The hypocrisy of abortion opponents…

Donald Trump caught a bunch of flack for his comments on abortion Wednesday.  The flack didn’t come from just the pro-abortionists, but from conservative anti-abortionists as well.

What did Trump say that caused the media and conservative firestorm?

From NBC News,

“When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban [on abortion], Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

For the first time that I can recall in the campaign, Trump backtracked and said, in essence, that the doctors performing the abortion are the ones who should be punished.

The anti-abortion folks jumped on Trump’s comments.  Here is Ted Cruz’ criticism representing the popular (but oddly inconsistent) position of anti-abortionists (from “The Right Scoop”):

“Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who opposes abortion rights.

“Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,” Cruz said.

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-issues-statement-ripping-trump-on-abortion-comment/#ixzz44UREdWzz

No wonder the anti-abortionists have essentially lost their fight.  They are plagued by a severe case of hypocrisy.

Here is the clarifying statement later made by the Trump campaign, which if logic were to prevail, is very unfortunate…

"If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," the statement said. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."

And here is the hypocrisy of many of those “conservatives” who are allegedly against abortion (excerpted from the quoted article, below):

“If abortion is murder, then why aren’t those who oppose it pushing to put people who perform abortions — the doctors and nurses — and those who instigate them — the mothers — and who facilitate them — the fathers — in prison?

“That’s what we do with actual murderers. If I shoot Mr. Pink, then I go to jail, and my pal who loaned me the gun goes to jail, and my cousin who drove the car goes to jail.

Isn’t the pregnant woman at least an accessory in the abortion?  If abortion is 'murder,' why do abortion foes not advocate prosecuting accessories to the crime?

To suggest that the woman who willingly got herself pregnant (not talking about rape or incest here) is the totally innocent victim is irrational and inconsistent with every other aspect of our criminal justice system.

Mr. Trump’s problem in expressing his initial opinion on the punishment of women for abortion is he was being too rational.  His comment revealed a gross hypocrisy among abortion foes.  If the anti-abortion crowd truly believed “abortion is murder” then they would not have such a difficult time with Trump’s comment.  The woman who aborts is at least an accessory to the murder and deserves some sort of punishment.

We had “back ally abortionists” back in the day because not all parties were subject to the penalties of the law.  Apparently only the doctors were.  The primary accessories to the abortion, the woman and the impregnator, where excused as if they had nothing to do with the crime.

The “crime” was the perverted belief that the woman was the victim.  That nonsense continues today and is just one more manifestation of our culture of victimhood – everyone is a victim – no one bears any responsibility for anything.

____________________________________

March for Life quote: 

“No Pro-Life American Advocates Punishment for Abortion”

__________________________________

And therein lies the fatal flaw in the entire pro-life movement.  Beyond that, the statement is not true.

If a crime deserves no punshment, how can it be called a “crime.”  If pro-life folks insist that abortion is “murder” and argue against punishment, they are the bggest hypocrits.  How can you have it both ways?

Here is an article written back in 2011 that poses these questions and attempts to impose some logic onto the twisted view so many abortion opponents have concerning the “crime/victim” obfuscation:

 

Sunday, April 10, 2011

If abortion is 'murder,' why do abortion foes not advocate prosecuting and imprisoning accessories?

Neil Steinberg's column today poses a tough question in the abortion debate:

If abortion is murder, then why aren’t those who oppose it pushing to put people who perform abortions — the doctors and nurses — and those who instigate them — the mothers — and who facilitate them — the fathers — in prison?

That’s what we do with actual murderers. If I shoot Mr. Pink, then I go to jail, and my pal who loaned me the gun goes to jail, and my cousin who drove the car goes to jail...

The hunch that I’ve had...is that “abortion is murder” is not a sincere conviction, but mere rhetoric.

Well, it's either that or a concession to present political reality.  Foes of abortion rights aren't calling for the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of women, their friends who drive them to the clinic and the entire clinic staff on charges of premeditated murder (what else could it be)yet.

I addressed this question in 2002 during a Rhubarb Patch debate with Nora O'Callaghan, then the director of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago's Respect Life Office.  Here are the excerpts dealing with prosecution:

ZORN: The laws protecting infants make it a felony--first-degree murder, punishable by death or life without parole--for someone of sound mind to participate in the killing of that infant, regardless of the circumstances of its conception.

It’s not an absurd or insincere question to ask of pro-lifers, then, if they would support a severe prison sentence for, say, a 21-year-old woman who had an abortion after discovering herself one month pregnant with the child of a man who had raped her.

The vast majority of people would say no; probably even the vast majority of people in your movement would say no. They would have an almost instinctive sense that such an act would not be equivalent to taking a baby to an executioner one month after birth. Not even close.

I do not raise this just to play gotcha,  but to point out that both sides in this debate really are on the continuum and do see some ambiguities.

O'CALLAGHAN: When the states had laws against abortion, women who had them were treated as “secondary victims” of the offense.  It was the doctors who were prosecuted, with evidence provided by the women.  When a society is far out of whack, corrective laws must take into account the “background” social conditions that led to the  injustice.  I would think it will take a long time to rid ourselves of the cultural degradation caused by Roe, and I don’t think that locking up women who have abortions would be helpful in healing our culture, nor that it would be supported by a majority of people.  Coercion is normally the last (and often least effective) means for creating a just society.  No one even thinks of buying or selling a human being today -- not because they fear jail, but because our culture has internalized the morality of the 13th amendment.

ZORN:  Your own logic locks you into prosecuting women who seek abortions for murder.  You write of such women as “secondary victims” and hem and haw about transition periods and the ineffectiveness of coercion because you know how utterly unpalatable such prosecutions  would be for the vast majority of Americans who do, in the end, see, feel and sense a real distinction between an embryo and, say, a one day old baby.

O'CALLAGHAN: You can say you don’t accept my answer on jailing women for abortion if you wish, it doesn’t change my views.  As an empirical matter, women were not prosecuted under U.S. abortion laws when they were in effect, and compared to the situation today, abortion was very rare.

ZORN: I've been pushing you on the question of whether a woman who seeks and obtains a first trimester abortion, for example, should be charged with first-degree murder in order to probe how profound your belief is that such an abortion is morally equivalent to murder and to invite readers of this debate to consider the implications of that absolute position. I know you don't want to answer--you fall back on historical empiricism rather than tell me what you would do if you were in charge--because the inescapable answer, like the answer that you did provide to my "hard case" hypothetical of the 13 year old made pregnant by her dad,  reveals the morally absolute stance as unpopular at best, unworkably extreme at worst.

Not to say that the absolute pro-choice position is any less extreme or more workable; just to point out, again, that most people on both sides of this debate do not enjoy the refuge of perfect moral clarity or consistency.

I unearthed parts of this debate in April, 2006, in two posts:

1. Women in prison -- a "partial-birth" abortion issue for the left?
2. Women in prison? Part two

I'm guessing that, five years later, abortion-rights foes have no better answers than they did then.

UPDATE: On Neil Steinberg's Facebook page he's posted this video in which anti-abortion protesters have a very hard time answering this question. Many, it seems, haven't even thought about it.

The ultimate frustration: Not being able to discuss Islam with the willfully ignorant…

 

Every now and then, in the course of human events, we experience a situation that tests the limits of Ann Landers-taught social protocol.  I experienced such situation recently.

The situation I experienced was a visit to the home of a couple whose rules of conversational engagement with their visitors are known well – and enforced without mercy:  “Do not discuss religion or politics.”  In the spirit of exercising my meager social skills I visited despite this taboo.

Of course, the hosts’ definition of “politics” assumed the broadest interpretation anyone can imagine – “the science of good sense applied to public affairs.”  Yes, of course we should stifle the discussion of good sense in public affairs during visits with friends (no wonder our nation is headed to the trash heap of history.)  And “religion?”  I suspect that means any discussion about the belief in anything is taboo.  The permissible topics are limited to gossip about friends, failing health, achievements of grandchildren, and the latest recipes.

The situation that caused me to choke, gag, and severely injure my lips and tongue involved the hostesses mention of her Muslim acquaintance.  She related how she had such pity on this dear Muslim woman because she felt shunned in our culture.  While the Muslima is married to a Catholic husband, and is thought not to practice the Muslim faith, she looks Muslim, not from what she wears, but from the color of her skin, claims her friend. 

I asked if she her friend might just  be a “cultural” Muslim.  I used the example of cultural Jews or Christians who may not attend Synagogue or Church but merely identify with the Jewish or Christian culture and mores. 

I wondered two things:  How did she know her acquaintance was Muslim?  And if the Muslim is not practicing, why does she still insist on identifying herself as a Muslim?

My imagined but rational answers that I kept to myself were these: 

My host likely learned her acquaintance was a Muslim only if she conveyed her beliefs to her – along with a large dose of “poor me – a persecuted Muslim.” 

And why does she insist on identifying as a Muslim despite the reputation Muslims have gained throughout the world?  Most likely NOT because she disbelieves Islamic doctrine and the “perfect” life of Muhammad, but because she DOES believe in these things. 

Her level of belief and devoutness of course cannot be known by mere infidels because Muslims are taught not to trust or take a kafir as a true friend.  I’ve wondered why anyone would openly declare a belief in something that has developed such a bad rep unless they really did believe in it and taken it to heart.

Four seconds expired since I asked my last question.  My “look” at pondering these possibilities must have been a tad transparent because my friend blurted out this statement:  “I believe it is fine that anyone practices whatever religion they want, Catholic, Jew, Muslim.  I think they are all fine.”

Yes indeed, she thinks they are all fine.  Just like all rattlesnakes are just as fine as green grass snakes.  And the pre-ordained gag order kicked in.  No discussion of religion or politics.   I could not express a word about how ill-informed she was concerning Islam.  Willful ignorance is her preferred state.

I couldn’t mention the blast by devout Muslims in Pakistan that killed 65 and injured 300  Christians celebrating Easter in a park.

I couldn't mention the 20 plus killed and over 130 injured by Muslims at the Brussels, Belgium airport, including several Americans.

I couldn’t mention the Pew poll that reveals that between 63 and 287 million people in Muslim countries support ISIS.  And those are just the ones who are forthcoming.

I couldn’t mention that 51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.   And those are just the ones who are forthcoming.

I couldn’t mention the genocide against Christians in the Middle East at the hands of devout Muslims practicing their faith.

And I couldn’t mention the hundreds of terror attacks per month in name of Islam by Muslims as reported by the Religion of Peace web site.

Jihad Report
Last 30 Days

Attacks
147

Killed
1169

Injured
3221

Suicide Blasts
36

Countries
25

List of Attacks

I needed to remain Ann-Landers-polite and not offend my host.  And so I was.  And she remains willfully ignorant of Islam, like much of our nation’s self-absorbed population.

 

Some people edit out Islam as a cause for concern the same way the FBI edits out Islam as a cause of terror attacks.  Read the Clare Lopez report on the FBI purging everything Islamic HERE.  In the case of the FBI it is the seditious Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) that “convinced” them to be willfully ignorant.  What’s our excuse?

More willfull ignorance – this from the New York Times:  Governments can’t figure out why people become terrorists, they “defy a single profile”

_________________________

Bonus feature:  What millions of us hope for in the US (source unknown):

It has started - Finally!

The first countries to ban Islam:  See how the world is acting fast on the threat posed by Islam and its barbaric Sharia Law.

Japan has always refused Muslims to live permanently in their country and cannot own any real estate or any type of business, and have banned any worship of Islam. Any Muslim tourist caught spreading the word of Islam will be deported immediately, including all family members.

Cuba rejects plans for first mosque.

The African nation of Angola and several other nations have officially banned Islam.

Record number of Muslims, (over 2,000) deported from Norway as a way of fighting crime. Since these Muslim criminals have been deported, crime has dropped by a staggering 72%. Prison Officials are reporting that nearly half of their jail cells are now  vacant, Courtrooms nearly empty, Police are now free to attend to other  matters, mainly traffic offences to keep their roads and highways safe and assisting the public in as many ways as they can.

In Germany alone in the last year there were 81 violent attacks targeting mosques.

Austrian police arrested 13 men targeting suspected jihad recruiters.

A Chinese court sends 22 Muslim Imams to jail for 16 to 20 years for spreading Islam hatred and have executed eighteen Jihadists; China campaigns against Separatism (disallowing Islamists to have their own separate state).  Muslim prayers banned in government buildings and schools in Xinjiang  (Western China). Hundreds of Muslim families prepared to leave China for their own safety and return back to their own Middle Eastern countries.

Muslim refugees are beginning to realize that they are not welcome in Christian countries because of their violent ways and the continuing wars in Syria and Iraq whipped up by the hideous IS who are murdering young children and using mothers and daughters as sex slaves.

British Home Secretary prepares to introduce 'Anti-social Behavior Order' for extremists and strip dual nationals of their Citizenship. Deportation laws also being prepared.

The Czech Republic blatantly refuses Islam in their country, regarding it as evil.

Alabama - A new controversial amendment that will ban the recognition of "foreign laws which would include sharia law".

The Polish Defence League issues a warning to Muslims. 16 States have all Introduced Legislation to Ban Sharia Law.

Many Muslims in Northern Ireland have announced plans to leave the Country to avoid anti-Islamic violence by Irish locals. The announcement comes after an attack on groups of Muslims in the city of Belfast, Groups of Irish locals went berserk and bashed teenage Muslim gangs who were referring to young Irish girls as sluts and should be all gang raped, according to Islam and ''Sharia Law''. Even hospital staff were reluctant to treat the battered Muslim patients. The majority were given the Band-Aid treatment and sent home with staff muttering ''Good Riddance''.

North Carolina bans Islamic "Sharia Law" in the State, regarding it
now as a criminal offence.

Dutch MP's call for removal of all mosques in the Netherlands. One
Member of the Dutch Parliament said: "We want to clean Netherlands of Islam". Dutch MP Machiel De Graaf spoke on behalf of the Party for Freedom when he said, "All mosques in the Netherlands should be shut down. Without Islam, the Netherlands would be a wonderful safe country to live in, as it was before the arrival of Muslim refugees''.

..and still the bleeding hearts think it is acceptable to accept them into OUR country on "humanitarian grounds" really ? -wake up AMERICA.

One-world, no borders Catholics complain about candidates…

Global Sisters Report Staff couldn’t care less about the nation that gives them religious freedom.

A full page report in the Florida Catholic of the Orlando Diocese, March 25-April 7, 2016, issue, page A9 lays out their absolute disregard of our nations’ laws in favor of no-borders immigration.

In fact, “Global Sisters” goes so as far as lying about the words of the candidates.  One example is this:  “…Trump…has basically called Mexican immigrants criminals.   No!  Trump did not basically say that.  He called those who enter the United States illegally, breaking our national immigration laws, criminals.  They are criminals.  They broke our immigration laws.  Makes sense to me, but not to bleeding heart Catholics who prefer to distort the facts to fit their open borders agenda than report facts accurately. 

The balance of the article could just as well have been written by Che Guevara, Chairman Mao or Barack Obama.

One bright spot.  The writers claim that “there appears to be a disconnect among many Catholics between Catholic social justice teaching on immigration and their views.”  True, the majority rank and file Catholics are not for open borders.  They prefer the rule of law which the hierarchy of the Church apparently disdain.  Thank God for Catholic laity!  Most don’t have the same tax-sucking, self-serving illegal immigration agenda as do Church hierarchy. 

The article proposes their Catholic “social justice” agenda include several points:

1)  The right to migrate while giving lip service to the right of countries to make their own laws, apparently only if they agree not to enforce them.

2) “We are a nation of immigrants and I think we tend to forget that.”  But being a nation of immigrants does not justify ignoring our immigration laws.  Apparently, the Global Sisters are confused between “legal and illegal”, and between “law abiding and law breaking.”

Here is a picture of Catholics avoiding application of “The Golden Rule.”

Finally, the article cites the Golden Rule.  The way they wish us to apply it is “if we are ok with ignoring our laws, we should not criticize others for breaking laws.”  Yes, do unto others as we would want others to do unto us if we wanted to ignore our laws.  They want our legal system to be deaf, dumb, blind, and non-existent.

The Global Sisters attitude toward our nation, illegal immigration, and disregard for our legal system verges on sedition.  Shame shame.

The wishful thinking of a Brit about Islam…

I received an email, I’m guessing from a Brit, who opined that Islam is a declining threat to world order.  Hmmm, declining?

Referring to several of my earlier posts about Islam, the writer started off by saying, “I think you err in thinking that islam [sic] is thriving and growing.”

The email goes on to claim:

“The only data supporting the notion [of a growing Islamic presence] comes from a very superficial survey by Pew, combined with flawed population projections.  The question Pew asked fails to make any distinction between just unthinkingly going along with a label one has never thought about (as mona walter video mentions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Q8bImiPCM), and having changed to becoming a non-muslim despite the very real intimidations against doing so. 

It further fails to take into account the many "muslims" who are living a pretence for reasons that should be obvious.  A better guide to what is going on is the reports of huge numbers known to be rejecting islam even in the islamic heartlands.  And the failure of the dawah attempts, with most converts reverting back again.  Meanwhile the population projections are based on notions that the "muslim countries" are going to get richer, whereas the last few years have shown economic crises therein which are significantly worse than in the kaffir world, hence populations tending to increase not so much or even crash.  People aren't fleeing from x and y and z because there's too much fun and money going on there, but because they are desperately hoping that it won't be so bad in the kaffir lands.”

The above comments are false and misleading in a number of ways.  In fact, they constitute a Stockholm-syndrome-like “wishful thinking” that the Brits appear to be nurturing to provide a false sense of well-being in the midst of the massive Muslim presence in their country.

First, the Pew survey is not the only data supporting a growing Islamic threat.  It is only one of literally hundreds of studies, surveys, and national intelligence reports that come to similar, if not more ominous, conclusions.

Secondly, the so-called “economic crises” of the 99% majority Muslim Islamic countries has little to do with the growth or decline of Islamic terror or sympathetic Muslim adherents.  There are numerous and growing external revenue streams funding Islamic influence, coercion, and terror.  The current fundamentalist Islamic resurgence is not big on nation-building.  They couldn’t give a flying fig about building a prosperous nation, a la Western values.  That’s where our head is:  Thinking they are just like us – that they want the same things.  They aren’t and they don’t

They don’t need to be a wealthy “nation” to fund their supremacist Islamic movement.  Their abundant oil revenues sure help.  And they have other nations helping out.  Finances come from a number of places.  Our wealthy and “great ally”, Saudi Arabia, is one such source.  The wealthy Islamic oil nations of the Middle East (Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emerits, Kuwait) are another, as is the growing revenue stream from the burgeoning number of Muslims in the United States.

Thirdly, the psychosis of Islamic-motivated behavior is spreading.  There are any number of reasons for masses of Muslims leaving Islamic nations:  To escape war, to escape poverty, to escape whatever.  Some experts suggest purposeful jihad by migration.  But the one constant remains:  Their Islamic beliefs, culture and procreation.  And none of these traits encourage assimilation.  Assimilation just doesn’t happen with immigrant Muslim populations like it did for other mass migrations between Western nations.

Learn from the ant.  What happens when you kick an ant mound.  You see thousands suddenly scurrying about, headed where?  Headed to form new colonies.  And no, they don’t assimilate well with humans.

The writer continues…

“It is only because (for the first time ever) so many people are now working to expose islam that it is on the back foot.   But all the evidence indicates to me that it is.  It's very easy to be fooled by the illusions painted in the media.  The soviet union looked really powerful shortly before it collapsed to nothing.  Ditto Islam which as I said is now the laughing stock of the universe, the most hated ideology in history, and the vast majority of "muslims" either havent a clue what they "believe", or are only pretending, or are in denial due to the social pressure.  I have lived for many years closely among muslims and talked with many.  They are pathetic, they run away, they get upset, talk the most idiotic drivel like "why don't you ask an imam instead (cos I don't know what I believe" lol), this is not a strong ideology it is a pathetic sick joke dying on its feet!

“(One heavily-hijabbed muslima runs away each time I come into her tesco store, in case I might merely smile or say something to her. Such is the patheticness.  Contrast this with the Xtians who have held their faith in the face of being killed, in Judean times and still today.)”

The writer gives another false assumption that “Islam is on its back foot.”  True, many people are now working to expose Islam.  I suggest that number is up from 5% to maybe 10%.  Most media, most government officials, and most academia remain in the delusion of “it’s just a few radicals that have hijacked the otherwise peaceful Islamic religion.”  That is still the majority view of the primary institutions of Western society.

Muslims “run away?”  That is more a sign of avoiding contact with the infidel and avoiding assimilation than of any sign of regression.

Belgian security officials also thought Muslim radicals were were a diminishing breed and being adequately handled.  HERE is a report from last week oozing with confidence that Belgium has their Islamic problem all under control.  Part of the Belgian problem?  Their government has ignored the fact that unassimilated Muslims in their Muslim neighborhood do not give up their own.  Officials were deceived by the religion of deception.

What staggers the mind is that Islam, the “religion”, is still defended and protected by the majority of influential institutions in the West.  It is hardly a “pathetic, laughing stock.”  Islam is still stupidly defined as “one of the three great Abrahamic religions.”  Presidents and Popes, and I suspect, the British Prime Minister, still refer to Islam as “a religion of peace” and claim Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.”

As long as we maintain those ignorant beliefs, Islam will continue to thrive and grow as a grave threat to Western civilization and freedoms.

Here is a partial list of additional reasons why the writer’s view that Islam is on its way out is fantasy and wishful thinking:

1. The history of Islam’s founding, the example of Muhammad, its doctrine and conquests all reveal the strategies and tactics of Islamic conquest which we continue to ignore.
2. The recent (past several decades) resurgence of fundamentalist Islam as promoted and practiced in Islam's first several centuries of dramatic growth and conquest.
3. The growth of what the media calls "radical Islam", although it is really resurgent fundamentalist Islam.  Most “non-radical” Muslims overtly or privately agree with and support those the media calls “radicals.”
4. The increasing occurrence of violent, cruel, barbaric behavior that has been an integral part of Islam's doctrine and practice.
5. The fact that ISIS is merely another incarnation of fundamentalist Islamic conquest.  There are dozens of similar groups morphing from one another.  Think "whack-a-mole."  New and more radical Islamic groups are evolving all the time.
6. The growing incidence of Islamic-inspired attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam (see "The Religion of Peace" website, specifically the documentation of attack by Muslims in the name of Islam HERE.
7. Growing genocide of Christians, Jews, and other infidels around the globe committed by Methodists Muslims.
8. The rapid growth of Mosques in the United States.  See article HERE.  Example:  Mosque growth in Florida HERE and HERE.
9. Just because Muslims happen to be in the US does not mean their long established doctrines are any less hateful toward the infidel or that attacks against the infidel or his institutions are any less likely sooner or later.  This means that Islamic influence is spreading and will be increasingly difficult to control and suppress.
10. Islam attracts misfits and disenchanted.  There are millions around the world and in the US.   This provides a fertile source of additional Muslim converts to be easily "radicalized" - e.g. in our jails once they are released; occupy Wall Street and the alliance of the left and Muslims in the US.  Many books have been written on the alliance of Muslims and our radical and not so radical left which is the camels' nose in the tent to give the illusion of Islam becoming "mainstream" leading to pseudo-acceptability and greater growth.  Still, Islamic doctrine remains the volatile fumes ready to ignite the masses as any perceived offense might dictate.
11. The increasing billions of dollars dozens of nations have to spend to stem the expansion of violent Islamic influence in diverse places on the planet.  We don’t spend those sums to stem a threat that is declining.

It would be nice if the views expressed by the Brit were correct.  That would be nice.  But reality leads to opposite conclusions.

Recommended new resource:  Understanding the Threat

ISLAM IN FLORIDA

Submitted by:  Veronica Coffin   WAKE UP FLORIDA !  View the burgeoning growth of Islam in Florida.....

An Islamic Growth spurt

Muslims, responding to explosive growth of young families moving into south Palm Beach County, are to break grou...

Articles: Mosques on the front lines in the war against America

Put disruption and violence blame where it belongs…

Criminal actions are the responsibility of those who commit criminal actions.  They are not the responsibility of people the criminals don’t like.

The media doesn’t understand this.  Instead they blame those who speak the truth bluntly as being “inciters.”  Apparently the media cares little about our first amendment.  They too often avoid the truth in favor of the wet blanket of political correctness and wussiness of not offending anyone.  They would rather demean the truth teller than offend the disrupter.

Donald Trump has been blamed for not sugar-coating the dismal facts about illegal immigration, crappy trade deals, corrupt political institutions, and acts of terror committed by Muslims.  Talking about these facts that the media has avoided talking about has resulted in Trump being foolishly branded as the “inciter.”

Who are the real inciters, interrupters, disrupters, intimidators, destroyers, and criminals acting out against Trump and his supporters?  Who are the ones who are doing these things to shut down free speech?

Here they are in the order of likely participation:

• George Soros and Moveon.org
• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
• Occupy Wall Street sympathizers
• Democrats, socialists, and Communists generally
• Black Lives Matter sympathizers
• Bored misfits and rabble for hire
• Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Republican Establishment leadership and their minions

These are the groups and individuals who feel threatened by the fresh air of political truth and frankness.  They are following the example of Muslims who riot, threaten and carry out beheadings with any perceived insult.  And Bill Ayers, Obamas’ buddy, who blew up buildings.

The attitude of the media is that speech must never offend another, even if the speech is true.   And if speech does offend, speech is considered the inciter of violence and is to blame, not those who actually commit the violence.  That warped attitude certainly imposes a cold chill on our first amendment freedom of speech. 

The primary reason for our first amendment is to allow speech especially if it offends.

We have reached the point where speech that anyone disagrees with is labelled “hate speech.”  “Hate speech” is a recent creation of those who hope to stifle free speech.  We have too many psychotics who believe they are hated if anyone disagrees with their politics or religion.  And we have too many media who give credence to the offended psychotics.

Speaking the truth, in fact ANY free speech, ought to be celebrated - not condemned.  If such speech happens to offend, the responsibility of the rest of society is to defend that right and condemn those who use such speech as an excuse to disrupt and create mayhem.

Sadly, this is not happening.  The media, of all institutions, is ironically one of the major reasons why.

Bill Ayers types in Chicago and Dayton…

Radical leftists are back…back from the sixties.

Bill Ayers and his gang of violent Communist rabble rousers are back, back in Chicago – not that they ever left – and Dayton, and probably a hundred other places in the near future where their big government, free-stuff socialist machine appears to be threatened.   Black Lives Matter (a racist incarnation of Occupy Wall street hippies), Muslims, and other government freeloaders have joined in the melee.  Each group is doing all they can to defend their anti-American ideology.

And which candidates are promoting and defending these violent and disrespectful demonstrations?  Yup, Bernie (the Communist) and Hillary (the lying security risk).

Here are the two opposing views of these campaign disruptions:

1) These demonstrators are hell-bent on taking away the freedom of speech of any candidate they happen to disagree with.  The same would happen to any Republican front-runner seen by the left as a threat.  Fact is, only Trump is seen as a threat to the free hand-out crowd. 

Freedom of speech is favored by the demonstrators only when they agree with it.   They will dictate what can and cannot be spoken by their disruptive behavior.

2) The other view was recently presented by Marco Rubio who of all people should know better.  His view, ironically shared by the Socialists, Communists, Muslims, and Hippies, is that it is all Trump’s fault.  Trump is the “inciter” and should keep his politically incorrect mouth shut.  If the truth is felt to be offensive or hits too close to home, it should be stifled.  Rubio’s accusations sure tell us where he stands with his weak view of freedom of speech and expression.

Of these two views, the one you feel most comfortable with will tell you which group you most identify with:  Those who support free speech, mutual respect, law and order, or those who engage in disrespectful anarchist disruptions and prohibition of free speech.

We’ve lived with squelched truth for way too long – ever since the university systems and the public schools began their intolerant socialist indoctrination of their students 40 or 50 years ago.  There is only one way to think on school campuses.  Ask any conservative group who has tried to get conservative speakers on campus what they have to go through.

Give an opposing view about global warming:  Shut up!

Give a less than flattering yet truthful facts about Islam and Muslims:  Shut up!

Suggest we enforce immigration laws and our borders:  Shut up!

Urge people to get a job, be self-sufficient, responsible citizens:  Shut up!

Promote measures that enhance manufacturing jobs in America:  Shut up!

Trump is the personification of what most of us have been thinking for several decades.  He has channeled and is effectively projecting America’s frustration and disgust at being told what not to say and what not to think.

No more.  No more!

Campaign Observations…

Trump’s popularity and Teflon coating is the result of Republican party failures over the past decade.  The anger among most Republicans is palpable.

Wearing my Trump T-shirt around town, I have Trump supporters coming up to me and initiating comments like “I’ve had it with the Party”, or “it’s Trump or I’m finished with the Party.”  In fact, it appears that most Republicans are more upset with the Republican Party than with Obama.

And that’s understandable.  Obama does what Obama does.  But the Republicans don’t need to sit back, go along to get along, and effectively do NOTHING.  That’s like being upset with a Scorpion when the Frog offered him a ride across the creek.  The Scorpion does what a Scorpion does.  The Frog was the stupid one for offering the Scorpion a ride.  He paid for that with his life.  So, too, the Republican Party.

Don’t blame the Muslim for being Muslim.  Don’t blame Islam for being what Islam is.  It is the non-Muslim who must understand what Islam is and act appropriately toward it.  Don’t expect a 1,400 year old evil political ideology to change its stripes just because we buddy up to it and pander.

Likewise, the Republican Party has buddied up with and pandered to the Democrats.  The Republican Party is the ignorant entity that has effectively motivated supporters of Trump and Cruz to maim and destroy the Establishment candidates.  Barack and Hillary have had little to do with this massacre.  The Republican party’s fatal flaw is ignoring the outrage at their self-serving ineptness.

The race is boiling down to Trump and Cruz.  Many Trump supporters believe Cruz is unelectable for several reasons: 

• His perceived inflexibility
• Wearing his religion on his sleeve
• Being “just another insider Congressman” running for President.
• Not strong enough on immigration and the Muslim problem

Many Cruz supporters believe Trump is the wrong person for several reasons:

• He’s not conservative enough
• He doesn’t have the right disposition to be President
• He’s too blunt and caustic

Republican voters complained for the past 8 years that their candidates were not bold enough, not energetic enough, were not effective fighters.  Now we have a bold, energetic, effective fighter in Trump and many are complaining he’s too bold and yada yada yada.

Not conservative enough?  Building the wall, sending illegals back, better deals with our trading partners, eliminating Obamacare, keeping Muslims out “until we can understand what the hell is going on”, simplifying the tax code, creating jobs, and making America our  nation’s FIRST priority is conservative enough for me, and is liberal enough for many Democrats.

Trump will be a great unifier in spite of what he needs to do to get elected.

David Horowitz of Front Page website calls the Republican onslaught against Trump a “gang rape”:  Why attacks on Trump increase his support.  Read his comments HERE.

And HERE are some fireworks from Judge Jeanine about Romney’s anti-Trump tirade.

“America is already great”: What the oblivious and those with low expectations say.

Donald Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.”  Those with whom this phrase resonates understand its implications and support either Trump or another “outsider.”  Those who respond to that motto with the comment “America is already great” are either Obama himself  (who has actually said that), Obama supporters, liberals/progressives, or the generally clueless about America’s problems and opportunities. 

What do those who want to “Make America Great Again” understand that those who mock that expression fail to grasp?

Here are some clues for those having difficulty with the concept:

• National debt:  Total gross national debt of $18.96 trillion or about 104% of the previous 12 months of GDP.^[7]
• Illegal immigration:  12 to 20 million illegal foreigners in this country and our government will not enforce existing immigration laws.   Thousands more cross our borders illegally every month.  And taxpayers are paying billions in aid to keep them here.
• Workforce participation rate:  The labor force participation rate in October 2105 reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.
• Loss of manufacturing:  In the 2000s, American manufacturing experienced the steepest losses in employment in American history and serious decline in output.
• Growing deficit in the balance of trade:  Loss of manufacturing and the trade deficit go hand in hand.  The trade deficit grew to $458 billion in 2013.   Additionally, trade in advanced technology products, which in 1990 represented a $35 billion trade surplus for the United States, became a deficit in 2002 and has since declined even further, becoming an $81 billion deficit by 2013.
• Poor agreements:  Our trade and our foreign policy agreements have developed a trend of placing our country at a marked disadvantage.
• Misdirected foreign policy:  Our foreign policy has favored and incited our enemies and  harmed and discouraged our allies.
• Islam:  Our federal leadership has ignored the truth about basic Islamic doctrine and Islam’s intentions to subvert our country.
• Misuse of our military:  Our military has been used to “nation-build” instead of winning wars.  Our rules of engagement for our troops have made a mockery of our vets and have ended or ruined the live of thousands of our soldiers.
• Nationalism and patriotism:  These formerly noble traits are now being portrayed as unwelcomed behaviors.
• Civics and American history: These are not taught in public schools, or if they are, curriculum ridicule the role of many of our nation’s founders.  Most people under the age of 40 are ignorant of our founding principles.
• Our nation’s Christian heritage and values:  These are being dismissed and excluded from public influence as if it were some foreign and dangerous ideology while Islam is being portrayed as a value to be defended.

Continuing these trends does not portend a bright future for this country.  These trends will make our existence as a “great” or “prosperous” or “strong” nation unsustainable.  We are now sucking off the values, hard work, successes and prosperity of past decades. 

Yes, we are still a “great nation”, but our greatness is withering under the weight of a miss-managed, corrupt, and self-serving government, and an excessive proportion of our population that would rather receive a government handout than muster the self-discipline to be productive citizens.  Our “greatness” is not what it used to be.

Those who dismiss the need to  “Make America Great Again” are apparently either happy with the decline we are in, or are simply oblivious to the declining and unsustainable condition of our nation.

Donald Trump is the only one who has both recognized these nation-stunting problems and has the energy, will, and ability to turn these problems around.

“Make America Great Again” is certainly a more substance-filled sentiment than Obama’s and Hillary’s “Hope and Change.”  We “hoped and changed” into an inferior nation that needs to be made “Great Again.”

Freedom of religion, freedom of worship and Islam

Ted Cruz’s dad, Raphael, reminded us recently about the difference between “freedom of religion” as our Constitution sets forth, and “freedom of worship” as Obama and communist countries set forth.

The difference is freedom of religion allows us to practice our faith outside of church – prayer in schools, symbols in parks and in the public square, prayers before events, evoking the name of deity in public discourse.

Freedom of worship confines the practice of our faith to inside the walls of the church.  Read more of what Raphael has to say about this HERE.

How far should the practice of someone's faith be allowed to go?  How about Islam and Islamic sharia?  How about  lashings for not walking behind your husband, cutting off of fingers, hands or feet for stealing, and cutting off heads for insulting Muhammad, being homosexual, or leaving Islam?  These “religious practices” might be considered by some to fall under the definition of “freedom of religion.”

How about a religion whose central doctrines require submission to a religious deity and its human hierarchy and enforcers?  And not just for believers in that “religion” but those of other faiths as well.  How far, really, should freedom of religion go?

Well, it can truthfully be said that it depends on the definition of “religion.”  Is “religion” what we understand from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism?  The doctrine and practice of these religions are relatively passive, benign, peace-loving, and personal.

Or does “religion” also include Islam which is not passive, peace-loving, or benign, in spite of what its propagandists lie about.  Islam is aggressive, supremacist, intolerant, and violent in its core doctrines and throughout most of its history.  Islam has become prominent more for its coercive and violent political practices than any sense of “religion” envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution.

Based on the understanding of “religion” by our founders, these characteristics should disqualify Islam from the religious protections of our Constitution.

But do they?  No, they don’t.  Why not?

When was the last time you’ve heard of a civics class being taught in our public schools?  When was the last time you’ve heard of immigrants coming to this country learning about our founding, our Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian values that provided the foundation of our history?

We have lost our history.  We have ignored the values that made us a great nation.  Many believe that because of this loss of historical and religious perspective that we are now a nation in decline.

Too many of us believe that all religions are alike – even Islam – and they all deserve the protections of our Constitution.  Are they ?  Do they?  Hell no!

Islam was no more in the mind of our founders in the “religious” context than was Communism or Fascism.

Raphael Cruz has it right about the superiority of “freedom of religion” over “freedom of worship.”  But I’ve heard him speak.  Neither he nor his son Ted have a clue about Islam and the fact that Islam is an anti-religious political system that is a threat to this nation.

Justice Scalia was the Supreme Court’s stalwart for understanding and promoting the basis for interpreting the Constitution based squarely on the religious heritage of our country.  The Republicans in Congress better damn well prevail in seeing to it that appointment of Scalia’s replacement is NOT made by Obama.  This country does not need another socialist Supreme Court justice who does not give a flip about the reasons for and value of this nation’s founding principles.

Donald Trump was the most pointed of all the candidates when asked who he wants to replace Scalia (from Newsmax):

“Trump, appearing on NBC, was more direct when asked what he would want in a nominee: "Someone just like Justice Scalia."”

Freedom of religion, freedom of worship and Islam

Ted Cruz’s dad, Raphael, reminded us recently about the difference between “freedom of religion” as our Constitution sets forth, and “freedom of worship” as Obama and communist countries set forth.

The difference is freedom of religion allows us to practice our faith outside of church – prayer in schools, symbols in parks and in the public square, prayers before events, evoking the name of diety in public discourse.

Freedom of worship confines the practice of our faith to inside the walls of the church.  Read more of what Raphael has to say about this HERE.

How far should the practice of someones faith be allowed to go?  How about Islam and Islamic sharia?  How about  lashings for not walking behind your husband, cutting off of fingers, hands or feet for stealing, and cutitng off heads for insulting Muhammad, being homosexual, or leaving Islam?  These “relgious practices” might be considered by some to fall under the definition of “freedom of religion.”

How about a religion whose central doctrines require submission to a religious diety and its human hierarchy and enforcers?  And not just for believers in that “religion” but those of other faiths as well.  How far, really, should freedom of religion go?

Well, it can truthfully be said that it depends on the definition of “religion.”  Is “relgion” what we understand from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikism, and Buddhism?  The doctrine and practice of these religions are relatively passive, benign, peace-loving, and personal.

Or does “religion” also include Islam which is not passive, peace-loving, or benign, in spite of what its propagandists lie about.  Islam is aggressive, supremacist, intolerant, and violent in its core doctrines and throughout most of its history.  Islam has become prominent more for its coercive and violent political practices than any sense of “religion” envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution.

Based on the understanding of “religion” by our founders, these characteristics should disqualify Islam from the religious protections of our Constitution.

But do they?  No, they don’t.  Why not?

When was the last time you’ve heard of a civics class being taught in our public schools?  When was the last time you’ve heard of immigrants coming to this country learning about our founding, our Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian values that provided the foundation of our history?

We have lost our history.  We have ignored the values that made us a great nation.  Many believe that because of this loss of historical and religious perspective that we are now a nation in decline.

Too many of us believe that all religions are alike – even Islam – and they all deserve the protections of our Constitution.  Are they ?  Do they?  Hell no!

Islam was no more in the mind of our founders in the “religious” context than was Communisim or Fascism.

Raphael Cruz has it right about the superiority of “freedom of religion” over “freedom of worship.”  But I’ve heard him speak.  Neither he nor his son Ted have a clue about Islam and the fact that Islam is an anti-religious political system that is a threat to this nation.

Justice Scalia was the Supreme Court’s stalwart for understanding and promoting the basis for interpreting the Constitution based squarely on the religious heritage of our country.  The Republicans in Congress better damn well prevail in seeing to it that appointment of Scalia’s replacement is NOT made by Obama.  This country does not need another socialist Supreme Court justice who does not give a flip about the reasons for and value of this nation’s founding principles.

Donald Trump was the most pointed of all the candidates when asked who he wants to replace Scalia (from Newsmax):

“Trump, appearing on NBC, was more direct when asked what he would want in a nominee: "Someone just like Justice Scalia."”

What should the Republican Party do if they were cheated in the General Election?

OK,  I’ll lay it on the table.  The Republican Party has been rightly accused of being whimpy, lacking conviction, resolve and caving to the left on many issues.

That’s why the heading above is called “What SHOULD…” the Republican Party do; not “What WOULD…” it do if they got unjustly screwed in the General Election.  They probably would do NOTHING.  But they SHOULD do what Trump is doing relative to the Iowa cheating.

More to the point, what would Cruz have done if he was the one against whom dirty tricks were played prior to the Iowa caucus?

How legitimate is it for Cruz to accuse Trump of  “Trumper Tantrums” in response to the Cruz crew cheating prior to the Iowa caucus?

What, exactly is Cruz accused of doing in Iowa?  Here it is:

1)  Misrepresenting a CNN story about Carson going back to Florida to get a new suit – inferring instead he was dropping out of the race and his supporters should vote for Cruz.

2)  Mailing out thousand of deceptive and misleading forms to Iowans just before the caucus.  As reported by the not all that conservative New Yorker Magazine, “Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks.”

From the New Yorker:

“At the top of the mailers, in a bold red box, are the words “VOTING VIOLATION.” Below that warning is an explanation:

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.”

There is no doubt that the mailer is misleading, inaccurate, and fraudulent.

Yet Cruz dismissed the fraudlent mailer by stating:

“I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote.”

And instead he reverts to name calling against a fellow candidate whose voting outcome was negatively impacted by the fraud.

This demonstrates stark contrasts among the two candidates:

Trump, who is personally offended by fraudulent behavior and takes assertive action to draw attention to it and seeks justice, and

Cruz, who excuses and justifies fraudulent behavior and resorts to name calling against anyone who complains about it.

HERE is the complete time line of the Cruz shenanigans from Diana West’s excellent analysis.

Let’s bring this closer to home:

Imagine that you were cheated by someone who contributed to your loss of money or reputation.  Imagine further that you brought the cheating to the attention of the media or the authorities.  Imagine that it was confirmed by the authorities that you were in fact cheated.  Yet the perpetrator mocks you for “whining” or complaining about his cheating actions.

How would you feel?

One of Trump’s apparent “character flaws” is that he hates injustice.  He despises a just cause being sabotaged.  He complains and takes action when he observes laws being ignored.

Apparently  a Cruz character flaw is that he relishes cheating as an essential ingredient to win, and will defend his tactics even to the point of mocking those who call him out on his cheating.

Before this incident I would have had no qualms about supporting Cruz if he won the Republican nomination.  After this incident I need to seriously reconsider.

Does Trump criticize others who deserve criticism?  Sure he does.  But he doesn’t use name calling to defend fraud and dirty tricks.  Cruz does.

Trump is despised by the Republican establishment because he hates injustice, dirty tricks and corruption.  He speaks out and takes action against it.  The Republican Party over the past decade or so would prefer to ignore corruption, or better, be a part of it.  Cruz is acting just like Republican Party, choosing to play the same sort of game.  

Oh oh, we don’t want a candidate who fights for our country too aggressively…

God forbid we get a candidate who is too aggressive, too self-confident, too over-powering to fight for the good of our nation.

For the past two presidential election cycles I’ve heard Republicans and especially conservatives lament the fact that Republican candidates are not forceful enough, lack conviction, don’t have enough “fire in the belly.” 

In 2008 we had meek, moderate John McCain, quite the opposite of “Big John” of coal miner country music fame, who lost the election.  In 2012 we had mild-mannered Mitt “don’t-rock-the-boat” Romney who lost the election even worse than Little John.

Ever since that last election we’ve longed fort a Republican candidate who is a fighter, who has fire in the belly, who doesn’t give in, give up or or go limp.   A candidate who stays strong, fights for our convictions, fights for our country, and is not bound be the debilitating disease of political correctness.

Donald Trump fits those specifications to a “T.”

Yet Republicans and many conservatives are still not satisfied.  No wonder we lose.

They feel that Donald Trump is too much of a good thing.

They complain about his “tell it like it is” style.  He is too frank, blunt, and up front.  I guess they want a candidate a bit more like Little John or Mild Mitt so they can lose again.

They note that polls show that even Hillary is sometimes less disliked than Donald.  Yet Republicans and conservatives complain about politicians who pander to the welfare and government dole class to gain “likes.”  Yup, promising more “stuff” does help make the greedy, selfish, and ignorant among us like politicians more.  That explains why Hillary is disliked less.

Yes, Trump is a showman, just like Reagan was an actor.  As a showman, Trump uses hyperbole to make his point about really liking “quality” and optimum performance in running the country.  He had an opportunity to use hyperbole when he joked about the poor sound system in Pensacola during a recent event.  The audio really was poor, so he went into a schtick about “firing” the sound guy.  Here are quotes from The Business Insider:

 

Pensacola’s Microphone System – or so it seemed

 

"Whoever the hell brought this mic system, don't pay the son of a b----," he said.

Trump added: "This mic is terrible. Stupid mic keeps popping. Do you hear that George? Don't pay him! Don't pay him. You know, I believe in paying, but when somebody does a bad job like this stupid mic, you shouldn't pay the bastard. Terrible. Terrible. It's true."

The billionaire businessman said he hoped the sound system was functioning for the packed crowd, but he kept hearing a "boom" sound.

"So we're not going to pay," he continued. "I guarantee you I'm not paying for this mic. Every two minutes I hear like, 'Boom! Boom!'"

Reporters covering the rally said they had difficulty understanding the candidate as well.

That rant shows me that Trump does not tolerate mediocrity.  He doesn’t put up with it.  And he will make that abundantly clear.  Sure, he could have had his people talk with the sound people after the event.  But that would not have revealed to the audience his quest for quality in everything he touches.  That is a major part of the package he is offering to bring to Washington:  Quality in government – zero tolerance for bad performance. 

The naysayers also criticize those who compare Trump to President Reagan.  There are two different characteristics of each person that are being compared.  The accurate characteristic is that both were outsiders, bucking the establishment.  Reagan formerly associated with Democrats as did Trump.  And to a lesser extent, both were not primarily politicians, except for Reagan’s stint as Governor of California.

The comparison that the naysayers object to is the comparison of style.  Reagan was relatively soft-spoken, more like Romney, but with a better sense of humor.  Reagan sounded fatherly.  Trump sounds brotherly – or more like a coach.  Trump is anything but soft-spoken.

Reagan fit the nation’s needs of 35 years ago.  Trump fits the nation’s needs today.  There is a greater need today for Trump’s style than Reagan’s.  Why?  Many things have changed.  We’ve have a number of new and more serious threats to our nation today.  We didn’t have the problem of rampant illegal immigration that was allowed to fester and degrade our economy over the last two decades.  We didn’t have the problem of Islam that is a real threat to our freedoms and national security.  We didn’t have the out of control federal spending and huge and growing national debt to the extent we have today.

Yes, Trump is angrier than Reagan was.  And he is more outspoken and not as mild-mannered as Reagan was.  We are in a different time today.  We have different and in many cases more serious threats than we had back then.  Trump’s personality and style fit the needs of today.  Reagan fit the needs of the 80’s.

Trump is accused of speaking in sound bites with little substance.  That is the observation expressed by those who would manage a losing campaign in today’s soundbite world.  Yes, he often speaks with the flamboyant, blunt hyperbole of a showman.  If he spoke in significant detail, he would have lost his audience five minutes after he started.  He recognizes the attention span and needs of his audience.  Some would say that doesn’t speak well of the electorate, but that is the world we live in.  Yet at the same time, for anyone who has bothered to read the issue statements on his website, or who has taken the time to read his book, “Crippled America:  How To Make America Great Again” will see his understanding of the issues and his solutions are substantive.  And Trump is well known for finding and hiring extremely well-qualified and well-performing executives.

Yup, we’ve gotten in Trump a candidtate who most of us had wished for over the past eight years.   Yet we still get complaints over too much of a good thing.

I keep reminding myself that no candidate is perfect.  There will be “hit pieces” and bashing commentaries motivated by a variety of reasons.  Most often the motivation will be due to support of another candidate. 

Some candidates come closer than others to the ideal that fits today’s needs.

Trump fits today’s needs better than any.