This Is Me--2024 A to Z Theme

My A to Z Themes in the past have covered a range of topics and for 2024 the theme is a personal retrospective that I call "I Coulda Been" which is in reference to my job and career arc over my lifetime. I'll be looking at all sorts of occupations that I have done or could have done. Maybe you've done some of these too!

Friday, December 9, 2016

The Racist Lie and the Liars Who Say It

       Should a disagreement equate a condemnation of another?  If you are condemning another person for what they believe--or what you think they believe--then you have essentially shut down a conversation that could lead to a better deeper understanding of that person and the beliefs they hold.

Anti-Racist Action banner from Art Against Racism
Anti-Racist Action banner from Art Against Racism (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

       The negative anti-Trumpist chatter continues on social media and not a day, nor perhaps an hour, passes without some news media pundit rattling off terms like racist in regard to President-elect Trump or his supporters.  My good old blogging friend Andrew Leon couldn't resist another post about the racism of people like me even though he was essentially repeating what he had said in his earlier rant post on the same topic.   Apparently Mr. Leon has no interest in conversations which lead to deeper understanding, greater tolerance, and perhaps a reversal on beliefs based on arrogance and misunderstanding--in fact he has stated that sentiment.  But then, since Mr. Leon apparently knows all and cites those who have PhD's, he doesn't need to understand those lesser than he or, in reality, those who see things from a different perspective.

       So blame whom you wish, my  President Trump Acclimation Series continues on until I am satisfied that more people understand the truth as I see it or until I am sated on my own words.

What Did Trump Say That Was Racist?

      From the beginning of his campaign we've been told that Donald Trump is a racist.  Suggested policies extracted from his speeches were proof of his racism said media, political opponents, and anyone else who wanted to spew that opinion.  While many who had known Mr. Trump for many years denied that any shred of racism existed within the man.  I think one had to listen closely to what Mr. Trump was saying to come up with any evidence of racism and on my part I found none.

       The comment section is where you can offer up any specific evidence that you might have noted that would be absolute proof of Donald Trump's racism.  But before I unleash those thoughts of yours, I want to eliminate some of the points that most of you would likely use with some my added clarification as I see it.  What Trump was saying always came across as pretty obvious to me, but that was hearing his words in context and not just picking out pieces presented literally to the extent that the meanings got distorted.  I'll try to explain...

Proofs of Donald Trump's Racism (and why they are not)

  •      All Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, etc--Maybe it didn't come across clearly when the snippet was repeatedly played or recited, but he also said that most of them are good people and acknowledged they were looking for economic betterment of their lives.
  • Going to build a wall and "send back" those in the country illegally--Nothing to do with race, but merely a call for enforcing current immigration laws.  What's the problem with enforcing laws and having some sort of structure in taking immigrants into the country?
  • Judge Gonzalo Curiel--Because of the controversy about the wall Donald Trump merely pointed out that having a judge with a Mexican heritage could involve some bias in his Trump University class action suit.  This was not racism, but a legitimate concern about the possibility of not getting a fair ruling in the case.   
  • The Muslim Ban--I'll address more on this issue when I discuss the topic of "Islamophobic" and the Gold Star Khan family.  However I'll point out that Islam is an ideological system of belief that encompasses members of all races so any ban on Muslims is not racism.
  • Trump's description of the current state of Black communities--He was referring to problems in the inner cities as recognized by many Black leaders and others.  The intent was not to denigrate a race, but an offer to improve crime-ridden areas that are predominately Black.  Trump was suggesting solutions, outreach, and assistance to these areas and not to attack any race.
  • Housing discrimination lawsuit--This is a complex issue that occurred over forty years ago when Donald Trump was in the early stage of his career as a developer working with his father.  Racial discrimination was the issue behind the suit, but I would maintain that this was not necessarily a function of racism on behalf of  Donald Trump.  And even if it a factor of racism is involved here one can argue that this was more of an issue of time, place, and attitudes of those times.  People can change.

Not Always What Is Said, But Context

        Some of the other "evidence" of racism that detractors have pointed to are things like calling the Miss Universe winner of 1996 "Miss Housekeeping", calling a black supporter "my African American", and other similar things that don't come to my mind at the present time, but I'm sure some readers might want to bring up.  

         Firstly, keep in mind that Donald Trump has been an entertainer or has had the mind of the entertainer throughout his entire adult life.  Like many pop music stars, comedians, and other celebrities, he has had a tendency to say what comes across as outrageous things to certain people. These people are overlooking whatever the intended effect was meant to be or if perhaps it was a  misguided attempt to draw attention.   The scrutiny of those in the public eye can cause an outcry when they say something with relatively innocent intent merely to raise an eyebrow or evoke a guffaw.  

         Some might argue that saying anything that might be construed as racially insensitive provides a look into the true racist nature of a person.  And this can get incredibly nitpicky.   Our ultra-sensitive  PC culture is turning us into robotic uptight neurotics.  Yet most of us accept music, movies, books, comedians--you name the source--that do and say things that would get us in trouble in our own lives.  Maybe you say that those examples are different.  Remember, president or not, Donald Trump is different.  It's time for a change so let's give change a chance.

         Feel free to leave your comments--my readers have been great so far leaving respectful comments that continue the conversation.  Add whatever you think I didn't touch upon or address what I've said above.  Be as specific as you can if citing an example as I'm trying to avoid a repetitive accusation of being racist from someone who doesn't really know me well.

       Also be careful not to cite what Mr. Trump supposedly said if your source is coming from a media spokesperson or anyone who is not the President-elect himself.   Something that most of the time was misunderstood by the commentators is that they often took things literally while missing humor and a bigger picture painted by the entire speech.  When Donald Trump spoke on the campaign trail, the words I heard were often incorrectly conveyed to the television audience which is why so many people disliked Trump if they were consumers of those sole media sources.  The future President was not speaking to the benefit of the political pundits and professional communicators, but he was speaking to the regular people.  A lot of us understood.

       Is there an example of racism in Donald Trump that you feel I've overlooked?   If there were organizations generally thought of as racist who supported Trump for President, do you hold the President-elect responsible for that?   Do you think that under certain circumstances or if pressed to some extreme that everyone has a potential to be racist?


  1. Not being policitcally minded with our Brirish politics who am I to judge American politic's?
    I personally feel each individual on this earth is entitled to his/her own opinions.Is there a right or wrong? I don't know.
    Most interesting post Lee and wonderful to read.

    1. Yvonne, Racism is not just an American issue and as one of my South African readers said in a past comment racism can occur with any racial group against another. I think some opinions when related to values and that sort of thing can be more right or wrong, but we don't know for sure until we understand what exactly the opinion represents.


    2. I agree with you Lee when you put it like that. I have come up with discrimination being Epiletic......I know that is not racism but all the same not very pleasant.

  2. Our ultra-sensitive PC culture is turning us into robotic uptight neurotics - no kidding!
    With some people, there is just no discussion.

    1. Alex, some people refuse to engage because they think they are right and no other opinions deserve to be heard or explained. No wonder there is so much division in our country.


  3. Yep, the PC garbage has everyone on the path to robots indeed. No matter how smart some people claim to be many a time they can't pull their head from certain places to have an actual conversation. As for Trump being a racist, I think he favors the rich and powerful more than the common man, but that's not racist. Egotistical and greedy, yep. And yeah, he does entertain, or try to entertain, with his low brow humor. But with him he is rather whiny. Oh, I can say such things about anyone, but if anyone says such things about me time for a Twitter rant. Wah, wah, SNL. If he can "entertain" and say such things, then he should be able to shut the hell up and take those "entertaining" at his expense too. Plus the more he rants about it the more they'll do it. Common sense he may be lacking.

    1. Pat, division comes from a conscious effort not to listen to the other side and accept that they have any credence whatsoever. I still think you might be falling into the trap of what the mainstream wants us to believe about Trump. I think a lot of his antics are shrewd tactics for diverting the media focus and bringing up topics worth considering. Note how his tweets start with outrage by the public and then turn into conversation about the topic on which he tweeted. We might be looking at some thoughtful years ahead if everyone is willing to start thinking rather than resisting.


  4. As for the potential to be racist, the old adage "one bad apple..." comes to mind. Some believe it doesn't spoil the whole bunch, some will torch the tree.
    I rather liked Trump's response to his Time Magazine cover: "It's a nation divided, but I didn't do it." Funny, I haven't heard anyone read anything into that - yet.
    In terms of questionable voter origins, those in glass houses would do well to duck about now.
    I can only hope this dead horse hysteria fades - sooner than later.
    Merry Christmas, Lee!

    1. Diedre, for one to argue that Trump has caused the division in the country would be an admission that Trump has a mighty power that can influence masses of the population and I'm not sure that the opposition is wanting to bestow that power to him. If anything the media is creating most of the division.

      I'm not sure the hysteria will fade anytime soon. Trump hatred has infested the opposition to the depths of their souls and I'm not sure what it will take for them to get over it.


  5. Replies
    1. Pop Tart, I think it's a good perspective because I think it's essentially correct.


  6. As you know I agree with everything in this post already, I'll just embellish a bit by noting that "racism" is just an overused and misused word as "Nazi" and "Rhetoric." And as I have a friend that thinks that Bannon is the second coming of Goebbels, I understand your distaste of Leon's posts.

    1. CW, the finger-pointing with the cry of "racist" (or "Nazi" or the like) is just another way for the left to claim victory in any argument with the other side. No proofs or logical reasoning necessary--just the terminology that ascertains that the opposition has no credibility and is evil. I don't want to have enmity with anyone, but in cases like Leon that seems to be his chosen conclusion to the discussion unless I want to concede that he's right and I'm an ignorant asshole. Good-bye reason and logic, hello totalitarian concession.


  7. I believe the quote educated crowd are tools for the NWO.

    1. Shelly, I won't disagree with that assertion. The NWO relies on followers who adhere strictly to their party line.


  8. Hey Arlee - I almost never comment here, but I do lurk from time to time. I've purposefully tried to stay out of getting too into this Trump stuff because, quite honestly, it's almost impossible to have dialog about him. I doubt there is anything that hasn't been said about him by this point, so I'm just adding my voice to a choir (or a mob, whatever). I'm not offering any fresh insight about anything. But, I don't know, I'm bored, I guess. So here I am. Running my mouth.

    I have to start off by saying I think you’re qualifications for how to discuss Trump in your final paragraphs is problematic.

    As far as how racist Trump is, After watching and listening to the man daily for a year and a half now, I'm having a hard time thinking Trump has strong convictions about anything at all. I think more than anything, he isn't a very deep thinker. He says stuff off the top of his head without really knowing, or caring, about what can or worms it may be opening.

    And I think that's it with him.

    So whether or not he actually is racist is almost beside the point. People who admittedly, and sometimes proudly, clam to be racist themselves think he is, the KKK has famously endorsed him, white nationalists have flocked to him almost like he's a religious figure. The spike in hate crimes against minorities has gone up, and a great deal of it is being done by people chanting Trump slogans and rhetoric as they do so. This stuff doesn't come straight out of a vacuum. There are reasons. You asked if he can be held responsible for hate groups supporting him. In this particular circumstance, I think the answer is yes.

    You mentioned the “Mexicans are rapists” comments he made. Here is the quote: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best, they’re sending people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people.”

    Yes, he did end that with some qualification that some, he assumes, are good people. But the message there is not that Mexicans are good people, it’s that we’re getting the worst of them, as well as the worst of Latin America as a whole, and possibly people from the middle east. I assume that he was implying terrorists are entering the country this way, but it’s hard to make sense of what he meant by that in his speech.

    But that doesn’t mesh well with your interpretation of that same speech. I watch it, I see someone preying on our worst attributes, our fear of some ill defined flood of invaders coming to commit crime and maybe terrorism. Does that make Trump a racist? I think it’s opportunism. He has a gut feeling that stoking the fires of people who are afraid someone is going to move into their neighborhood and rape their children and get their spouse hooked on drugs. Because if a Latino is here, according to Trump, then we’re getting the worst they (Mexico & other countries) have to offer.

    Again, it doesn't matter to me whether or not he actually is racist. Trump, in my opinion, appears to admire loyalty over almost anything else, and with his first speech cited above where the 'rapists and criminals' comments came from, some of the first and loudest supporters of his campaign were people who heard that language and agreed with what he said, and not, perhaps, what you said he meant. And by all I can see Trump is fine with that sort of support. He went out of his way to avoid denouncing the worst of the people that came out in support of him. The Bannon appointment is evidence of this. If Trump cared about quelling fears about his checkered past with racism then he wouldn't have made that man one of his very first picks. But he’s rewarding loyalty.

    1. There's a lot in your comment and I do appreciate your lengthy comment but I won't address all of the issues individually as I think I'd be starting to repeat myself.

      I think the bottom line is that we all filter what we hear according to our experiences, our beliefs, and many other filters. Trump speaks in generalizations, hyperbole, and very often with a sly bit of tongue in cheek which I think speaks to the hearts of a good many people. And if those listening get off on the wrong footing with him, they are likely to hear in reverse so to speak, where everything he says is taken the wrong way.

      It's the same with those who listen to Hillary or Obama and hear something completely different than what someone else hears (or wants to hear).

      There are a lot of convolutions that we're dealing with along with millions of different kinds of people with their own interests, agendas, and whatever else might perk ears and stimulate minds.

      The basis of what I'm trying to get across is that it is wrong to label a group of voters with blanket accusations of who someone else thinks they are. When Trump made controversial statements it may have been awkward phrasing done in error or purposeful communication tapping into that something within millions that moved them. I would call that something hope or change or whatever else it might have been, but I never felt any intention of delivering a message of hate. Some people might have heard that message, but I don't think it's fair to blame Trump for what those people might feel, especially if you are one of those who wouldn't blame Hillary or whoever for the riots and other disruptions of leftist mobs.

      As for the "hate crimes" I think most of these have been anecdotal or false reportage. So far I'm hearing little actual evidence for the crimes. There seems to be as much or more reporting of "crimes" against Trump supporters. But I don't really want to get into that since I have not been collecting the data on these.

      Personally I blame the divisiveness and the hate mostly on mainstream media reporting initially and then perpetuation of the negativity by those exacerbating the problem on social media with a lot of hateful rhetoric. That's why I'm doing this series of mine. I talking to those who want to discuss this and if no one wants a discussion then I'll talk to myself and create blog content.


    2. Arelee – After a weekend I can barely remember what I wrote, or your original post, so I’ve had to go back and reread. I see there are tons of other comments now, as well as a whole other post by you. It looks like time has passed me by on this. I’ll just comment here about a couple of things you said above.

      I absolutely agree we all interpret the world through filters we put in place. But we still have to interact with the world. And we need to try to remove those filters as much as we can. It may not be possible, but I have to try.

      When I heard Trump campaign, I didn’t hear hate, I heard fear: “They” will come to take away your jobs, will rape your family, outlaw your faith, the government will take away your guns, this will all happen unless you elect me to fix it. I think Trump is accountable because this is what he wanted to say. What he wanted me to think he said. He defined a problem (that was hyperbolic) and promised to fix it if elected.

      That was what I heard, in various incarnations, over the past year and a half from the Trump campaign. Yes, there is hope there – but the hope is in the “I will fix it” part. Try as it might, I can’t see his message any other way. It’s the most straightforward way of interpreting his rhetoric. As a result, you’ve been put in the position of saying that he doesn’t really mean the things he says because he’s only being hyperbolic, or didn’t intend to state things the way they came across. From my perspective, you’re asking people to ignore his words and focus on his intent – which you are defining in your posts here. I think it’s kind of you, really, and if you take this ‘most charitable’ interpretation of someone’s intentions in everyday interactions you are ahead of about 99% of the population - but I think it’s at odds with the content of his speech up to this point.

      I took a look at the NYC police dept and the SLPC both reporting a large spike in hate crimes since the election, and the FBI released their 2015 numbers a few weeks ago (they were up quite a bit last year, and all indications show they’ve gone way up again this year – but it’ll be another year before we see the FBI’s numbers about 2016) and I think blanketing these as anecdotes and false reports is probably going to make having an honest conversation about that topic tough to have. So I’ll drop it.

    3. Rusty, yeah, I hear you. I barely remember what I wrote let alone the conversation, but my memory is a whole different topic.

      What you've described about Trump's campaign is the essence of most political campaigns. There is almost always some element of distrust and fear about what the opposition is doing or will do. Why should anybody listen and ultimately vote for one candidate over the other if not for these aspects of the bad things that will happen if you don't vote for them?

      And to repeat my intention in pursuing this series, I want to put Trump's words in context rather than ignore them and thus elucidate what was said and the intent as I understand it.

      What I say here are my opinions and observations based on my perception of the truth that I see and extrapolate. That's what anyone else is doing so I figure I'll add my voice to all the chatter (clutter?).

      As for the hate crimes, the Trump factor is probably small other than crimes perpetrated against Trump supporters. So many of the reported crimes are turning out to be false and the ones that are true likely have far deeper roots than this election season. As you say this is a different complicated discussion that I'll likely be delving into later on in another post.


  9. Bobbie Kinkead has left a new comment on your post "The Racist Lie and the Liars Who Say It":

    BE WARE of Trump, he has others do his work. He is a business man, and knows marketing.

    Sorry, Bobbie, but I inadvertently deleted your comment when removing your original deleted comment (which was interesting but I won't paste here since you seemed to have wanted to delete it)

    Business and marketing is what I like about Trump. I should hope he lets others do his work. I think a good efficient president would be one who would delegate work to the best people. I don't want a president trying to do it all himself, but to be a person with creative ideas and a willingness to get them done. To me he's as worth as much of a shot as any politician we've had in the office previously.


  10. Part 2:

    I can’t get into each one of the examples you provided. I think a whole long piece could be written (and probably has somewhere) about each one of them. I’ll say that I think you are dismissing these too quickly. Take Judge Curiel. Trump said the man is unfit to judge in his case because he was of Latino heritage. A man who had not shown any sort of conflict of interest regarding the Trump University trial up to that point, and, in fact, seemed to be giving the Trump team more leeway than necessary up to the point in the trial when Trump starting singling him out and claimed him to be unfit because of his race. I mean, where did that come from? The fact that Donald even brought the subject up, to me, shows that he is aware that the things he's said about Mexicans are offensive. To call someone out specifically because of his race as being unfit is sort of a textbook example of racism, even if it’s not meant maliciously. I personally think it was, again, opportunism, not racism there. He was almost assuredly going to lose the case, and preemptively was raising the specter of a crooked judge that had some agenda that kept him from judging fairly. But that’s me guessing and nothing else. I can’t blame anyone who thinks it was racism. As I said above, it fits.

    The housing stuff you mentioned, you’re right, it’s complicated, but if I recall correctly, his policies regarding his renting policies were deemed discriminatory in court, he was ordered to change those policies, and Trump ignored the court orders and continued with business as usual. He was brought back into court again later for failing to comply with the original settlement.

    Then there was Kip Brown, in that article in the New Yorker, who worked for one of Trump’s casinos in the 80’s said that when Trump hit the casino floor, all the black employees were removed from the floor as standard practice and had to stay in some backroom until he was gone. There was the book written by John O’Donnel 25 years ago where he quoted Trump as saying he had black accountants, but regretted it because they were “lazy” but also that it wasn’t their fault, that it was a “trait in blacks.” I know you said to not bring up this stuff unless it’s straight from Trump’s mouth, but in this particular case, Trump was asked about accusations in the book back in the 90’s and said it was “probably true” before denying its accuracy a few years later.

    He chose Willam Johnson, leader of the American Freedom party, as one of his delegates in the primary before he rescinded the offer after the outrage that followed. He used twitter to retweet white supremacists and clearly pulled and reused graphics from known neo-nazi websites during his campaign.

    If forced to, I could probably come up with a dozen or more examples of similar type. And I have to repeat myself here, I almost don’t think Trump’s actual opinions of race matter at this point. But he’s realized this is a large, or at least, loud, contingent of his base. Intentionally cultivated or not, it’s there. And even if some of the things on the very long list about Trump and his views about race are untrue, it all points in a direction I don’t like.

    For me, I do have a hard time understanding the defenses made of his behavior. But people I love and respect and whom I don’t think are anything but good found something in him that resonated. Try as I might, I just don’t understand it. I have my own thoughts about it, but considering I’ve wasted so much space already and don’t feel like I’ve even begun to cover the things you touched on… it would take a novel length piece for me to feel like I could finally get a coherent thought out on the topic.

    1. Rusty, I appreciate the additional examples which I don't know how totally true they all are so I'll take your word that you've heard them, but not that they necessarily reflect accurate information. I've heard plenty of stories and examples that would reflect otherwise. I've heard stories of plenty of people for that matter, but I've got to go with what I know personally and what my gut tells me.

      The Trump University lawsuit is basically a legal class action scam and I see the whole thing as a joke. I'll stand by what I said in my post about the "racist" nature of what Trump said about the judge--I understand it. That case shouldn't have been allowed in the courts just like most lawsuits where people are trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for personal failure and want to make a buck off it at the same time. But this is a whole different realm that I might talk about in a later post.

      Here's part of what this Trump phenomena is for me and it's a story that I've begun to hear from other sources as well. You can make of it what you will:

      With Trump's entry into the political race I sensed the hand of God or something of a spiritual nature in his running. As I saw more people of faith getting behind Trump, even as crude and ungodly as he could appear at times, my own convictions were reaffirmed. I think this is why Trump had such backing from evangelicals. Truthfully I sense something bigger than Trump or whoever is with him behind this movement. I don't know if you are a Bible believer, but as one with a long interest in prophecy I'm seeing too much lining up to bring us to a time of a return of Jesus Christ as told in the Bible. This might bring my view in more perspective to you or might prop me up as an object of derision. That's fine with me, but maybe this puts my views in a different light for you and others who might read what I've just said.

      Someone who has been in the public eye as much as Donald Trump is going to have a lot of people saying great things about him as well as those who are going to say bad things. Same with Bannon--I'm hearing good and bad and to me the good parts have been far more logical than the bad things.

      But I'm filtering and reasoning according to my data accumulation just as you are and other Trump detractors. I guess by putting the more positive spin on the situation I'm adding to the good energy of the world (or being a duped partner of deception as some might see it). I'm seeing more good than bad and being more optimistic than bitter and cynical.

      I'd ask the opposition side to just let up and see what happens in the future. Maybe the naysayers can point and say "I told you so" if everything falls apart with Trump in charge--I hope not because that's not what would be good for the U.S.A. or anyone else. If people can just stop the name calling and intolerant accusations I think we'd have more people getting along. Being nice is far better than calling people racist, asshole, ignorant, or whatever. I want a better world and I don't see any real attempt being made by much of the supposedly idealistic leftists and liberals.

      I'm not trying to be negative with my posts, but maybe just add some positive energy to the world. I don't blog to attack others and I hate going on Facebook to be attacked by people I had thought "Friended" me because they liked me to some degree.


    2. Hey, it’s me again. I’m glad you are giving me the benefit of the doubt that I heard the examples I provided (as opposed to me making them up?). I’ll quickly respond to a few things you mentioned.

      Trump class action suit: I’m sure you are aware that Trump also said a Muslim judge wouldn’t give him a fair trial either. Do you stand by that statement? You are questioning a man’s integrity with no evidence at all (in fact, what little evidence there was, points that he was giving the Trump team way more leeway than necessary) based solely on his heritage. If, by chance, it’s that La Raza thing then Trump didn’t understand the organization with all the Mexican love is not affiliated with the legal group Curiel is a part of.

      The validity of the suit itself is beside the point, the judge didn’t bring the charges against Trump (I did mention in my previous comment that I believed that Trump would have lost, but that was solely my opinion, and I could have been totally wrong there – maybe it was a farce and that would have been found out over the course of the trial).

      As for the statement about suing our problems away. As a general statement you may be right. Although any individual case it’s hard to say. There are legitimate cases of fraud and predatory practices that betray a person’s trust.

      The fulfillment of biblical prophecy in Trump. I have not heard even a word of this. I would be very interested in hearing more. I don’t deride you for believing this. But I do think the likelihood of this being true or accurate is low. However, I’m always willing to listen.

      As for the opposition, I can’t speak for them. I am quite nervous about Trump. I want to be wrong about him. I want him to be remembered as the genius president that fixed every problem we ever had – and we can all laugh about how I used to think he was a racist, misogynist, ignorant fear-mongerer. If those things happen I would stop by and offer my change of opinion here (assuming I’m not one of the problems that he has to fix and I simply disappear in the middle of the night). As I don’t think changing one’s mind is a bad thing when new information comes along that shows previous beliefs were in error.

      As it stands, if the posts of yours I’ve read and the tone of your comments are true representations of you, then I think you are a great guy and I hope you can add some positivity to the world. I think you are wrong about Trump, and I think that’s the case because the filters you are using to view the world don’t reflect reality as well as mine do (Obviously, if I thought you were right, I would change my mind and start agreeing with you).

    3. Rusty, thanks for the additional thoughts on the judges and the court cases. Not much for me to add to that other than judges and juries are imperfect because they are humans with bias. I don't hold any judge to a higher plane than the rest of us--I've known a few judges and was not always impressed. With people, including the lawyers and the pressure of the press, involved in any matter there is a lot that can influence outcomes of cases and I think a person who is being sued in a case has every reason to be suspect of those who might be tipping the scales of justice in a different direction.

      As far as the prophecy angle, for me it was merely something I initially sensed so there is not much solid evidence that I can point to--feelings are difficult to use as verification of anything in my opinion.

      However one very solid piece of evidence is that even before Trump announced his candidacy I was aware of a pro-Israel stance and this was a vital point to me. A further point of strength in this matter was that Trump announced his intention to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem--a highly contentious move to many, but one that fits in with Biblical prophesy. This or other factors may have been the influence that swayed evangelical voters as well as some highly respected figures in Christianity. This factor reaffirmed the feelings that I was experiencing about Trump's potential. Only in the month before the election did I start seeing so many other videos and articles about the prophetic aspect of Trump, an unlikely figure to be a part of God's work, but not surprising to me either. This prophesy part of my argument is one that is likely to cause the most derision about what I'm saying, but that doesn't bother me in the least bit.

      We can only wait and see what will happen in reality. I am not prophesying anything about Trump, but merely extracting and correlating what I understand about prophesy. Trump might be great for America and the world and he might be a total disaster. I don't think he could be any worse than Obama or any of our other recent presidents.

      Thanks for your sensible discussion. This is what I'm looking for--I'm offering my side and giving others an opportunity to present their sides. I want to talk about this and not just point fingers, scream, and call names. And if people don't want to talk about it then that's fine too.


    4. >>... If, by chance, it’s that La Raza thing then Trump didn’t understand the organization with all the Mexican love is not affiliated with the legal group Curiel is a part of.

      ​For the record, LEE, I am standing firm on my earlier comments.

      First of all, one pretty much has to abandon all common sense to take the position that two different Mexican-centric organizations both using the words La Raza (meaning "The Race") in their titles share no ideology and common goals for their race. That's got to be considered ​highly unlikely, being far too coincidental.

      Secondly, as [Link:] THIS ARTICLE points out, on their official website,
      the California La Raza Lawyer's Association -- to which Judge Curiel belongs -- lists the National Council of La Raza as one of their acknowledged community members and links directly to the latter's website. Are we supposed to believe that the two organizations calling themselves "La Raza" don't share similar nefarious agendas pertaining to Mexican immigration into the U.S.?

      And furthermore, Curiel's California La Raza Lawyer's Association
      was founded by Mario Obledo who on more than one occasion expressed the following views:

      Obledo: "We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state."

      Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?"

      Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."

      The statements were also reported by the New York Times in their 2010 obituary for Obledo.

      So, was Trump being racist when he expressed concern about getting a fair trial from La Raza Judge Curiel? Fuhgeddaboudit! Trump had EVERY LOGICAL RIGHT to be concerned! My ruling: NOT racist!! Smart.

      And yet again, we have an example (as if we needed any more) why one should NEVER trust ANYTHING the Mainstream Media says. If a person wants to know the truth, they MUST seek out alternative news sources.

      ~ D-FensDogG

    5. They ought to go back to Europe

      That's a beauty. And Europe includes Spain and Latin Americans would need to sort all that out. It's a little late for any of us to be going back unless we just got here within the past 30 years or so.

      I get what you're saying STMcC about the judge. And any organization with "La Raza" in the title is problematic as far as I'm concerned.


  11. QUESTION: Do you believe there is a spiritual component to this presidential election? If so, what is it? And how do you recognize it as such?

    LEE, I'm directing these questions to you and to your buddy, Jack Eiden, whom I expect to appear here eventually.

    ~ D-FensDogG
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. STMcC, Hah! Just as you were adding your comment I was answering it in my above reply to Rusty. Maybe there is a spiritual component to that!

      I think you already know my answer to your question and I guess that's why you are asking it. Yes, I believe there is a very strong spiritual element to this election and to all of the things coming together in this world at the present time.

      I think there is a message concerning Islam that was delivered during Obama's time in office--a message for those with the wisdom to receive it. Now Trump has been elected as part of the consequence of Obama's reign. I'm certain that big changes are coming in the next years and they are leading up to the great culmination of history as prophesied in the Bible. But I know that you know all of this stuff and probably in greater depth than I. Thank you for asking this question and allowing me to expound on it further.

      I was planning on eventually getting around to this factor once I got past the trivialities of the "Basket of Deplorables" terms. God is greater than Hillary, Trump, Trump detractors, and anyone else. God power is in the air and the minions of Satan are being stirred into action. God has used a lot of unique people to do His work throughout history so no reason not to believe that God might be working through Donald Trump. After all he won the election overcoming amazing odds.


    2. Good answer, LEE. Yes, I thought I'd open up that "file" on this discussion. Funny how you were in the act of doing it already even as I attempted to initiate it.

      I'm impressed with this avenue of blogging for you. I'm pleased to see you willing to "SERIOUSLY" explore a controversial topic. I won't lie: in the past, when you've danced around controversial topics, I felt you were a poseur, even to the point where I stopped commenting on those posts. With the topic of Trump, you are finally doing it for "REAL" and I commend you for it.

      You are doing a good job on the Racism topic, however, I feel you overlooked the most important aspect of the Judge Gonzalo Curiel accusation and I want to address that:

      For Trump, the real issue about Judge Curiel was not simply that he was Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. If that were the case, I too would consider Trump a bit out of line.

      The primary issue was that Curiel is a member of the La Raza association. For those who don't know, one of the goals of La Raza is to regain the American Southwest for Mexico. Thus, they do not favor a wall or curtailing illegal immigration into the U.S.A. In other words, it's a strident, pro-Mexico / anti-U.S. revolutionary political association.

      Was it wrong for Trump to question whether or not he could get an un-biased ruling from Curiel? Of course not! In Trump's shoes, I would have questioned it too, and I sure as hell am not anti-Mexican nor a racist of any sort!

      The article below (see URL) explains the situation well, but since most people won't bother to read the article, I'll also paste a couple paragraph excerpts from it:

      “[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

      Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

      Aside from the La Raza connection, there's this:

      On his 2011 questionnaire, Curiel also noted that he was a "life-time member" of the Hispanic National Bar Association, and a member of the National Hispanic Prosecutors Association, as well as the Latino Judges Association.

      Wow! That's a whole lotta focus on race, isn't it?! Imagine if I were a member of groups named the Caucasian National Bar Association, the National Caucasian Prosecutor's Association, and the Caucasian Judges Association. Such attention to race might (rightly) cause people to question whether I might hold strong racial views that could undermine my unbiased judgment when race is a potential issue.

      Trump was not displaying racism toward Curiel, but he was intelligently questioning whether his views on illegal immigration might hurt his chances of getting a fair judgment from a judge who focuses firmly on his own race.

      But good luck trying to get a narrow-minded, egotistical, dyed-in-the-wool liberal maroon like Andrew LOLeon to understand and acknowledge real-life concerns like this! It's much easier for him to just shout "Racists! Assholes! Idiots!" He's no thinker at all.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

    3. STMcC, well, crap, I had finished a long response to this comment and then my internet shut down causing me to lose it.

      I'll make no attempt to recreate it, but I will say that I appreciate the additional info on Judge Curiel. I was trying to keep my post relatively short so I didn't want to go too far into that subject, but thankfully you did it for me. Now I hope some others might stop by to read what you had to say here.

      There's so much logic to your points of argument that it will probably short circuit leftist brains, but at least some of us get it.


    4. If it weren't so important (and so damned Leftist-loony) I would find this funny:

      Some Mexican-American judge can belong to at least 3 major Mexican-centric organizations, one of which for sure is extremist and revolutionary, and no one even whispers the possibility that the guy might be a Mexican racist.

      But one White man running for the presidency who wants to stop illegal Mexican immigration into the U.S. can raise the question of whether or not he can get a fair trial from that same Mexican-American judge and the Mainstream Media and every Marxist-leaning Liberal immediately accuses the White man of being a racist!

      Lemme tell ya, it's a bitch being an 80-IQ man in a 65-IQ country!

      ~ D-FensDogG

    5. There's definitely a lot of manipulation of facts and reporting of selective information in mainstream media so that most people are very misinformed. What absurdity will the Right be accused of next?


  12. To answer your final question wayyyy up there, Arlee, I think , yes, if pushed to the extreme, under certain circumstances, we each have the potential to be racist.

    However, I think there's an awful lot of name calling these days in places where it is unwarranted and by people very much guilty of doing what they are accusing the other of doing.

    For example, I was accused of being racist because I said the hate needed to stop on both sides, while at the same time this woman said that white people were the problem and were the ones that needed to fix it.

    Our confrontation was brought on by a discussion about a white cop killing a black man. She said there have been no cases of a black cop killing a white man that went unpunished, but that white cops get away with it all the time. When I pointed out a case where a black cop got away with it, she deleted all of my comments in that conversation and closed down comments on that topic in her blog.

    Does that sound like someone that wants to fix any problems between the races? I don't think so. Not one bit.

    About Trump, I don't know if he's racist or not. I've heard some rumors about him that are far worse than any racism he could dish out. Are they true? I don't know. I wasn't there. I have trust issues anyway and don't trust any of the politicians any farther than I can throw them.

    Yes, I think that we all have the potential to be racist if pushed or in certain circumstances. But I also think that we have potential to be above the chatter and the political correctness and be good people, too.

    May God bless America! And may He bless you, too, Arlee. Have a great weekend!

  13. PS Arlee, I just went to read that dude's "earlier rant post" and found parts of it extremely funny.

    1. The double negative in the first sentence of his "Overt racism" section. He was flat out saying that Trump's campaign did not promote racism by his use of double negatives.

    2. In his final paragraph, he says that people who claim to not be racist are stupid. Kind of gets one going and coming, doesn't he? I wonder if he noticed, then, that he was admitting to being racist and/or stupid?

    I got a good laugh out of that one. Thanks for sharing it.

    By the way, I didn't vote for Trump. I wanted a Castle in the White House. :) But, as with all of the presidents before him, we pray and hope for the best, no matter who is in office.

    Have a blessed weekend and a Merry Christmas!

  14. PSS I referenced the wrong post. It was in the "another post" post that you linked to, not the "earlier rant post". Sorry for the confusion.

    1. Suzanne, well said comment with many good points. The name-calling must stop in order to have a healthy country where ideas can be freely interchanged without fear of reprisals. It seems the most innocent comments can set people off and unfortunately much of this seems to be a one-sided attack against white conservative Christians.

      Personally, I'm sick of attacks against whites and their privilege and the onus of collective guilt they should all be carrying. Bad has been done by many people on all sides and I think it's totally wrong to cast a general aspersion on everyone no matter what.

      We've come to a sad state in our nation where individuals can be accused of things based on standards that would be unlikely to pass in a court of law. There's plenty of blame to go around for this and much of it goes to the groups who cry out loudest for tolerance and then turn around to be the most intolerant of all when it comes to the groups they wish to demonize. Hate specific groups are wrong but so are those groups that want to generalize hate upon people who are just voicing opinions they might not agree with or for who they are.

      You point out the great ironies that can be found in posts such as the ones I've linked to. It's laughable for a person who wants us to believe they are not racist to insist that someone else is racist for saying they're not. And calling people stupid or using less polite pejoratives is uncalled if we don't even know that person to any great degree, but only by what they might have said in a blog post or somewhere else.

      The most important point to consider here is that Mr. Trump won and we have every reason to accept that he will be our next president so we should be rooting for him to succeed because that would be best for our country and each of us. Our country deserves the best and that comes from the success of those who are running things in our country.

      Thanks for your excellent comment(s).


    2. Thank you, too, Arlee, for a safe place to voice thoughts on this topic.

      There were so many things I wanted to say on that other blog, but I knew no matter how I worded it, it would likely not be taken in the spirit in which I meant it and I've grown weary of having my face chewed off by people that can't read my heart.

      So why do you think it is that those who demand tolerance are the least intolerant of all? It seems they should apply the rules they make for others to themselves as well. It really freaks with my logic chip that they don't.

      I agree with you that this country deserves the best. If those in charge are not successful, the price is too high. Too much has the potential to be lost. As a two Blue Star mother, I don't want that price to be paid.

      Have a blessed day and thank you again.

      Your sis in Christ,

    3. Suzanne, in answer to your question, "So why do you think it is that those who demand tolerance are the least intolerant of all?"
      The way I read it is that those with certain points of view (typically of a liberal nature or a different religious persuasion) want everyone to listen to their side and accept their belief often in denial of our own morals and values, but they want nothing to do with hearing our side citing it to be something they've heard enough of and fully understand, or something that is irrelevant in today's world, or something that is plain stupid and wrong and we are ignorant for believing what we believe in turn deserving castigation and ridicule. You can apply this to most social agendists, science fanatics, and other religions.

      From the perspective of attackers of Christian faith it comes down to a matter of not only am wrong and they are right, but it's all a matter of absolutes where they'll be happy to talk for days about what they want to propound while I have no right to argue my side because I'm stupid and primitive or whatever else they believe about me.

      Besides what has been happening on social media and many talk shows, we have seen examples over the past 18 months where the left felt that it was important for their candidates to speak and be heard while they found it totally acceptable to try to shut down and disrupt Trump rallies based on what they believed was said and what they believed about how Trump supporters saw the world and the needs of our country. Of course, the anti-Trumpers were mostly wrong about what they thought because they based their beliefs on inaccurate information and false perceptions.

      We are at a serious divide in our nation that seems to be a very strong indicator of end times as prophesied in the Bible. That's the I see it and so do many others. Things are moving forward like never before in world history.

      Everyone is always welcome to discuss things intelligently and respectfully on my blog so I hope this is a safe forum for exchange of ideas. I welcome those with dissenting beliefs to express them here and only ask that they respect what my views are and those of others.

      You and I are pretty much on the same page here and I appreciate that kind of support.


    4. Ooops! I see that I made a typo up there. I meant to say "most intolerant" or "least tolerant".

      I'll be back tomorrow to respond to your response, Arlee. Time has gotten away from me this evening. Have a blessed night.

    5. Let me start this off by apologizing in advance for any typos. I've been to the eye doctor and I'm trying to type with dilated eyes. It isn't easy. :) Final result: cataracts, both eyes. Yay me.

      Yes, I believe that we are very much on the same page regarding this and a lot of things overall. You're welcome for the support.

      I agree that things are moving forward at a rapid pace and that there are strong indicators of the end times. Thank goodness we know where we'll end up! I am surprised that a Sodom and Gomorrah-type event hasn't happened already with all the wickedness going on out there.

      I would rather be seen as stupid and be in Heaven than "smart" by this world's standards and burning in hell, forever separated from Heavenly Father!

      Have a blessed day, Arlee!

  15. Oh dear do I dare bring up those embarrassing comments Harry Reid made about President Obama before he was elected? Racism seems to come from two sources: being carefully taught by one's parents/peers....or bad first hand experiences that unfairly get expanded to a whole group. When I read a couple of Donald Trump's early books, I saw no evidence of either in his background, and I saw no evidence of racism in his writings or actions. I'm beginning to think there's a vast left-wing conspiracy...oh wait...

    Okay, putting my frivolous responses aside, I now believe the only way to respond to all the nonsense is to ignore it. We keep the flame alive whenever we try to blow a little reason and common sense into the mix. I look for my information in statistics and speeches and actions, certainly not from those running around in circles claiming that the sky is falling. My Facebook world, by the way, has become a fun and peaceful place because I unfollow everyone who posts an untrue, misleading, or provocative link/update. Life goes on, and life is good.

    I won't be on social media much for the next couple of weeks, so I want to wish you a very Merry Christmas, Lee.

    1. Patricia, I've stopped saying anything about politics on Facebook (other than promoting my blog posts) and greatly limited my tweets regarding the subject. However, since my blog is the place where I voice my thoughts and where I want to have posts that are somewhat substantive then I'll continue my series for any who want to read it for as long as someone is reading it. That's partly why I blog after all.

      You're right though--life is good and it goes on despite what anyone thinks or feels. I'm not trying to fan any flames, but to control a flame so that it becomes a light that might bring understanding to those who want to see.

      I'll probably be cutting back on social media during the holidays as well since I have family coming in for a couple of weeks. I can blog later.

      You have a wonderful Christmas as well, Patricia. And have the greatest year ever in 2017!


  16. I agree with Rusty on much of what he has said above, Lee.

    You make very perceptive comments about filters, in your comments above.

    Perhaps a little introspection on your own filters might clarify what people like Rusty are trying to say.

    All of the President-elect picks terrify me: instead of draining the swamp, the swamp is being filled with corporates, or ex-corporates.

    A country is not a business, and should never be run like one. In a business, profit and loss are all that matter, regardless of ethics and humanity.

    I'm disappointed that you, a blogger-mentor, would fall for the rhetoric of an entertainer, and fail to see how a country run according to the rules of business is headed on a downward spiral.

    Sadly, that country also impacts the world, and has the capacity to destroy the planet.

    I can only pray for you, your country and our shared planet. Humanity is in peril, and we're all Nero-like, who sang and danced as Rome burned.

    1. Damyanti, what I hear from the President-elect is messaging that touches a deeper spiritual side of me and as a Christian what I hear makes total sense to me. My filter is my faith in Jesus Christ and the prophecies of the Bible.

      The fears that you and others seem to sense are not founded on any truth that the future may hold unless you and others can see things that I cannot see in the future. I think what is being seen by most are fears based on certain expectations. If I'm wrong then later you can tell me so because no one can say with certainty that I am wrong or anyone else is correct beyond any doubt.

      What we are seeing in our political scene is something I've been looking for most of my adult life. I see a bright future where fear-mongers and naysayers see downward spirals and doom for all the world.

      Drama is fine when on stage or in a movie or a work of fiction, but I'm seeing drama all over the place that has been scripted according to the same leftist agenda that we've been getting fed for many years.

      Bright future ahead I say and hope you will see. God's world will not be destroyed by humans.


    2. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
      ~ Chicken Little

      The problem with the Chicken Littles is that they flat-out REFUSE to spend time investigating what "the other side" says. They use ONLY the Blue microscope and will not even touch the Red microscope, much less actually look into it to see what's there.

      Why not? They dare not peer into the Red microscope for fear that it would un-do everything they currently believe? And why is that a problem? Because that would deprive them of their "Cause", and they think it's their Cause that defines who they are and also presents to the world the appearance of a person who really cares more for life and humanity than most humans do. Their Cause makes them special, or so they believe.

      All boiled down to the root, it comes to this: A lack of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

      [I'll add that in an online argument I had with Andrew Leon about a year ago, I came to discover that he LITERALLY did not even know the definition of the term "Intellectual Honesty". HA!-HA! The most ironically funny thing I'd come across in quite awhile.]

      If any Chicken Littles suddenly and unexpectedly come down with a case of Genuine Intellectual Curiosity about the falling (or warming) sky, here's a good place to start a sincere look into the Red microscope:

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

    3. STMcC, To the left there is only one side worth hearing and it's not the other side. I figure if you're a climate change hardliner then you likely accept that humans came into existence through something crawling out of a primordial soup and evolving into what we are now. Basically it's a form of replacement theology: One religion in place of another and it all requires faith. Personally I'll place my faith in God and believe His-story. What scientists say is not always the absolute truth and if that's inconvenient for those folks then let them crawl back to their caves and stop using anything that is a product of modern technology.


    4. Lee, I only hope you are right.

      If Trump's impact remains in the field of twitter wars and his little fingers don't reach any destructive buttons, I'm all for the rosy future.

      When a comedian, a sexual aggressor, and a general braggart becomes God's messenger, I can't have any arguments with a person who is receiving these messages. Apparently, the Pope doesn't hear these messages being received by so many Americans. Sad (to quote your Dear Leader.)

      The elections and my interactions with you have been a huge lesson: I really need to watch out for who I look up to in future.

      All the best to you. And again, I hope you're right-- that we indeed have a bright future ahead.

      I would also urge you to control your own forum and your friends: Chicken little is somewhat better than Cock-sure. I'm not the sort to exchange rude names, and while you yourself don't use any, I don't see why people free to call names and treat people shoddily on your comment thread. Let's not do things by proxy, and at least maintain decency levels all around.

    5. Damyanti, I am not at all impressed with anything the pope and what he conveys does not move me much.

      Over the years I have been fortunate to have fairly civil discussions on my site and have rarely resorted to censorship. My policy is to leave what is said in my comment section unless they resort to profanity or something particularly unsavory.

      I'm not seeking to be an icon for anyone to look up to. On my blog I toss out ideas to the audience and attempt to stimulate a discussion. I speak my mind, usually with great restraint so as not to offend anyone, but lately I've been very offended by those who would shut me up and suppress the thinking of those who share my opinions.

      We live in a peculiar world where different people have very different ideas and many of those would like nothing better than to shut down the conservative Christians. I'm glad I won the birth lottery to find myself in the greatest country on Earth. Sadly, anti-Christian globalist thinking is becoming more prevalent where I am. Maybe several years late, but I think 1984 is not too far ahead of us.


  17. Let's see if I can explain this:

    The message of the Democratic Party, as conveyed through academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, spokespeople for various racial and ethnic groups (including the LGBTQ and handicapped communities), and other useful idiots (to borrow a phrase from Lenin), is that anyone who votes for anyone other than a Democrat is a _________. (fill in the blank with "racist," "homophobe," "Islamophobe," "xenophobe," "sexist," etc.)

    What they're really saying: if you don't vote Democrat, you're a doodyhead.

    Now, the reason they won't say that is because they want to appear clever and nuanced, because after all, they've cornered the market on cleverness and nuance.

    But, that's what they're saying.

    Years ago, I had a friend whose neighbor was the Democratic committeeman for our ward in Chicago. We were playing basketball in the driveway one day, and he joined us. At one point, we went after a ball, and he knocked me on my face. I cried foul, and he said something to me that has stuck with me my whole life: "Anything's fair if you win."

    That's the real message here. They know Trump's not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc., and that, while some people who voted for him might be one or more of the above, most people aren't, either, and that the same could be said for people who voted for Hillary Clinton or any of the minor candidates (Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, etc.) They're just trying to win, and anything's fair if you win. And they knew, if they were able to convince people who wanted to vote for Trump to "be one of the cool kids" and vote for Hillary, or to shame them into not voting for Trump (or not voting, period) because that would make them all those terrible things by association, they could win. Sure, they have "proof," some of which is the result of taking things out of context, others the product of taking things he's said (or they've imagined he's said) and extrapolating them to their (il)logical conclusions. These are the same people who laughed off the idea that Hillary would send government agents to collect everyone's guns, by force if necessary, or raise taxes on the middle class, claiming those ideas were the product of fevered imaginations.

    See, it's a game. Red Team vs. Blue Team. The idea is to win, by any means necessary. The worse the candidates, the more of this goes on. It's been going on since the early days of the republic, and will still be going on when we've left this mortal plane and become registered Democrats, voting in every election with the help of our precinct captains. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

    I could be wrong, but that's my two cents.

    1. >>... "Anything's fair if you win."

      Or as the famous Marxist maxim goes:
      "The end justifies the means".

      And the Democrat party was infiltrated by card-carrying Marxists many decades ago. That's a fact, not an opinion.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

  18. John, love your closing here and you are spot on with your comment. To the Democrats and the left everything should be about guilt and shame on the other side. This is why so many Trump supporters clammed up for the pollsters and the hidden Trump vote actually existed.

    The left has been effective at labeling and name-calling as far as getting media attention, but they do little to the opposition other than solidify their resolve to be against everything the left stands for. Many people are beginning to catch on to this game and if this education continues we might see much larger victories for Conservatives in the future.

    Maybe somewhere in the future Democrats will primarily be dead or illegal--that future might not be far off and maybe even is already here.

    And I think your two cents is really a $20 gold piece because I think you're right on the money with your assessment.


  19. Lee-

    I know we went back and forth on my blog, but the one thing I felt like you were saying there is that Trump is 100% above reproach and that every single quote or soundbyte was taken out of context.

    Is that really what you believe?

    I think Trump is his own worst enemy-someone needs to take his Twitter access away.

    This post-election season has been laughable to me for two reasons-the overreactions of both the pro and anti Trump camps.

    The anti Trump movement started with recounts, now they're pushing a Russian conspiracy, and when that doesn't work, they'll probably hold some more cry-ins.

    But the pro-Trump side has been doing a little showboating, starting with the President-elect himself.

    You see, I'd like to see the media (which is obviously in the anti camp) shut the f#@k up and let's see what happens.

    I'd like to see the people staging protests and cry-ins get over themselves.

    And I'd like to see the people who invoke bile (I know of two incidents that happened to acquaintances) in Trumps's name shut the f%$k up because it's giving the other side something to latch on to that I do not believe is indicative of how the man feels.

    I'd really like to see John McCain step down. Not just because he jumped on the Russian conspiracy bandwagon, but because he manages to not do shit and be full of it at the same time.

    But most of all, I'd like to see our future president watch something else other than Saturday Night Live and leave the twitter comments to a publicist on his staff.

    This is a good series, and I do not believe you and I are not as far off in our opinions as our last exchange made it seem-but even if everything is taken out of context, Trump sure is leaving a lot of low-hanging fruit out there for the media to work with.

    I used to think George W. was a comedian's best friend...


    1. >>... "I think Trump is his own worst enemy - someone needs to take his Twitter access away."

      Yeah, take it away. Because at this rate, if he keeps it up, he won't be able to beat 16 GOP insiders including the Bush machine, and then go on to crush the Clinton machine.

      Trump is his own worst enemy, and that enemy accomplished the nearly-impossible: reaching the presidency of the United States. With enemies like that, who needs friends?!

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

    2. Larry, no I don't think we're far apart at all in what we think. However, the more I watch Trump's antics and the outcomes, the more marketing genius I sense in it all.

      I've been fascinated by the months of campaigning and I think it's shrewd to do the showboating now and in the Christmas season. I think we've seen some interesting and even amazing marketing of politics and there are probably some surprises ahead--and I think they will be good surprises and not bad ones.

      But we'll see.


    3. Lee-

      Maybe I am just too old school-I don't think the president should need marketing genius, and I'd hope he'd be above antics.

      I think a lot of his initial "coming on strong" is the negotiating ploy he used in his business life, and it is certainly hard to argue with his success there.

      I feel the POTUS should be above tweeting wars with late night television comedy show cast members-it's almost as silly as comment wars in blogs.

      I also feel like the country is more divided than I've ever seen-I'm just not sure his current strategy is helping the matter.

      It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but it feels like his current strategy is driving people away from him.

      I know you don't watch sports, but to quote an old sports adage, I guess that's why they play the game.


    4. Larry, C'mon, get with it old man! This is a new ballgame with new rules. Again I'll say, "Let's see what happens."

      As I have blogged about in the past, I think marketing is everything in politics as well as everyday life. How things operated in the past might be transforming into a new approach.

      AS far as the divide, I don't think Trump has much to do with it. We've been divided for a while and the media only makes it worse. They need to report more on news and do less talking about an analyzing the news. I want facts with just a light sprinkling of opinions.


    5. Forgive me, Lee, for thinking our president should behave a little differently than Katy Perry!

      Yeah, it is impossible to get objective news. I don't trust a lot of the internet sites that some of your blogging friends like to cite any more than the mainstream.

      It's almost like you need to have your own new outlet if you want to know what's really going on.

    6. Larry, I prefer a balance of information flow and then use common sense to sort it out as much as I can. It's crazy out there in the world of information and that stuff can drive you crazy if you get too entrenched in too few sources. Like I've said before, I preferred CNN when it reported news and not just talked about it and gave mostly one-sided opinions about it. I want facts so I can come to my own conclusions.

      Katy Perry was campaigning for Hillary and I think that hurt more than helped. Maybe Katy doesn't have the credibility to run yet, but maybe Madonna has the maturity to run next election--and once again she's apt to promise oral sex for everyone who votes for her. And of course we can't forget that Kanye West has already announced his intent to run in 2020 assuming that he's not permanently in the loony bin by then.


    7. Part 1 of 2:

      LC ~
      I just now read this. I probably would have ignored it if not for the fact that your second paragraph is alluding to me. So now I'll go ahead and comment.

      To paraphrase a quote from 'A Christmas Story': Knowing that you work in Sarcasm the way other artists might work in oils or clay, and that it's your true medium, one can't always take what you say too seriously.

      In this case, however, because you've repeated the same basic idea a few different times in different places, I believe you were serious (somehow, which I can't explain) when you made this remark":

      >>... "Forgive me, Lee, for thinking our president should behave a little differently than Katy Perry!"

      I'll agree that Trump sometimes did not behave in a traditionally "presidential" manner, such as we'd seen from previous presidents like Carter and Reagan. (For the record, I believe it was Bill Clinton who first started eroding that traditional "presidential" bearing and behavior. Leave it to a Democrat...)

      But for you to deride Trump for his behavior while having simultaneously promoted Gary Johnson for president is a bit preposterous.

      In your opinion, Johnson had the presidential bearing and demeanor while Trump was far, far beneath him in that regard?! Seriously??!!


      Referring to Trump, you stated above that you USED TO THINK that George W. Bush was a comedian's best friend. Well, I'm happy to report to you that your preferred presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, takes second place to no one in that department:


      I think the best new (to me) quote I encountered over the course of the presidential campaigns was this one:

      David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for genuine liberals to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’... By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience, denial of truth allows easier trespass. In essence, liberalism maintained -- in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence -- requires feelings to overcome logic in the ongoing game of make believe.


    8. Part 2 Of 2:

      Now I'm not saying you're a liberal, but I do suspect that in order for you to continue criticizing Trump, you have to pretend that you really don't know a lot of things about your choice, Gary Johnson -- things that you really do know about him but overlook. For example, that he was really no more "presidential" in behavior than Trump was.

      But the thing that really prompted this response from me was your following statement, which I take a little bit of offense to:

      >>... "I don't trust a lot of the internet sites that some of your blogging friends like to cite any more than the mainstream."

      We both know that I am "Lee's blogging friend" whom you had in mind when you typed that. And the reason it offends me a bit is because you know me personally. For years we had untold countless hours of conversations in person, so more than anyone, you KNOW how deeply, seriously, diligently and objectively I research topics related to spirituality and its cousin, politics. You know how brutally analytical I am.

      And yet your remark implies that I am just as deluded (or likely to be deluded) as the common Americonned Sheeple. You're saying that I have probably been routinely taken in and propagandized to some extent by voices on "the other side", just as the leftists have been propagandized by the Mainstream Media.

      What bugs me is that deep down at your core, I think you know this is not true. It looks to me like you just wanted to take a little shot at me, so you just tossed that out, regardless of the fact that you haven't any evidence or any real good reason for believing it was actually true. You can't substantiate the statement, but that didn't matter. It was only the little dig at me that mattered.

      Over the course of the presidential campaigns (and just in general, too), the news sources I most frequently visited were these:

      [Link:] NeedToKnow.News

      [Link:] The New American

      [Link:] World Net Daily

      [Link:] Selwyn Duke


      [Link:] The Gateway Pundit

      [Link:] The Conservative Treehouse

      And of course, which admittedly contains both very good information that is blacked-out by the Mainstream Media, and also a lot of rubbish that one needs to be wise enough to see through.

      Now, if you have even a shred of evidence that these sites I frequent are telling outright lies or deliberately or even inadvertently distorting the truth, I would be grateful to you for pointing it out to me. Because the last thing I want to be is deceived and unwittingly deceiving others as a result.

      So, do you actually have any VERIFIABLE FACTS you can direct me to which would justify your distrust of the internet sites I commonly mention, or was that just an empty little shot you felt compelled to toss out (without actually naming me)? Which is it?

      ~ D-FensDogG

  20. Lee, As long as the world stands there's going to be discontent on both sides. The thing is, as you and others know whenever you disagree with the left you get labeled. If a candidate is more to the right than he/she will get nick-picked too death by the liberals at every turn. Politics is not just a red and blue game, it's a battle of the ugly and the ugliest. I don't think Trump is a racist or sexist or any thing else. I have actually found that many liberals doing the name calling are the ones who are the racist, sexist, .... I'm excited about the future for once in eight years with the prospect of not only change but preservation of our American heritage that was threatened. Keep up the good job with this series, my friend!

    1. Cathy, thank you for that encouragement. I'm excited about the future too--or at least very acutely fascinated.


  21. He said of Mexicans: "They're not sending their best."

    And he said he doesn't have a problem returning to the torture of terror suspects. These are big issues. Some terror suspects were innocent.

    Catholics are ideologically-biased in as much as they want us all in one true apostolic church. Is that true of ALL Catholics?

    Again: When people have accused Obama for eight years of treason, or of being Satan, or being disgusting, or of being a liar, or of being like Hitler, what do his opponents actually hear? This has gone on for eight years.

    I see little skill in Trump's record as a businessman. Bankruptcies etc.

    1. Richard, and there is some truth to the fact that Mexico is not sending their best. Most are decent people, but it's not a good sign when they start out lives in a new country by immediately breaking immigration laws. We need to be able to screen applicants to the U.S. better and lure more advanced talent to the country. By the way, he could have made his statement about Mexicans in a more appropriate way, but it did get attention after all and go people talking about it--that worked.

      The torture issue does have some problems, but there are also aspects of it worth considering. If we are fighting enemies who don't care about Geneva Convention rules then maybe we need to play on their playing field. Torture should not be a norm, but neither should it not be under consideration in extreme cases and when pressed on this matter that was the way Trump explained it.

      There was a time when the Roman Catholic church was pretty extreme on their methodology of conversion, but not now that I am aware of. Judging from my relationships with those who claim the Roman Catholic church as their faith, most don't even seem to know about or care much for the doctrines. I think this is especially true for Americans in the Church of Rome.

      Obama was far more restrained in his leftist tendencies than I and many had expected so I'll commend him for that. I do believe he lied about a number of things and there was much reason to doubt other things he claimed. I think a case can be made for treasonous activity, but it's probably not worth pursuing unless new more serious charges are uncovered.

      Trump is a far better businessman that I or most people I know ever was. Lots of people have used bankruptcy as a legitimate legal approach to their financial situations. To my understanding, Trump never used personal bankruptcy, but he used it when some of his businesses were in trouble. Many business moguls do this under similar circumstances. What he did was acceptable under the law. Have you accomplished anything in business near what Donald Trump has? I've heard people knocking Trump's record as a businessman, but very few have much business acumen of their own and the ones who I'd say are successful but still knock Trump are probably doing it out of some kind of professional jealousy or because of a differing political stance where they just want to prop up their own side.

      Anything else?


    2. Not much more, Lee - and I am 100% with Rusty on all of this. I think too that torture is not just a perfect recruitment tool for the terrorists but it's also the best excuse for China and Russia to tell the West where to go when we highlight their own human rights abuses. And admittedly Muslims are generally more devout than Catholics but I still feel it's unfair to suggest they are all ideologically identical or similar. Like, if you ask Muslims "Do you believe XYZ...?" their answers are likely to be as varied as any Catholic's with a similar question.

    3. I'd be very poor at business. My creative thinking (if any) doesn't extend to entrepreneurship.

      Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Richard Branson - I'd respect those guys. I never regarded Trump in a positive light, although I would have seen him in a neutral light. Bill Gates could be viewed negatively in many respects too. (Monopolies that discourage innovation, Windows being historically lower in quality than Macintosh's OS yet Windows arguably underprices the superior machine to dominate the market, etc.)

      I remember some Americans telling me Trump was in the financial gutter decades ago. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other. I recall his divorce with Ivana.

      I am not envious of his skill in business because he boasts about his successes like a dictator or a toddler. If you've failed to pay off the businesses and people to whom you owe money, and declare your company insolvent or bankrupt after insisting on perks like a private jet fir yourself before your company has turned profitable - which is the sort of thing Trump has done - there's nothing to respect.

      I do remember thinking in the past - now that I look at recent photoshoots with him and his family - that he had very gawdy tastes. But believing he has poor taste is not a reason for not wanting him to be president.

    4. Richard, I've already proven myself to be poor at business--and I'm not at all ruthless, but easily taken advantage of.

      I've been aware of Trump for decades, but never paid attention to him. Didn't have an opinion one way or another. In one Trump interview I saw recently he said that one of his dreams was to have been affiliated with movies and show business and that's where I think his heart is.

      I've heard good and bad about Trump, but I think so much about him is skewed either with a positive or negative slant that I don't know what really to believe so I keep my perspective somewhere in the middle.


    5. If he does rescue the economy, I don't think anything else will matter, Lee. And I wish him the best on that front, even though it will take jobs from the rest of the world, and it will pull investment out of Europe.

      Howsoever socially conservative he makes things - and there are suggestions that he is left-of-extreme - I think once everyone has qualitatively better careers in the US, and living standards are raised so that people aren't working two and three jobs the way I hear they have to today - the rest just won't matter as much. At the end of the day, "It's the economy, stupid."

      But he wants to change the system in ways that are untested.

      If I was leading a trade delegation from another region of the world two years from now, and Trump's economic and foreign policies - for good or ill - had encouraged American investment to pull out of my country (in order to bring jobs home to the US) with the result of an extra 1,000,000 unemployed in my country, and he had told us we need to pay for our own military monitoring of the nearest superpower or lunatic - and I'm not saying these aren't good points, or that he doesn't have a right to do these things - I certainly wouldn't want to do a trade deal in America's favour.

      But I agree with him on these issues in so far as I can understand them and relate to them. I don't have to like them. It's about the only thing I will say in his favour.
      But I think he holds his opponents to far higher standards than he does himself. He sees the splinter in Clinton's eye while failing to see the log in his own. Where are his tax returns?

      That's not to say Hills was a great candidate by any stretch. But I just don't see how it's going to be at all positive from here, and I am upset Trump won more than that she lost. I think Bernie and Obama would've kept an eye on her. I don't think she would've done too many things to rock anyone's boat. And I think she and Bill are Republicans in Democrats' clothes, but she would be stronger for women across the globe and encourage equality in ways (and she has a record on that at the State Dept) that Trump might not endorse so explicitly, although I am sure he'd agree with it. But I do think some of his talk is very fascistic. If you look up the definitions of these terms, and see how they tally with his statements, they are exclusionary, divisive, racist, fascist. All the bad words you don't subscribe to yourself.

    6. Richard, Wait and see is the best thing we can do. I don't see that Trump can make things much worse and if the world tensions can stay in balance or be relieved I think Trump's missions can be achieved.

      The tax return issue is a red herring that means more to the media and opposition to throw handfuls of monkey wrenches into the public perception. Most people don't care a whit and the pundits will twist things to create false conclusions. It's like the "not having paid taxes thing"--people in business understand this while others can be mislead. When I was an independent contractor, for over a decade I never paid income taxes because I used ever legal means to avoid doing so. I used the law to my advantage as did Trump and the media tried to make a big deal that wasn't there.

      The business acumen of Trump and his advisory staff has the potential of not only lifting up the U.S. economy, but also the economies of other nations who work with us on this. I can see an especially huge positive potential for Mexico. But I'm looking at this from the perspective of optimist and visionary.

      I don't hear the "fascism" in his talk and that's why I'm pursuing my series--to clarify some of these types of claims I keep hearing. When someone explains a term such as you allude to, I can only shake my head in wonderment. I'm obviously listening with a far different perspective and expectation than the detractors are. And millions seem to be hearing and feeling the same as I.

      We'll see what happens though. If I'm wrong then those on the other side can tell me. If I'm right then I hope the opposition will have the grace to concede and maybe even give some hint of an apology (which I think I'm due from certain people--not those like you who have been willing to intelligently discuss the issues, but those who got downright nasty).

      Thanks for the further reflections. Hope we are all happy with things to come or can survive any bad that might result.


  22. My language and tone are measured here, Lee, but I will troll Twits who clamour that Obama is a jihadist and argue over what Reagan, the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama ought to take responsibility for over the last 30 years of geopolitics. ☺
    But I do believe he ran a divisive campaign.

  23. You're right about 1984. Just that it will come from a different source.

    I find it fascinating that as a Christian you think that a Pope who has always advocated for the rights of the disadvantaged is to be ignored, and a billionaire who has married thrice under dubious circumstances, insulted the disadvantaged on countless occasions and shoots off his mouth on Twitter is the messenger of God.

    Absolutely well thought-out, Lee, and a most insightful observation.

    1. Damyanti, I consider myself a Christian, but I do not consider the pope as my spiritual leader and I do think he has said some questionable things and displayed some rather strange attitudes about the world.

      As far as "insulting the disadvantaged" I can only think of one instance regarding this that I've heard cited and this was cited incorrectly thus creating a totally false narrative. I plan to address this in a future post.

      I'm not one who can criticize Trump's marital history since I've gone through two divorces myself and I'm sure the stories of my exes would be different from my own.

      Lots of people on all sides shoot off their mouths as though they were messengers of God. Trump spouts off his opinions just like any of us are doing and his vehicle of choice is Twitter. I mostly see Trump using Twitter as an interesting ruse of marketing and diversion so no big deal to me.

      Not sure what to make of our last sentence, but it did strike me as a bit of sarcasm that is probably more true than intended.



Go ahead and say something. Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
I normally try to respond to all comments in the comment section so please remember to check the "Email follow-up comments" box if you want to participate in the comment conversation.

For Battle of the Bands voting the "Anonymous" commenting option has been made available though this version is the least preferred. If voting using "anonymous" please include in your comment your name (first only is okay) and city you are voting from and the reason you chose the artist you did.

If you know me and want to comment but don't want to do it here, then you can send me an email @ jacksonlee51 at aol dot com.