A REPLY TO NOVADEMOCRAT

Donald Trump FULL SPEECH – Rally in Ashburn, Virginia – August 2, 2016


Here of late we have had several commenters visiting CITIZENTOM.COM to tell us what an awful person Donald Trump is. Is Trump so awful? Filtered through the news media, I guess he is.  Do you trust the news media? Then listen to him talk. Look at the video above. Go to his web site. Care enough about our country to find out for yourself.

What is below? That’s my reply to Novademocrat (See his comment here).

😉

@Novademocrat

There is not much point in taking you too seriously. You don’t want to be taken too seriously. So I went to http://www.urbandictionary.com to find a definition of multiculturalism for you.

Multiculturalism is a marxist ideology designed to ethnically cleanse European derived peoples by promoting the massive 3rd world invasion of Europe, United States, Canada, and Australia.

Multiculturalism leads to racial tension and may erupt into a racial conflict once the racial spoils system breaks down. For example – multiculturalism is in full swing in California. Blacks and Hispanics are engaged in a violent racial struggle in Los Angeles (from here)

Here is a more serious definition from dictionary.com.

The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest. It became a significant force in American society in the 1970s and 1980s as African-Americans, Latinos, and other ethnic groups explored their own history. (from here)

The notion that all the various cultures in society merit equal respect is nonsense. People merit respect, but some of the things we believe?

Our Constitution is worthy of respect is worthy of respect because of the ideas upon which it is based. Freedom of religion is still not commonplace. Even where it is allowed, freedom of religion is always in peril. Most people don’t believe in freedom of religion. They believe in their religion. That’s why freedom of religion is in peril in this country.

Here is the latest problem in our country. If someone says Christianity is better, Multiculturalists will call them bigoted. That is silly, but Multiculturalism is both silly and dangerously serious. Multiculturalists believe all religious beliefs deserve equal respect. The only way for that to be true is to believe we all worship the same God. That is an absurd religious belief. Unfortunately, because of our education system and our mass media, quite a few people in the United States think everyone worships the same God, somehow, some way.

As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and the Bible is His Word. Why would a Christian have any reason to respect another religion as much as he respects Christianity? That would not be reasonable or logical.

What Christianity teaches us to do is to love our neighbors and give them the Good News. Christians are not suppose to respect other people’s religions. We are suppose to respect other people. If we don’t agree with the beliefs of other people, we don’t make fun of them or hate them. We just hope our devotion to Jesus sets a good example.

Why mention Communism, Nazism, Libertarianism, or even Secularism as religious ideologies? Every form of government is based upon a religious belief. That is why we all make certain assumptions about the religious beliefs of Communists, Nazis, Libertarians, Secularists, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, and so forth. Are those assumptions always correct? Every individual varies from the mean, some more so than others. Nevertheless, people decide how they will live based upon their notions about the purpose of life, that is, their beliefs about God. Any government that exists in conflict with the religious beliefs of the people it rules is inherently unstable. That’s why every government, including our own, seeks to indoctrinate the People via the education system and the mass media. Rather than adapt to the desires of those they rule, the rulers would much rather change the desires of the people.

Trump has challenged those who rule us. So those who rule us are using the mass media to condemn him. Naturally, they are employing the state religion, Multiculturalism, to label him as politically incorrect. To survive the assault and win the election, Trump must  convince us that unlike his opponent, H. Clinton, he is willing adapt his rule to the beliefs of the people. He has to convince us he want to lead us, not manipulate us.

Can Trump convince us? I don’t know. I just think we need to make certain we check out the man for ourselves. He is certainly right about one thing. We cannot trust the news media. We have to check him out for ourselves.

WHO IS KHIZR KHAN?

deceiveWhen politicians speak or even their close supporters speak, we have to consider the possibility of deception. Hence, Khizer Khan little speech at the Democratic National Convention should have raised our suspicions. So when I saw Hillary’s DNC ‘Khan’ Job at That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, I decided to take a looksee. Since that post was interesting, but a bit hard to believe, I looked around.

Is there a backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump? (www.americanthinker.com) adopts a more moderate tone, essentially pointing out the degree to which Khan overstated his charge.

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together (www.breitbart.com) observes that Khan is not just any gold star father.

Khizr Khan Has Written Extensively On Sharia Law (dailycaller.com) suggests Khan has religious motivations most Americans would find disagreeable. Nonetheless, the LBGT communities representatives to the Democratic Party’s national convention probably still cheered for Khan. Suicidal, I guess.

I suppose what is most damning about Khan is what this article points out, Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship (www.washingtonexaminer.com). He has an obvious business interest in opposing Donald Trump’s candidacy.

When Khan spoke at the convention, it appears he used the death of his son for his own gain. That’s hardly admirable, and we should shame the news media and the politicians who have attacked Donald Trump. They should have known better.

Hillary’s DNC ‘Khan’ Job at That Mr. G Guy’s Blog may hard to believe, but it is pretty much true.

OF COURSE IT WAS PLAGIARISM — NOT!

Mike Myers as Dr. Evil (from here)
Mike Myers as Dr. Evil (from here)

It is more important to stand for something than it is stand against something. When we vote, we should try to vote for someone whose views on the purpose government are similar to our own. The problem is that what lots of politicians say is not what they do. So when we check out the candidates we have to worry about how much damage we think they will do. Therefore, we often have to vote for the lesser of evils.

Unfortunately, when we try vote for the lesser of evils, that does not much complicate the campaign strategy of the more evil candidates.  They and their supporters just respond by trying to convince us the other guy is even worst, or, supposedly even more despicable, dumb.

Hence, my last post, YOU CAN PLAGIARIZE TRITE EXPRESSIONS? REALLY? derided the accusations that Melania Trump had plagiarized Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech. Ironically, we had two commenters in the last post, novascout (here and here) and Tony (here) try to persuade us that “of course it was plagiarism”. Google now reports 1,730 results for that phrase, “of course it was plagiarism”.

Supposedly, the Trump’s have conceded the accuracy of the charge of plagiarism by identifying the culprit (see Trump campaign tries to move on from plagiarism controversy). However, the headline says what is going on. The Trump campaign regards the accusation as a distraction.

Why put the silliness to rest? Let’s look at this two ways. First, consider what the Democrats want to argue about.  Here are are the priceless lines “stolen” from Michelle Obama’s speech. Note that none of the lines in Melania Trump’s speech are actually identical to those in Michelle Obama’s (see Melania Trump Copied from Michelle Obama’s 2008 Convention Speech (Snopes.com)). Note also that what is in bold below was supposedly stolen.

  • Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflect to this day on me and for my love of family and America. – Here Melania Trump talks about herself. Michelle Obama referred to her daughters. Seems like a strategic difference, but maybe Melania gave birth to herself.
  • From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life. That your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise. That you treat people with respect. – Does Michelle Obama have the original copyright on: you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, you do what you say, and that you treat people with respect. Platitudes can be copyrighted?
  • They thought and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. – Two words in that sentence constitute plagiarism?
  • Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them. – In America we use to grow up with our elders constantly telling us that the only only limits to our achievements were our dreams and our willingness to work. Now we are offended when a legal immigrant tells us that? Because of plagiarism? Plagiarism of who? Michelle Obama? Consider the irony.

As I said, I don’t get it. What is there in any of the supposedly plagiarized portion of Melania Trump’s speech that she should have credited to Michelle Obama? If this is how Democrats want to portray Donald Trump as evil, I think it is about as funny as Dr. Evil.

So what does Trump want to move onto? That is, what are the Democrats trying to distract us from? Consider.

What we should be doing is looking at what the people who are running for political office have done? What is it that they have done that qualifies them to run for high office, to spend our money and exercise power over us, our families, our friends and our countrymen.

What does they news media want to talk about? Well, it has more to do with theater and entertainment than substance.

Soon the conventions will be over. Are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the most unpopular presidential candidates ever? Maybe. Is our country in a mess? Yes. Is the mess getting worse? Yes. Are we going to start looking into the records of the people we vote for? God help help if we don’t.

YOU CAN PLAGIARIZE TRITE EXPRESSIONS? REALLY?

A painting by Heinrich Harder showing an aurochs fighting off a Eurasian wolf pack (from here)
A painting by Heinrich Harder showing an aurochs fighting off a Eurasian wolf pack (from here)

As I understand it, even the Democrats thought Melania Trump made an excellent speech at the Republican Party’s National Convention. Unfortunately, the partisan news media detests the fact Melania Trump is a Republican. So they had to find something wrong with it. So what did they find? Plagiarism, supposedly.

Curious. I looked into the matter. So I suppose I could write a long lengthy article, but I don’t think it is worth the bother. Here is a link to Melania Trump Copied from Michelle Obama’s 2008 Convention Speech (Snopes.com). Read it, weep, and laugh.

If we are gullible enough, what we are suppose to take away from such biased news media reports (including Snopes.com’s report, of course) is that Melania Trump copied from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech, but that would be nonsensical.

Please observe the following.

  • Melania Trump made a fairly long speech (transcript here). The parts she supposedly copied don’t amount to anything.
  • Melania Trump’s speech was made in what has become a tradition. Lots of very accomplished women have made similar speeches for their husbands, not just Michelle Obama.
  • The portions of the speeches that are supposedly similar are strings of trite expressions. We all use these expressions, not just Michelle Obama. So if Melania Trump wants to borrow from me expressions that I was using well before 2008, I don’t care. I won’t even charge Michelle Obama with plagiarism.
  • What the news media is calling plagiarism is not plagiarism, and they should know better.

Here is the definition.

plagiarism [pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-]

an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.

We call a trite expression a trite expression because everyone use that expression the same way. In fact, if we did not use words the same way, we could not communicate. So because Melania Trump made a speech for much the same purpose that Michelle Obama made her speech in 2008, Melania Trump’s speech contained some language that looks similar. So what?

Did Melania Trump copy Michelle Obama’s ideas? No. Did Did Melania Trump substantially copy Michelle Obama’s speech? No. How could she have done that? Melania Trump was sharing her experiences Donald Trump, not Barack Obama.

So what is going? Why are we getting this ridiculous story? Think about people like Judge Robert Bork, Judge Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others. These people experienced intense personal attacks in the news media. Journalists found a story they liked, and they reported in unison. We call that pack journalism, another trite expression. Pack journalism is thoughtless and mean-spirited, but too many in the news media don’t care whether what they report is true.

Pack journalists make wolves look bad. When wolves attack their prey, they are just doing what God made them to do. Men who behave so cowardly have no such excuse.