At a time in the history of the United States of America, the citizens of this great country of ours are filled with contemporaneous political animus, both in the major political caucuses and in the individuality of deep distrust, the likes of which have not been seen except possibly over 200 years ago during the early Jefferson-Adams era.
The political cross-accusations are absolutely venomous, and I believe are stroked by the undeniable egomaniacal eccentricities of the present administration leadership. This is America. It is not a state where anarchy should prevail. It should not be an era of fomenting ambiguity for political gains. This should not be! This should never be!
And from all of this cacophony arises a slightly framed, maybe a 100-pound lady, who represents the antithesis of the present use of individual degradation that is currently being used by political rivals.
Here is a person, whose IQ is indisputably astronomical. But not only is she super bright, she is dedicated to what is correct by her tenacious advocacy regarding the advancement of her thoughts on gender equality. But to go with that, she is a loving person, who not only administered to her own law school academics at a very prestigious school, but also to her husband’s law school courses (He was a year ahead of her) when he became incapacitated with testicular cancer treatment. WOW! Graduating number one in her law school class, she was turned down as a potential clerk to a famous Supreme Court justice because of gender. And not only that, she could hardly find any legal work because she was a woman. Over the years, because of her legal acumen that eventually could not be denied, she rightfully was able to change laws that discriminated and disallowed persons from performing functions that they were capable of doing because of their gender.
She absolutely changed what needed to be changed in a quiet and rightfully thoughtful manner. There was no humiliating verbiage. No abuse and no pedantic insinuations in her legal arguments relative to the justification of her thoughts.
They were purely meticulous and error free.
She went about altering legal gender perceptions on an intellectual basis. There was no hate in her briefs or in her legal arguments. They were precise and concise. And this is why, in today’s political atmosphere of disharmony, she is and always will be, a voice of reason and not the vitriolic and unwarranted gross verbal abuse very much led by our current political hierarchy.
Dr. Lou Belinfante, Smyrna