Russia is not our Enemy.

In a previous Post I said this:

In the days before the UN resolution authorizing the no fly zone in Libya, the Russian Foreign minister stated that if the USA pursued the no fly zone concept as regards Libya, the Russians would veto it in the Security Council. Instead, the Russians merely abstained. However, soon after the NATO aggression against Libya began, Putin stated that the attacks against Libya were barbaric and reminiscent of the Crusades. However, the President of Russia disagreed and Putin shut up. It is noteworthy that Secretary Gates visited Russia before the UN resolution. It is frightening to think that the world may need to depend upon Russia and a veto in the UN Security Council for protection of the rights of sovereign States. After all, it was the Russians who after WW II were the criminal aggressors against Poland, Czech, etc. All during those terrible Cold War years the USA constantly invoked the concept of the Sovereign Nation State in order to counter the criminal occupation of the Eastern Block nations. However, now the USA under Obama’s New World Order ideas, is the aggressor and maybe occupier of another sovereign nation! Russia has murmured on the side lines since Putin was forced to shut up. However, the future of the free world may depend upon a former communist dictatorship and not in the USA. It seems like the Pres. and the Admin. are willing to bomb and destroy the armed forces of another country all the while declaring that the bombs and cruise missiles and other brutal military weapons are the agents of peace and harmony protecting the so called civilians from bad bad Gaddalfi.

Today (Oct, 2015) we witness another in the strange interpretation of the world put forward by the Obama administration. In the past few weeks, the Russians have send military supplies, weapons and ammunition to the Assad government of Syria. Please note, that this is a legal government to legal government transfer of assets. While people may not like either Assad or Putin, they are the legal leaders of their sovereign nations. Both nations are recognized by at least 105 nations as legal governments. Both are full member nations of the United Nations. However, the Obama government states that supplying the Assad government with the ability to defend itself against terrorist ISIS and US backed insurrectionists is illegal.

However, the USA finds nothing wrong with arming, supplying, training and providing millions of dollars to hundreds of insurrectionists. Please note, that if a person is armed and proposes to lead an insurrection against the Obama government in the USA, that person will be arrested and if found guilty, is liable to execution. If that same person is employed by a foreign government to overthrow the Obama administration, he is called a State terrorist. If he is a free lance US citizen attempting to overthrow the US government, he is a traitor. But, according to the Obama government, none of this applies to those we use to overthrow the Assad government.

Today this author read the responses of Marco Rubio and Caryl Fiorino to the Russian airforce warning to USA air planes over Syria to not interfere with them. The USA planes have been bombing Syria for months. The claim is that our bombing is okay because we are only bombing ISIS and have the permission of the Assad government. (Strange that we use the approval of the Assad government to defend ourselves against charges of criminal aggression!) Anyway, Rubio, and Fiorino think that we should tell the Russians that there are serious repercussions including our shooting at their planes because they warned us to stay away as they bomb ISIS. I hope they and Ted Cruz are not suggesting that we fire against Russian military jets operating over Syrian airspace with the Assad government’s permission. Such an action would clearly be an act of war and indicates that we are willing to fight the Russians as they attempt to destroy ISIS.

Have we forgotten that by jet we are fourteen hours away from Syria? Have we forgotten that Russia has a treaty of mutual assistance with Syria? Have we forgotten that Russia is a hugely powerful nuclear weapon-ed nation?

This writer exposed the danger of the so called Arab Spring proposed by Obama. Since then we have suffered through our acts of criminal aggression against Libya. We have witnessed our subversive covert operations in Egypt toppling our ally Mubarak and installing a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist leader in his place. We agonized over the attack on our embassy in Benghazi and the murder of ambassador Stevens. During all this time the Obama government has persisted in its supply, funding, and training of insurrectionists in Syria. ISIS has risen although the Obama government insists on the name ISIL which is a tacit approval of their legitimacy as a government. This ISIS is now being rumored to be an undercover agency of the French, British, and American governments as they attempt to reassert European colonial imperialism in the Middle East.

By the way, did you read that USA is supplying weapons, training anti aircraft and anti missile defense systems to Ukraine? Whatever you think of problems between Ukraine and Russia, please consider that our actions there are the same as Khrushchev supplying missiles to Castro. It is the same as IF the Russians supplied the same weapons to Mexico and aimed them at us.

The only person who is talking reasonably is Senator Rand Paul. He wants the USA to stop interfering in the internal affairs of independent sovereign nations. He wants us to allow people within a region to determine their own affairs. He wants us to stop beating the drums of war every time we are opposed by anyone. He wants us to use the power of diplomacy and meaningful cooperation and collaboration to solve the problems that occur. He does not want the US government to fall victim to a man versus man contest between Obama’s pride and Putin’s pride. When he says this he is talking from a position of strength because he will not equivocate and cave in at every opportunity. Rather, he will stand fast and use what we must, but only if it is absolutely a “must” situation.

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?

Why Donald Trump?

Why is so much attention being focused on Mr. Donald Trump? The other candidates are barely getting any press coverage. It is not because they do not have something to say. It is not because they do not have programs and solutions to offer. It is not because they do not have excellent campaign organizations. It is because the press and the major media are giving Mr. Trump so much coverage. Why do they do this? Mr. Trump is a flashy candidate who they find entertaining and therefore as someone who will help them sell their news. The other candidates with more political knowledge and experience are forced out of the news by the antics of the often clownish antics of Mr. Trump. That is too bad. It would be an injustice to America to promote one political upstart just because he is entertaining while ignoring the others who may have things of more substance and importance to contribute.

Just Stop the Bombs

Recently I saw a photo on the Internet showing ISIS terrorists in a parade of US military vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks, HumVees, and the like. The terrorists were dressed in the green US army camo uniform. Many carried US made Tow missile carriers, and other sophisticated US weapons. With the photos was a video of the parade of the terrorists through the town they had captured from the Syrian government. Please note that we were able to photograph and videotape the parade. It was at least a mile long and was manned by hundreds of terrorist drivers, militants and criminals. If we wanted to do something about ISIS this was our chance but the parade continued on its way with no terrorist ever in danger.
On the same day I saw a photo of a USA bombing raid on Damascus the civilian city and capital of Syria. It was reported that hundreds of civilians in the capital were killed or injured. It looked like the bombing was extensive and brutal. So, we bomb the capital city of the sovereign nation of Syria while we videotape the terrorist ISIS militants. Innocent people in the Capital die from our bombs but the bloody terrorist criminals are celebrating.
I think that B. Assad is a dictator, as was his father. I believe that his government, however, is recognized by 105 nations and had a seat in the United Nations General Assembly. I think an international business that wanted a contract for Syrian oil would get Assad’s signature and the contract would be considered legally binding and could be defended before the world court in Geneva.
So what gives us the right to bomb Assad? It is because the USA says he is a dictator and as our President said, “Must Go.” I guess, therefore, if we were fair, then if Assad said Obama is a terrorist who bombs innocent civilians in Damascus and therefore, “Must Go.” it would be okay for him to bomb Washington so as to get at B. Obama!? I guess there is no crime for either them or us. It’s just the business of Superpowers and nation states.
However, I do not remember reading that Assad or his government declared war on the USA. I do not remember Assad or his government attacking US military personnel at any time. I do not remember Assad arranging for bombs to go off in Washington. He does not bomb the USA embassy in Damascus. I think it would be fair to say that Syria and the Assad regime are not in any way a threat to the USA or USA international interests. So why are we bombing Assad? Why are USA bombs killing innocent Syrian civilians in the capital city?
The USA has not moved to remove the Assad government from the United Nations. It has not moved to have the 105 nations deny diplomatic recognition to the Assad government. The USA has not declared war on Syria. And the last time I looked, I think that the definition of criminal aggression is when one nation (USA) attacks a sovereign nation without provocation. Criminal aggression is a International war crime.
One more thing, there are many in the USA including venerable Charles Krauthamer of Fox News, who promote the idea of sending armaments and sophisticated weapons to the so called “Syrian Free army” in order thereby to topple the Assad government. The so called “Syrian Free Army” has been shown to have morphed from a groups of Syrian rebels with leadership in Paris, France, into a front group for Al Qaeda in Syria. It has also been shown that massive amounts, the guesstimate is 600,000 lbs of arms have been shipped to the “Syrian Free Army” but these were sold or given by them to ISIS. ISIS, in turn, uses these to invade Iraq, capture many Syrian cities, kill Christians and behead people, put people in cages and burn them to death and the like.
This writer says stop the bombs. Stop the massive arms shipments to ISIS. Stop the illegal criminal aggression against the Assad regime. Offer help to the hundreds of thousands of Christians displaced, persecuted, tortured and murdered by ISIS.
We toppled Hussein, what happened? ten thousand American dead and wounded and it is now a haven for ISIS. We toppled Mubarak. What happened? Eqypt was handed over to a leader of the Muslim brotherhood, a terrorist group and was becoming a haven for terrorists. But Egypt has a powerful national military and the Muslim brotherhood was toppled by Egyptians and is now ruled democratically by a religiously responsible activist Muslim leader. We toppled Qaddafi. What happened ? Chaos and Benghazi- an American Ambassador murdered as President Obama, and Hilary Clinton watched it on TV in the White House.
Stop the bombs. Stop the millions in funding to the so called Syria Free Army. Stop international military arms shipment to ISIS. Let’s see if these people, left to their own cannot solve their problems without interference from USA.

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.

Rand Paul is Correct about the Today’s Rules for Speaking

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-seeks-dismiss-criticism-plagiarism-120740932.html

Senator Rand Paul is correct in asserting that speeches do not carry the same rules of attribution as written material. If speeches followed the same rules then the speaker would never get past the first sentences. Much of what is thought has also been thought by someone else. When written material such as books, journals and the like were the main sources of information, we were trained to cite the source title, date, place of publication and author or editors etc. However, in the age of cinema and Wikipedia, and Internet, the possibility is very high that someone somewhere has written the same thoughts as you have, (like I am doing now). If the item to be spoken is exactly literal, it may be a good idea to mention the person. But just because The Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King said, “I have a Dream” does not mean that no one can ever use those four words again. Although if the reference is to Rev. Dr. King and to the civil rights movement it may be a good idea to mention him and his speech. Yet, even here a case can be made for the use of allusion in speech whereby we evoke the image of the other person and their words while intentionally not mentioning them by name. This is a valid technique to tease the mind of the listener to make the needed connection. Rachel Maddox knows this. She is a college grad. She is a published writer. She is a public speaker. Her comments about Senator Paul should be taken in the context of her need for publicity and her need to attract audiences for her shows and her book. This is not to dismiss her questions or demean her objections but it is to place her comments in a wider and interesting context concerning the rules for writing and public speaking today.

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.