Who shall we be cruel to today?

It seems as though, day by day, the current administration is finding new ways to be cruel to "outsiders." Minorities, Hispanics, Muslims, women, and of course, the current favorite whipping horse and those least likely to cause harm to others - transgender Americans. There is no reason to make their lives demonstrably worse except for petty revenge and viciousness. Revenge against whom? The answer, of course, is revenge against those who simply oppose the so-called President and the method of revenge is simply to do whatever will cause them pain or pain to those they support - in this case transgender Americans.

What good will the removal of protections against discrimination for transgender persons do for anyone? It will do zero good for anyone but except for those with ignorant hate in their hearts and much harm to a group of people who struggle every day with their sexual identity through no fault of their own. For the so-called President, the misery this will cause is no problem.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-anti-bias-law-does-not-protect-transgender-workers-justice-dept/ar-AAsXqkZ?ocid=sf

The so-called President in unfit to be President

Written September 17, 2017 in Facebook

This is not normal behavior for a President. It is not fit behavior for a President. Is there any reason anyone should respect this President when he obviously behaves so disrespectfully towards others?

He brags about sexually assaulting women because he is a powerful man.

He spreads lies about President Obama place of birth to legitimize the first black President.

He lied about being wiretapped in Trump Tower.

He lied about seeing thousands of Muslims on roofs celebrating 9-11 to increase prejudice and anger against Muslims.

He lied about millions of people illegally voting for his opponent to increase mistrust of democracy and legitimize himself in an election where a foreign government worked to get him elected.

He lied about most Mexican illegal immigrants being rapists and murderers to increase bigotry against Mexicans.

He called global warming a Chinese hoax to increase prejudice against the Chinese and environmentalists.

He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd to inflate his own ego.

He lied about Ted Cruz's father being a part of the assassination of JFK to help himself get elected.

He retweets racists memes such as one that claimed blacks murder whites at incredible rates then never retracts them. ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/ )

He constantly spouts fake news (see above) then accuses the mainstream media of spreading fake news when they point this out, all for the sake of undermining the ability of Americans to know what the truth is.

He is a lying, crazy ego-maniacal bigot. Is any of the above false? Are any of the conclusions ridiculous?

Dog Whistles

Written August 22, 2017 on Facebook

The so-called President's visit to Phoenix may be partially intended to goad protesters into committing violence - and unfortunately there could be some protesters who may fall into the trap. If he pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio he will of course be excusing someone who goes out of his way to persecute the Hispanic community. The so-called President's base would love it.

But the temptation to disrupt rallies of those you disagree with and even of those you believe are racist or otherwise immoral must be resisted - always and by everyone.

There is a narrative that the so-called President is trying to create - the narrative that his opponents want to destroy everyone's free speech and enforce a political correctness on everyone. Never mind that that the so-called President wants to force everyone to say "Merry Christmas, " wants no Muslims or Hispanics to enter the country, enjoys the support of White Nationalists and worse; it's the LEFT that threatens our freedom! Never mind that his primary opposition in the past election, Hillary Clinton and her supporters are the most middle of the road politically in the country - they will get lumped in with anarchists and whatever left wing group that gets violence.

Since his supporters are lo-info, all he needs are a handful of idiots to allow him to smear the entire opposition - and make it stick with many. Unfortunately there is never a shortage of idiots within any group.

This is the plan of the so-called President - goading some tiny fraction of his opponents into disrupting and possibly even attacking his supporters with his "dog whistles." All he cares about is winning even if it ruins the country.

The "real" cause of the Civil War

Written August 19, 2017

Here is a post from a fellow who took exception to criticism of the alt-right White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville. Here is what he wrote on Facebook:

"The extreme racist who started the war in 1860 was Lincoln. He invaded the nation of the Confederate States of America with the sole purpose of keeping the tariffs and other taxes flowing from the South to the North and to make sure that the South had to keep buying expensive Northern products instead of cheaper imported ones. Every descendant of slaves today should get down on their knees and thank God that their ancestor was put on that boat. Blacks in America live better than any nation in Africa. You do realize that the first slave owner in the British colonies was a black man? You do realize that it was Yankee ships that brought slaves to the US? Or are you a total historical illiterate? You do realize that slavery is still practice in Muslim nations?"

Please note after excusing slavery throughout his paragraph and criticizing Lincoln as a racist for imposing tariffs(?), he then slams Muslims for still having slavery in some countries as if that was a terrible injustice all of a sudden.

This is certainly not the first time someone has told me that the slaves and their descendants should be thankful; the other times it was for being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Yes and the White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville was about free speech. It actually was for crazy speech.

ideology vs. right and wrong

Ramadan is beginning and many American Muslims are dismayed at how radical jihadists around the world have grabbed attention with terrorist acts such as the one in Manchester, England, timed most likely to coincide with Ramadan. Actually, more than just Muslim Americans should be dismayed; anyone who believes that if their religion, ideology, religious leader, scripture or manifesto calls for harming others for a religious or ideological reason should ALSO feel a sense of guilt and dismay. Why? Because it is that rationalization, that harm to others for the sake of ideology is justified, that leads to all sorts of harm and misery across the planet. It was not long ago that a majority of ALL Americans, Christians in particular, believed that making the lives of gay persons WORSE by denying them rights that were available to heterosexuals was justified, usually because of their Christian beliefs. That attitude has been changing but the foundational problem remains: that right or wrong can be based on a religious or secular ideology. It cannot. Right and wrong or ethical and unethical depends on whether someone is unjustly harmed or whether human well being is helped by a behavior or policy. Offending a god or religious or ideological leader is NOT justification - it is an abdication of each of our's responsibility to do what is right or wrong. If a terrorist's religion compels them to kill infidels, the only counter argument is that their religion is irrelevant - we must do what we can determine to the best of our ability makes the world a better place. Obedience to our "belief" is not moral - it is shirking our moral responsibility. We must always be asking moral questions. So here is the question to the reader; do you believe right and wrong is determined by your religion or ideology? If you believe right and wrong is determined by your god, scripture or ideological leader, then you agree with terrorists on this issue. It is only random good fortune, then, that your ideology is not as brutal as theirs.

You don't have to like Islam to oppose "the Travel Ban"

One of the more difficult-to-understand concepts involved in maintaining a free country is granting equal and full rights to those with whom you disagree.  Far too many citizens in the U.S. (and elsewhere) believe that in a democracy, the majority get their way, period.  Not so in the United States, thank goodness.

There are certain rights that are NOT subject to majority whim and these are the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  As the key example is the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Please note the very first mandate of this Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." 

The author of the First Amendment, James Madison, was clear in his intent.  He wrote, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.  [Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]”  ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"

Just to further demonstrate Madison's intent to limit the power of the majority, he also wrote “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”  ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"

Now I understand that just because it's in the Constitution and James Madison made his intent clear, it does not mean it is the best policy for us to follow.  However, after over 200 years of experience it has become clear that Madison's First Amendment has served us well.  In fact one could make the argument that no sentence in the history of humanity has served humanity better than the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: it is perhaps the greatest sentence ever written.  It IS the greatest sentence ever written!  Thank you James Madison.

What does this have to do with the current travel ban proposed by executive order of President Trump?  Clearly Trump campaigned and gained tremendous support on the basis of his proposed ban on all Muslims attempting to travel to the U.S.  He clearly sought advice, from Rudy Giuliani for example, on how to achieve his previously stated goal while passing legal muster.  This is a ban intended to target Muslims and the "carve out" exemptions in the ban for Christians and other non-Muslims proves this.  His "travel" ban is fooling no one; it is the beginning of  a process to ban Muslims from traveling to the U.S.  The fact that he did not ban travel from a number of countries that have actually had its citizens travel to the U.S. to kill Americans would be confounding until you realize they are countries he has business interests within!  If a President Hillary Clinton had done something similar there would be calls for impeachment, probably justifiably.

It is obvious to many, except Trump and his supporters, that many Muslims are persecuted within these and other countries, not just for being the "wrong" kind of Muslim, but for being moderate, reasonable and in fact, freedom loving Muslims.  To Trump, it seems, all Muslims are the same.

The above all being said, I am not a Muslim, and you can bet your last dollar, I will never become a Muslim.  I cringe when I hear someone say "Islam is a religion of peace".  I also cringe when someone says "God is love" or whatever anyone else claims about their chosen religion or ideology.  I know these claims are not true by the results, by history.

Some critics of Islam claim that up to 51% of Muslims in the U.S. believe that they should be allowed to live under sharia law in the U.S.  I have not verified this claim from a reliable pollster, only from less reliable pollsters, but the claim is widely repeated.  If you parse this concept carefully, it does not necessarily mean that U.S. Muslims  believe that everyone would have to live under such law, but instead only those who choose to governed this way, but this distinction is still unacceptable.  All Americans of all religions are to be governed under the same law and treated equally.  The government should never be placed in a position to enforce a religious law even if the citizen wants to be governed in this manner.

But please note that while the above unverified claim about American Muslims is disturbing, it is not that much different from what reliable pollsters such as Pew  Research found in October 2006 about American Christians. "When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country, ­ the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible ­ most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important." (http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many-americans-uneasy-with-mix-of-religion-and-politics/#intro) This is not that incredibly different from the claim about Muslims except that in this case you can be sure the 32% meant imposing law on ALL Americans.  If you were to poll Trump supporters ONLY, I suspect that the percentage would exceed 51%.

You don't have to like ANY religion or ideology (such as liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc.) to allow those that hold those beliefs to retain their rights under the Constitution.  You don't have to like Islam to oppose the travel ban - you need to love justice and equality under the law.

Today Was a Bad Day, November 9, 2016

Today, November 9, 2016, was a bad day, .

It was a bad day for voters; the presidential candidate that more voters voted for than any other candidate lost the election.  The person with the second most votes won the election.  This is the second time in the last 5 presidential elections that this has happened.  Since the party in power has now benefited both times from this absurd system, nothing will change.  The U.S. will remain the only country in the world where losing the popular vote is sometimes better than winning it.  We do not have a democracy; instead we play a game with odd rules that often rewards something other than the will of the people.  Instead of making everyone's vote count equally, some votes in some states are relatively irrelevant while some votes in a handful of states are all important.

It was bad day for Muslims; the president elect has stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Other religious folk, no matter how dangerous, crazy and un-American their beliefs may be are welcome as long as they are not Muslims.  Furthermore, the president elect has hallucinated seeing thousands of Muslims on the roofs of homes in Jersey City, New Jersey, celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center back in 2001 on TV.

It was a bad day for women who have been sexually assaulted.  They now have a president elect who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and we have all seen the women who have been the victims he claims to have assaulted.  He has insulted them horribly for confirming his own claims.

It was a bad day for women who may sometime have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.  They may be forced to have their babies, even if they are the victims of rape or if the pregnancy poses a danger to their lives.

It was a bad day for women who are not fashion model thin; for women who are over 35 which is "check-out" time according to the president elect; for women who are "nasty"; for women who do not have huge breasts; or for women who have faces the president elect does not like.

It was a bad day for persons with pre-existing conditions.  It was a bad day for young adults under 26 who have been insured under their parents health insurance plans.  They may lose their health insurance sometime soon.  Even those who complain about their premiums exploding may have second thoughts when they try to buy their insurance outside of the exchanges created by the ACA and lose their subsidies - as they would have had to do before Obamacare was created.

It was a bad day for those who are scientifically oriented and have concerns about global warming and the teaching of evolution in schools.

It was a bad day for people who are appalled that a candidate encouraged the illegal hacking of his opponent's email account.  At the same time the president elect never offered to release his own tax returns, much less his own emails.

It was a bad day for people who care about the deficit.  The president elect's budget plans would explode the deficit - but will there be fights over the debt ceiling by Republicans in the next 4 years as there were in the previous 4 years?

It was a bad day for the undocumented -  even if they are persons who were brought here as children and have known no other country.  All are to be deported, period.

It was a bad day for most taxpayers who will have a greater share of the tax burden after the rich get their incredible tax cuts.

It was a bad day for persons who believe corporations are not people.  Future supreme court judges will be chosen, in part, based on their inability to tell the difference between a human person and a corporation.

It was a bad day for future victims of gun violence.  Not only will no reasonable gun laws be passed but even research and  record collection of gun related crimes and violence will remain prohibited because some do not want to know the truth.

It was a bad day for those with disabilities.  The president elect has no problem mocking you.

It was a bad day for those who value honesty and rationality.  Most of what the president elect said during the campaign was untrue and why should that change now?  The campaign that began with birtherism ended with false claims too numerous to list.

It was a bad day for Americans; the campaign that said "we are stronger together" lost; the one that said "lock her  up" won.

Has the Republican Party Become the Anti-fact Party? The Birth of Lie-based Initiatives!

Like many others, I have taken my shot at explaining Donald Trump's appeal to Republican voters.  In this matter I have a great advantage over the mainstream media; I do not have to avoid explanations that paint a less than  flattering portrait of the voters who, in turn, are the customers of that same mainstream media.  How many people would stop patronizing a media outlet that came to the conclusion that Donald Trump's appeal to his party was based on the willful ignorance, bigotry or the irrational fear of many millions of Americans, the very people that a media outlet needs to appeal to in order to stay in business?

Yet the evidence is overwhelming; Trump's initial appeal was to birthers.  About 50% of the Republican Party was on board with the idea that Pres. Obama was not born in the U.S.  A small minority of Republicans believed that Ted Cruz was not born in the U.S. when, in fact, he was
NOT born in the U.S.  Neither fact is a secret, but this is what they believe anyway.

Start adding up the other things that a majority of Republican voters believe that are contrary to the facts as best as we can know them; many believe in Creationism, and Young Earth Creationism at that; most deny that Global Climate change is a result of human activity as if the effects of Greenhouse Gases is debatable.   But now you can add an impressive new list of willfully ignorant items or outright lies that Republican voters are willing to accept, overlook or even embrace.  What about the total lack of negative push-back by voters when Trump re-tweeted a

fictitious, false, inflammatory and racist chart (see above);  or when he implied that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK; or when he accused Hillary Clinton of abusing women who had affairs with her husband; or when he suggests that former Clinton aide Vince Foster did not commit suicide but may have been murdered with Clinton involvement; or when he said that John McCain was not a war hero; or that he saw thousands of Muslims on rooftops on TV celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey; or when he calls Bernie Sanders a communist...  I am sure I've missed dozens of whopping big lies.  (Go to http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien .)

The one common thread in all this is that what Trump supporters like about Trump is precisely his dislike of fact; facts have become "politically correct" and possess what Colbert has described as a "liberal bias."  Of course facts really do not have such a bias but yes indeed many people now oppose "facts" because it is "politically incorrect" to oppose facts and being "politically incorrect" is a good thing!

That is why Trump can lie about other Republicans as well as Democrats, Conservatives as well as Liberals, because it is the opposition to fact that his supporters adore.  Do not get me wrong on this - I am not saying that left leaning ideologues do not do the same thing - they do, such as in those who believed that Bush and Cheney somehow were in on 9-11 and "allowed" it to happen.  It's just that those leftist ideologues have not quite taken over the Democrat Party.  The ideologues/believers and anti-fact yahoos have taken over the Republican Party and their main goal is to oppose all kinds of facts that contradict their beliefs.

This is the mess that Republican leaders have created with their years, if not decades of pandering to the willfully ignorant in their ranks.  By promoting the "faith-based" initiatives the party has embraced in the past, not surprisingly the party members have evolved into demanding "lie-based' initiatives.  Trump is delivering.

You read that here first.

Is Ted Cruz OK with Executing Gays? Are Republican Voters?

Would you vote for a candidate for President that welcomes the endorsement of someone who openly advocates for the execution of homosexuals?  We're not simply talking about some candidate who merely opposes same-sex marriage but someone who was present when the killing of homosexuals was urged and then immediately afterwards accepted the endorsement of the person doing the urging and never protested or mentioned or admonished them for promoting the execution of gays.  Would you, under any circumstance, vote for this candidate?  You may get the opportunity.

The gay-execution advocate is Pastor (what a shock!) Kevin Swanson and you can hear his advocacy of gay executions here ( https://generationswithvision.com/broadcast/bob-jones-iii-apologizes-for-leviticus-20-application/ ) where he chastises Bob Jones III of the infamous Bob Jones University for apologizing last year for advocating executions of gays 35 years ago.

The candidate is Ted Cruz, and at an event in November 2015 accepted Pastor Swanson's endorsement shortly after Swanson railed against gays and thought that their execution was just because, well, God wants them executed and God is just!  That pretty much settles it.  Go to http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruzs-campaign-insists-hes-not-gay-basher-he-has-no-problem-embracing-those-who-are )

From RightWingWatch.org:  "From his radio program we learn that "As far as I know," Swanson said, "the Apostle Paul has not backtracked on Romans 1, in which he refers to the unnatural relation between males and males, females and females, and says such who does these things are worthy of death ... I'm going to be the last guy who stands up and says whatever Paul was saying when he said they're worthy of death, whatever Moses is saying in Leviticus 20:13 as communicated to God's people as the very law God, from the lips of God himself, I'm going to be the last person to say, well, God's law is unjust. And if anybody wants to say that, I'm going to be standing about 40 feet away, whatever the diameter of lightening is."

Later in that same broadcast, Swanson took issue with those who get outraged at the prospect of the government putting people to death for homosexuality, saying that it is no big deal when compared to the prospect of gay people spending eternity in Hell.

"When people focus on the civil penalty for the sin of homosexuality," he said, "they're diverting attention from the real issue, and that is the judgment of God upon that behavior ... Capital punishment? Execution at the hands of the state? Big deal! Big deal! That's nothing. That's nothing. In comparison with the judgment of God, the judgment of the civil courts, of the human courts, as compared to the judgement of Almighty God? No comparison!""

25% or more of Republicans prefer Ted Cruz as their first choice; 35% or more prefer Donald Trump, who has re-tweeted openly racist fraudulent libel against African Americans, painted Mexican undocumented immigrants with a broad brush as rapists and killers, insulted women, both generally and specifically for their appearances, wants to ban Muslims from entering the country based on nothing more than their religious beliefs, and has mocked a disabled person's disability. Oh, did we mention he was the leader of the Obama birther movement?

So 60% of the Republican Party either seeks to nominate someone who happily accepts without reservation the endorsement s of a would be gay executioner or someone who has basically viciously insulted pretty much every group aside from white non-Hispanic Christian males and has trouble drawing rational conclusions based on the evidence!

The problem, it would seem to me is not simply the candidates - it's the general public who seem to prefer viciousness, dogmatism and thoughtlessness instead of empathy, reason and thoughtfulness.  Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a strong correlation between anger, irrationality and ideological fervor.

What to do?  Although the media is reluctant to draw attention to the danger of religious dogma, the rational among us most continue to point out the danger inherent in all ideology, religious or secular and the threat that dogmatic political leaders pose to our country.

Tragedy at the Hajj and the Irrelevance of Religious Morality

Once again hundreds of religious pilgrims died from trampling each other at a "holy" site in Mina, near Mecca, Saudi Arabia.  The actual death toll was over 700 as of last week.  The trampling took place near the location where the ritual of throwing pebbles at the "devil" takes place.  In 1990, 1426 died in a stampede associated with the pilgrimage, that time in a tunnel leading to "holy" sites in Mecca.

It is an obligation to make the pilgrimage at least once in one's lifetime if one is able to arrange it.  Since there are over a billion Muslims, this means many converge upon Mina and Mecca, particularly during religious holidays, and the crowds have become unmanageable leading to stampedes and the deaths of innocent people, despite the efforts of the Saudis.  Please note that this pilgrimage is entirely a religious exercise - nothing is accomplished as far as I can see that could not be accomplished without this pilgrimage, except for the pilgrimage.

It is instructive to read how a Muslim, Nima Elbagir of CNN, views the Hajj: " For Muslims to complete the Hajj is to be reborn. To die in the Hajj is a blessing.  You are considered to have been martyred, cleansed of sin.  In the space of less than a week, during the Hajj, millions of Muslims stream along prescribed routes, undertaking the same rituals within the same narrow window of time. Islam requires the rites of the Hajj be completed only once in a lifetime and even then only if you are able.  There's a reason for that -- the Hajj is hard.  I've done it only once.  It was one of my first big assignments when I joined CNN.  As a practicing Muslim, it was an almost indescribable experience. As you walk for hours among Muslims of every possible color and nationality, the physical toll of the Hajj is meant to humble you. And it does.

In the press of humanity, it doesn't take much to spark panic.  Muslims believe the rite of "stoning the devil" is a re-enactment of the temptation of the prophet Abraham by Satan on the same site.  As you throw the stones, you are conjuring your own personal demons...  

When pilgrims set off, they know there is a real possibility that they might not come home.  Many truly hope they won't...  As the families of the victims of this tragedy struggle to come to terms with their loss, they will also be struggling to come to terms with the knowledge that the risk was always there.  As they grieve, they'll be told these were the lucky ones.  And some will pray that they will be lucky, too..."

If I understand the situation correctly, some, if not many Muslims believe, or claim to believe that dying during a Hajj is a blessing and they are "martyred."  This is not unlike hearing, at a Christian funeral for example, that the deceased is "in a better place" or that God "wanted them" in heaven for some undisclosed purpose.  Many Christians who died for their beliefs, and their beliefs alone, were considered "martyred" and many have been "sainted."  They are revered by many and their deaths are seen as heroic, not futile.

These are the problems with religious belief, religious morality and religion itself; the belief in the afterlife distorts our view of our life while we're alive; and what is considered moral may have no relationship to human well being and may even be very bad for us.  If there is an eternal afterlife, our real lives on this earth in this lifetime are almost irrelevant.  What is less than 100 years in life on earth compared to an eternity in heaven?  The answer is basically NOTHING - unless heaven does not exist and/or the believer's version of the divine is in error, and then our earthly lives becomes all important and worthy of cherishing.  With an afterlife, however, dying pointlessly for some supernatural purpose otherwise becomes all important, again, unless it is in error, of course.  Please keep in mind however, that non-Muslim religious persons see no point in dying  in the Hajj while non-Christian believers see no point  in dying defending the idea that Jesus is God.  To the vast majority of humans on this planet, dying for someone else's mistaken belief system is a tragedy not a blessing and not martyrdom.  In actuality almost everyone agrees on this subject with the exception being when their own beliefs are considered.

If we want to promote a better life for humanity on this earth in our lifetimes, a humanistic approach is a requirement.  Caring about others is the source and starting point of a real morality, not belief in one or another supernatural myth.  We need to get past the martyrdom that helps no one.

Freedom of Speech or Cowardice?

By now, you probably have heard about the Trump supporter who asked the candidate a question at a campaign event, and in the process revealed some startling information.

As per CNN:  "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," an unidentified man who spoke at a question-and-answer town hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire asked the mogul at a rally Thursday night. "You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

A seemingly bewildered Trump interrupted the man, chuckling, "We need this question. This is the first question."

"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us," the man, wearing a "Trump" T-shirt, continued. "That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things," Trump replied. "You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things."  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/donald-trump-obama-muslim-new-hampshire/)

In my opinion, if someone asks you "how long have you been beating your wife?" you can properly object that it's a loaded question which assumes the conclusion (unless it's true, of course).  The man's question assumes that Obama is a Muslim, that he's not an American, and oh yes, that there are training camps, apparently well known to the man asking the question and therefore well known to the government as well, and that no one is doing anything about them.  And that our country's "problem" are "Muslims."  Not radical jihadist Muslims, no; not terrorist Muslims, nope.  Muslims, period, which, if words mean anything, means ALL Muslims since no distinctions of any kind are made.

Mr. Trump's response accepts all of this by being silent; it is my recollection that when Mr. Trump disagrees with something he hears, he is not bashful about mentioning it. He has been known to interrupt persons who say something he believes is untrue; in fact, it is a trait for him to interrupt others in this way.  Does he not object to anything the man said; wasn't at least some of it untrue as far as Trump knows?

So are we to understand that he really doesn't think Obama is a Muslim and that he does believe Obama is an American.  Or does my memory deceive me?  Wasn't Donald Trump the most vocal and well know "birther" in the world?  Are Muslims the "problem," Mr. Trump?

Trump's explanations in his own tweets later on are a wonder of misdirection and irrationality.  Here are a couple:

"If I would have challenged the man, the media would have accused me of interfering with that man's right of free speech. A no win situation!" ( http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Donald-Trump-Twitter-Iowa-Obama/2015/09/19/id/692389/ )

This is a joke, right?  The Trump supporter had his say, and others have the absolute right to say that, in their opinion, he is wrong.  The First Amendment is NOT immunity to disagreement or criticism of what you've said.  In fact, it is the protection of the right to disagree and criticize to what anyone has said.  Does Donald Trump have any understanding of this?

Here is the other amazing tweet: "Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him? I don't think so!"  Actually the problem wasn't just that what was said was "bad" or "controversial" - it was that it was untrue and/or bigoted.

When a questioner called Obama an "Arab" at a John McCain campaign event in 2008, McCain DID correct the woman who said it.  He did it politely but clearly and he went as far to say that Obama was a good man and good American.  He was lauded in the press for this correction.  McCain earned much respect with his response.  What negative consequences did he suffer?

Well, apparently McCain DID suffer some consequences.  I suspect that with his reasonable response McCain LOST some of the enthusiasm and votes that Trump has garnered because McCain was not a coward, not a bigot and not a fraud.  Trump, on the other hand, has no problem accepting a statement that paints "Muslims"without any disqualifier as the "problem," that paints Obama as one of those problem Muslims and states that the President of the United States is not an American.  To hold one's tongue in the face of such a question is not free speech - it's cowardice.