Conservative Trolls Targeting Misdeeds Of Liberal Journalists

Supporters of President Trump have initiated an effort to expose individual members of the press for inappropriate slurs and acts by them in years past. Some of these Trump supporters believe that a war is underway between the president and the press, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Is it fair that every statement made by the president going back decades can and has been used as fodder to discredit him, while some people accusing the president are guilty of similar racial, misogynistic and otherwise bigoted missteps? Should members of the press be immune from criticism and consequence? Should journalists be sheltered because the press as a group is protected by the Constitution? Are journalists above the law and generally accepted rules of society?

Note: This essay was inspired by a NY Times story titled “Trump’s Allies Scour Internet to Punish Press.”

The blowback by conservatives is clearly a vindictive response to unfair treatment of Trump and his allies; you know “fake news” and all that stuff. The Internet has been a treasure trove for journalists critical of Trump and his sycophants. When dirt is uncovered the Times, CNN, MSNBC, the major TV networks and late night TV are quick to air it. Now their opponents are looking for dirt online.

Just because the press is protected (and for good reason), does not mean reporters and commentators should forgiven for past deeds and inappropriate comments. All is fair game. Journalists and any one else are vulnerable for their history. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was lambasted for immature activities several decades earlier, so a racial slur by a respected journalist should not go unpunished or unmentioned regardless of the inevitable responses by their employers and friends. This is the new paradigm.

Some of those caught with their pants down, so to speak, are asking how a boyhood prank or comment in the locker room could result in losing their jobs. Well the Internet does not discriminate. If you post something untoward, it may bite you in the rear decades later, even if you are a journalist, corporate titan or a politician. But the hypocrisy of those who think they can criticize and be excused for the same indiscretions is laughable, and over. The Constitution will not save anyone hereafter.

Having said all this, the state of affairs existing between the liberal press and conservatives is shameful. Journalist traditions are being ignored every day by over zealous reporters who would do anything for a scoop and, more important, an opportunity to take down Trump. The things being written and said are too often not vetted, cruel, twisted and unfit for print. Moreover journalists frequently encourage sources to “talk” even if it is unethical or illegal to do so. Sources take all the risks while journalists hide behind the skirt of the Constitution. Newspapers are no longer sources of unbiased reporting. Most are bastions of one-sided commentary.

Trump says he has nothing to do with these gossip trolls that are exposing liberal members of the press. But, you can be sure that he loves their intentions.

The unseemly war between the administration and the press is taking this country to a new low. Both sides are responsible, and there is no end to it in sight.

Israeli Critics In Congress Shielded By NY Times

In an August 22 editorial titled “The Revival of an Anti-Semitic Canard,” the NY Times sought to blame Trump for increased violence against Jews by distorting facts.

The only line in the editorial that was constructive was at its conclusion. It read as follows: “The right road forward is for Democrats, and Republicans, to maintain strong support for democracy and liberal values, both in Israel and in the United States.” Note: The reference, however, to liberal values is puzzling.

Democrats inspired a Trump political assault when they refused to appropriately censor congresswomen that unabashedly denigrated Israel, its prime minister and its citizens. Inflammatory rhetoric over their short tenure in Congress, which has been well publicized, continues to be outright racist. After Democrat leaders balked at sanctioning the female legislators appropriately, two members of the so-called “Squad” thought they had carte blanche to spew even greater anti-Semitic venom.

Trump’s response, as usual, was over the top, but not inaccurate. Among other things, the president is taking advantage of the Democrats’ growing frustration with the Prime Minister and his close relationship to Trump. He believes voting for these congresswomen and the Democrats that shielded them is an insult to Israel. And these bigots and their allies should be ostracized.

As expected the Times took the opportunity to dredge up some old dirt- Trump’s words are dangerous, he demonizes minority groups and equivocates about white supremacy. And remarkably the editorial board associates hate crimes against Jews to Trump, even as he strongly supports the State of Israel- an unbelievably twisted perspective.

The Times said Trump speaks about Jews as “different from other Americans,” suggesting that their loyalties are divided. This is true. There are some Jews that provide unbridled support to Bibi Netanyahu’s strong reactions to terror and threats to Israel’s sovereignty, and some that object to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The polarization that is growing among Jews certainly creates a dangerous situation. But Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are greatly responsible for fostering a backlash to Israel’s efforts to avoid annihilation by virtually every one of its neighbors in the Middle East.

The Times should be more careful about how it characterizes the affection that Trump and so many Americans have for Israel. Suddenly it has become politically incorrect to support and protect our most loyal ally in the world, even from members of Congress. Why would American voters allow freshmen, and terribly disruptive, congresswomen to influence Israeli policy?



Is Man Innately Violent?

After reading “Lord of the Flies by William Golding, I began to muse about the cruelty of man and the forces (internally and/or externally) that encourage him to act violently. Oddly, I kept thinking about President Trump as the story developed in my  mind.

Golding makes a strong case that man to a great extent is aggressive by nature (not nurture). In the 1954 published book, a band of young boys ranging from 8 to 12 are marooned on a deserted island after their plane crashed. Without the help of adults, they formed a makeshift society and struggled to keep order. The author wants us to think they are not old enough to have been taught to be barbaric and un-empathetic. In a nutshell the boys separated into to two groups. Anarchy and violence prevailed. It’s Golding’s point that the boy’s behavior was caused by their DNA, and not anything they could have learned during their short lives to that point.

In J.D. Salinger’s classic,  “The Catcher in the Rye,” the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, was greatly influenced by his schooling and upbringing. The morale of the story is that Holden learned to be rebellious and antisocial (nurture).

Back to the “Flies.” Ralph was elected to be the chief of the young boys over Jack. The contenders were the oldest and strongest of the crew, another Golding reference to governing with strength. Over time, Jack’s more aggressive style enabled him to assume leadership of the makeshift society and violence abounded.

Americans have always been attracted to strong and combative leaders. In fact some say that one can’t be a great president unless he or she negotiates and wins a war. Until recently smaller nations throughout the world were attracted to and allied with countries that were world leaders. Pacts were formed and powerful nations protected smaller ones. In today’s world power exerted over others is anathema.

Nationalism, even for smaller countries, has become more prevalent.  Of course the Nazis before World War II practiced the most radical form of nationalism. In assuming power, Hitler convinced Germans to support him in condemning six million Jews. Was this despicable strategy reflective of an innate character trait of Hitler and his minions? Why didn’t the German people object to their leader’s genocidal strategy?

In the US, the citizenry has become more political and bellicose than in earlier eras.  What has caused this phenomenon? Is America now a place where people only get ahead by viciously attacking their opponents? Do Americans, as a group, have DNA that makes us more aggressive in times of crisis and confrontation, or are we teaching our children to be violent adults? Before you answer, consider Harry Truman’s decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Was Truman a hero or a cold-blooded murderer? In a few days he incinerated many people in a way that was reminiscent of the Holocaust.

I’m sure Truman rued the day he was elected president as he made his decision whether to continue to fight Japan with conventional weapons or use weapons of mass destruction.

The bad blood in Congress and throughout our society is taking a toll. Republicans and Democrats are on the verge of going to war on some of the most controversial issues.

Gun advocates are arming themselves for a showdown with gun control proponents. They seem to be willing to kill other Americans to secure the arsenals in their homes.

Right to lifers are just as passionate about saving every fetus from an untimely end. Yet abortionists are more focused on the rights of a woman to choose. Are these groups prepared to do combat with each other?

Many in America are unhappy with the snap decisions made by police officers doing their jobs during dangerous interaction with felons. Some Americans say cops are biased against people of color. They say cops are too quick to use force in their communities. The cops say the use of deadly measures is the only way to protect innocents. Now many officers are hesitant to respond to dangers affecting our society.

And finally there is Donald Trump. No president has been blamed for more things than our current leader. But he is belligerent and prepared to use force if necessary (maybe too quick for some Americans). Who taught the man that unfiltered rhetoric and the use of violence are the best ways to govern a great country? Or is it in his DNA to act this way.

There are too many people in the world who want to kill others that look different, pray different and have larger houses. How should America deal with this situation? Should we draw upon our most basic instincts and kill the evildoers? Or should we be applying diplomacy?

In 2020 we will elect a president that will need to answer these questions.

Epstein Was Plagued By Insects, Rodents And Sewerage

It may not be politically correct, but I cannot ignore the  conditions Jeffrey Epstein was subjected to during his final days.

Articles about Epstein depict abhorrent sanitary conditions in the facility in New York City where he was incarcerated. Insects, rodents, standing water from toilets certainly had an  impact on Epstein’s state of mind and possibly encouraged him to take his life. He arranged to meet with his attorneys all day long to avoid spending time in his filthy cell.

Don’t misread my feelings about Epstein. If even a few of the allegations made against him are true, he deserved to spend the balance of his life behind bars. The man allegedly trafficked scores of young girls in a sex scandal qualifying him as “scumbag of the decade.” Preying on girls, presumably with some of his good buddies, is not an activity that the police and FBI should sweep under the rug. It’s imperative that the entire sordid affair be investigated and made public in spite of Epstein’s death.

It ‘s also extremely important that the horrible conditions that prisoners, American citizens, must endure as they pay their debts to society improve. To say that killers, rapists, kidnappers and other assorted felons are not entitled to humane treatment regardless of their crimes is an injustice.

I can’t help but wonder whether conditions at GITMO, where terrorists are incarcerated, are as horrible as the facility  in downtown New York. Remember the GITMO crowd consists of mostly terrorists who are not American citizens. Reportedly they receive treatment far better than our own convicts. All people incarcerated by the US should have a clean environment as they do their time.

The Epstein affair calls into question the manner in which convicts are treated throughout the US in city, state and federal facilities. Incarceration for serious crimes should mean hard time, but cleanliness and safety must be a  priority if the country is going to claim that we respect the rights and liberties of everyone.

Democrats Will Be Crushed In 2020

Democrats will likely be crushed in the 2020 presidential elections. It has become crystal clear that current liberal ideology of the party will not seduce voters. The move to the left in the primaries by Democrats is too radical for the majority of America.

Here are reasons why President Trump and many Republican candidates will ultimately prevail.

Bernie Sanders is an ineffective curmudgeon who has been lauding the benefits of socialism for years. He has no chance to win the presidential nomination or the general election. Republicans have effectively labeled Sanders a socialist, a characterization that might be attractive to idealistic young people and those who hate America, but one that mainstream America will not accept. Virtually all of Sanders’ compatriots have swung far left.

The US is not receptive to a political persuasion that vilifies capitalism, exceptionalism and the American dream. By emphasizing these things, Republicans will win over most Americans.

Impeachment threats and the continuation of investigations relating to Russia and obstruction of justice by the Trump administration are losing battles.

Everyone accepts the fact that Russia interfered in our 2016 elections. But most Americans, including Robert Mueller, don’t believe Trump colluded with Russia in that effort. This myth gives Trump and his fledgling campaign too much credit. Neither Trump nor his inexperienced and naïve minions were capable of masterminding a conspiracy of such dimensions with Russian operatives.

Proving obstruction of justice is virtually impossible. Trump has never hidden his feelings that he wanted to fire Comey, Mueller, DOJ incompetents and assorted other Trump haters.

But, the important issue is that an impeachment vote will go nowhere even if the House passes it. The Senate will not vote to oust Trump, similar to what transpired with Bill Clinton. In fact the impeachment of Clinton helped him win the next presidential election. The same will hold true of Trump, as he will effectively become a martyr if impeachment is successful.

Health care reform has become the greatest bug-a-boo for Democrats. Their great hero, Barack Obama tried unsuccessfully to reform health care. He spent trillions and did nothing other than confuse Americans with a poorly derived plan and poor execution.

Why would Americas give Democrats a mulligan to spend $30 trillion over ten years to finance a one-payer health care system? Even the most unsophisticated members of our country can understand that such an exorbitant amount is almost three times the current deficit.

Some Americans are wondering why Democrats are so intent on opening our border, incurring huge costs and increasing the number of illegal aliens when so many Americans cannot make ends meet. The country has already allowed 10-15 million illegals into the US.

Adding another 5-10 million more will only worsen the financial, social and political stress in border states. In the meantime, homelessness and need among American citizens increases every day. The bottom line is that America cannot be a safe haven for people worldwide.

Democrats have proven time and again that they are incapable of negotiating effectively across the aisle. The gun control controversy is a perfect example of this situation.

Republicans, influenced by repeated mass murders, are now ready to accept “red flags,” which identify deranged individuals that are in possession of firearms, and licensing of guns. The response from Democrats is that it is not enough. They are correct that “it is not enough,” but why not accept a deal that would make it a bit safer for innocent Americans?

To say they want a ban of automatic and military weapons is understandable, but it is too much to ask for at this time. Democrats should make the red flag and license deal, and then pursue banning automatic weapons later. Gun control is not going to be settled in one election cycle. It can only be done effectively incrementally.

There are other reasons why many think Democrats are losers in 2020. The threat of Democratic administration to our economy, the age of top liberal candidates and the failure of Democrats to solve urban problems are just a few of them.

But the most damaging issue, to reiterate, is the hard left attitude of Democrats. Ironically a moderate Democrat would have a real chance to defeat Trump, but unfortunately he or she could not win in the primaries.

Stupid Politics

On the heels of the latest shooting incidents, our leaders are not responding the way politicians have before them.

After a tragedy as great as 9/11 and others that are equally horrible, but smaller in scope, our leaders always call for unity among Americans. We set aside politics to help those impacted by despicable acts of violence. Today, the protocols have changed.

It’ obvious to everyone that our president’s sensibilities are not what we expect from our leaders. And it would be a waste of time to try to convince anyone that this is not the case. His rhetoric is understandably interpreted as racist, nationalist, sexist and all the other “ist” characterizations. But to blame Trump for violent actions of lone wolf shooters, who are obviously mentally disturbed, is taking it too far.

In fact the president went out of his way to denigrate white supremacists, and the hatred and violence they have come to represent. How can Trump’s political opponents attribute all the senseless violence in America and elsewhere in the world to our leader?

It’s as if there is no history before Trump was elected three years ago. I’ve been around long enough to know that racist, nationalistic and sexist behavior preceded Trump by quite a few years.

And to use references to Nazis and their leader to describe the president . . . It’s no wonder Trump is so quick to respond on social media. It would be more effective to avoid counter-punching especially when accusations and character attacks become grotesquely cartoonish, but this is not going to happen.

Keep in mind, there is a Democratic primary under way. And, all the players believe that being the most socialistic, radical and offensive relating to Republicans is a pathway to the White House. It’s so out of control that this political strategy is going to give Trump another four years.

The latest comments from the left directed at the president were warnings to stay away from areas affected by the two most recent shootings. It is every president’s responsibility to ease the pain and suffering of Americans that experience terrorism and hardships. If Trump didn’t go to Texas and Ohio, he would have been lambasted. Yet local leaders told the president to stay away. Is this good politics?

To blame the violence of single shooters on the president and tell him he is not welcome to places where Americans are mourning is beyond the pale. Middle of the road voters will punish Democrats for this breach of tradition.

There has been growing consensus among politicians on both sides of the aisle to address gun control. Red flags, absconding weapons from individuals who are mentally unstable, and gun licensing are now in play. Trump has indicated he would support some type of legislation in these regards. How did Democrats respond (in particular Chuck Schumer)? They said it’s not enough.

It isn’t enough, but to pass on an opportunity to make Americans a little safer is idiotic. And, why not grab what you can on this contentious issue? Gun control will be amended incrementally over time, if at all.

GUNS In The Hands Of Dangerous People

Until now, Softball Politics has intentionally avoided commentary on gun control. The subject is a hot potato if there ever was one.

This essay will not take sides in the controversy, on the heels of two domestic terrorist attacks in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas. Two gunmen killed 29 and injured 59 people. The writer will attempt to bring some common sense and possible compromise to the contentious debate relating to gun control, so we can all be safer in public, at work, at school and in our homes.

Guns are not responsible for the plethora of violent deaths across the country. They are inanimate objects that evil and troubled individuals use to generate fear and terror, and to ruin lives. In the aftermath of gun violence in which innocents are slaughtered in shopping malls, schools, universities, places of work and places of worship, many of those supporting gun control, and even the abolition of gun ownership, continue to attribute the problem to the weapons themselves and the proliferation of arms in this country. This is only a part of the overall problem.

It is true that statistically the odds of being shot by a domestic terrorist are much greater than by a foreign-supported terrorist. So what should the most civilized and advanced country in the world do to stem gun violence to protect Americans from future attacks? Banning weapons is not an option because the Constitution protects our right to bear arms.

An obvious solution is to make it as difficult as possible for a deranged person, a criminal or a child to gain possession of a gun. Additionally weapons that are manufactured and sold to the public should not include weapons that are clearly designed to kill humans. Weapons made for military and police purposes are the most dangerous.

The country is evenly split about what you will now read. If a weapon is created to generate significant firepower, a civilian should not own it. Why make it easy for an individual, whose spouse cheated on him, is insane, was fired from his job or is a white, black or brown supremacist to buy a gun with a large clip that can shoot many bullets at a rapid rate. By banning all automatic and semi-automatic weapons potential killers will not be able to murder others so easily.

Many things in our lives are dangerous to the health of citizens. These items are regulated for safety reasons. Automobiles are an excellent example. A person who is unstable, has poor vision or is experiencing poor reflexes should not drive a car. When individuals apply for licenses or renewal of them, DMV officials assess these issues.

Why shouldn’t all gun owners be licensed similarly? Why wouldn’t it be useful to have a complete list of all gun owners and the weapons they possess? This would be no more intrusive than knowing whose driving cars in the country and what cars they are driving.

Citizens who have psychological issues or are convicted felons should not be able to own a weapon. The verification process should be long enough to completely eliminate spot decisions to buy when a person is distraught.

It’s understandable that gun advocates are concerned that if they make concessions, further concessions will be mandated. It should not be a slippery slope for gun advocates to work together with those who oppose gun ownership to enact sensible regulations that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, children and mentally impaired individuals.

Too many innocent people are being brutally gunned down. There are too many guns with excessive power and performance in the hands of undesirables who may want to kill another person.

Above all, we must all respect the Constitution, which makes it legal for Americans to own guns. But effective regulation about the types of guns we own and the character of people who own them is critical.

Every time another tragedy takes place our leaders and lawmakers are outraged. It only takes a few weeks for the outrage to subside, and nothing is done.

Let’s at least make it more difficult for military and police weapon to not get into the hands of those who might use them to kill. Simultaneously we need to protect the rights of Americans to own guns for protection and sport.

Democrats Are Blinded By Their Hatred Of Trump

It’s no wonder Democrats want to oust Donald Trump. He’s a racist, misogynist, sexist, narcissist and a terrible role model (sorry if I left any other pertinent characterizations). But, are Democrats cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

Are voters going to be excited and encouraged to vote by never ending attempts to prove Trump committed impeachable offenses? Will they get amped up about supposed links between Russia and the president? No, they won’t, except maybe the most radical elements of the group.

Democrats are playing right into Trump’s hands. He continues to outrage opponents with silly nicknames, accusations of socialism and proclaiming they do not love America. In the meantime, substantive issues are not being discussed. It’s incredible that so little time is being dedicated to the economy, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Worse yet, Democrat candidates are competing for the “most liberal politician” award. Just about everybody is now a self-proclaimed socialist. Keep in mind that being the most liberal means you must promise to give America more entitlements even if they would eventually bankrupt America. Liberals believe that saying everything will be “free” is the key to winning the hearts of voters in 2020. It makes no difference that the promises will never be kept and/or they are not financeable.

At every turn Trump beats his opponents to the punch. You just cannot underestimate the power of the bully pulpit. Radicals and first term liberal lawmakers are setting the agenda for the Democratic caucus. Ocasio-Cortez, a six-month representative and former bartender, along with her squad, want a socialistic revolution, as do Sanders, Warren and Harris, the strongest candidates aside from Biden.

Yet Americans want peace (with other countries and between political parties), security, affordable health care, the end of terrorism, more jobs and better education for young ones.

Nancy Pelosi and the wisest members of the Democratic Party keep telling colleagues that they are going to give the election to Trump on a silver platter if they continue down the current road. The president, love him or hate him, relates to Americans. Nadler, Schiff and all the other impeachment zealots are not gaining any traction outside of Capitol Hill.

To make matters worse, if the House votes to impeach (which is highly unlikely), the Senate is going to acquit the president, and he will become a martyr of sorts (just like Bill Clinton). The impeachment effort is going to fall flat on its face just like the Mueller investigation.

In the meantime Trump is making speeches and leading rallies in key cities, talking about all the “great” things his administration is accomplishing.

More moderate candidates, during the debates, said radical Democratic ideology is going to be responsible for a Trump victory. No one is listening. Impeachment is dead on arrival and liberals keep pushing for more investigation.

The country needs new leadership in the White House and in Congress. Our elected officials have failed us and should be replaced. The problem is that Democrats are so blinded by their desire to get rid of Trump, they are foregoing the easiest way to do it- beat him in the voting booth.

Universal Health Care Is Not Free

Note: This essay was written after the first debate and before the second debate.

It’s premature to write an assessment of the Democratic presidential debates because we’ve only heard from half the group. But, the priorities and perspectives voiced on Tuesday night were telling and frightening.

Many topics were covered, but none was more controversial than health care. It’s abundantly clear that all the liberal contenders think this debate is critical, and it will be an important issue in the 2020 Elections. There is no doubt that every liberal contender has assumed the mantra that “health care is a human right.” This characterization is a bit melodramatic, but it was expressed many times during the evening.

Frankly every American and every politician thinks that health care is an important entitlement. The problem is that it’s a multifaceted conundrum, and there are many different ways that it may be improved and tailored to meet the needs of Americans.

The most important factors pertaining to universal, one-payer health care are:

  • Even though advocates of universal health care say it’s free to participants, it’s not without monstrous cost to the taxpayers. If any person receives health care “free,” taxpayers will be pay for it. If health care is restructured as per Bernie Sanders, trillions of dollars must be allocated to pay for each and every visit to doctors and hospitals, including illegal immigrants that liberals want to include. It’s very difficult to estimate the cost of this “free” entitlement. If each American generates $10,000 annually in medical expenses, the cost (330 million times $10,000) is $3.3 trillion annually. This excludes the operational costs of the bureaucracy and start up costs. Over ten years the total cost would be more than $30 trillion.
  • If every American is able to get “free” health care, the number of visits by an average American to doctors and hospitals will likely increase markedly. We already encounter significant delays when making appointments to have major surgery and to see the most capable doctors. There will be utter chaos as Americans fight for the attention of their preferred health care providers.
  • Many of the Democratic candidates support a one-payer system. This means that all existing private medical plans will be terminated. No one will be able to buy priority treatment. For many union members, who have sacrificed cash compensation for “Cadillac” health care coverage, the new system would effectively decrease their overall compensation.
  • And finally, the source of payment for universal health care is unknown. Democrats would like us to believe that raising taxes on the 1% will fund the program. This is utter nonsense no matter how often Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren scream and holler to the contrary.


One moderate on the panel of candidates, who is totally irrelevant to the election, wisely suggested that Democrats are promising entitlements that will never come to fruition, and that one-payer insurance would take away health care insurance from 150 million people with private plans. Since there are only 30 million, or so, who are uninsured in America, why reconstruct the entire medical infrastructure at great cost? Obama did the same thing a few years ago and grew the deficit by over $2 trillion.

Sanders and Warren are bull sh—-g America. They are trying to seduce people to vote for them by offering “free” things that are not free and not deliverable. Universal, one-payer medical insurance will never happen because the country cannot afford it. It will take insurance away from millions of satisfied Americans. It will result in massive hospital failures and a revolution by doctors. It will essentially take away money from other American priorities. It will bankrupt America.

It will never be enacted by Congress.