It seems that Webster’s will have to work on their dictionary to bring it up to date after this election.
The media has successfully expanded the definition of at least three “threatening/criminal” words to cover Donald Trump.
Let’s begin with xenophobe. Webster’s definition: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin
Media’s definition: Trump – fearful of radical Islamic terrorists and Muslims who cannot be vetted.
Next, misogynist. Webster’s definition: a hatred of women
Media’s definition: Trump – speaks disrespectfully of women who attack him, accused of touching, kissing, or groping women, and believes some women are better looking than other women
Next, sexual predator: Webster’s definition: a person who has committed a sexually violent offense and especially one who is likely to commit more sexual offenses
Media’s definition: Trump – speaks disrespectfully of women who attack him, accused of touching, kissing, or groping women, and believes some women are better looking than other women
None of Trump’s supporters or surrogates have taken issue with this. Especially the sexual predator one. Sexual predator is actually a legal term and not only should his surrogates take issue with whether the allegations given media coverage without being substantiated but, more importantly, the use of such a criminal term to describe the alleged allegations.
Recently Donald Trump said he would implement a firm but fair immigration policy. He hasn’t yet provided any details of the policy so I thought I’d take a shot at some of the specifics. These ideas assume that Trump follows through on a his plan to build a wall on the southern border that would seriously limit the inflow of illegal immigrants.
- Illegal immigrants who would like to stay in this country but are willing to give up on ever being citizens would be given a chance to register as a “special” resident alien within 60 days. Illegal immigrants who ultimately desire to become residents must leave the country within 60 days. They can re-enter later under reformed immigration laws to be addressed by Congress.
- Any illegal who remains in the country but does not register would be deported if discovered by normal processes and would not be subject to legal re-entry for a period of 5 years.
- “Special” resident aliens would be given green cards subject to annual renewal based on remaining actively employed and paying applicable taxes, i. e., “special” resident aliens would not be subject to welfare support more than 60 days in any calendar year. They, as non-citizens, would have no voting rights. They can never apply for citizenship.
- Any special resident alien who commits a felony would be automatically deported.
- A deportation task force would be established to hunt down and deport all unregistered illegals who have committed felony crimes.
- Any municipality not adhering to this policy would not receive any state or federal funding. Any state not adhering to these laws, would not receive any federal funding. Government officials would be subject to criminal punishment for non-adherence.
- Congress would be asked to reform current immigration policies to emphasize protecting American workers while meeting the needs of employers requiring specialized skills that cannot be filled within the U.S. workforce. Strict tests for the latter should be part of the policy.
- Immigration for humanitarian reasons should be incorporated into the policy but only coincident with verifiable vetting processes.
Obviously, I’ve left more than a few holes in the policy. For instance, how do other laws that we have for resident aliens apply to “special” resident aliens?
Given that Trump has realized that he will not be able to continue campaigning on a promise he cannot fulfill – hunting down and deporting some 12-20 million illegals, he needs a viable alternative. The alternative must not cave to the liberals’ path to citizenship for all illegals (just their version of another voting constituency), but it must realize that there are illegals here who can participate in our society and economy in a positive way.
No argument that this speech was incredibly moving and well placed in the Dem’s convention. It’s typical of the type of story that the Dems take advantage of over and over to solidify their base and grasp for voters outside their base.
Like most people, I feel sorry for the father and understand his anger at hearing anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media and supposedly from Donald Trump. But, I would like you to consider two issues that the liberal media won’t address concerning this speech.
First, even if you consider what Trump said early in his campaign about banning all Muslim immigrants (he has since softened that language), there’s some additional thought you need to give to that. If Trump manages to get elected and somehow is allowed to ban all Muslim immigration for a period of time, he will stop some Muslim families who would be wonderful additions to the U.S. from entering the country. Included in the group may even be some Muslim children or young adults who will eventually enlist in the armed forces and serve our country honorably. If Hillary gets elected and follows through on increasing immigration from the Middle East to 65,000 or more, she may admit 10s, 100s, even 1000s of individuals who will find a way to wreak havoc on this country. Interesting trade-off.
Second, the father’s anger is justified when you consider what he believes to be distrust of all Muslims. Considering his son’s sacrifice and his own life that is more than understandable. However, part of this comes from the Dems successfully eliminating the distinctions between immigration and illegal immigration and more importantly in this matter the difference between peaceful Muslims and radical Islamic terrorists. Trump and conservatives have no problem clearly delineating the difference. Dems use the convenience of this blurring in their attacks on Trump and conservative thinkers alike. It’s one of their best tools.
Not sure where my country went.
- My country was governed by rule of law, not the ideologies of 9 political surrogates.
- My country was for the people, by the people not for and by a bunch of political elites dedicated to social engineering
- My country encouraged individual achievement, not freeloading
- My country was populated by individuals who were either a man or a woman, not one of 31 different genders
- My country led the world in protecting freedom loving individuals from ruthless tyrants, not enabling them
- My country had a constitution that could only be changed by amendments not by presidential edict
- My country was “exceptional” not common
Has the government now become the official moral authority of the land?
Let’s say I’m a business owner and I believe all citizens should have equal civil rights. So, I’m OK with same-sex marriage. I don’t discriminate against gays, lesbians, transexuals, people of color, Christians, agnostics, atheists, etc. But, I have this burning desire to have the people who work in my company exhibit outstanding moral character. If one of my male employees punches out a female, I report him to the authorities and fire him. If I discover someone is a pedophile, I report him/her to the authorities and fire him/her. So far, so good. Those things are against current laws. My moral compass and my legal compass are pointing the same direction. What if my moral compass doesn’t accept employees having sex in their office. Can I fire employees who do that? What if my moral compass doesn’t accept employees who brag about being promiscuous. Can I fire them? What if my moral compass doesn’t accept employees who like to have sex with both male and female partners (this one’s important, it’s the B in LGBT). Can I fire them? What if my moral compass doesn’t accept employees who are cheating on their spouses. Can I fire them?
My point is that if my desire to have employees of good moral character lines up with existing laws, then I’m OK. If my definition of good moral character isn’t consistent with current civil laws, then I will likely be guilty of discrimination against something. Hence, the government is now the moral authority of the land.
Every time I run across an article about the Higgs Boson I read it. There are a couple of reasons. First, I think if I read enough about the Higgs Boson particle, I might actually begin to understand what the scientists are saying. Second, I find it incredibly interesting that decades and endless amounts of time and money have been consumed trying to prove and disprove the existence of this particle.
In thinking about it, it’s really not unlike what those of us who believe in God have been doing for a much longer period of time. The scientists want to find an explanation of how mass first came into existence and therefore must find something that they can describe, quantify, and in a sense “see”. We believers pretty much have done the same thing with God.
Some say that believing in God really only requires faith and, in fact, may be the best definition of the word “faith”; however, in exercising that belief most of us try to think of God in terms that we as humans can understand. That is, it is really impossible (at least in my limited intellect) to fully understand the concept of an entity that always was and always will be. An entity that just existed and then made all other things that we know exist. It doesn’t matter, faith fills the gap.
Going back to the Higgs Boson, scientists are doing exactly the same thing. They are using the science of particle physics to explain the physical existence of all things. Therefore, they must come up with a beginning, a “first thing”. In their scientific world, the Higgs Boson is that thing. They will eventually prove to their satisfaction that the particle exists. Some say they already have. Its existence will be defined according to science. It will be their reason that all matter exists. They will then have found their entity that always was and always will be. They won’t have a scientific answer to the “always” issue but it won’t matter. They have something that fits into their scientific version of faith.
I was in the audience when a bright high school science student asked a famous physicist if he believed in intelligent design. He paused a moment and then gave the student an answer that ended with “let science explain how and let religion explain why”. The audience of about 250 was very quiet for a while.
Please transport me back to the non-fiction version of the USA. You know the one where the media-created bag of hot air and the crazy uncle aren’t in charge.
After seeing the President’s supposed “rope-a-dope” in the first debate followed by Biden doing his best imitation of Batman’s Joker in the VP debate, I want to return to the real world.I actually heard a media commentator say that it was important for Ryan to show that he wasn’t too inexperienced to serve as Vice President, after all he’s only been a member of the House for 13 years. Let’s see, who was the guy we elected President after serving almost 4 years in the Senate (half of that campaigning). He’s now served almost four years as President (half of that campaigning). Evidently, the media conceded that Ryan did accomplish the goal of being VP worthy while being outdebated by Biden. Based on Biden’s performance, the qualifications to be VP are relatively simple – just go out and be loud and say what you are told to say.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the liberal mindset (to the degree that a conservative could) and I understand how well the Dems have cultivated their voting blocks. But, only in a fictional version of this country, could someone who has never held a real job, been able to fulfill only a small, if any, portion of his promises and dismantled our foreign policy, be re-elected.
Hopefully, the authors of this fiction don’t have a catastrophic ending for this country in mind for their final chapter.
I wrote several pieces during the 2008 Presidential election that said in summary – “Journalism has committed mass suicide”. My logic was based on the role the media played in electing a man to the presidency that was unqualified by every rational measure. Not only did they not vet him, they attacked his opponents without remorse to make sure that they dictated the outcome of the election.
Now we are faced with a repeat performance. If these same journalists had committed something more real than literary suicide they wouldn’t be around for Act II. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. They continue to be totally in the bag for a president who has shown that he has no real understanding of the founding principles of the country he purports to lead. Or, if he understands those principles, he abhors them. He and his administration can do and say anything without fear that the mainstream media will provide coverage of their discrepancies, lies, constitutional violations, etc. On the other side, they continue to hang on every word and action of his opponent. They explode his every gaff (and invent them when needed) and obscure every positive message.
Reporting “news” is a thing of the past. What’s reported is structured to support their desired outcome- that the country remain in the hands of an administration that crosses the boundary of liberalism and moves to some hybrid form of socialism, fascism, and communism. Why this is true has most of us in the conservative world left dumfounded. Possibly it’s the result of the liberal education that most so called journalists receive. Possibly, it’s the desire to wield the power of the press in a grand fashion. Whatever the case, it’s doing this country a great deal of harm.
It’s hard to believe much less write about the fall of such an institution as journalism. I can remember a time in my life where front page news followed a formula of who, what, where, when, why and sometimes how. If you wanted something other than that you had to move to the editorial or opinion page of the paper. Now, however, so called journalists seem to report – “Here’s what I want you to know and believe”. It’s more than sad. Of course, written print has been replaced by 24 hour reporting on television/radio and the ever present Internet. Any hack, including me, can write what they want and if they find someone willing to give it broad dissemination then whatever they write can have a broad impact – hence, “it must be true, I saw it on the Internet”.
Senator Marco Rubio said the following in his inaugural speech in the Senate: “If we give America a government that could live within its means, the American economy will give us a government of considerable means. A government that can afford to pay for the things government should be doing, because it does not waste money on the things government should not be doing. If we can deliver on a few simple but important things, we have the chance to do something that’s difficult to imagine is even possible: an America whose future will be greater than her past.”
While I totally cherish both the words and what I believe Senator Rubio means by them, I seriously doubt that our current administration agrees with him on what it means to deliver “an America whose future will be greater than her past”. While Senator Rubio believes in and hopefully will work for an America who continues to lead the world in economic development and the pursuit of self-determination for all, I believe the current administration has a vision of a “future greater America” that is viewed as a kinder, gentler nation that is non-threatening and compliant to/with the rest of the nations of this world. In other words, not a nation that leads the world but one that melds into it.
The current administration believes that its goal can only be achieved once the government has full control of our lives and the economy. They are supported by several diverse groups. There’s the guilty rich, the blindly liberal, the truly poor, the lazy (psuedo-poor) and the illegals. I’ll refrain from trying to give my definition of each of these groups. Enough of my view should be apparent from the words I’ve used to classify them. The most important point is that for Senator Rubio and those of us who share his view of a “greater America”, those groups have been successfully cultivated to outnumber us.
The guilty rich and the blindly liberal are the most interesting. They believe that the liberal point of view that supports the government’s malicious interference in all things will bring about a better society for all and that will make them feel good and be better people. We will be a better nation in the eyes of the world because we care so much about everyone. The problem, of course, is when you pursue a path that places as many people on government subsistence as possible, you do the most damage to the people who most need help. By dispersing handouts to a large group of people to maintain a voting block, you take away assistance that could be provided to those who are in true and desperate need of it. As a side effect, you destroy the economy.
What does all that have to do with the subject of this view? Well, as our government becomes more and more focused on total control of our economy and on creating a totally dependent non-participating voting block our ability to lead the world economy and even participate in the world economy is obviated. A group of people who are content with entitlements from the government and continue to vote for a politicians who maintain and increase those entitlements cannot possibly compete or contribute to an economic world that is growing more competitive day by day. A government whose monetary policy requires it to borrow money, print money or take money away from the individuals who actually want to follow the formula that made America great cannot thrive.
How do we fix it? Look to our past to define our future.
If you’ve read my bio, you know I classify myself as a conservative. I’m sure some of you would equate that to being a warmonger; however, for the record I neither advocate nor abhor war. I believe making a decision to have one group of people actively engage in killing another group of people under the banner of “war” is one if not the toughest decision a leader has to make. I do believe that there are circumstances where that decision has to be made. I also believe that when made it must have a purpose in mind and a goal that can be reasonably understood by those who go off to war and those who must decide to support the effort; something on the order of keeping Hitler from enslaving all of Europe and exterminating a group of people.
What I find most interesting about our current engagement in Libya is the lack of reaction from the people who so viciously attacked George Bush over Iraq. I’m sure the justification is that Bush tricked us into that war by telling us it was necessary because we had to rid the world of a leader who was hoarding and about to use the infamous “weapons of mass destruction”. That’s independent, of course, of the tens of thousands of people Hussein killed as a method of ethnic cleansing. The attack on Libya evidently gets a pass because we are protecting a righteous group of protestors who would otherwise be massacred if we did not intervene. Also, we have world opinion on our side because it’s an engagement by the forces of NATO and not just a U.S. action. The fact that we really don’t have a clue who we are defending and what ideologies may lurk in their hearts is evidently unimportant. Also, we have curiously picked Libya as our target as opposed to the regimes that are killing protestors in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Possibly, they are next on our agenda.
I’ll leave with this thought. I’m not judging whether or not this war is more justified than the Bush war. I am extremely curious about how the media has quickly an almost unequivocally done so.