Trump isn’t the enemy. Those who would suppress his rights are

By 77 Comments 2,369 views

boston globe


Walt Kelly created a cartoon strip character known as Pogo and Pogo once spoke some profound but simple words.


Matt Drudge put it this way

It’s more than that. This is a dangerous time. The Boston Globe is no longer a “newspaper.” It is a tool of propaganda. When editorials are the front page the fourth estate has abrogated its journalistic responsibility. Wikipedia defines “journalism” this way:

Journalism is the social work and work-craft, and profession (high-level) of reporting on the events, facts, and people that are the “news of the day,” such that a society is “informed,” to some non-trivial degree.

The above is not journalism. It is propaganda. Overt propaganda. Front page propaganda. It’s worthy of Pravda. The NY Times did something similar in December when it ran a front page gun control editorial, the first since 1920. One wonder what it would have cost for democrats to run such an ad and one also wonders whether fairness would call for balance- another front page dedicated to the destruction of Hillary Clinton.

I am no Trump fan, but this is wrong. We’re in a time when the opposition is not simply in opposition. It is focused on the complete destruction of people. Thousands of “protesters” have promised to disrupt a GOP gala next week. How do these “protesters” have the free time to engage in this kind of frivolity? I’d love to protest the shrew Clinton but I have responsibilities. You know, like work.

One answer might be George Soros. Soros is reportedly funding these disruptions. Soros sees the US as the “main obstacle” to a new world order and seems bent on fixing that.

The hacker group Anonymous has declared “total war” on Donald Trump. It asks that “all hackers to help in the effort by shutting down his website, sabotaging his brand and exposing information” about those with whom they disagree.

Judge, jury and executioner. Not content to let democracy run its course, they determine who lives and dies. They will suppress the rights of those whose views are different from their own. From behind masks. People might not like what someone has to say, but the Constitution guarantees the right to speak freely. Denying one or some of that right opens the door for others to do the same to you. The schadenfreude some might be tempted to feel for Trump supporters would be misplaced. As much as I disdain Hillary Clinton I do not believe her rights should be violated. National Review dedicated a complete issue to stopping Trump but no one would mistake them for a newspaper. At this point no one should mistake the Boston Globe for journalism.

This is not just history in which we’re living. It’s dangerous history. If Trump can be defeated within the rules, then so be it. It is scary thing to have newspapers in this country overtly propagandize on the front page against those who discomfort them as though it’s news. It is frightening to see political parties plot to subvert the vote of the American people. No matter what the goal, these are the real enemies of a democratic republic.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

77 Responses to “Trump isn’t the enemy. Those who would suppress his rights are”

  1. 51


    No HE couldn’t have
    Simply because the other side would not negotiate
    The majority of Iraqus and the majority of Parliment wanted us OUT after 10 years
    If they HAD wanted us to stay Bush should/could/would have been able to have that in the SOFA that he signed. But if Maliki had signed on to that he would have lost his job immediately
    How could you possibly think that Obama would have been able to renegotiate an already done deal ?????
    And if he had please tell us how many more dead Americans you would be willing to bury to TRY to solve the problems of a destabilized Iraq
    Would you put your own butt in the line ? Or just others ?

  2. 52


    @John: Nope, they wanted us to stay and provide security but they knew Obama was too cowardly to fulfill commitments so they were afraid to align themselves with His Weakness. So, he pulled out, got som headlines and turned the region over to ISIS. Now we are going back to resecure the area. Obama’s uppermost failure among a list of pretty impressive failures.

  3. 53



    And if he had please tell us how many more dead Americans you would be willing to bury to TRY to solve the problems of a destabilized Ira

    Do you realize over 1 million Americans are killed each year by abortion. Does that upset you?

  4. 54

    George Wells

    “Do you realize over 1 million Americans are killed each year by abortion.”

    That’s not enough. Please try harder. Too many rug-rats. Need to hire an exterminator.

    Nope. Not 1 million Americans. Maybe 1 million fetuses. Not 1 million sperm cells, we squirt away more than that every day. They aren’t Americans, and neither are fetuses. They aren’t American until where they are born gets recorded so that Republicans can obsess over whether or not they are “natural-born citizens.” Until then, they are just population waiting to happen.

  5. 55


    The Bible clearly says that a fetus is NOT a human with a soul
    The penalty paid to the owner of that fetus if killed by another varies between 2 and 4 shekels
    About 5 dollars

  6. 56

    George Wells

    @John #55:

    That $5 figure was the going rate back when there were a WHOLE lot fewer humans infesting the Earth. Our population has exploded since then, and the incremental value of each additional mouth to feed has correspondingly tanked. You can thank Republicans for THAT, what with their attacks on a multitude of efforts to control population: contraception, planned parenthood and abortion. “Be fruitful and multiply” was the admonition that got us in the mess we are in, thank God… and that’s the funny part. The sad part is that we didn’t know better than to take the advice.

  7. 57


    @George Wells: Actually, thank liberals. The US has supported birth control around the world, but US population growth is largely due to illegal immigration which, due to left wing support and encouragement of illegal immigration, has grown incredibly expensive with subsidies and entitlements. The net result is more expensive health care and other necessities for legal US citizens and residents.

    For the left, abortion has become and end in itself. It is another political tool they use to pander, so they encourage and support it, just like illegal immigration. Since the liberal ideology has NOTHING of value to offer the nation, they have to invent imaginary problems which they can ride in and solve… “war on women” comes to mind.

    Still asking, though… to anyone with a moral conscience, when is the cut-off for an abortion when a viable human being is not being killed? Is there ANY limit to abortion acceptable to liberals?

  8. 58

    George Wells

    @Bill #57:

    When is an abortion morally unacceptable?

    I recognize a woman’s right to abort a fetus for any number of reasons, some of which are good, and some of which are not. I ALSO accept that her right to do so must necessarily expire at the time that fetus is born into the world, and that any live-birth “abortion” IS murder. I personally take the responsibility to protect life a bit further. I think that killing any fetus that WOULD be viable independently of heroic measures to artificially sustain it once removed from the mother would ALSO be murder. That is a concession, in case you missed it. It is designed to place some necessary responsibility on the mother to make up her mind BEFORE her pregnancy reaches independent viability, a point in time that I leave to health professionals to determine. It gives recourse to end a conception that was the result of stupidity, impulse, or rape. The only exception that I leave on the table is what to do in the case that the life of the mother is in jeopardy. A late-term abortion in that case is damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Personally, I’d save the mother, as she might very well be needed to support other children, and I accept that tragedy cannot always be avoided.

  9. 59


    If you do in fact believe in some cases actual MURDER is being committed do you also think that in order to prevent such a heinous crime, extreme violence is acceptable/mandatory?
    And of course you must also disagree with what the Bibe says, that a fetus is not a human being

  10. 62


    @John: The metaphysical question is how much murder may we commit to stop murder? Do we kill ten to prevent the murder of one? Does the commission of a murder not in defense of some recognized right forfeit the right not to be murdered in retribution. John, I believe you quoted the Bible some posts ago regarding the status of a fetus. Did you get to the eye for an eye passage or did I miss something.


  11. 63

    Rich Wheeler

    “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Gandhi
    Re abortion –I’m a liberal and personally against it—Would always counsel adoption and make that process much easier.
    That said I don’t feel I have a right to force my belief on a woman to make decisions re her body.

  12. 64

    George Wells

    @John #61:

    You might also ask Bill why he didn’t bother to answer your OTHER question about what the Bible said about a fetus. (He know what you meant.)
    “Anything ELSE I can help you with?”

  13. 65


    Well one reason is that I have other things I must do besides play on the internet
    So looks like you will have to wait for me to reply ? If that is your whole life, waiting on the Internet, just suck it up and wait

  14. 66

    George Wells

    Sorry if I confused you, JOHN. The “ANSWER THE QUESTION” line was for BILL, not you. I’m agreeing with YOU. I’m on YOUR side.

  15. 67


    @John: #61 I do everything possible to stop murder. First, I do not murder anyone. Second, I support the 2nd Amendment, which gives the individual the means to effective self defense against a murderer. Third, I do not support hypocritical politicians that incite violence, encourage illegal immigration (which welcomes the criminal and terrorist element into our neighborhoods), try to weaken self defense capabilities, blame the wrong people for the problems and enact policies which only affect the victims, not the perpetrators. I reckon this is the exact opposite of what YOU do to deal with murder.

    @George Wells: I have made abundantly clear my views on abortion. Perhaps John should cite the specific verse he is referring to, if the “Bibe” is organized in verses. Maybe YOU would like to address the question I keep posing, which none of your liberal buddies want to face; when does life begin and when does abortion become murder? In case you never noticed, John is very confused on a wide variety of subjects.

  16. 68


    One of the few biblical passages that approaches the status of the fetus is Exodus 21:22-25, which reads:

    “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

    This passage allows only for the punishment of a man who injures a woman causing her to miscarry. However, a careful scrutiny of these verses uncovers a startling revelation. A miscarriage is punishable only by a fine, yet if there is any further harm, such as the death of the woman, the penalty is life for life! The implication of this passage is clear—the life of the unborn child is not accorded anywhere near the same status as the life of the woman. To put it another way, the man who causes a woman to miscarry is guilty not of murder, but a misdemeanor.[1]
    But my fav on abortion is the one that gives a man the authority to cause an abortion if he believes that his wife has become pregnant through another man This is the ordeal of the bitter waters
    wiki has a nice description
    George and Bill like to claim that a fetus of any age is a human being and that abortion is murder. They of course do SAY this, but really are unwilling to do much more than repeat it.
    2/3 of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. I say that abortion is never murder.

    As a political issue abortion is a complete winner for the Dems.
    Rafael Cruz says that no abortion should be legal, even those resulting from pregnancy of incest. How do you think that will go over with the women ?

  17. 69



    George and Bill like to claim that a fetus of any age is a human being and that abortion is murder.

    You obviously don’t read what I write. I suggest you go back and do so in order to not look so stupid.

    Note that there IS a penalty for causing a miscarriage. Why is there a penalty, John? You also appear to be using religious tenets as support for a point of view. This is what Catholics do in order to support their view that life begins at conception. Do you get to do this but they don’t? That WOULD be the typical liberal position; the rule of having an opinion is not afforded to those with a different opinion.

    I say that abortion is never murder.

    So, you believe Kermit Gosnell did nothing wrong and should be let out of jail?

  18. 70


    Yes there is a minor penalty of less than 1/4 oz of silver
    This was for the destruction of property belonging not the woman involved but the man
    The guilty party had to pay a small fine
    Of course if it was vonsiderd mutder tgere would be a much larger penalty
    If you wanted the Bible mandated penalty to be applied now I certainly wouldn’t object to that small of a fine about 5$ to the male that “owned” that fetus. Especially if it would reduce the murder of people who work in places that perform abortions

  19. 71

    George Wells

    @Bill #67:
    I am happy to discuss any issue that anyone wishes to discuss civilly.

    “when does life begin and when does abortion become murder.”

    You know as well as I know that these are two separate questions, so I’ll address the first question first.
    If you discuss when “life” begins with any scientist who is KNOWLEDGABLE enough to be conversant on the subject, he will tell you that first you have to arrive at some sort of agreement over exactly what you MEAN by “life.” Most molecular biologists argue that any collection of organic molecules that has the ability to replicate itself is indeed “life,” reproduction being a key qualifier for the designation. Some ethicists will be quick to point out that sperm cells, for instance, lack the ability to replicate, and therefore, while they may at some point be living, they are not living ORGANISMS. So “life” is something that skin tissue can have but is not, if you can follow that.

    The concept of a “living organism” is important here, as it helps distinguish between an independently viable individual as small as a virus from a massive amount of whale blubber that is not dead, but which is not viably independent from the organism of which it is a part. There are a lot of living cells in your bones, but you cannot “murder” one of them, because while they HAVE life and can die, they are not complete and viable organisms that can, at some point, reproduce themselves.

    Speaking directly to the issue at hand, a fetus DOES have life (most everything in your body contains SOME amount of life, including your urine and feces) but for at least a portion of the time a fetus resides in a uterus, it is not independently viable. The Biblical answer reflected the state of medical science at the time the Bible was written, a time when premature births usually resulted in death, but modern science has come a long way, and now it is not uncommon for fetuses born as much as three months premature to be artificially sustained until they BECOME independently viable.

    Now to the question of when abortion becomes murder. Abortion is the process of intentionally premature fetus removal that includes the death of that previously living tissue. If the fetus was independently viable at the time of its removal, and was either killed in the process of its removal or killed subsequent to its removal, then I would think that its death would qualify as “murder.” The death of a fetus BEFORE it became independently viable would not be murder by this standard of logic.

    Now there is some difficulty in determining whether or not a fetus is independently viable, and I would expect that a physician would be well advised to remove a fetus that MIGHT be independently viable WITHOUT killing it, and allow it sufficient time to either demonstrate that it is indeed viable or for it to die on its own account. I understand that this is not widely practiced, undoubtedly because of the rather gruesome and heart-wrenching aspect involved, but it WOULD eliminate a lot of the physicians moral and ethical culpability relating to abortion.

    The courts have pretty much agreed that abortion is not the direct equivalent of murder, and I see their point. I am also under the impression that the courts have found some rational justification in making this distinction based on the application of the same “independently viable” test that I am using. I am not sure that this is the best possible way to decide this issue, but until I discover a better place to draw this line, I will stick with it. Like you, I don’t want to retreat all the way back to the point of conception, but neither do I want mothers to be murdering their toddlers because they had a bout of colic. If there is a better, more rational place to draw this line, I’d like to hear it.

  20. 72

    George Wells

    @John #68:

    “George and Bill like to claim that a fetus of any age is a human being and that abortion is murder”

    This is NOT what I claim. Please READ what I have said in my post #71 for clarification.

  21. 74


    @John: What was a 1/4 ounce of silver worth to the common man in the day of Exodus? Why was there even THAT penalty?

    @George Wells: Well, since we were talking about human beings, I didn’t think I needed to specify HUMAN life. I was not referring to primordial life or plankton.

    But, no it is all one question. There is a moment when life (HUMAN) begins in the womb. What I am trying to provoke is a discussion of when that is because abortion enthusiasts want to pretend it never happens; life never happens until the baby exists the birth canal.

    Your view aligns itself well with government run health care; if a body cannot sustain itself, that’s its problem. Just let it die. I don’t think needing an incubator and medical staff disqualifies the definition of life. But, I’m willing to consider arguments. I do believe that 20 weeks is a pretty rational threshold.

    The courts have pretty much agreed that abortion is not the direct equivalent of murder,

    I again reference the Kermit Gosnell case.

  22. 75


    Look if you want to know what 1/4 oz of silver was worth back then google it and see
    So hard to say what a common man woukd have received for pay but an ordinary Roman auxiliary seems to have gotten about 1/8th of an oz a day of course in Denari not shekels
    In any case it was considered much less of a crime than murder
    Jews thought a fetus became human after it breathed in its own and somehow inhaled its soul from God

  23. 76

    George Wells

    @Bill #74:

    “when does life begin and when does abortion become murder?”

    “no it is all one question.”

    No, it is two questions, shown by your two “when” questions and your placement of the conjunction “and” between them. Although you used only one “question mark,” the second question mark is understood.

    You wanted a rational discussion, and I gave you one. My opinions of life and abortion are logically consistent with my agnostic religion, just as your opinions of them are logically consistent with YOUR religion, which in both cases is as it should be.

    You agreed with me that late-term abortions should be illegal – what more are you looking for? My explanation of independent viability and its applicability to the Law is a practical perspective that gives legitimacy to the religious objection to abortion and at the same time provides remedy to a woman who has been raped and who does NOT hold a religious objection to the termination of a resulting fetus.

    My explanation of life IN GENERAL is equally applicable to both viruses and human beings, particularly as my agnostic faith does not recognize any divine significance to human life.

    “The courts have pretty much agreed that abortion is not the direct equivalent of murder.”

    “I again reference the Kermit Gosnell case.”

    For what purpose? Gosnell was found guilty and is serving life. He broke the law and was sentenced correctly. Your point?

    The fact that late-term abortions and post-delivery killings are against the law and can rationally be called “murder” does not automatically make post-conception pregnancy termination (chemically induced abortion) illegal OR “murder.” They are not the same things. The distinction is one that is correctly made by the sovereign governmental entity that has jurisdiction in the matter. If the government SAYS that it’s murder, then for all secular intents and purposes it is.
    Your religious belief in the matter does not give you the right to impose that belief on other people who believe differently. If you cannot live in a society that disagrees with your view in this matter, it would be prudent to find one that DOES agree with you and move THERE. Otherwise, HERE you are free to speak your mind and lobby for change, which seems to be what you are doing now.
    I wish you Good Luck!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *