erase the National Debt; would only make illegal immigration more of a social and economic problem, would enhance Obama Care; and would probably create more dangerous international deals like the Iran deal. Hillary Clinton would, no doubt, be Obama v2.

When you vote in November, focus on the big, important picture, not on personality quirks

The Pejoritive “Racist” Is Intentionally Being Misused

Standard

I dislike hip-hop music, hearing the English Language mangled, abused and cheapened by hip-hop artists is painful. Artists?  If artist is defined as someone who can create something ugly, yes than I guess they are artists. (Personal preferences are still legal!)

These few outspoken and honest personal preferences will, I’m sure, quickly get me labeled as a racist — but only by people who are too illiterate to understand the definition of racist, just as these same illiterate people quickly branded Donald Trump as a racist because he called Justice Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican and insinuated that, because of his Mexican heritage he will not adjudicate the Trump University lawsuit fairly.

I’m not saying that Donald Trump does not have Foot-In-Mouth disease; he does! What I’m saying is, it is ignorant to brand someone a racist for a single comment that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with ethnicity and politics. (Go HERE to be reminded of the difference between ethnicity and race.)

A “racist” in particular is defined as a person who believes that one race should control all others or that a particular race is inferior to his or her own (Merriam-Webster).

Obviously “racist” does not apply to Donald Trump and, as obvious, is the fact that individuals and media figures who use this pejorative about Donald Trump are creating their own definitions for their own benefit.

It’s obvious that Trump, before the foot went in the mouth, should have not only mentioned but highlighted Judge Curiel’s membership in the “California La Raza Lawyers Association” and this Associations ties to the National Council de La Raza (the Council of “The Race”). LaRaza is infamous for its opposition to existing immigration laws and gets absolutely rabid at the mention of a wall on the Mexican border; a wall like the one Donald Trump has promised to build, to stop the constant influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. LaRaza is also a supporter of sanctuary cities (Trump is an opponent of the sanctuary city model), where illegal aliens are protected from immigration laws.

Yes, the United States is a country that was, at least in a sense, “built” by immigrants, but the vast majority of them were here in the United States legally and later became citizens. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.legally. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.legally and later became citizens. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.

The obvious problem then is not any good or evil Trump University might have fostered, the problem is a judge who is very likely to rule against Trump University, not based on the facts but based on the Trump University founder’s political stances.

Paul Ryan’s Conservative Arrogance

Standard

Here’s a Washington Post headline from this afternoon:

“Paul Ryan, House GOP leadership team split on supporting Trump”

That’s not really news, it’s been going on since the day after Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee.

Politicians are arrogant by their very nature and this is Conservative arrogance at its most potent!

Paul Ryan and the GOP elite are essentially telling America’s Republican Primary voters that they voted for the wrong man, that they wasted their vote. These “never Trumpers” certainly have a right to personally dislike the man who will be leading THEIR PARTY through the election cycle after the Convention, but one would think that responsible elected Republican leaders would at least appear to rally around the people’s choice for the nomination, for the sake of the party if for no other reason.

One would think that! But when the Speaker of The House Of Representatives goes on television and announces his personal opposition to Donald Trump and essentially tells the millions of people who voted for him that they have it all wrong, he’s committing a form of political treason by giving the presumptive Democratic nominee an advantage over his own party’s nominee.

If Rep.Paul Ryan continues making public pronouncements like this last one, one can only hope that the Republican voters in his home state of Wisconsin will remember his arrogant words and actions when he’s running for reelection.

Personally, I can see no path to victory for Hillary Clinton in November . . . but then I also bet against Obama’s second term. I was blind to how it could possibly happen. I guess I need to retake the ‘Prophet 101’ home-study course.

Is Trump Right? Is Delegate System Rigged?

Standard
In this photo taken Dec. 2, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va. In television news, a telephone interview is usually frowned upon. Yet Donald Trump's fondness for them is changing habits and causing consternation in newsrooms, while altering traditions of political access. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

After the recent  exit from the Republican race for the presidency by Ted Cruz, the questions asked in the title are, for right now moot – at least for the Republican party.

Whether the delegate selection system is rigged or not is something you and I, as citizens on the outside of the political process, may not know until someone writes the “tell-all” book some years from now. For now I’ll just call it an unnecessarily complex and really inappropriate system in a 21st Century democracy. I feel that it is inappropriate for the votes of the citizens to be tampered with in any way; once the voters have ‘spoken’, that should be the end of it.

To my mind, Donald Trump is right! The candidate with the most popular votes should be the party’s nominee. That, however, is far from the way it is right now.

In the 21st Century, what is the point of having delegates attend a convention if not just to give the “losing” candidates a chance to override the choice of the majority. That doesn’t sound fair to me! On top of that, we had Cruz, Kasich and Sanders pushing for a “contested convention”, in the hope it gives them an opportunity to ‘change the minds of delagates’; delegates that really are not necessary in a modern day democratic process. That opportunity should not exist.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump turned out to be the clear choice of the majority of citizens who voted in the Republican primaries and he will be the party’s nominee. As it sits right now, Hillary Clinton appears to be the clear winner of the Democratic nomination. You or I may personally detest either one or both of them, but in America, in a presidential election, when the majority speaks it should be ‘game over’.

We hear from the Republican and Democratic officials that the current system has been in place for 200 years – and that’s supposed to squash all objections. That’s a reason to change it! Two hundred years ago there was no coast to coast news coverage, no reliable coast to coast communication at all. The Federal election system was developed for the conditions that existed at the time and it was never updated.

This is a new time with new circumstances and that should warrant the creation of a new 21st Century presidential election system.