Wow. A fancy inaugural ball for a flamboyant, rich narcissist, and people already do not want to go. Not even for the forty-fifth president of the United States! John Lewis, (D) Georgia, recently declined and told his constituents that he wasn't going because he felt that the election was not won honestly. That was all; he just didn't want to go. This is the same John Lewis who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma on March 7, 1965, and was beaten black and blue by law enforcement. Instead of thanking Lewis for his devotion to his country and for responding to the invitation, Trump got on Twitter and insulted Lewis and his district, referring to Lewis's district, Atlanta, Georgia, as a "shambles" and "crime infested". Not only has Trump forgotten that New York is a rather "crime infested", as well; he has completely breached etiquette for a president in such a situation. Rather than responding to the declined invitation on Twitter, it would have been much more gracious for incoming President Trump to simply send Congressman Lewis a hand written note expressing regret at the declined invitation and hope to work with Lewis soon. That is all that needs to be said by a president when an invitation is declined.
At this writing, there are twenty-three United States senators and congressmen declining invitations to the inaugural ball, and the list is growing. There is also a list of dignitaries planning to give the swearing in ceremony a miss. This is a big deal, and should serve as a wake-up call to the president elect concerning etiquette and manners when an invitation is either accepted or declined. Donald Trump should, by this time, understand that there are many, many
people who shy away from circus atmospheres and do not care to attend
unruly events hosted by the nouveau riche. Haven't Trump's rallies already been violent enough?
A newspaper called the Journal News, in New York, has published the names and addresses of many of the Westchester and Rockland County gun owners in their paper. Readers were stunned to see this, and many people do not understand what the Journal News is trying to accomplish. The Second Amendment gives citizens in the United States the right to bear arms, and if a gun owner is on a public list of citizens who have purchased weapons legally, it naturally follows that the gun in question is owned legally. That said, why should anyone care if their neighbors own weapons or not? If the Journal News is trying to embarrass gun owners, they should save their ink. What they've actually done is inform the burglers, violent thugs, and the local Boogeyman about which houses are not armed, and made the occupants in those houses easy victims.
On a related note, there is a petition circulating the internet to garner signatures favoring the deportation of the CNN anchor, Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan will certainly have to do more than fill the air with words in order to be deported, but it might be effective, instead, to boycott the products advertised on CNN while Piers Morgan is voicing his silly and inexperienced opinion.
How weird! Here's a video response I saw this morning, when I looked at John Loftus's blog, that was made in response to someone with an online Christian following. Apparently, someone out there thinks that atheists should be made to register publicly, like sex offenders, so that everyone can avoid them and boycott their businesses. I've never heard anything like that in America before. Not from anyone sane, anyway. So much for the first amendment...............................
I am not an atheist, but methinks it would be much better to have an atheist next door than a sex offender! Why would atheists pose such a threat to anyone? Why do some people find it so threatening to share the world with people who come to different conclusions about abstract ideas?
