Thought leaders who back Trump

I have two very smart friends who share a rare trait. Since I have not asked them for permission to ‘out’ them in my Blog, I will call them ‘Dan’ and ‘Peter’. For this one Op-Ed, I will avoid photos, because some readers would recognize them.

I met Peter through business connections and his headline speech at a technical conference. Dan has been a close personal friend since immigrating to America 25 years ago. I’ll get to the rare quirk that they share—but2-person silhouette-s first, they have some other things in common…

  • They are each remarkably intelligent. Their respective patents stand among the most inspired business ideas in high-tech history
  • They have both launched high-tech start-ups—solving meaningful problems, employing others and creating impressive brands
  • They have sparkling, magnetic personalities— exuding trust, kindness and generosity.
  • They are each superlative communicators—equally adept with a pen, a TV camera, social media or in front of a live audience.
  • They communicate with confidence, con-viction and an uncanny gift of persuasion.
    They are unquestionably influential. Their eloquence and stature convey gravitas

Years from now, I doubt that either of these friends will point to this page as testament to their esteem among peers. You see, of my many smart and influential friends, these are the only two who support Donald Trump as a candidate for US president. I estimate that this makes them members of the “one percent” (No. Not that one percent).

How can this be? Can smart individuals honestly see Trump as a man that they trust to lead a nation, hold the nuclear codes, build respect among other nations, and honor our cultural diversity? Try as I might to deny it, I am forced to admit that at least two smart individuals support Donald Trump. How many other Peters and Dans are out there?

Here, then, is my personal plea to Dan and Peter. Are you listening, guys? In the open letter below, I have given up trying to change your minds. At this late stage of the election cycle, I appeal, instead, to your patriotism, your conscience and your heart…

Hi Dan {Hi Peter},

I don’t know if you watched Obama at the Singapore press conference today. It is painfully clear that every policy and bilateral agreement that he tries to enact is thwarted by partisan politics back home in our own country. These politics are motivated by the desire to make him look bad—and for these bad optics to rub off onto Hillary.

I can’t get into your mind on Trump, but I certainly appreciate and respect that we have different political philosophies. We both want a fiscally conservative administration, and a smaller, hands-off government; less debt, less tax redistribution, etc—But we have differences on guns, trade, abortion rights, global warming, the Supreme Court appointment process, and other social issues.

Regardless of our differences, I am very concerned at the neck-and-neck polls between two such different options: A sane, articulate, rational and experienced executive who may have lied about certain events—and a completely unworkable buffoon with an empire built on scams and bravado. I urge you with passion and urgency to please reflect and reconsider your endorsement of Donald Trump. Recant and recast your influence. This is not a Republican–vs–Democrat issue. Even a liar cast in the mold of Richard Nixon would be a far better choice than Donald Trump to lead our country. Trump will destroy our nation’s influence, reputation, economy, and alliances everywhere on earth. He is already well on his way to doing this.

I have always been impressed with your rapid rise as a thought leader. You are intelligent and very persuasive. Please switch horses, Dan. President Obama feels strongly that Trump is unfit to be the US President. I am more specifically concerned that he is unfit to be the object of your persuasive influence.

I see myself in Donald Trump—and I don’t like it!

Look at it this way, Dan: Trump and I share some “qualities”…

  • I have been known to exaggerate—when I believe that I will not get caught
  • I have used an alias to make phone calls (to make my organization look larger or my position seem more credible)
  • I sometimes speak with emphatic conviction before carefully checking facts
  • I have occasionally allowed myself to give into the lure of divisiveness and discrimination

But here’s the point, Dan: I know that these emotional and erratic tendencies make me unfit to govern the United States—especially if I lack a clear record of surrounding myself with critical advisers who are empowered to challenge me, delay my stupid statements and bravado, and with power to cut off my twitter feed before any random, venomous thought spits out from my ADHD brain.

More importantly, Trump doesn’t do these things occasionally. He does them every day, and with the passionate zeal of a bombastic, pathological liar.

If comparing Donald Trump to my low-brow idiosyncrasies fails to move you, then allow me to try reasoning with facts…
Is Donald Trump a legitimate candidate for US President?

You assert that liberals take Trump’s statements without context. I believe that I have observed the context. For example, how can you not be disturbed by a comment that Trump made today in reference to Obama’s firm stance against shooting cops. Trump said. There is something going on with Obama. I watched him and there is something going on there that we just don’t know about yet.” He made a similar statement after the Orlando nightclub bombing.

What the h*ll is that?! To me, it is obvious: He is using innuendo to push a conspiracy theory and hoping to cast FUD into anyone associated with Obama. For Trump, this is a frequent tactic. In fact, it is his modus operandi…

  1. Birther Issue: Claims that Obama was not born in the USA
  2. Religion: Claims that Obama is a Muslim or that Clinton is controlled by Jews
  3. Black Lives Matter: Claims that Obama fans the flames of anti-cop hate
— How can you not be disturbed when Trump criticizes a judge born in Indiana for being Mexican? (“We assume that he is Mexican–but that’s OK”). What kind of idiot statement is that?!

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump gets sucked into Tit for Tat with a Gold Star mother and claims that her Muslim upbringing prohibits her from addressing the DNC? (Even if this were true, what type of man would use this to gain points?!)

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump makes fun of a handicap or says that a distinguished prisoner of war is not heroic, because he was caught?

— How can you not be disturbed that a candidate for president makes reference to the size of his penis on a televised debate?

— How can you not be disturbed about a candidate that talks about the redeeming virtues of Saddam Hussein or Putin?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s claim “I love the Bible more than anyone”? (I certainly don’t want a leader who uses the Bible as a blueprint for morality, but seriously: He made this claim—and then attempted to quote “Two Corinthians”.

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s crazy defense of his multiple corporate bankruptcies. He even claims that the US may need to renegotiate the national debt or simply print its way out of debt. Is this rational talk?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s desire to deal with the cost of our Nato commitment by encouraging Japan and South Korea to obtain nuclear weapons? Is that the talk of a sane man?

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a vile personal tweet about another candidates wife, and then deflects blame by saying “I didn’t start it”? Yes, he did! And, in the words of Anderson Cooper, “That’s the argument of a five year old!

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate that tells his supporters to punch a demonstrator? —and that he will pay the legal bills [i.e. in the event that they are arrested for a crime orchestrated by the candidate].

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a tweet that was lifted from a white supremacist web site, and then claims that the Star-of-David next to Hillary and a downpouring of $100 dollar bills is just a Sheriff’s Star?

— How can you not be disturbed by the only presidential candidate in 30 years who refuses to reveal his taxable income, and then uses the lame excuse that he is undergoing a government audit?

I hate to resort to name calling, but please tell me how you can endorse redneck, racist, white trash, like that?

You claim that I am just repeating lame propaganda by CNN, but I have eyes, ears, a good memory and an analytical mind. Trump is divisive, childish, vindictive and deceitful. It is not clear that he is a good businessman. But if he is, he has built his fortune on hollow promises, trickery, and walking away from his obligations. In the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I know a con when I see one!

Please pause and reflect on this, Dan. You have more influence than you realize. Show your social media readers that you can reverse course. Your voice makes a difference. Donald Trump’s candidacy is far from viable. His words and actions are worse than lies. They are a disgrace. Please counter the insanity with your influence and your enviable soapbox.

God help us, if Americans align with Trump as they step into the voting booth—And God help me, if he wins. With such a thin skin and a history of bullying perceived enemies, Trump is certain to single me out for punitive vengeance.

Your friend (still, and always)

Mr. Trump’s Star of David

“I didn’t do it. I didn’t mean it…We thought it was the star
of a an iconic Sheriff’s badge. Only crooked Hillary or the
liberal media would interpret it as an Anti-Semitic tweet.”


No, it’s not a quote from Mr. Trump. It is a mash-up of responses from his deputies and spin-meisters on CNN. They were responding to trump-tweetthis graphic, issued from their leader’s personal and infamous Twitter account.

The great thing about using proxies to do your dirty work, is that you can throw whatever you want toward the wall, and then disavow whatever doesn’t stick.

Along with name-calling and race baiting, it’s what six year olds do best in a sandbox. Later, when they become teens, they mature into slashing tires, throwing Molotov cocktails or electing bigots to the white house.

This is what a Sheriff’s star looks like, Mr. Trump. It has 5, 6 or 7 points. Those with 6 points always have balls at the vertices—especially, Sheriff-5-6-7if it constructed from two equilateral triangles. A Star of David is not an iconic Sheriff’s star.

When used to frame text, graphjic artists and layout editors almost always choose a 7-pointed star, because it maximizes text area. A Star of David is made of two overlapping, equilateral triangles. Although it can portray other things, the shape is fairly distinctive because of its simplicity. There are no balls at the vertices.

According to the FBI, 57% of hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jews, while only 16% target Muslims. Your tweet plays to the haters. You know it. Believe me, Mr. Trump, you know it!

As a leading candidate for political office, you most certainly have a sense of your audience and how words and images are likely to be interpreted. star-of-davidYou cannot play dumb with the rest of Americans. But in the event that you are, in fact, clueless, your naïveté or indifference is almost as dangerous as the hate that most Americans suspect of you.

The bottom line is that divisiveness, marginalization and intolerance are the hallmarks of a weak, thin-skinned bully. They have no place in politics and are not compatible with secular government or the democratic process.

Ellery is rarely a political pundit. But he has written about Donald Trump before:

Will Hillary Gag Her Critics?

My friend, Peter, is at it again. He’s the dude with a geographic license to wear loud, floral print shirts that don’t tuck in. We used to be friendly competitors in the email security space. But we both switched careers long ago and we are now fast friends at a distance.

I said “at a distance” because we are separated by both land and politics. At 5100 miles (8200 km), we are geography separated as far as two people in USA can be! And the political distance between a bible-toting redneck and a blue-blooded Libertarian is nearly as great! Actually, I am exaggerating the metaphor… Neither of us is at the fringe—but as the pendulum swings, we each tend to be adrift from the center!

I have always been impressed with Peter’s ability to initiate passionate and popular debate. While this Blog elicits between zero and ten comments for each article, a simple post on Peter’s Facebook wall gets 75 responses, often within hours. His capacity to generate discussion and debate not only speaks to Peter’s breadth of contacts, but more importantly to a keen sense of hot-button issues!

Last week, Peter asked his friends to opine on Hillary Clinton. He was critical of her desire to vet Supreme Court nominees based on their willingness to restrict free speech rights for campaign commercials that slander a candidate in proximity to an election.

His question refers to this article. [Click below to read in a new window]


Actually, the use of the term slander is my spin. Slander invokes a very different legal bar, and it is not a form of protected speech. But Hillary openly opposes the airing of any critical opinion in the days leading up to an election.

Peter asks:

If you and your friends pool your resources into a corporation making a movie that comes out 30 days prior to an election criticizing candidate Ted Cruz, should you be arrested? If you answered “No”, then I hope you also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United.


A Wild Duck response…

I have read and understand the Powerline Blog piece on Citizens United. I fully agree with the Supreme Court decision. And, of course, I believe that Clinton should avoid a litmus test that buttresses her effort to thwart our First Amendment.

My initial reaction was to wonder if anyone feels differently? Who can argue with free speech, especially when it comes to politics. Perhaps I live among a small circle of friends, but I can’t think of anyone—regardless of their politics—who would expect or desire a different outcome. (I am assuming that the Powerline article was not slanted—or lacking some germane point!)

Big Business, Money and Free Speech

What if big money backs free speech? Surely, that type of speech should be restricted. Right? Not on your life! The argument that organizations are not people and that they shouldn’t enjoy basic rights just doesn’t hold water. And the argument that money buys elections is just daffy!…

What are we? Idiots and sheep?! There is no such thing as “buying” an election. Not in a country with a free press, free speech and the Internet. Of course, access to money helps any persuasive campaign, just as a well-funded ad campaign helps Coca-Cola sell more soda than Fred’s regional cola. But, when was the last time that you or a family member voted for a candidate because she had more TV ads? If you ask me, modern electioneering is comprised mostly of negative attack ads. I suspect thst expensive messages leading up to an election are more likely to dissuade voters than they are to “buy” votes.

Hillary as President

I have not yet formed a position for or against Hillary as a presidential candidate. But, I would give her a pass for being pig-headed on this issue, at least in public discourse. The ramifications of free speech have hit too close for her to think straight. I doubt that she will find a credible candidate for Supreme Court Judge that would vote to prohibit an opinion piece, regardless of its sponsors or timing.

On Second Thought

church-&-state-sHere, at Wild Duck, I rarely equivocate. My opinions are as pig-headed and bull nosed as Hillary’s. But once in a while, I acknowledge that there may be another side to an issue. (Not the free speech issue. On that, I stand firm). But, on assuming that a candidate—if elected—would not act on their radical or religious beliefs. On this point, I can no longer vote with smug assurance…

I once gave Republicans a pass on the issue of a litmus test. I assumed that they would  never hand pick ANTI-choice justices or ANTI separation of church-state justices. I thought it impossible that any educated individual could be a bible thumper. I was wrong. Clearly, some politicians and judges mix religion with politics or seek to force our sisters and daughters into back room abortions.

And so, Peter, I shall reflect on your question a bit more! Regards from your slightly more liberal friend on the mainland.


Like Peter Kay, Ellery occasionally pontificates on politics of the day. But,
unlike Peter, Ellery is apt to opine from a liberal or Libertarian perspective.