An Open Letter To Donald Trump From A Reluctant Fan

NOTE: THIS post is from a while ago. (In fact, it is from before the 2016 elections.) But I think it speaks volumes to the fact that my initial hunches were correct about him. I took this down a while back but have decided to put it back up again, unedited. I will also be writing an update soon. (Soon, as in before the election.)

This has truly been the first U. S. election cycle in my adult life where I’ve really been fascinated, amused and bewildered more than I’ve had a clear sense of what to make of the process, let alone how to feel about the prospects for the future.

Like him or hate him, you can’t deny that “The Donald” has truly swept through this election cycle with a lot of “influence.” He is a master at baffling and aggravating the media, and it doesn’t even appear to be calculated so much as second-nature to him to flourish in the controversy.

Why I’m Writing This Letter, Knowing He Will Never See It

I’m writing this “open letter” to Donald Trump more for the church because I’m more baffled by how the evangelical Christian community seems so divided on this issue of whether or not we should be supporting this guy. I recognize that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ don’t agree with me about whether a vote for Donald instead of Hillary or Gary is the wisest move to make. I can’t condemn them as ungodly or unspiritual. But I do consider them unwise. Quite frankly, though, it’s hard for everyone to see it sometimes, for all the bad “signal-to-noise ratio” right now.

Hoping to unite the church and unify our vision about where we should be wanting God to take this country, I’m writing to verbalize what I believe are some collective thoughts from those of a similar mindset to mine. I don’t presume to speak for everyone. But I do think I speak for many.

So here is what I would say to The Donald if I ever had the chance to do so. And for my readers, I would ask you to please hear that this is my heart about the situation as much as I can articulate it. I hope it helps us all to focus on where God needs our hearts to be in this matter.

Dear Donald;

I truly doubt whether you’ll ever see this letter, let alone give it much time or consideration. You’re a busy man and I don’t presume to have the right to take up much of your time.

It’s not that you don’t care.

Actually, I truly believe you do care. And when I say that, I actually do so with a wee little bit of inside knowledge.

You see, I happen to have a casual connection to a gentleman who I consider a friend – a man of character and with a common heart for Jesus, who is in the entertainment industry and who says he knows you personally. As a result, I’ve heard a couple little tidbits of your personal side that others might not know. People sometimes talk about the concept of “six degrees of separation.” As it turns out, between you and me, there are a mere two degrees of separation. I was partly won over to you by how this gentleman speaks of you from a more personal basis.

I Understand Why Many People Like You

Having heard some things, I will say that you remind me of a man who fits a description that I’ve heard used once before about my father: you’re mister crunchy on the outside and mister marshmallow on the inside.

Sir, please know that everything I’m saying here, I’m saying with the firm conviction that YOU are the man for the job. There is no doubt in my mind that, given a choice of the options available for anyone voting, you are straight away the only guy who seems to come anywhere near acknowledging the real issues that are threatening the very culture and fabric of our society and threatening the freedoms we hold so dear.

You’ve got a charisma about you and a presence when you walk into a room that cuts to the chase and gets down to business. And with the low attention voter these days, that is important.

My concern, when I saw things coming down to the wire between you and Ted Cruz, was that he seemed to have more appeal to those in the evangelical church; my fear was that he didn’t have the charisma to be able to get the attention of the guy on the street compared to you, when it came to defeating Hillary. My thought was that if Cruz won the primary, Hillary would win the election. But you connect in a way that Ted just cannot seem to do.

The media machine is stacked against the conservatives. The media is awash in political correctness and infiltrated by connections to and corruption from the current political establishment. As such, they’re hell-bent against you.

Yet, you’ve confronted that issue head-on. You know how to play the media like a bad fiddle. Your fans love it. Remember that day you announced you were going to discuss the birther issue, and then you had twenty minutes worth of the best of the best of the military brass singing your praises about national security? That day was priceless. You had them in knots. You played their game against them and won that round. Your fans were in stiches with laughter and glee.

You played it well. Good game, sir.

But I’ve also never seen the leadership of the evangelical church so divided over a candidate in my life. And quite frankly, some of the arguments I’ve heard about why people shouldn’t vote for you stagger my imagination. I think James Patrick Riley nailed it when he discussed this issue as a religious spirit.  As James says, Max Lucado is a great example of what sure feels like hypocrisy. James writes,

Max leads what he calls a “red state” church, but Max has a maxim:  ”I don’t want anybody to know how I vote.”  Max does this to make sure the Democratic voters in his church, the ones who support abortion on demand, Islamo-pandering, and class warfare are not made to feel uncomfortable.   However, Max recently broke his neutrality pledge when Donald Trump called a bimbo a bimbo. According to Max:

I would not have said anything about Mr. Trump, never — I would never have said anything if he didn’t call himself a Christian. It’d be none of my business whatsoever to make any comments about his language, his vulgarities, his slander of people, but I was deeply troubled … that here’s a man who holds up a Bible one day, and calls a lady “bimbo” the next.

Think on that for a moment. Max closes his eyes to another “Christian,” Barack Obama, who stands foursquare for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, at your expense, but Donald Trump called a lady a “bimbo?”  Intolerable!  Unthinkable!  Impolite! Time to engage the Pharisee warp engines.

I’ve quite frankly always been baffled by church people who are offended by other people’s language. First Corinthians says “love is not easily offended.” I could stand up in the middle of a lot of these congregations and say “the whole damn country is going to hell in a hand basket” and many of the people in that group would be more offended by my use of the word “damn” in that sentence than they would be grieved about the state of the country that prompted me to say it.

I, for one, am not like that. Your language doesn’t offend me. Quite frankly, it doesn’t offend a lot of us; probably because (and I don’t want to offend you, sir, but…) I see you as kind of “rough around the edges” as far as having learned Christianese. I do believe you’re a Christian, though perhaps new to the experience. But I give benefit of the doubt. Even if you’re not, you, like people such as Michael Savage, certainly seem to appreciate the value of religious freedom and the need to fight for that for the country.


And I hope you can hear my heart as I do so. I want to tell you why you have my vote; and I want to offer you some advice, if I can, from my view as a voter, with you knowing I say it as someone who would already vote for you.


You have my vote because you seem to be surrounding yourself with people who hold values similar to the ones I think need to be embraced to save the country.

No one knows the future, and since I don’t know all of your heart, I can’t know for certain that the pro-life position you seem to have adopted of late isn’t just a sham to get yourself in good with the evangelical voter. You speak spontaneously enough about these issues that you don’t sound like you are anything but genuine in your desire to support the kind of things I think need to be supported.

You Seem To Really Want To Do What You Say

You are surrounding yourself with people with proven track records in the right direction; your list of supreme court picks you would likely suggest seems to be pretty solid and constitutionally sound. Given the alternative that has been consistently demonstrated by Hillary, I would say you are a slam dunk for a guy like me.

You aren’t afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.

I like that in a politician. You don’t seem to be worried about political correctness AT ALL. While everyone else seems to tiptoe around the reality that letting multiple thousands of Syrian refugees into the country with a demonstrably failed vetting process is a bad idea, you go full force into that problem and when you are confronted about it, you are not afraid to double down on your position. People admire the fact that you’re a straight shooter.

Your Concerns Resonate With Many In The Evangelical Community

Sir, there are many, many of us who recognize the problems with the porosity of the southern border, the failed education system, the bowing to special interest groups to buy votes so the democrats can enshrine themselves in the permanent establishment class and all the hypocrisy and cronyism that plagues politics these days. We recognize that free trade isn’t a bad thing but that unfair trade deals are very bad indeed. When you speak of these issues, this is what we hear.

I’m not afraid that you’re an outsider. I believe that you recognize you can’t do it alone and so you seem to be surrounding yourself with people who will do well to guide and direct you as the president.

I’m sure there will be many like Max Lucado who disagree with me. But it’s what I see. Given the choices today, you are really the only choice if this country is not to descend into a godless, totalitarian dictatorship.


Sir, you ALREADY have my vote. Please take note of the fact that you have already won the hearts and minds of a vast portion of the population. And please hear this advice though that perspective.

The fact of the matter, sir, is that I would feel a lot better about you as the future president and would be able to defend you more enthusiastically if you did the rest of your campaigning from the perspective that you already have it in the bag.

Quite frankly, I’m a little embarrassed when I have to defend your positions against a backdrop of the constant media spotlight on things you say that you don’t have to say. Sometimes, less is more. And beyond a point, you do more harm than good when you go after your opponents with efforts to make sure everyone understands just how bad the people are who throw mud at you and try to throw you under the bus.


Please (for the good of the country) continue in this debate cycle, this campaign cycle and the rest of this race with the attitude that you already have this in the bag. Please change your tone from having to prove you are right about your enemies to be one of speaking as the leader of both those who like you and those who do not. And speak to what must be done more than you speak to how they’re trying to stop you.

Once you get to office, that will be behind you. You will need to just get the job done. The enemies will still be there. And you’ll have to work around them.

I’m not saying you should not proceed as if there is no fight; I’m saying to proceed as if you have the assurance that there are many like me who will turn out in droves this election (though many of them may never have voted before) because your message resonates with our understanding of what hangs in the balance.

But please don’t cloud the resonance of your message with the noise of your need to constantly defend all the reasons you dislike your opponents and the prattle of assassinations on their character. You must be above this. It’s beneath the dignity of the president I truly hope you will soon become.

If you can develop the mindset that you are already governing; if you can speak to the American people with a mindset that you’ve already won the election – and based on the poles, it seems to be the case – then you will win over the hearts and minds of all the Max Lucados of the world, and you will win this election. This mindset will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Be Presidential – NOW – Even Before You’re President

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” You will always have your friends and your enemies. Your friends will try to look past your flaws and lovingly point them out to you if you will hear them; your enemies will continue to rearrange their prejudices to justify all the reasons they hate you.

But as far as it depends on you, you need to see yourself as the president. You can no longer continue to act merely as the watchman on the wall for the problems with the bias in the media. You need to govern from the campaign trail (and if you can see this, you will have more influence). You have a higher role now – even now, while you are still campaigning – of pointing out not merely what is wrong, but what your vision is about what you are going to do to make it right.

Your role as president will not be to punish those who besmirch your name; we’ve seen enough of this in the last eight years, and it’s ugly.

Your role will be to rule over all the people wisely, even as they cannot see how critical the decisions are that you are making and how much you are making those decisions for the benefit of all – even for the benefit of those who will always hate you.

Unlike Hillary, who seems to pander to whoever she needs to pander so she can get the power to turn the country into her own seat of power, the people who believe in you see that you truly love the United States. We see that you truly want to make it great again. We believe what you believe about what it will take. And we have your back. We pray for you to succeed.

But we want a presidential candidate who looks and walks and talks like a PRESIDENT. Please rise above the rhetoric and give us the best of yourself. Strive to focus on the greatness that can be brought out of the average guy on the street if he’s given a chance.

Strive to become a man who displays the kind of character we want to brag and boast about.

Sir, God does not deal with us merely by our history but from His view of us from our destiny. We want to see you this way too. Based on the climate, we believe you are the best – perhaps the only – chance we have to turn the country around. We want to believe in you. Please honor us with your best as we head into this future together, upholding you in prayer, and cheering for your growth into becoming a true man of God to lead the nation in truth and justice.

We pray for you and humbly ask you to continue to strive to become the kind of man that inspires us want to become a better country.

And THAT is truly presidential.


The Cognitive Man

Read More

Why THIS Trump Supporter Is NOT a Racist, Homophobic Bigot

Why THIS Trump supporter is NOT a racist homophobic bigot.

(An open letter to John Pavlovitz.)

John Pavlovitz on Trump supporters and bigotry
John Pavlovitz doesn’t seem to be a big Trump fan. Nope. Not at all.

I’m willing to bet there may well be a lot more people who know of John Pavlovitz than know of me. And that’s alright. He has spent a lot of time cultivating an audience. I’ve not had the luxury of the time in the last year to do that. My wife was waiting patiently for some home improvements after a fairly recent purchase of a new home and so my blogging was a little neglected. Alas. The things we do for love.

But I recently became aware of an article this guy published on his web site and it irked me. It seriously irked me – enough that I took a break from playing home improvement to respond (or perhaps, react) a little here.

You might want to read the article to catch the wind that blows through this guy’s sails. But essentially, his rant is about all the Christians who are very un-Christlike and hypocritical for how they support Donald Trump vs. how they didn’t support Obama, for a litany of reasons.

He writes with the typical feel of the “liberal-left” Christian camp: if you are anti-immigrant, it’s because you’re racist. If you’re anti “gay-marriage” (talk about an oxymoron from a biblical perspective) it’s because you hate gays. That kind of liberal-left “Christianity.” (I just don’t get how some people read the same bible as I do and come to such different conclusions about what it means to be a Christian and what it looks like to live like one.)

But it just feels like it’s time to “rant back” a little. And I decided that the best way to express how I feel here as an open letter to John Pavlovitz. You can track along. I think you’ll catch the feel pretty quick.


Dear John:

(I love that line.) Anyway, dear John, you don’t know me. I’m a guy who supported Trump vigorously for president when he ran. And I still do, now that he is in office.

And I can imagine, based on what you penned in that article, that you would peg me as the typical racist, homophobic far-right bigot who cloaks my prejudices in “Christianese” to try to justify my hatred and venom for brown people under the guise of a blessing from God that my opinions are biblical.

It seems you think that I’ve found religion. Just now. With Trump. That I cloak my support for Trump in bible-speak. Like, “He is God’s appointed man for the time. We have to look past his character flaws and not judge. We can’t hold his past against him.” Stuff like that. And you think I never did the same for Obama.

You say,

…through it all, White Evangelicals—you never once suggested that God placed [Obama] where he was, you never publicly offered prayers for him and his family, you never welcomed him to your Christian Universities, you never gave him the benefit of the doubt in any instance, you never spoke of offering him forgiveness or mercy, your evangelists never publicly thanked God for his leadership, your pastors never took to the pulpit to offer solidarity with him, you never made any effort to affirm his humanity or show the love of Jesus to him in any quantifiable measure.

You violently opposed him at every single turn—without offering a single ounce of the grace you claim as the heart of your faith tradition. You jettisoned Jesus as you dispensed damnation on him.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and… wrong.

Where do I begin, dear John?

If, as it seems, this is what you think, you don’t know me. Not at all.

What you might not know is that I also supported Ben Carson and Herman Cain. I would have supported Adam West if he were ever to run. And I even supported a guy named Alan Keyes years ago when he ran.

Do you know of these guys, John? Notice what all these guys have in common, John? Carson, Keyes, Cain, West? They’re all black men.

I would have voted for ANY of these guys in a dog’s heartbeat before the opposition they would have been running against if I had half a chance to do so. See how unfair it is to assume I opposed Obama because he was black?

Just sayin’…

Are you surprised? It seems from the tone of your article you might be.

According to your little hit piece, it seems you’ve likened me to a racist, homophobic bigot who hates brown people and will do whatever it takes to keep them out of the country, or at least, if I can’t keep them out, then keep them working picking tomatoes.

But you’re wrong John. You’re wrong about why I opposed Obama and why I support Trump. You seem to have a short attention span or a very liberal set of values (in spite of your Christian faith) that predisposes you to seeing me merely as a racist who will rearrange my prejudices at the drop of a hat to justify my support for a man you seem to loathe.

I never demonized “the black president” because he was black. I’m not saying no one did. But I never did. I demonized him (if that is what you insist on calling it) because of the policies he presented and forced on the country. I opposed him because he ran on the idea that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman and then promptly changed his mind when he saw the popular opinion had changed over time to where it was suddenly expedient to “change his mind.”

I supported him for his views on marriage until I saw that he merely put his finger to the wind; and when the critical mass of the population changed its opinion on “gay marriage,” suddenly he (and Hillary, and a host of others) did too. How about that? What a coincidence.

How about Obama on Immigration?

I’m not sure if you remember that Obama spoke of the same policies about illegal immigration as Trump does now. How about a reminder?


Did you catch that? Obama actually said….

“We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who employ illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States. But those who enter the United States illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they show disregard for those who are following the law. We simply can’t allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

Perhaps you’re confusing style and substance.

I will give you your point that Trump is probably far too egotistical and narcissistic. But he is saying the same things about immigration that Obama said when he ran for office. Did you forget that part?

If Trump articulated those ideas the way Obama and Clinton did, would you even hear him? Or would you be so offended at the tone he uses to make his points that you miss the points? Because, well, because… they’re the same opinions.

I don’t deny Obama’s “personal faith convictions” because I didn’t like the man; but because his actions consistently spoke louder than his words.

Obama was the most pro-abortion man to sit in the office of the president. The record is clear on that one.

Obama was probably the most racially divisive president in at least the last 40 years.

For his eight years in office, it seemed every case of white-on-black crime was a reason to involve the justice department. But I do not recall any cases of black-on-white crime that ever got the same attention from the white house. Do you? Correct me if I am wrong. Please.

You want to talk about all the oddball stuff like his place of birth and the charges from the right about whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya? Go ahead. But I questioned his birthplace because he seemed to do so much to not clear the air about the issue for as long as he possibly could.

Did you ever ask yourself why he took so many years to produce a birth certificate? Why he had all his Occidental college records sealed? Did you ever consider that maybe the right has some good questions that have never been answered? Or do you just assume we are all a bunch of rednecks that would use any reason we could discredit the black man who was president?

Many like me were trying to get that black man named Carson INTO the race. (And Keyes. And Cain. And Adam West if he would ever run.) I sure hope you can hear that.

You call me on a “double-standard” saying now that God appoints leaders; but when Obama was in office, I somehow missed that point.

No, John. I didn’t.

Some leaders get placed because people benefit from God placing leaders over them to bless them. I acknowledge that God, in his sovereignty, allowed Obama to be the man for the job. I just think the job at this point in history was that America needed a good spanking because they weren’t listening to Him.

And if you’re going to call us on that as a hypocrital double-standard, then are you suggesting Stalin and Mousilini were God’s divine appointments too? Something to think about.

I just deal with the situation as it comes. And I judge how they do as president primarily by the types of policies they are trying to put in place when they get there.

Do I wish Trump were more refined? Of course I do. But if I have to choose between a rough-around-the edges kind of guy who is doing all the right things to protect the unborn from the abortion mills and is doing what he can to protect the religious freedoms of all people in this country (and not just the special-interest groups’ freedoms) vs a smooth-talking politician who seems to want to enshrine the opposite into law, I’ll settle for substance over smooth talk, thank you.

I pray for Trump frequently. But I prayed for Obama frequently, too. Sometimes I did it to stay mindful that God was in control and I didn’t have to be, when I saw what a mess he was making of things. Like I do for Trump now.

You don’t know that I didn’t pray for Obama, or that I didn’t give him a break, or ever come to his defense.

And as far as giving benefit of the doubt? You insist that I never gave Obama the benefit of the doubt?

Do you remember Obama’s “God of Jacob” reference at his 10th anniversary speech about 9/11?

Do you remember how many evangelical Christians jumped on that like a dog on a bone to embrace the possibility he really WAS a Christian like he professed to be? I sure do. I remember many an evangelical thinking maybe he really was a Christian. (Read, for example, the comments in this post. They’re NOT all as negative as you want to make us all out to be.)

We didn’t ever give benefit of the doubt. Seriously?

Many were looking for every opportunity to see him support the right things. We prayed that he would. Hear how this evangelical spoke about God not having given up on Barack Obama. (And if you want to listen to the whole episode of this show, you can hear the enthusiastic response of the crowd to this report.) They WANTED to see Obama come around. They  were wild with excitement at the possibility of him coming to a different stance on all the issues we hold dear. We were bitterly disappointed when he seemed to constantly stiffen his neck. And yet, we recognized that, at the end of the day, he was still president and we still needed to pray for him.

HOW DARE YOU ASSUME ALL THAT ABOUT ME and so many of the people I know who feel exactly the same way as I do. Do you even know of any of this feeling in the evangelical church for Obama? What part of the church do you never interact with?

I supported Trump because of his campaign promises. Would I have preferred that he not have a past? Of course. Wouldn’t it be nice if no one had a past?

Do YOU have a past, John?

I don’t hold Trump’s past against him anymore than I hold yours against you.

Your words are pithy. Catchy. But SO unfair. Pigmentation and party are my sole deities? Really?

Jesus is my savior. The bible is my roadmap.

And Trump is the president. Obama was that too. And I pray for Trump for an entirely different set of reasons than I prayed for Obama. But I’ve prayed for both.

And I pray for you, too. You seem quite judgmental in your thin veneer of spiritual superiority. You paint all Trump supporters with a wide brush. You don’t know our hearts – at least not all of us.

Are there racists who voted for Trump? No doubt. But there are many who voted for Obama simply because he was black. It didn’t seem to matter that he was not pro-life, or that he was for so many things that seem to be the types of things that Jesus would oppose. Somehow, that all gets a pass. It felt good, I suppose. But where did it get us?

I supported Trump in the election because he was the far better choice compared to Hillary Clinton. I support Trump now because he is president. The fact that I appreciate his pro-life stance, or his anti-extremist Muslim stance, or his stance against illegal immigration does not mean that I hate brown people. It doesn’t mean I don’t condemn sin when I see it. Even in the president.

There a a lot of things it does NOT mean. I hope you’ll give your liberal head a shake and see it.

You really don’t know me. NOT AT ALL.

To quote your article:I know it’s likely you’ll dismiss these words… But I had to at least try to reach you. It’s what Jesus would do.”





Read More

An Open Letter To New York’s “Black Lives Matter” Leader Hawk Newsome

An Open Letter To Hawk Newsome

Dear Hawk;

My readers might not be familiar with the name “Hawk Newsome.” But many probably saw a recent viral video of you at a recent Trump rally, where you took the stage to speak for two minutes to speak to the Trumpers there about what is on your heart about your cause – the Black Lives Matter movement.

I did watch the video with great interest. If nothing else, it brought home the reality that so much of the division in the country between different racial factions might actually come closer to being bridged if we just gave each other the chance to speak and if we really listen to each other.

Actually, I don’t know that I would have thought to write this open letter to you, simply based on what I heard in that speech on the video. What has prompted me to write is that I heard an interview you did recently with Detroit’s Stephen Henderson on NPR’s local station WDET. I listened to that interview with a greater interest than I even had about the video.

And actually, it was some of the ideas that the two of you seemed to hold in common that prompted me to write .

First of all, know that I loved your speech.

What you said was right on the money. “We don’t want anything that’s yours; we don’t want handouts. We want our God-given right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (CHEERS). “All lives matter, right? If we want to make America great, we do it together.”

You made some other great points. Like, “the great thing about America is that if you see something broken, you can do something to fix it.” Amen to that. It’s a great country, even with all its flaws.

I suppose there might have been a point or two that struck me as a little off. But to nitpick about the finer points isn’t fair to you. After all, can you really find any two people that agree on everything? If I were to challenge every detail, it would miss the point you were trying to hammer home. I heard loud and clear what I believe your heart was. I believe your point was that you don’t want conflict. You want to make things better.

Based on how you handled yourself, you strike me as a good man.

In fact, I really wish we could talk. I think I would benefit from knowing you.

Having said that, and In the spirit of trying to create effective dialog, I want to say a couple things that I wish you and others in the BLM movement could understand. It doesn’t seem that the majority of your followers typically do. But then, I may be wrong. I don’t know any of them personally, so how would I know? I only get what I get from the news, and we all know how distorted and selective those messages can be, no matter who does the reporting, right?

So you can get a radar fix on where I am coming from, I will say, in the interest of you hearing my take on this, that I am what I would call a “reluctant Trumper.”

Now, I don’t propose to speak for all Donald Trump supporters. After all, as you know, there are among them some KKK members, some skinheads and some other people who just hate black people because they are black.

That is not me. Those people make me ill. They really do. And the fact that they are happy that Donald Trump got into office is annoying. Those types don’t get at all why Trump would get my vote.

I believe I am more the norm for a “Trumper” as opposed to them. You see, in my travels and in my interaction with others, the bulk of the Trump supporters I meet are kind of like me: we dislike the hate groups as much as you do. We hate what the KKK stands for; we loved Martin Luther King and embraced his ideas many years ago when they were fresh. We, too (whether or not you know it) have a dream that somehow we could all somehow become “color-blind.”

Anyway, the reason I am writing is this:

I  found it curious how you and Stephen agreed on a particular point that seemed a little strange to me.

If I understood the conversation, you both seemed to have the idea that perhaps these Trump fans, when presented with the ideas you put forward at that rally, might have somehow, in that moment, all sort of come to the conclusion that some of the points you were making just started to make sense in context; as if somehow, when confronted with your thoughts, they might have suddenly realized for the first time that your interests as BLM aren’t all that unreasonable. I believe you both wondered if you might have somehow penetrated the “Trump rhetoric” on the right that had been clouding their thinking all along until that very moment you spoke.

But with all due respect, Mr. Newsome, I don’t think you get it.

I wondered if  you might have gotten it the day of your speech, based on the remarks you made at the end of the video. But in this interview it seems you may have reprocessed the experience to the point of missing the golden nugget that was there for you.

May I suggest there might have been something else happening at that rally that led to all the unexpected applause?

If (as is likely) the people at that rally are anything like me, the reason they were cheering when you brought those ideas forth was not because, in a moment of sudden inspiration, the scales fell off their eyes and your ideas made sense for the first time, as if they had never thought that way before.

No, Mr Newsome. If that is what you think, then I believe that you are out of touch with where the average Trump supporter is, and where much of where conservative America is.

Those people cheered because for a long time now, they already embraced the ideas you were presenting in that speech; and in that instant, they cheered robustly to try to communicate that fact.

They cheered when you spoke about police brutality against blacks because they already hate it when it happens; they cheered when you said, “all lives matter, right?” because they already do believe all lives matter, including black lives. And even though they recognize that many in the BLM movement find the phrase “all lives matter” to be belittling to the cause of BLM, they were cheering because you were acknowledging to them (in that moment, anyway) that you might be hearing them a little bit, too. They want peace, justice and equality as much as you do.

But if I can speak as one Trump fan who hates racism, and who freely admits that there are still many areas where there is racial injustice in the USA –  there is something that bothers me.

It bothers me when much of what we see from BLM is so much of the stuff that you didn’t say in that speech.

Don’t get me wrong. I thought you did a commendable job in the moment. I think you might well have felt you were walking into the gates of racist hell. No one, off the cuff, confronted by a swarm of people he perceives to be his enemies, will always do a perfect job of delivering the exact message he wants to get across. Considering the time frame and the feelings I’m sure you had, you did a bang-up job. It was commendable.

But what you didn’t say in that speech, what you didn’t address and what was likely on the hearts and minds of many in that crowd were the many questions, problems and complaints that people on my side of this issue are constantly grappling with.

You didn’t speak to the violence that comes from the BLM side of the movement. You didn’t address the rhetoric like “what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want ‘em? Now!” You said nothing to acknowledge that any of the violence perpetrated by the BLM movement is a little over the top, or that assassinating white police officers in ambush style is also a terrible waste of lives in the “ALL Lives Matter” movement.

But you only had two minutes.

You were putting your best foot forward to show us that you are not an unreasonable man, and your movement isn’t asking for unreasonable changes. I get that.

I also recognize that there is the leadership in a movement and then there is the membership which may or may not embrace or even understand the views of the leadership. So often there seems to be much more heat than light in the lower ranks of any organization.

So I don’t hold any of that against you in your “one crack at the bat,” two-minute speech. There were much more important points that you needed to make. And from my side, it’s alright. And from my side, I believe you needed to understand that your ideas were already embraced by many whom you thought were opposed to you.

I will also say that I would love to have a chance to get to know you, to hear your heart and your story. Because, from my side of this….

I freely admit that I probably understand little of your experience.

I will never forget the moment when I had an occasion about 15 years ago to speak with a young man who travelled down from Michigan to work in Springhill, Tennessee. He told me about an incident that occurred when he was checking into a local motel down there for the first time in town. His story was shocking to me as much as it was shocking when he first experienced it.

As he told the story, it was that he (a white man) was standing in line at the motel counter. There was a white woman working behind the desk. She was taking care of a white woman who was first in line. Behind her was a black lady, second in line. And he was standing behind her, third in line. He said the black woman in front of him had two dollar bills in her hand, and he assumed this black lady was waiting for change for the vending machine.

As the story went, the white female clerk finished with the first customer – the white woman, and (in his words) looked right through the black woman at him and said, “yes sir. Can I help you?”

He was a little surprised; but not knowing exactly what was going on, he said to the clerk, “that’s ok. You can help her first. I think she just needs change for the vending machine.”

And in an instant, the clerk’s countenance changed. She reached into her till, counted out 8 quarters and slammed them on the counter, grabbed the bills from the black woman and said to him in a quite harsh tone, “what do you want?”

He was stunned when it happened. And I was stunned later when he told me the story. And perhaps you’ll just think my whiteness is showing here.

Or perhaps you can realize that  it  just might be the way I was raised – my unique experience growing up. We all have stories as unique as fingerprints, don’t we?

You see, I was raised in a community where we had a few black people who lived in our community but whenever I was exposed to racist attitudes, my good Christian parents were quick to point out to me how wrong and backward those ideas were; that we were all God’s children and were all the same in his eyes.

And so my story is not one of not caring about the types of systemic racism that may well exist far more than I know and about which BLM protests. My story is simply one of not having heard your story and the stories of so many people of color.

But sir, if I can say this:

There is an inverse relationship between the violence from some in your movement and the ability for those of us with a different experience to hear you.

I hope you can hear that point. Many opposed Dr. Martin Luther King when he took his cause for justice on the road. But there were many people – black and white (as you know) who not only heard the message, but they heard it and embraced it to the point that some white people died for the right of people like Dr. King to be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

But Dr. King had character. And the violence of some in the BLM movement distracts from your character if you do not acknowledge that it is not the best way forward.

But as I said, I realize you only had two minutes.

And I believe, having heard you, not merely under fire for your two-minute blurb, but in that interview with Stephen Henderson, that you are a man of character, too. I heard your heart at the end of the video, where you were speaking of what surprised you that day and what you learned from people you previously considered to be your avowed enemies. It takes character to quickly acknowledge what you learned from your experience that day. Not everyone can do that. Most people are much quicker to simply rearrange their presuppositions.

Just don’t reprocess the experience to the point of missing what I am trying to say: we want justice for all, too. But we already did before you spoke.

And as much as I do hope you can hear that, I pray that people who have grown up more sheltered, perhaps as I did, will want to hear all the individual stories that have caused so many in the black community to feel marginalized and unheard.

We all need to hear the stories.

It is all too easy to reinforce our own echo-chambers, listening only to those on our side who want to agree with us.

But if that is all we do, we will never change and grow. White people need to hear stories like yours to know how much these things might still be going on. And black people need to hear the stories like mine so you can understand we aren’t against you but rather maybe truly unaware.

I loved the magic that happened that day. I love the fact that those people generally embraced you. I pray you will see that the reason they cheered at so much you said that day was not merely because you convinced in the moment of things they hadn’t thought about before.

Hopefully, you’ll soon embrace the reality that they cheered because most of them were already there, longing for the chance for you to show up so they could embrace with you what we all want: freedom, liberty, an end to racism, an end to police violence, and end to crime, pain and suffering.

But it starts by talking to each other. Thanks for bravely taking that podium. And thanks for listening.

Perhaps we will someday meet. And perhaps, some day, we will all look back and see those were two minutes that changed the world.


Cogny Mann

(The Cognitive Man)

Related: Hear the interview between Hawk and Stephen Henderson here.

Read More

Impeach Trump? Seriously? An Open Letter To Christianity Today And Editor Mark Galli.

Dear Mark;

I was disappointed this morning when I saw the whole “Christianity Today Trump Impeachment” episode unfold on my web browser and how you support using these articles of impeachment as a “reason” to get him out of office.

You had the disadvantage of going first. I get to follow your opinion with mine. And unless you care to debate it with me, which I doubt, since, at this point, you don’t even know me, I will have to try to speak to your points as best I can. Hopefully, someone will get through to you with the points I’m trying to make.

After all, I’m not the only one who feels this way

Having read your article, I have to say you’re wrong. I think you’re wrong enough that I have to make a statement as to why, in hopes that somehow you’ll see the error of your ways and turn your ship around. You’re a brother in Christ, no doubt. But I think you’re as misguided as you probably think I am.

You started out well enough:

In the opening of your article, you tell us about Christianity Today’s mandate:

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

That the impeachment fiasco requires comment is an understatement. In times like these, it gets to a point where to say nothing begs more questions than it answers.

I do wonder at the timing of your taking a position on this, though.  But since I don’t know you, I will reserve judgement for the moment about what your motives are here, now, under these circumstances.

In fact, I will take you at your word (for the moment, anyway) that you believe he should be removed because of an abuse of power. I think you make a case for that based on principle, based on your belief that he did exactly that.

But you muddy the waters so.

You blur several issues together and cause me to question where you are coming from because of the way you mix your feelings about the man with the issues with potential abuse of power.

I understand your frustrations with the man. I really do. You said,

He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

I will give you mixed marks on this one. Maybe you know better than I do about how proud he still is about his immoral actions in the past. I’m not sure I see it.

And since I hear so much from others who have encountered the man firsthand (and I’m not sure you have) I will exercise more caution than this in pronouncing judgement on the current condition of his heart.

Look. I get it. Trump’s a jerk.

Sometimes he’s a jerk, anyway. Maybe I could be more kind than that. But facts are facts.

Sometimes, I’m a jerk too, just to be fair. But there are times Trump does seem to go over the top with his comments.

The day of the impeachment vote in the house, Trump had a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan. And during his speech, he said something to the effect that John Dingle is probably “looking down” (as in, from heaven) saying, “that’s right. That’s good.”

And then he said, “or maybe he’s looking up, I don’t know…”

I don’t know about you, but that was just horrible. It was a really horrible, horrible line to deliver like that. John’s wife took the moral high ground in response. But that was a jerky thing to say. I was appalled. It would be a horrible thing for a president to say about anyone.

But that’s not really the basis for deciding whether to remove him from office, now, is it?

The problem is that when you throw the man’s personality into the discussion, it seems you’ve now hitched yourself to the very train you say we should not ride.

The impeachment is about (supposed to be about) trying him on the specific charges of obstruction of congress. The trial is not about him being a jerk, or saying disgusting things, or about his past instances of immorality or his lack of an apparent level of shame about those things to convince you he’s a Christian or anything.

I also get that you’re not gunning for him just because he’s a jerk.

Or are you?

I’m most curious about how you’ve mixed your personal disdain for him as an individual with your disregard for the problem with the process of removing him from office as the democrats are trying to make it happen – with assumptions about his motive when no CLEAR motive has ever been established as to WHY he was asking for an investigation of Biden.

This isn’t about 2020. This is about 2016.

You say it was about harassing Biden. You’re wrong. It is about putting him in jail. Nobody would have seen any harassment in the first place if it weren’t for the anonymous whistle blower bringing a charge against the man – even though, when you review the call and any testimony of the witnesses, there is NO clear evidence that his motive was to dig up dirt on Biden for the 2020 elections.

It was about investigating what looks to be a very high likelihood of crimes committed by Biden in 2016. This IS in the national interest, sir. If justice is not served for crimes committed, then your selective moral outrage over the trampling of the rule of law comes up a wee bit hypocritical.

By your standard, the safest thing for a criminal to do is to run for office.

If you are right, and Trump’s motive in that phone call was to dig up dirt to thow Biden off in the 2020 election, then the best thing Joe Biden can do right now is to stay in the race for the 2020 election as long as possible.

I think he would make a terrible president. And I’m glad he won’t win in 2020, even if he gets as far as winning the democratic name on the ticket.

But if Biden wasn’t running for office in 2020, there wouldn’t have been any story to co-opt as an excuse to impeach Trump.

The democratic party has been gunning for him since 2016, as you yourself state plainly in your hit piece.

The problem is you have no PROOF of motive.

Human nature is such that we fall victim to seeing specific things about others through the lenses shaped by how we otherwise feel about them as an overall package. It’s why Trump supporters tend minimize a lot of what Trump says.

It’s not that they choose not to hear it; it is that they filter it through their understanding of how he talks – the way democrats do with Joe Biden. “Oh, it’s just Joe making his gaffes. But he’s a really nice guy.”

Even Jim Comey agrees with me – you can’t do this.

You would do well to think long and hard about the need for evenness in the rule of law. You could also take a lesson from James Comey, who, when speaking about the issue of Hillary Clinton and that little problem of about 23,000 deleted emails and cell phones smashed with hammers and stuff, said something to the effect that

“no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring charges about this type of thing.”

Comey felt he couldn’t establish sufficient motive for Hillary and her actions. Regarding Trump, there is much thinner evidence that he had any personal motive in mind when he asked for help from a foreign government to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact, when he was asked directly what he wanted from Ukraine in exchange for aid, the witness testified that Trump said, “I don’t want anything. I just want them to do the right thing.”

And if I dare say, it’s why I struggle with not questioning your motives now in saying we need to jump into this impeachment parade.

If you have (as you say you) do a respect for the rule of law, then you (should) also have respect for the fact that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

And if James Comey looked at and gave a pass for motive with a lifelong politician like Hillary Clinton, even more so should we give a pass to an outsider like Trump when it comes to assuming motive for why he was asking for an investigation – especially when Trump said he didn’t want anything from Ukraine in exchange for the U.S. aid.

Don’t fall into bed with the democrats in using political expediency to deal with a problem.

Have some respect for the process and the rule of law. If you want Trump removed because you think he’s a philandering pig, get your congressman to bring charges for that. There are a few of them just chomping at the bit to do that anyway.

But if you want him removed by impeachment and you respect the rule of law as you say you do, don’t forget that the rule of law requires proof of intent and not just speculation about it.

Pontius Pilate did what he did out of expediency. Don’t be that guy.

If you advocate for using these articles of impeachment to remove the president without sufficient evidence of intent, I’m forced to conclude you might see the desire to remove him from office so badly that you’re not recognizing the breach of the rule of law in doing so.

You saw off the very limb on which you sit, and end up falling on your face on your rapid climb to the moral high ground.

I hope it’s not a disdain for the guy that causes you to have such a blind spot.

Even Jim Comey agrees with me.

Read More

Check Your Mental Health – An Open Letter To Jeffrey Guterman

Jeffrey, Jeffrey. It is pretty stupid for you to tell people not to follow you. It's stupid, in fact, on so many levels.

You know, Jeffrey, I get it. I get that you hate Trump. And I get why. At least, I get it enough to understand that, depending on your predisposition and your world view, you may see president Trump as a very dangerous man for the country.

A lot of people think Trump is a narcissistic wing-nut. I get that.

Does the president brag a lot? Of course. He's probably in a class of his own in this regard - most everyone sees the reality that a guy in a role as a world leader should act far more "presidential" than he does. He is magnitudes removed from proper decorum and tone of speech from what a world leader is assumed to be.

I don't understand you, though. Why on earth would you hold yourself out to be any better than him? Your latest Twitter post proves the opposite.

You're a mental health coach. You should know better. In a response to @realDonaldTrump and his tweet to "LIBERATE MICHIGAN," you out-stupided yourself where you said, 

"I welcome follows unless you support Trump. If you support him, please block me. Thank you."

The edited screen shot of that post sort of  looks like this:

You know, it's too bad I can't just post a link here to the actual Twitter post. I would, except your mental health seemed to be compromised when the picture you posted with your little pissy-fit of apparent portions of some male genitalia made it unfit to print here.

I'm not exactly sure the reason for the visual vulgarity. It seems to be beneath any decent human being, let alone someone with a doctorate in telling people how to have good mental health.

This, actually, is one of the reasons many people seem to think a Ph. D. doesn't always mean much.

Your ranty little post seems designed to tweak your fans (who probably also hate Trump).

It's ironic how you probably don't see how ironic your quite "Trump-like" post, designed to be provocative, shows you're just like what it is you think you hate about him.

You despise him for how he attacks his enemies and seems to embrace controversy and attempts to go after his critics.

But your rant betrays a lack of integrity.

Isn't mental health about not carrying grudges, about learning to hear the other side of an argument so that the best idea can win? Is your idea of mental health despising people you disagree with?

I'm not sure I would trust anyone as a mental health coach if they spew hatred for anyone. I understand the despising of ideas; for instance, I despise the concepts in modern left-wing liberalism. But I would never tell anyone who holds to those ideas that I don't want them to listen to me.

If you truly cared for people who think differently than you, why not welcome them to follow you, so you have a better chance to influence their thinking for the better.

Your post also seems to be counter-productive, if your goal truly is peoples' mental health.

It seems if you're truly interested in engaging people with the idea of helping them to think better, clearer and more consistently and logically, then you should want people who disagree with you to follow you, reading your posts, visiting your site, in hopes that something you say will actually get through to them.

How else do you actually get through to someone who, apparently (in your mind) is thinking wrongly enough to actually like Trump? Don't you do it by presenting them with ideas they've maybe not chewed on before?

Think, Jeffrey, think. You've got a doctorate, for crying out loud. You should be able to sift through ideas and separate the wheat from the chaff, no?

You don't seem to be much about mental health. But you do seem to spew the same attitude on the left: silence the opposition.

There is such a contrast in approach to differences between the left and the right.

People on the right feel that everyone should be free to say what they want; but that, in the end, the best ideas will survive and thrive simply by intellectual competition in the marketplace.

People on the left feel the only way to win is to effectively remove the right's right to have a voice. For instance, Red State writes of the attack on Rush Limbaugh:

Last week, Rush Limbaugh suggested Sandra Fluke was a slut. The left immediately began calling for boycotts of his advertisers. He apologized on Saturday. Fluke refused to accept his apology claiming he did it under duress and the pressure has kept up.It is organized and it has nothing to do with Limbaugh referring to Sandra Fluke as the same thing Ed Schultz referred to Laura Ingraham as. It has to do with a well executed PR strategy to frame a debate on mandating [that] Americans subsidize the sexual habits of women as a war on women by the GOP. The media, which leans left already on social issues, would much rather focus on Rush Limbaugh than on the left’s PR strategy and Sandra Fluke’s own testimony. What is happening here is an organized campaign by the left to shut down opposing views from the right. Many on the left and right, myself included, have said things we should not have said. The difference is that the left seizes on the statements made by the right as excuses to demand they never be heard from again and are unqualified to speak on any topic.

It's obvious you don't really care at all for the people who disagree with you; otherwise, you'd welcome them to follow you in case they might actually learn something from your perspective.

You just want to spew hate toward your dissenters in the name of intellectual superiority.

But don't worry. I followed you on twitter. I thought it's what you really wanted anyway. I'm just waiting to see how long it will be until you block me.

Read More

My Body, My Choice and Covid Vaccines

An open letter to Brandon Harris regarding your letter to the editor of the Evansville Courier and Press.

Maybe it’s too much to expect the pro-choice, pro-vaccine crowd to see the irony in their stance.


You don’t know me. I’m sure we will never cross paths. But I am struck by the irony in your view of the irony from the other side of the street. You wrote a letter to the editor of the Evansville Courier and you said,

Watching the anti-vaccine protests at Indiana University, the prevalent sign is “My body my choice.” I just sit and wonder how many of those sign carriers are also anti-abortion and definitely don’t believe that expression.

– Brandon Harris

Evansville Courier and Press, June 17, 2021

I’m not picking on you, personally. Rather, I’m speaking to everyone you’ve represented by your letter to the editor – those of you who think a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy, but anti-vaxxers should not be able to choose to avoid the vaccine.

It’s called irony, Brandon. The pro-life, anti-vaxx side sees the irony in the stance people on your side take on these two issues. They’re jamming it back at you. And you don’t even see it.

The pro-life, anti-vax (PL-AV) side sees it glaring them in the face.

I can’t begin to tell you the number of times I’ve had people from my side of the discussion say to me, “so where are all the pro-choice people now with the ‘my body, my choice’ rhetoric when it comes to vaccines? Why can’t the see how ironic this is?”

I’ve had this discussion with pro-choice people who are anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, anti-seal hunting. Their response is always the same: “My body, my choice.”

It’s like hitting a wall of “non-think” when talking to people who think abortion is a valid choice for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.

“So you think it’s wrong to hunt a baby seal. They’re so defenseless. But it’s ok to kill a baby in the womb?”

“Yes. Of course. It’s my body, my choice.”

Except it isn’t the woman’s body anymore. It might not be her fault the baby is in there (although, let’s face it, it sometimes is). But whether it’s her fault or not, It’s still her problem.

But it’s also a problem for the baby. It seems pretty intuitive that the baby probably wants to live.

A woman’s right to “choose” means she is making a choice for both herself and that unborn baby who will never see the light of day while alive.

“So you’re against capital punishment? That serial murderer or serial rapist has a right to live and society doesn’t have the right to take their life, huh?”

“That’s correct.”

“But a woman is killing a baby when she aborts it. She is taking an innocent human life.”

“Oh. But it’s her body, her choice.”

It’s hard to try to have a logical argument with people who don’t really want to determine what is right or wrong, but merely want to rearrange their prejudices so they don’t have to change their choices.

You’re missing the whole point, Brandon. I will bet against you a gazillion dollars that those people DO believe it is their body, their choice.

The difference is that when it comes to abortion, they don’t believe that is the woman’s body at all. They believe the woman’s body stops where the baby’s body starts. And her inconvenience, no matter how difficult, is no justification for killing an innocent life.

The irony. You just don’t see it.

We clash on worldview. The difference is our side sees your worldview and knows why we think it exists based on wrong premises.

Your side so often doesn’t even recognize this is a worldview, or what that means.

So let me explain it to you, Brandon, or at least try to explain it. Your worldview is your overall, sort of streamlined “alignment of the facts” approach to the world around you – your perceptions of why you are here, what the purpose of life is, if there is a heaven and hell after this life, and which one you’re probably going to end up in when you go.

Everybody has a worldview. Just not everybody has thought about why they believe what they believe about the world. In fact, some people avoid thinking about it because of what it might require them to do differently, were they ever to come to different conclusions about things.

So let me break this down for you, as I see it, from my side, and let’s see if I can help you (or others, on “your side” of this issue) understand the irony we feel as we, in desparation, try to throw your side’s slogan back at you in a desperate attempt to get your attention.

From my side, it looks this simple.

I think the vaccines are more harmful for people these days than the chance of contracting covid is. I’m not one of those who think Covid is “just a flu bug” or “was never really a thing.” That is a laughable position and people who hold that argument on “my side” are an embarrassment. They just are.

Can I just be honest here, Brandon, about what the difference is here between you and me?

Look. I’m not going to judge you. I don’t even know this is exactly how you feel. But it’s how I feel about how your side comes across.

Here goes. No offence intended. But I’m sure some will be offended. Yet, I have to say it anyway.

When you say regarding a pregnant woman, “my body, my choice,” it doesn’t cost you anything. When I say regarding being forced to get a covid vaccine, “my body, my choice,” that threatens YOU and YOUR health. That makes it personal to YOU.

If a woman wants to get an abortion, you’re not personally affected by that. But if I don’t want to get a vaccine, now you ARE potentially, anyway, personally affected by that. If she gets an abortion, you still get to live your life. If I don’t get the vaccine, and I spread Covid to you, YOU might not get to live the same as before.

Seems to me, plain and simple, that is the real issue. A woman’s right to choose abortion doesn’t negatively affect you. My choosing to not vaccinate might affect you personally. That is really the only thing that is different here.

At least, that is the way I see it. Convince me I’m wrong.

Look. Brandon, whether you can see it or not, my side thinks these vaccines are endangering ALL OF US. We are protesting it because even if your side drank the kool-aid, our side wants the chance to not have to drink it alongside you.

But if we could, we would like to get you to see the kool-aid for what it is, so you don’t drink it either.

We want you to have the right to choose, too. But we wish there wasn’t such an orchestrated effort on the part of mainstream media and big tech to squelch all the voices on the minority side of this issue. There are real doctors out there – real research scientists and immunologists – who think this stuff is going to harm a lot of people.

People on my side want you to be able to choose, too. But without half the information hidden from you. We are fighting for your rights and your health, whether or not you understand it.

Brandon, I’d just love to ask you a question here, in conclusion: if you thought that my not getting vaccinated wouldn’t be a threat to your health, would you really care if I got it or not?

If you knew it would only increase my chances of getting Covid but not yours, would you be at all concerned whether or not I got the vaccine?

Sorry buddy. Hate to have to say it. But it seems to me the other side is more consistent than yours. They’re concerned about their body, their choice; they’re concerned about your body and your choice. But (seemingly, anyway) unlike you, the other side is concerned about that baby’s body, and that baby’s choice. And you aren’t.

In one case that woman’s choice to abort doesn’t affect you. In the other case, that woman’s choice to not get vaccinated just might affect you. And if I can say so, it seems to me that that difference is really the only difference that concerns you.

It isn’t about my choice. It’s about whether my choices affect you. And we disagree on which choices affect who.

And if you can’t see the difference and the frustration that causes my side to try in desperation to use your side’s slogans against you, then we are going to have to keep trying to fight this battle for us and for you, too, in spite of your best efforts to stop it. Because this isn’t just about me. It’s about you too, whether you see it or not.

Read More