Trump, Hilary and Obama

Much is made of the idea that a vote for Hilary is a vote to extend the Obama policies. This is because they feel that the Obama policies were the wrong policies. These people fear that Hilary is politically and perhaps financially indebted to Obama and his billionaire backers. Why is this a problem? It is because voters want the person they elected. They do not want the backers, lobbyists, power brokers and political careerists who are backing Hilary. To think that Hilary will be her own person and reject the demands of her financial and political backers is to believe that such people, with such a heavy investment in her, will allow her to be independent. That is unlikely.

What is wrong with the Obama legacy? It starts in Cambridge Mass. There, President Obama inserted his own brand of black racism into a neutral situation,. His assertion that the Cambridge police were acting “foolishly” when they tried to protect the property of a black professor was a huge signal that he intended to interpret things from a black versus white prejudice. This racist philosophy evidenced itself again and again. Notable for this writer was the George Zimmermann and Evon Martin Case. Again Obama inserted his racism when he made several public comments on the case. He went so far as to say that if Obama had a son, he would look like the victim. This seemingly innocuous statement was Obama’s taking sides in the judicial case identifying himself with the victim and thereby casting a shadow of guilt on George Zimmermann.

The next episode for our remembering is the method of passage for Obamacare. The President used obvious bribery of political support, public contracting support, and favoring the pet projects of Senators who would sell their convictions for money and the promise of patronage. Additionally, Obama, in typical fashion, moved quickly, once he had bribed votes, to cut off any opposition. Some would call this politics as usual, this writer calls it blatant interference in the legislative functions of the Congress. This strident disregard for the separation of powers clause of the Constitution is further revealed by Obama’s use of Executive Orders. Executive Orders are the same as writing and passing legislation without permission of the legislature. The most prominent expression of Obama’s lack of respect for our constitution was his statement that with his phone and his pen he would bypass Congress and impose his will on the citizens without their consent.

The concept that the so called Constitutional scholar Barrack Hussein Obama should want to usurp the Constitution by a dictatorial use of his phone and his pen is very troubling. For this writer that alone, if extended by the Hilary administration, spells more Federal intrusion into our lives and more dictatorship of the federal government over business, education and personal life. Therefore, a vote for Trump is a vote against an overly dictatorial federal government and its continuation under a Hilary administration.

Speaker John Boehner Resigned, He was not Ousted.

In a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio show dated Sept 28th, 2016, Mr. Limbaugh says that John Boehner was ousted from the third most powerful position in the United States. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Boehner, according to the US Constitution, was third in line of succession to the Presidency.

The cause for the Speaker to resign was not stated by the Mr. Boehner. But the headline to Rush Limbaugh’s transcript is that the third most powerful man in America was ousted by forces lead by Senator Ted Cruz. According to this theory, Senator Ted Cruz was an instigator and advocate for conservative Republican congressmen to consistently and persistently oppose Speaker Boehner’s leadership. He did this, according to Limbaugh, because Senator Cruz had no support for his conservative views among fellow senators. Therefore, he decided to go to the other house, Mr. Boehner’s house, and spoil it.

The quote from the transcript is the following:

“The point is, Ted Cruz was aware of all this, and he decided there was no way since he was so vastly outnumbered in the Senate, that what he instead did was to work with the conservative members in the House to strengthen them, to focus them. Not that they needed it, but just to form some unity and have a coordinated effort that was aimed at Boehner’s resignation, since Cruz was not gonna be able to engineer a similar thing in the Senate because he was basically a party of one.”

The transcript relates how Mr. Limbaugh rationalizes all of this as being a good thing. He has his opinion. Why not, he gets paid millions of dollars to tell us what he thinks. But if he is correct in his opinion of this event, I do not see it as credit to Senator Cruz but a shame. I guess you could credit Cruz with being savvy in understanding, as Limbaugh says, that in the Senate he is a party of one among 100 elected Senators. I guess you could praise him for being smart enough to know that he could gather the discontented, unhappy, miserable conservative congressmen who did not like Speaker Boehner and form them into a focused, united group of mostly freshmen congressmen who in their disgruntlement could work in a coordinated effort to oust the Speaker. I guess you can compliment him for subverting the office of Speaker of the House of Representative instead of fighting and winning better credibility in his own house, the Senate. But if Mr. Limbaugh is correct and according to the transcript, ” So there’s any number of people who you might…if you want to consider this in a doling-out-of-credit sense, Cruz is right there at the top.”

All of us wonder about the resignation of Speaker Boehner. He also will not stand for election to his congressional seat. He is retiring. It seems to me that there was a day not long ago when powerful forces were in motion to do something or other. The accomplishment of it, back then, may have involved the resignation or the retirement of some powerful person. However, I seem to remember, that there was a sense of grace and largeness on the part of the winners over the vanquished. It may have been called, back then, a sense of class or classiness. The winners were the first ones to come out and congratulate the defeated with words of praise for their service, and with a reminder of their many accomplishments and the excellence of their career and the honorable and praiseworthy things for which they stood. But according to Mr. Limbaugh, this sense of class and honorable victory is not true of the Value Voter’s Summit in Washington (DC) where, as Limbaugh states, (Senator Rubio is speaking) and says: …Just a few minutes ago Speaker Boehner announced that he will be resigning..AUDIENCE (wild Applause) Rush: Now, that (applause) went on and on and on. It was over the top. And this was something that a number of people have been attempting to make happen for months now going into years.

This writer is aware of the advertisements on Facebook and Internet to get rid of Speaker Boehner. I have always wondered who these disgruntled and discontented people were. I even imagined that the advertisements were planted by Democrats to defeat the Republicans. Now, I know that it is something (as Limbaugh states) ” a number of people have been attempting to do for years.” Really!? Is there a secret group of political outsiders trying to subvert the political process? Were there powerful people, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Senator Cruz, trying to revolt and oust the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am not one of them. In fact, I get very nervous around discontented, disgruntled, malcontents who are in positions of power and are fighting against their fellows who are in positions of power.

Are they so sure that they would do a better job? Are they so sure that if their man gets the power he will not use that power against the revolutionaries who put him or her there? Do they want the power for themselves? Are they willing to blame the so called leadership for their own inability to cooperate and focus on passing meaningful solutions to the nation’s problems- preferring to blame, as Mr. Limbaugh does, ” The …insider class, or ruling class or whatever you call it elite mind-set.” I wonder about people who are willing to subvert and collaborate in a focused, united, cooperative campaign against someone else, are they going to be better or worse than those they ousted? After all, they got to the top by subverting the authority of those they replaced. They can expect the same for themselves, unless they are the first to attack and remove the attackers.

Limbaugh goes on to state his agenda for the ouster of Majority Leader McConnell. He uses a quote from somebody else to hide behind, Gerald Selb, of the Wall Street Journal, who claims that the so called Tea Party forces are increasing their power and loosening the Republican (so called) establishment’s grip. So, after all, this transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show is actually a self proclaimed testimonial to Rush Limbuagh’s success at fostering the take over of the Republican party by his brand of conservatives?

New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive

It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant. To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect. The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies. Further, non enforcement of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother. It denies their rights as a living human being. Even worse, it allows that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing. While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.

Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill. They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies. So what.! To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.

Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

What Happened to Ross Perot?

There was a man named Ross Perot. Remember him? He was very much like Mr. Donald Trump. He was a business man. He was a billionaire. Both of them ran for President. What was Perot’s attractiveness? Perot gave expression to the fear and anxiety of the middle class of his time.
In his book titled, They Only Look Dead, E.J. Dionne Jr. (1996) called those attracted to Ross Perot the “Anxious Middle”. In a very fine chapter about the Politics of the Anxious Middle, Mr. Dionne wrote, (p.67)

The Anxious Middle set the terms for the 1992 and 1994 elections. It destroyed a Republican presidential coalition that seemed invulnerable only a few years earlier. It made Ross Perot possible, ended George (H.W) Bush’s political career, sent Bill Clinton to the White House – and rebuked Clinton and helped make Newt Gingrich one of the central figures of American politics. Perot spoke instinctively of the American Middle. Bush never understood it. Clinton saw it coming long before most politicians, shaped his campaign to respond to its concerns – and then confronted its ire after only two years in office. Gingrich sought his own radical language to speak to its anxieties

(p. 72) Almost as important as Clinton’s candidacy, of course, was Ross Perot’s, and his rise proved to be an essential component of Clinton’s victory. In the spring of 1992, as discontent against Bush was growing, Perot’s sudden availability as a candidate shook loose millions of previously Republican voters. Before he dropped out of the contest, Perot had risen to first in the polls and had driven Bush down to about a third of the potential vote. In his withdrawal statement in July – in the midst of the Democratic National Convention – Perot gave Clinton a large boost when he explained that his candidacy might no longer be needed , “now that the Democratic Party has revitalized itself.” Clinton soared in the polls.

Can we call the politics of Mr. Trump an appeal to the feelings of the Angry Middle? His confrontational style, his harsh criticisms, his stand against media and news reporters, his comments to Megan Kelly at the debate, and his repeated statements of anger and frustration place him as their spokesperson. Many of his supporters praise his fearless engagement with and rebuttal of the news reporters. They like when he gives simple answers to, for instance, the immigration problem. They admire that he is willing to say to anyone who disagrees with him, “you’re Fired.”

But as Mr. Dionne highlights, Ross Perot voluntarily left the race and abandoned his supporters. He threw his support to Clinton. He said that his candidacy was no longer needed now that the Democratic party was revived. Was that it? Did Perot play the American voters for fools? Did he care about the voter’s or only about the revitalization of the Democrats? Was he really just a rich old man who hated Bush and would do whatever he could to insure that Clinton won? However you might feel about that analysis, the fact remains that Perot’s candidacy was phony and he never really cared about the “Anxious Middle.” He cared about himself, the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party.

The parallels between Trump and Perot are startling. Trump’s campaign is to feared because like Perot’s, Trump’s billionaire financing, his bitter anger at the press and media, and his threats of reprisal against those with whom he disagrees are enjoying the same kind of support that sent Perot to number one. Plus, there is already talk among people that if Trump is not on the ballot, millions of voters will opt to stay home on Election Day. Such an action of silent protest will throw the election to Mrs. Clinton and the voter’s will have been played twice the fool.

My Ideal Candidate for President

Frankly, it is myself. But that is not reality. So, I decided to think about my ideal candidate. WARNING: My choice for President is Senator Rand Paul. Why? I think of Senator Rand Paul as a principled leader who has a solid principle of government, and will be guided by high morality and the ethical principles of a Judeao/Christian heritage.
But this is about a blending of candidates into the ideal President. For me, it would start with the qualities I admire in Senator Paul. He is a moderate conservative in government philosophy viewing the federal government as too large to be effective and too big to be considerate of the needs of individual citizens. His foreign policy is a philosophy of applying the same freedoms and principles of governance to other nations as we apply to ourselves. Senator Paul, unlike some others, does not consider it a virtue to bomb and drone other nations under the pretext of defending freedom. He understands that bombs kill innocent people and that even targeted drones have been used to kill fifty men, women, and children under the idea that one of them may be a terrorist.
The second candidate whose qualities I admire is Dr. Ben Carson. Like Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Carson lives by the principle ethical imperative of all doctors, namely, do no harm. Dr. Ben Carson is a quintessential American who’s exemplary life highlights him, as it does Dr. Rand Paul, as a person who’s pro life stand is not just anti Planned Parenthood, but forcefully affirmative of all that America and Western civilization has always held dear, namely, the freedom of the individual to chose and the freedom of the person to move forward into the future under the warm light of God’s sun.
Thirdly, I sincerely appreciate the passionate convictions and forthright honesty of Senator Ted. Cruz. He is a pioneer who has been helped by Senator Rand Paul to find his place in the spectrum of political life and who has distinguished himself as a shining beacon of light in a sea of tumult and storm.
Fourthly, I admire the stamina, intellect and language ability of Governor Jeb Bush. He speaks fluent Spanish and I admire his ability at a second language. But Secretary of State Kerry speaks fluent French and I do not admire him. So, I am forced to wonder if a President Jeb Bush will hold his press conferences and deliver his State of the Union addresses in English and in Spanish? The languages spoken in the USA are many and all are good. However, for this citizen, the language of America is English. It is not Arabic. It is not Korean. It is not Hebrew. It is not Spanish. The people who speak two or more languages are to appreciated. But the language of America for Koreans, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs and all others, is English.
Fifthly I admire Governors Walker and Kasich. They are administrators and leaders of sovereign states within our federal union. As governors, they are responsive to the needs of large citizen populations and their elected representative in the state legislatures. This, all by itself, indicates leaders who fully understand and support the principles of freedom for which our founders fought the American Revolution.
Sixth , I have a deep appreciation for Governor Huckabee. He is a gentleman through and through who exemplifies the values, culture and morals of Christian faith and its daily application to life.
Seventh, I like Donald Trump. He is forthright, candid and brutally opinionated. I believe that his brand of angry opinion reflects the frustration, anger and disappointment of Americans who are on the verge of giving up on the American dream and the principles of American freedom. But I do not believe we should select a leader because he reflects our anger. I do not believe we should follow the lead of someone because he represents our frustration. I do not feel comfortable empowering a man who’s demeanor is one that says, “You’re fired”. As ventilating as that demeanor may be, it is not a characteristic under which I want to live four years.
Can we get all of this in one President. I pray that we could. However, short of that, I pray that our next President will call upon the talents, experiences, abilities and insights of all the many candidates, appointing them to positions of power so that America will be served not by one excellent candidate who knows how to win elections but by many candidates who love America and will spend their lives making America better tomorrow than it is today.

Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?

I follow Senator Rand Paul’s run for the nomination of the Republican Party. I find the lack of coverage for Senator Paul to be not merely amazing but alarming. It seems to this writer that the powerful and the entrenched interests of the Republican party are working very hard to trash Senator Paul’s campaign.
Senator Paul is a powerful political figure in his own right. He is the person who is setting the agenda for the campaigns of all candidates. This is because he is the most original, freedom minded, logically consistent candidate among an overcrowded field. His political positions on the issues that most matter, namely: race and prison, drugs and mandatory sentencing, legalized marijuana, ISIS and the Middle East, Planned Parenthood, and refashioning our income tax system …
Well, his proposals are original, and based upon a freedom loving, individual rights, anti politically correct stance which is forcing the other candidates to take positions contra-Rand Paul. The fact that so many hard line, old line, entrenched members of the political class are attacking him indicates the power of his innovative proposals.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly and to a lesser extent, Megan Kelly, have set up a kill zone of ambush and attack against Senator Paul. All of these people are directly responsible as contributors to Barrack Hussein Obama’s victory in 2012. In that election cycle they all set absurd “conservative” standards for Governor Romney which when unmet insured his rejection by the conservatives. Mitt wasn’t conservative enough, so said Hannity. Mitt is not a Limbaugh conservative, so said Rush. O Reilly was a little more fair but constantly intoned that Romney couldn’t win, and well, Megan Kelly wasn’t really influential back then.

So, yes, these so called pundits and commentators allow Senator Paul to be interviewed but each time they try, as Miss Megan did, to undermine his integrity and political acumen. Miss Kelly even had the female Bush press secretary, what’s her name again?, come on and say that Senator Paul didn’t have the courage and fortitude to be President. (Shame, Shame.) As a fact, I remember Miss Megan wagging her finger in scold as she accused Senator Paul of scolding. (She kept the wagging finger below the camera angle but it still could be seen)
Am I angry? Well, I try not to be angry. But I am getting resentful of TV personalities telling me what to think, how to think, or even worse, not to think!
It is as though these good folk, as O’Reilly calls us, well, referring to them, it seems to these good TV folk that us folks at home are uninformed and ignorant. Not so, Bill. We know what we are about, and we are beginning to wonder what you folks are about? Are you censoring Senator Paul because in “you’s all folks opinion” he is not the “man”?
Friends, just for information, as I write this I am listening to, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Led Zepp, the Righteous Brothers, Pink, Nate Ruess, Michael Jackson, Cher, Mahalia Jackson, and the like. Just a hour ago I was listening to Brahms violin concerto and last night I viewed Princess Micheal of Kent on YouTube. She has a very interesting new book. Why do I include this? I just thought to let you know a little about me. It seems that a survey site called You Gov. is always asking me about my preferences in music and movies.
Anyway, if you have read this far, I thank you. Your time is precious and I appreciate that you found this interesting enough to wade through it all. You are a friend. I do not intend to insult or disparage others. I only intend to put out my thought into the public square, or as my friend Rev. Father John Neuhaus called it in his book, “the Naked Public Square”. By the way it is a book worthy to be read. (Yes, the title is The Naked Public Square.” )
So friends, peace to you and God bless. Let’s keep up our vigilance and not let others decide who will be in the White House. We have the vote, and although I am beginning to wonder as to the integrity of the vote tally, I still will stand fast for our rights as Americans.

Rand Paul and Paul Ryan

I still think the team of Romney and Ryan was a wonderful opportunity for America. As of now I think it could be Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I know a lot of people are angry at Congressman Ryan for budget matters. But the key is that he wanted to pass a budget in order to get control of spending back to the Congress. The Democrats have succeeded in using the Continuing Resolutions process to NOT pass a budget and thereby hand over complete control of spending to President Obama. That is why Obama was able to spend so much money. Now that we have a budget, imperfect though it be, the congress and budget committees can control and reign in the spending and President Obama no longer has a blank check to write. They have already corrected the mistake about military retirement pensions. They will do more. As for Rand Paul’s libertarian leanings, so what?! He doesn’t want war? Great. He believes in the rule of reason and law? Good. He thinks that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted? Fantastic. He thinks that government must be reduced in size and more actual power returned to State and Local governments. Bravo. He loves America and does not seek to fundamentally transform it into a socialist welfare state? Awesome. Let’s get behind the Republican candidate and not do the Gingrich, Santorum, even Ron Paul (Father to Rand) and fight till the convention and then go home to Va. Pa. and Tx. without giving wholehearted support to the candidate (Romney and Ryan.) I believe that we lost because those three groups fought too long, refused to donate to the candidate, refused to work for him, and stayed home on election day. I also blame Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin for seeking a so called PURE Conservative instead of supporting the best team we could field. Let’s not do it to ourselves again. By the way I like the sound of the two names, Rand Paul ( a R and a P ) and Paul Ryan (a P and a R ).

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election. They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner. They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day. The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them. Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks. So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time. The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate. Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had. It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe. Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh. Levin, the same. I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous. I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy. And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will. So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good, that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others. It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader. The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies. The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs. This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas. Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind. It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow. The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace. Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party. But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs. This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it. They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes. And all Democrats did as they were told to do. Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”. It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad. The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership. That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement. We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society? Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads. Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost. In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate. Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate. However, it must be a debate about ideas. The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing. The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow. And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather. (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans. Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault. And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina? Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video. The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the National Security Council because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe. We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff. And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues. However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate. Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue. It should be a non issue. As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues. Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian? Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned. What is an African anyway? Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black. Is African a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? Is Africa a continent or a country? Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway? Is it a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African. Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans. I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer. The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping. I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor. President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly. Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor. That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog. But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation. We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win. But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch. Nor should it. Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent. A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.! I just hope you get the idea.) I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight and definitely not a brawl.

Christie’s Political Enemies Continue Attacks

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201401/carl-lewis-chris-christie-new-jersey-politics

The writer states at the beginning that “…New Jersey politics is a full contact sport…” Yes, it is. No different from Obama politics with the buying of Senators to vote for Obama care. No different from Hilary Clinton and the Benghazi scandal. With Obama the nation is paying a huge price and forced to give up freedom of choice in healthcare. With Hilary four great Americans are abandoned in a firefight and die. And although this writer believes that it was not Christie personally who set up the traffic cones on a small access lane to a bridge, nonetheless, nobody died and its didn’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Come clean news writers, reporting is a blood sport and you think you can take Christie down so to clear the field for Hilary. Just another example of news media facilitating their favorites (Hilary)by destroying their rivals (Christie). PS..Hiliary will be 70 years old by 2016. I am 66 and I have had enough of the old politicos. Let’s move down to the forty and fifty years olds for our Presidents. Enough with the geriatric Harry Reids and the old Senate crew. Some of the elderly in the Senate are into their eighties!!! Pack it in boys, give somebody else a chance.

Are all Liberals Prejudiced? One Wonders!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/boehner-to-tea-party-shut-yourself-down.html?cmpid=yhoo

“…one-sided, overwhelmingly white, aging, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, science-denying districts want.” A person does not need to read any further than this in order to see that the author is herself a narrow-minded, prejudiced bigot with an amazing amount of self-righteous confidence who claims to be analyzing. However, this article is full of one-sided, myopic stereotypes which discredit her supposed analysis and reveal it to be nothing more than a rant.