Hillary Clinton Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

After wasting far too much of my time arguing with a friend of a friend on Facebook about whether Hillary Clinton did anything wrong with her email situation (in which time this gentleman told me that classified markings mean nothing because he considers his address and his grandmother’s pie recipe classified…), he proceeded to tell me that I should be happy if Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman president because “I will finally be represented”. He is a liberal, so I proceeded to ask him if Donald Trump won the presidency he would be happy since he would represent him as a man. He didn’t seem to have a good answer for that one.

Liberals think that they are immune from being sexist or racist or bigoted because they are liberals. Conservatives in America are expected to watch every word we say and make sure nothing said can be remotely construed as any of these things because we will be pounced on, but liberals believe that just in the mere fact that they are liberal, they can say whatever they want and no one can challenge them on it. In this particular case, he said that it was meant as a compliment because he was commenting on her ability to be a good president. Because as a woman, we need extra compliments from men to acknowledge that a female could do the job of leading this country. The condescension is extreme, and they are shocked when they are called out on it.

For any man (or woman for that matter) who wants to say Hillary Clinton represents me simply because she is a woman, I pose the question, does every man who runs for political office represent all men in America? Do we really put all policy matters, world views, and intellectual opinions aside because we share the same biological parts? So if Leslie Van Houten decided to run for president, she would represent me and I should vote for her?

This argument is the epitome of sexism. It is, by definition, sexist. This is not me throwing out that word because I do not like someone’s political argument. To tell me that I should support someone or be happy if someone wins the presidency simply because she is a woman and I am a woman is the definition of sexist.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she has liberal/socialist policies, and I am a conservative/capitalist.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she believes it should be legal to murder babies up until birth, and I am pro-life.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she accepted donations from governments who treat women like second class citizens, and I believe women should be treated equally to men.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because her incompetence lead to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and I think that DOES make a difference.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I believe in the right to bear arms, and she would abolish the second amendment if she could.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she has paid her female staffers less than her male staffers, and I believe that is wrong.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she supports Planned Parenthood and public funding of abortions, and I do not.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I believe that All Lives Matter.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I do not believe we should shame and discredit rape victims.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she is a liar, and I am not stupid enough to fall for her lies.

The truth is that apart from our XY chromosome, Hillary Clinton and I have absolutely nothing in common. We are two people who have entirely different world views, who believe in different things for the future of our country, and who live by completely different sets of standards, morals, and principles. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe she is corrupt, incompetent, a liar, and a power-hungry, greedy, terrible person. But according to this liberal man, I should ignore all of these facts and be happy if she wins the presidency because she is a woman, and I am a woman. And the sad thing is that he is not an extreme outlier. There are many liberals in America, and liberal women, who believe that all women in America should vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Madeleine Albright believes that. She essentially said if I did not support Hillary, there is a special place in hell waiting for me. Well as a strong conservative woman with a mind of my own, I reject that notion. I do not buy into identity politics. I will support candidates for political office who I feel will be good leaders, and who will move our country in the direction I believe we should go in, regardless of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. And I think a lot of liberals in America need to take a good hard look in the mirror to examine their own personal intolerances and bias.

Jamiel Shaw Sr - RNC 2016 - Credit: Barbara Davidson, Los Angeles Times

On the first day of the Republican National Convention, the theme and the focus was “Make America Safe Again”. In my opinion, this was a smart theme to dedicate a full day of the convention to because in truth, Americans do not feel safe. In the last month alone there have been three major terror attacks in the world, as well as two massacres of police officers. And these are just the big headline stories. These do not include the stories of police who have been attacked all over the country, or people who have been shot and killed in the inner cities. Crime in California, for example, is up 10% this year thanks to Governor Jerry Brown’s bright idea to reform the criminal justice system, which essentially just means letting bad guys out of jail early.

Let’s just put this in perspective for a moment: Our government leaders are failing miserably to keep us safe, both at home and abroad. They are letting criminals out of jail, letting anyone and everyone into the country without properly vetting them to make sure they are not gang members or terrorists, and then they are telling Americans that we need to give up our guns in order for them to protect us. And they wonder why people are so uneasy (and so unwilling to give up our guns).

One of the people who spoke yesterday at the convention was Jamiel Shaw Sr. His son was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant gang member who was a member of a gang known to target black people. His speech was powerful and emotional. Today, one of the local news stations posted an article on Facebook about his speech. And as usual, the comments section was a cesspool full of people basically calling him everything from a racist against hispanics to someone who was speaking out to profit off of his son’s death. Many of the commenters also made the not-so-intelligent and completely heartless point that this man’s speech meant that he would have rather his son been killed by a legal American.

First of all… anyone who says this man would have rather his son been killed by a legal American is either willfully missing the point or completely ignorant. I suppose both are an equal possibility. But I do believe that more people in America are choosing to be willfully ignorant every time someone stands up to present facts and evidence of a case that goes against their politics. No, this man would not have rather his son been killed by a legal resident. He would rather his son be alive. The point that he and the other two parents who spoke at the convention who lost children to illegal immigrants criminal behavior were making was that in all three of these cases, the illegals in question had rap sheets a mile long. The same was true in the Kate Steinle case. Not only should they not have been in the country in the first place, but based on their ACTIONS, they should have all been in jail or deported from our country. As in, they should have never been free to roam the streets and commit the crimes they committed that took innocent lives. But to the pro-illegal immigration side of it, this is all dismissible. To them, the fact that the people responsible for the deaths of these innocent people were not supposed to be in America in the first place is irrelevant, because people who are here legally commit crimes too.

Here is why it is relevant. We DO have crime in America committed by legal residents and citizens. And it is enough to keep the hands of our law enforcement officers very busy. We DO have people committing acts of terror who were born and raised in America, so many so that the FBI is finding it harder and harder to find and stop them. We DO have major crime in our inner cities that is claiming thousands of lives annually. We DO have jails that are overcrowded and a criminal justice system that is taxed to it’s limits. And now, thanks to the left’s war against police, we are having a harder time than ever recruiting people to actually take on the challenges of becoming law enforcement officers. We have our hands full. Why should we also take on the task of finding, prosecuting, and jailing criminals from other parts of the world? Why should we make it so easy for wanna-be terrorists to enter our country, when we do not have the power or the resources to vet them and keep track of them? Why are we ok with accepting gang members from other countries, when we are working so hard to rid our streets of gang members who were born and raised here? How can people not see that if a person is a criminal and we have the ability to keep them out of the country, therefore preventing them from even being here to commit a crime on American soil, that IS a relevant and intelligent way to help keep Americans safe? It is not racist, it is efficient.

But we ignore all of these facts. We ignore the logic and the evidence. We take a person like Jamiel Shaw Sr. and we accuse him of being bribed into having his opinion and point of view. Because a black man standing up against illegal immigration or standing for a Republican candidate cannot possibly be doing so of his own accord, his own convictions, and his own intelligence. He must be bought and paid for. He must have an ulterior motive.

The real problem here goes back to the deep divisions that we have in America, where over every single issue, people run to their respective corners every time someone challenges their point of view, instead of listening to the arguments on the other side and considering what people have to say. If you disagree with me, it cannot be because your son was killed by an illegal immigrant and you are devastated and speaking out against it. It must be because you are being bribed to say what you are saying. Never mind the fact that we throw out accusations like that without any actual evidence or proof. Evidence, facts, proof, and logical thinking are all taking a back seat in America today. Everyone is controlled by their emotions and their politics. If you are pro-open borders, then everyone who wants the rule of law enforced must be either racist or paid off. Even a man whose son was murdered. When did we get to a point in our country where no one can stop and say, “Even if I disagree with you on policy, I can understand why you are taking the position you are taking”? When did we get to a point in our country where we alone are pure in our motives, and everyone who disagrees with us must be doing so out of the worst possible intentions? I am, for example, a big proponent of the second amendment and the right for law-abiding citizens to have the means to protect ourselves. But there are many people in our society who have lost loved ones to gun violence who are a part of groups pushing for more gun control. While I can respectfully disagree with their ideas and policy suggestions, I can understand why they are taking the stances that they are taking. I can argue why I believe they are wrong in their proposed solutions, but I would never accuse them of being bought and paid for by the gun control lobbies. We can, in fact, take someone’s motives and sincerity at fact value, and believe their intentions to be good, even if we disagree with them. That is something that is, in fact, possible to do.

We will never bridge the divides in our country or solve any problems as long as we have the attitude that if you disagree with me, your motives must be ingenuous. We will never make any improvements in our society if every time we disagree, we shout unfounded accusations, shout racism or sexism or bigotry. Those responses are the easy way out. It gets us out of having to do the real work of listening and finding solutions, especially if those solutions are difficult ones.

Elizabeth Warren

There are things that Donald Trump has said about women that trouble me. I was not a fan of his ongoing attacks on Megyn Kelly because he did not like a question he asked her during a debate (a question I believed to be relevant). I was not a fan of the way his campaign lied about the Michelle Fields incident. I was not a fan of the numerous degrading comments he has made against women throughout the campaign and throughout his adult life.

But you know what else I am not a fan of? I am not a fan of a woman degrading and discrediting women who accuse her husband of rape or other sexual misconduct for the sake of retaining power. I am not a fan of a woman who accepts money from foreign countries who treat women as second class citizens. I am not a fan of a woman who believes that it is perfectly fine to kill an innocent baby up until and possibly even during childbirth. I am not a fan of a woman who claims to be for women but who pays her female staffers less than her male staffers. But for some reason, Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to have a big problem with Donald Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence, but she believes that the person who has committed all of these other atrocities against women is qualified to be president of the United States.

Senator Warren came out today with a “Twitter Rant” in which she goes after Donald Trump and his newly announced Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor Mike Pence. Among other things she wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has also come out and called Mike Pence “extreme” and “dangerous”.

And what is it that Mike Pence has done that makes him such an “extreme and dangerous sexist”? He is a Pro-Life Christian who has tried to defund Planned Parenthood in his state.

According to Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and many in the feminist movement, being pro-life is extreme, dangerous, and anti-women. According to them, believing that no taxpayer dollars should go to fund abortions is extreme, dangerous, and anti-women. Believing that there should be the same standards of care in abortion clinics as other medical facilities is extreme, dangerous, and anti-women. Putting any restrictions whatsoever on abortions, is extreme, dangerous, and anti-women. The problem is, they are not exactly in line with the thinking of the American people on this issue.

According to Gallup, 46% of Americans consider themselves Pro-Life, and 47% consider themselves Pro-Choice. That means the American people are essentially divided in half on the the issue of abortion. But when you break down those numbers, it gets even more interesting. When asked about the circumstances in which abortions should be legal, only 29% believe that abortion should be legal in all and any circumstances. 50% said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 19% said abortion should never be legal. That means that essentially, only 29% of people agree with Clinton and Warren about when abortions should be legal. Delving even further, when asked about when during a pregnancy abortions should be legal, only 14% of people believe abortion should be legal during the third trimester of pregnancy. 14 PERCENT. So before Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton start calling Mike Pence “extreme”, maybe they should consider the fact that their own opinions on abortion are, in fact, much more extreme than that of Gov. Pence. While 47% of Americans consider themselves Pro-Life, only 14% buy into the entire “abortion on demand at any time for any reason” argument that Hillary has. Doesn’t that make HER the extreme one on this issue? Or at the very least, if you want to argue that making all abortion illegal is an “extreme” view, as only 19% agree with it, she still is not in any position to attack him on that issue, as she is JUST AS extreme.

As an average, every day American, I have a lot of problems with both candidates running for president, as well as most politicians serving for office. I think it is safe to say that most Americans are feeling that way. But personally, one thing I am tired of coming from the left is being called “extreme”. Because when Elizabeth Warren steps out and says that, essentially, anyone who believes abortion in America should be restricted in any way, or not be paid for by taxpayer dollars through Planned Parenthood, is extreme, she is not just talking about Mike Pence- she is also talking about me. I am pro-life. I believe that if any abortions should be legal, it should definitely be only in certain circumstances and only allowed in the first trimester of pregnancy. And there are many, many Americans, and many WOMEN, who share in that opinion. Liberals make it sound as though being anti-abortion is a position only held by the fringe religious elements of society, but the polls do not support that claim. This is an issue, like many others in our nation, that the country is divided on pretty much in half.

It is not surprising for politicians to go after their rivals, and in the age of Twitter and other social media, they have a platform unlike ever before to do so. Many who support Clinton and Warren are, of course, singing her praises after this rant, but Warren did not just insult Trump and Pence in her rant today- she insulted every person in America who considers themselves pro-life.  Aside from the fact that Gov. Pence’s position on abortion is not, in fact, and extreme one, it raises all sorts of questions about Sen. Warren herself. So for Sen. Warren, as long as women have the right to kill their baby up until birth, shaming rape victims is not a problem. Accepting money from governments who abide by Sharia law, which is not kind to women, is not a problem. She is perfectly fine with that as long as women can still kill their babies. Of course, coming from a woman who lied about her ancestry to get a job, and who was paid a nearly $430,000 annual salary at Harvard while promoting herself as the champion of college students in debt, it should not be surprising that today, she put her hypocrisy on full display for the world to see.