They Just Don't Get It

Did the Russians intervene in our electoral process by attempting to hack both parties information processing equipment? Yes. Did it have any effect? Yes. Did they hack election machinery to alter votes? No. Is there evidence of vote tampering? Not by the Russians; Detroit is an example. Has anyone said the information which was released was false? No, in fact, the Democrats haven’t been asked that by those in the press corps and have not denied their veracity when given the opportunity while conducting interviews. Ms. Clinton’s private server wasn’t hacked by the Russians so that information isn’t even in question.

So, where are we with all this hand wringing and intimidation of electoral college electors by George Soros (not an American citizen) funded groups. Let’s remember Mr. Trump is not yet President; Mr. Obama is President. The intelligence community will not come before the appropriate congressional committees to present their evidence on the extent of the hacking, though they have been invited. President Obama could present his evidence to the American people in a nationwide address. No entity within the Democrat controlled executive branch of government will come forward and actually present their information. Until they present the information, these groups are just a bunch of noise attempting to interfere in our electoral process but in a different way than the Russians. Both are funded from outside the United States of America.

It is time for us to come together and accept the result of the election. Mr. Trump will be our next President. Democrats must do what they wanted Republicans to do if Ms. Clinton had won; accept the election results and let’s get down to the business of getting our country to be representative of all of us.

Trump Steps So Far

I have enjoyed the consternation from the political elite of both sides of the political spectrum as President Elect Trump has met with a variety of people from different backgrounds and ideologies. They seem to forget he isn't an ideologue; he is a pragmatic businessman. He doesn't have political baggage or ties which can back him into a corner and hinder his strategy. He isn't beholden to any political or business special interests and he promised to be the President of all Americans. He is listening to everyone and isn't shutting any doors or burning any bridges. He is doing what must be done before making a decision; that little thing called critical thinking which is so lacking in today's America.

The people who voted for Mr. Trump are tired of politicians and the stale rhetoric and positions from all the people belonging to the political establishment of either party. The mouths open and the same ideas are pronounced with changes to the semantics but not the substance. Their bottom line politics are essentially what they have been, and what people have been seeking solutions for since time began. Mr. Trump comes with none of that because he isn't someone who has a political history of stands on issues. He can cast a net for information and opinion from every quarter, which is a good thing. It is the politicians of the establishment in both major parties which have gotten our nation into the divided and indebted state it is in today.

Both sides practice racist identity politics. They each try to divide us into different camps according to our ethnicity, sexual orientation, social, or economic status. They try to tell us one group is getting this particular little goody and so this other group has to fight for their little group as does the next little group. It never ends and does nothing but continue to alienate and make us suspicious of one another. We start forgetting we are all in this together and the law and rules have to apply to every individual American the same. If it doesn't, none of us are safe from being singled out at some point. We cannot make exceptions for adherence to the rules just because it might be an individual in the group we identify ourselves with who is being held accountable. We are all equally accountable before the law.

This means if you protest and start destroying property you must be held accountable. If someone from your group breaks the immigration law, they must be held accountable be they an employer or someone who didn't enter the country legally. It doesn't matter the history of a hundred or hundreds of years ago; the law of today is applicable to today and anything else is noise meant to confuse the issue. We are a nation of laws and not of men for this very reason. We are one people from many different backgrounds who have certain inalienable rights from birth which are codified in our Constitution. This Constitution must mean what it says because if it doesn't, if it is indeed a living document which can be construed however the current political climate desires, our most basic freedoms can be brushed away with a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court. We are already beginning to see this happen. Your deeply held belief could be next if you fall out of favor with the political elite.

It is why it is so important Mr. Trump continue to do what he is currently doing. Meet with everyone, even those he may not agree with at present. Hear every idea, challenge established philosophy and policy, push back against conventional government bureaucratic thinking from those who have been in their positions through many administrations (it isn't as if they have this great track record). Ultimately Mr Trump will have to make a decision, when he does he must move forward with and implement without hesitation.

As he implements his strategy he must do so transparently and lay it out before the American people without the filter of the journalistic establishment, which has proven to be untrustworthy and with an agenda. He must do it outside the established political elite as they have become entrenched and only concerned with protecting their individual power. He must call out those who are duplicitous. He must acknowledge those who are helpful. He must go to the people; they are his greatest asset. Lay his case out to the citizenry and use the army which got him elected. They are the ones who got him elected and who only want one nation undivided which is fair to all its citizens and each is truly measured by the "content of their character".

A Beginning

We have just come through a very contested and divisive presidential campaign which has defined the differences in our country in pretty stark terms. We could look at this as the beginning of the end of the United States of America which we love or as the beginning of a dialogue which must be no holds barred, frank, straightforward and without concern for feelings and emotion. We cannot afford to ignore these issues or sugar coat the challenges to protect my or your feelings any longer. Politically correct dialogue must become a thing of the past; as must identity politics. There should be one identity, American.

Why must there just be an American identity? Well, the simple truth is we have allowed politicians to use those separate identities to divide us and appeal to our self-interest. We segregate ourselves in these artificial ways and allow special incentives to be given to us in tax breaks, set asides, or preferences for different things. We do not consider what would be best for all of us or how much it will cost someone else; and it will cost someone else because resources are finite and there are no free lunches.

We have allowed ourselves to be divided ethnically, by age, by income, by social standing. Social Security is used to divide us by age. The Democrats tell the old that their “benefits” will be cut if Republicans are in office. The Republicans tell those who are working about the percentage of the budget which go to Social Security payments and that the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be bankrupt. There is truth in all those statements, but also lies of omission.

The Social Security Trust Fund will become insolvent because of the population bubble which is fast approaching. But if the Government under both parties hadn’t been using the fund to borrow against because they won’t hammer out a budget which makes the Government live within its means, the fund would be solvent.

We the people are also to blame for the state of the Social Security Trust Fund because we expect government to be our Daddy. We think we deserve some kind of tax break, refund, or government service which we don’t think we should have to pay for or we don’t require our lawmakers to come up with a solution which will make it fiscally responsible. As citizens we have to be honest with ourselves and understand these things don’t just magically appear; they are going to have to be paid for by someone in the form of taxes or fees.

Here are some of the questions you should ask yourself when pondering these things. How much of your earned money are you willing to give away to fund someone else’s lifestyle? Why should someone fund the lifestyle you desire when you won’t do it for yourself? Why are you entitled to any part of someone else’s paycheck? Are your wants more important than someone else’s? Why should you be immune to the unexpected turns of life? Why aren’t you more responsible in your budgeting? Why aren’t you saving for those unexpected consequences? What are your real beliefs, morals, and ethics? Are you voting according to them? If not, why aren’t you? Are you responsible for what people did 5 or 6 generations ago? If not, why do you even entertain the notion of reparations? If a government program meant to alleviate poverty still has families on the program after 4 generations, why does it still exist? Let’s just start with these questions and go from there.

What Is Journalism?

I think it is now time in the west and in other countries who have governments which have democratic processes in the governmental systems, to ask what is journalism? What is its purpose? What are the ethics of those who call themselves journalists? What responsibility, if any, do the have to their readers, their governments, their employers?

These questions come to my mind after seeing trends within the media of activism for one set of political views, their growing brazenness in doing so, and their condescension to those who have a different set of values. I was given impetus to write this after watching 2 news programs this weekend. One was a show from a local station out of Tallahassee, Florida called “The Usual Suspects” and a show on PBS on Georgia Public Broadcasting entitled “Open Mind”; both shows illustrated the things I have seen in the media and those who identify themselves as journalists.

On the show “The Usual Suspects” there were 4 journalists, all progressive in leaning as evidenced by their very apparent dissatisfaction with Mr. Trump winning the Presidency. There were 2 Caucasian males, 1 Caucasian female, and an African American male, I don’t remember their names as I was overcome by their lack of objectivity and failure to grasp the mood of those who voted for Mr. Trump. They were obviously restraining themselves from saying the things they wanted about those voters and displayed a veneer of professionalism.

The African American journalist was honest in saying he was restraining himself from saying the things he wanted, I appreciated it and understood his feelings (though I feel he shouldn’t have to feel as he did) but the Caucasian female journalist couldn’t contain herself saying they need to be more proactive in “educating” those who voted for Mr. Trump about the issues. She feels journalists need to do more to get their progressive message out because, I guess, we don’t understand or maybe they are using words which are just to big for us to understand because how else could she explain those voters disagreeing with her.

In the other program, “Open Mind”, the control of information was what seemed to be what was important through journalist controls. I took that to mean, maybe I misinterpreted it, I was not smart enough to process the raw data and they were the ones who need to parse that data and decide what I should be able to see and interpret. I took it to mean, that unlike WikiLeaks, they would not have released the emails of Ms. Clinton, but they agreed with the release of those earlier emails and other documents which detailed the deeds of the NSA. This smacks of an agenda and wanting to engage in propaganda for a certain agenda.

This is what has brought about the demise and credibility of today’s news organizations; I am not even sure the journalists realize they are doing this. They have come to believe they are so much smarter than everyone else and they have the sole recipe for curing all the world’s ills. They believe they know how I should spend the money I work to earn, what car I should drive, how I should talk, how I should think, and it should all be done through government edict no matter what is in the law of the land; the Constitution.

Journalists are suppose to be the intelligence network of the American public. They are to give us the facts, without ideological slant, and allow us to make decisions based on those facts. There should be analysis pieces and editorials; but, they should be clearly labeled as such, not hidden as a straight news article.

Their cheer leading for certain candidates, issues, and ideology led to the rise of Fox News and their being ignored by a large segment of the population because of this lack of credibility. They need to return to the example of Walter Cronkite whom no one knew as a liberal until he had left his post at CBS News. It is because of this objectivity Mr. Cronkite was the most respected and trusted journalist in America. People knew he was a straight shooter, honest and a man of integrity.

 When journalists return to reporting who, what, when, where, and how they will again be trusted by all the American people. Until they separate the how and label it is such, they will not.

Why I Voted For Mr. Trump

I voted for Donald Trump and throughout the election cycle I explained why I was voting that way. I am an informed independent, Christian, constitutionalist American. I am a Marine no longer on active duty who takes the oath of enlistment seriously and it has no expiration date. If I perceive you as a threat to the Constitution I am honor bound to protect the ideals and principles and law set forth in that document against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am honest and detest dishonesty in those entrusted with governing and have taken the same or similar oath.

President Obama, a Democrat, has had 2 terms (the maximum) in office and had campaigned and was elected on a platform of transparent, honest, and inclusive government. He failed at all of it by those standards. His administration has not been transparent as evidenced in the emails which have been made public detailing the exchanges with Ms. Clinton’s staff to cover up the private email server she set up and compromised classified information. Which also exhibits their lack of compliance with a personal standard of mine, the rule of law.

You cannot tell me you are for the rule of law when you will not, and do not intend, to enforce the law of the land because you disagree with a law which has been instituted in accordance with our system of government and you happen to disagree, something the Obama administration has done throughout its tenure. They would not prosecute voting law in regards the New Black Panthers who were intimidating voters in Philadelphia and they will not enforce immigration law against either employers or those who enter the country illegally.

If you believe in the rule of law, you live it out in the actions taken when in a position to take action. You enact legislation through compromise and deal making; you do not do it with the stroke of a pen through executive order. When you do not put action with words you have no credibility, you are not truthful. You live within the bounds of the authority granted your branch of government in the Constitution. Mr. Obama and the democrats have not done that and have no intention of doing so. Ms. Clinton would be a continuation of this behavior.

You also don’t denigrate those who have legitimate differences on matters of conscience as President Obama and Ms. Clinton have done. They force Christians to perform acts contrary to their Biblically based beliefs or lose their businesses. They say we must change those Biblically based beliefs on abortion and homosexual marriage and enforcing of the current law in regards to immigration or be in the “basket of deplorables”. We are not xenophobic, or misogynist, or racist, or homophobic, or any other hateful name you wish to call us when using the Saul Alinsky political tactics to try and win an argument on other than facts. You have an us versus them mentality, not me. Live within the bounds of the Constitution and we will not have an issue. I am an adult, I can live and deal with disappointment in a positive way.

I am also not a globalist; I am an American before anything else and I will not surrender the sovereignty of my country to any world body or allow it to be surrendered by either an internal or external threat as defined in the Constitution. While I have empathy and sympathy and compassion for those in other countries, they are not my priority. My priority are American citizens. Our veterans come first, our homeless, our poor, our downtrodden all others come after them; especially when we have an almost 20 trillion dollar national debt. Any other tact is irresponsible and burdens our future in a way which is criminal in its negligence.

Any trade deals which costs Americans their jobs or destroy our manufacturing base are negligent. Any trade deal which disadvantages American based business or makes it more advantageous for American businesses to operate outside our borders instead of at home creating American jobs and building our manufacturing base is wrong and should not be pursued. The United States of America and her citizens must come first.

This is not to say we should disengage from the world and what is going on, not at all. We have to be engaged and protect our interests as we are the world power, but we cannot be a bully or impose our will on others. We continue to fight for human rights and the rule of international law, but we choose our battles carefully. If American interests are not at stake, we should not be militarily committed; it should be a diplomatic approach.

We should also not call domestic political activist groups as good if they promote an agenda which calls for violence as certain groups favored by the current administration have done. If you engage in or use rhetoric which calls for violence against any group within our country you are to be labeled as what you are, a hateful organization which promotes an agenda which is in contradiction to the values embodied in our Constitution. The Constitution is the standard against which everything must be measured.

 These are some of the reasons I voted for Mr. Trump. I could have also mentioned the Supreme Court or the nomination of an extremely polarizing candidate, but this is getting long and I don’t want to bore anyone. These are my reasons and I don’t claim to speak for anyone else (I am not that arrogant).

An Open Letter To Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Ms. Clinton,

I am writing this letter because you seemed a mite bit confused why you are in the predicament you find yourself.  You seem under the impression others are at fault for your poll numbers going down and a vast majority of the American population believing you should be indicted for the various and sundry charges which could be filed.

The reason you find yourself with these challenges aren't the Russian intelligence services. It wasn't the "vast right wing conspiracy". It wasn't FBI Director James Comey. it wasn't Donald Trump. It wasn't Wikileaks. It wasn't Julian Assange. It wasn't Huma Abedin. It wasn't Anthony Weiner. It wasn't Leon Podesta. It was you and the choices you made. No one else.

You see, you are finding out what the vast majority of us already know. It is also the reason some of us would never vote for you. You and your husband (remember when he ran and the thing we were getting two intelligent people for the price of one) refuse to take responsibility for your actions. You chose to have an unclassified private email server even though policy and law said you weren't suppose to. You chose to put classified email on an unclassified server even though having been in government in some fashion for at least the past 30 years and been exposed to and taught how to handle classified information throughout that tenure from your time on the Watergate Committee onward.

You see I handled classified information during my 12 years in the Marine Corps, some of it as a Special Security Office Chief; so, that explanation doesn't fly with me. It doesn't pass the smell test. It is a rudimentary and common sense rule for anyone who has handled this type of information you do not put classified information on an unclassified system or on any device which is connected to an unclassified network. Anyone who has been indoctrinated, when they sign their Non-Disclosure Agreement, they are explained the rules for handling said information. Privates learn how to properly handle classified information everyday. Again, your excuse just doesn't pass the smell test.

In those emails which were part of the hack of the Democratic National Committee detail them and your campaign colluding to rig the Democrat Primary. You rigged an election. You are a cheat and have a difficult time with the truth. Yes, the emails were obtained in a questionable manner, but their actual validity has never been challenged. You rigged an election.

You lied to the American people by claiming the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya was caused by a video when you knew all along (as documented in the emails you tried to destroy). You did not tell the truth about help being told to stand down; they were told to stand down. Those 4 men were left to die; abandoned by their government to protect a failed foreign policy you helped devise. Just like the failed foreign policy you came up to have a "reset" with the Russian Federation; another failure. And the failed foreign policy you came up with to deal with middle east violent extremist groups (since you just can't bring yourself to identify them as the militant Islamist they are) has been a failure as documented by the rise of ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. You are incompetent.

Ma'am you chose to put that information at risk. I say again, you chose to put that information at risk. It would never have been exposed if it hadn't been put at risk. You can't take responsibility, you are don't deserve to be President. You are incompetent as demonstrated by your actions, you don't deserve to be President. You feel entitled, you don't deserve to be President. You feel you are above the law, you don't deserve to be President.

Anyone who can really be intellectually honest about your actions, and your reactions to their becoming public, would never be able to vote for you.

A Question For Hillary Supporters

I really have to question the intellectual integrity, and integrity in general, of Hillary supporters because I look at what they say they believe and look at the actual deeds of the candidate they support. I cannot reconcile the two.

Progressives/Liberals say they believe in honesty, transparent government, caring for the average working class American, rule of law, free exchange of ideas, and protection of civil liberties. They say they are for competency in policy development and implementation. These stated values do not line up with a Hillary Clinton presidency or her actions in the past. I will give examples.

One area in I have always taken for granted when it comes to progressives/liberals was their belief in fair and open elections. Well, from the data dump of emails among Democrat Party insiders, Ms. Clinton and the then leaders of the Democrat Party conspired to rig the primary for Ms. Clinton and against her opponents, which should really anger Bernie Sanders supporters. It also gives credence to Mr. Trump's unwillingness to trust the election results we might see from the upcoming presidential election. You might not like how the emails were made public, what has not been in dispute is their accuracy.

Let's now turn to her time as Secretary of State. Her first act was to have this hug reset button made, travel to Russia, and she and her Russian counterpart hit the button to reset US/Russian relations. Well, can anyone say she has improved US/Russian relations. Look at the situation in Syria, or the Ukraine, or the closer ties of China and Russia, or the Russian buildup along borders with the nations of Eastern Europe, or the stationing of nuclear missiles along their border with Eastern Europe. Those relations are worse than during the Cold War.

Another view I had of the Democrat Party is they were not in the pocket of big business or the super rich; but, that all changed with the information contained in the emails and the book Clinton Cash. As stated earlier, the data in the emails and in Clinton Cash accuracy is not in question; rather, the documentation proves a "play for pay" scheme which allowed those large corporations and super rich individuals to make a contribution to the Clinton Foundation and receive access to Ms. Clinton when she was Secretary of State. In essence, she sold her office. If she would do this as Secretary of State, it would be wise to think she just might do it as President.

Now let's turn to the release of classified information, which is almost as egregious to me as leaving those 4 men to die in Benghazi (we will get to Benghazi in a bit). At first she denied everything, then we find out she pulled a Richard Nixon and tried to delete everything to cover up the fact that she shouldn't have been using the server in the first place, that there was highly classified information (and lots of it) contained on this unclassified server, and that it was open to the whole world because of the lax security of the server. Then we find out the administration colluded with her to try to cover it all up and to bribe the FBI not to recommend charges.

I bet General Petraeus would have loved that kind of assistance over his disclosure of information to an individual who was an Army Reserve officer with a Top Secret clearance, it is just the Army Reserve officer didn't have the need to know the information he disclosed to her as she was also his mistress at the time.

Or the Marine intelligence officer in Afghanistan who found out a local police chief was in the pocket of the Taliban and warned non-cleared Marines of this threat to their safety (the only people said officer told). The Marine intelligence officer is now up on charges. Go figure.

Now to Benghazi, which for me is the only thing I personally need to research to understand I could never vote for this woman. For over a year money had been approved by Congress to be spent on the security upgrades for which Ambassador Stephens had been asking; Ms. Clinton never released those funds for use. When the attack started, help was requested, none was forthcoming save for those brave individuals working at the CIA annex elsewhere in Benghazi. When other assistance was ready to go, they were told to stand down by the National Command Authority of which Ms. Clinton is a part. As a Marine we leave no one behind; we left those men behind. Men who were there serving their country in harm's way.

As Secretary of State she created the atmosphere which led to the development of ISIL/ISIS/Daesh (whatever you want to call it) in Syria and Iraq, which led to the growth of the various Al Qaeda groups in Africa and Asia, and has made the world a more dangerous place than when she assumed the post of Secretary of State.

She is also for turning a blind eye to the flouting of immigration law. I am for legal immigration, it is how the vast majority of us got to be here; someone in our family immigrated from somewhere else. Me, I am an American mut in that I have various ethnic groups running through my family tree and I am proud of all of them. The fact is current immigration law was passed to be enforced on those who employ illegal immigrants and those who illegally immigrate; no part of that law has ever been fully enforced as it has impinged on constituencies of both major political parties. Before we pass a new law, let's fully enforce the current one, see if it works, and if it needs changing operate from a position of knowledge to correct those issues. We first need to see if it works.

I also believed the Democrat Party stood for the rule of law as that is what is the foundation of preserving the equality of all Americans before the bar of justice, but as the above demonstrates, that just isn't the case when it comes to Ms. Clinton. Heck, they nominate her as their choice for President (who is the chief law enforcement office of our country).

These are just some of the things I question the Democrat Party about in their choice of Ms. Clinton as their standard bearer. I am not saying the choice of the other party is great; but, there aren't nearly the issues with him as they are with the current Democrat Party candidate. She is incompetent and corrupt at the very least and that makes the Democrat Party incompetent and corrupt also because they will all fall in line with her if they are also elected. Democrats made it impossible for me to vote for their candidates. Impossible.

Political Parties

I have decided I cannot be a member of either the Democrat or Republican party, neither truly fights for the ethics and values embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Both major parties are more interested in maintaining power than uniting under the shared vision laid out for us in the Constitution.
The Democrats want to take my economic freedom by forcing me to pay for other people's existence and forcing me to buy goods and services I neither want or need. They believe they know better than I how I should think and live my life. This is in direct contradiction to the vision our founder's shared when this country was founded and our constitution enacted. They wish to curtail free speech through the enacting of speech codes and prosecuting individuals (including clergy) for preaching their faith when it conflicts with ideas which Democrats and their constituent special interests hold true. They wish to force individuals to perform services which contradict their faith or face civil penalties (including their loss of a private business) or criminal prosecution. Yet they do not seem to uphold the rule of law which is so necessary to ensuring everyone is equal before the bar of justice. In my mind, the rule of law is the most precious and necessary principle embodied in our Constitution. They expanded the expansion of the use of Executive Orders by trying to legislate without going through Congress as the Constitution demands; this is something dictators or communists do, not constitutional republics.
The Republicans seem to believe we have no responsibility to our fellow man and business should determine national political and economic policy. They are also willing to compromise the Constitution when it suits their needs. Though closest of the two (2) major parties to my own personal ideology, they will sacrifice their own ethics and betray those which put them into office, to maintain their own agenda and power. They compromised our civil liberties with the National Security Agency and other national intelligence assets to monitor all communications in the United States in what I continue to believe is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. 
Under President George W. Bush they expanded the use of Executive Orders to get around having to take things before Congress and have thorny issues debated in front of the American people. Their leadership is more afraid of the opposite party instead of their constituents as evidenced by their passing legislation which is at odds with the policies they were elected to put into place. They have no issue or ethical principle which they will not compromise.
Both parties believe in globalism and the United States being the world's policeman, enforcing its will on the rest of the world. This is something which has led to nothing but loss of jobs at home, the auto and steel industry being but two (2) examples; you could through in the textile industry and you see the loss of American jobs in each of these industries with no new jobs in other industries to ensure our citizens have lucrative replacement employment.
The first priority for all our elected and unelected leadership should be the protection of American citizens; not multinational conglomerates, rather ordinary citizens. The American citizen needs government to ensure an environment where they have the ability and equal opportunity (which doesn't mean equal results) to achieve their goals and dreams. Neither party does this anymore; if they ever did.
We have no right to force our will on other countries of the world. We should have allies and partners but never compromise our sovereignty or ethics. We have done all of this by cozying up to countries which restricted freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. Both major political parties no longer fight for the constitution of the United States, as they are required when they take their oath of office, they are about accumulating power and wealth for themselves instead of protecting the interests of those they are elected to represent.

Globalism

The rise of globalism and the turning of the tide against is front and center in the current United States presidential election. Ms. Clinton is a globalist and Mr. Trump is not.

Ms. Clinton seems to believe we need to make trade deals with groups of countries who are not developed and ship American jobs over there in a vain attempt to achieve her perception of "social justice" and "income equality".
Ms. Clinton believes the United States should continue to be the world's policeman, to allow other countries with vibrant economies who claim to be our allies, to hide under the umbrella of our military might when they are very much capable of funding their own defense.
Ms. Clinton believes every wrong in the world is the responsibility of the United States to fix because we are the sole superpower and need to get involved in every scrap or disagreement which comes our way. She believes we have an obligation to take in every stray whether they agree with the foundational beliefs of our constitutional republic or are diametrically opposed.
The issue I have with all this is the fraud which is perpetrated against the American people when these bottles of snake oil are advertised as bringing more trade and jobs to the United States. I am sorry, but that wasn't true of NAFTA, just ask those who formerly had a job in the auto industry in and around Detroit, Michigan. Look at our trade deficits and the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. More such agreements would bring the same results.
We can no longer afford these kinds of one sided deals. The American people should not be sacrificing their standard of living to bring the rest of the world to the level we have reached. We have over 94,000,000 people out of the work force because of the failed current trade agreements and the current administration's economic policies. Ms. Clinton would carry on these things. She was for the Trans Pacific Partnership before she was against it.

The Case Against Hillary Clinton For President

I am not a Hillary Clinton fan, never have been. Neither am I a fan of Donald Trump. That being said, I am going to vote for Donald Trump because he is the lesser of two (2) evils by a wide margin. I am going to lay out the reasons below.

1. Hillary Clinton is anti-Christian.
Ms. Clinton has said on numerous times that when it comes to abortion and homosexuality and a number of other social issues, Christians must change their tune. Well, sorry but the Word of God as put forth in The Bible trumps anything Ms. Clinton believes. The Bible is very clear on all these issues. Abortion is the taking of a human life; the unborn child's DNA and blood type prove he/she to be a unique human being. Homosexuality is a sin as the Bible clearly states. I believe people of Ms. Clinton's belief system should learn the difference between the meaning of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance".
2. Ms. Clinton Rigged The Democrat Primary
With the release of the emails via Wikileaks it is clear the Democrat primary was rigged to allow Ms. Clinton to win. There was collusion at every level and the media is complicit. Instead of focusing on the truth of the emails, which aren't  in dispute, they are focusing on how the information was gathered and released.
3. Ms. Clinton was fired from the Watergate Commission for ethics violation.
4. Ms. Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and foreign interest as evidenced by the emails and campaign financial documents which have been released.
5. Ms. Clinton is a failure at foreign policy as evidenced by the failed Russian reset and the state of the world today which is a direct result of her tenure as Secretary of State. She armed the very groups which attacked the consulate in Benghazi. She armed ISIL/ISIS/Daesh even though she new they were Islamic radicals.  She is incompetent.
6. When security lapses were identified at the consulate in Benghazi,  and other allies and non-governmental organizations had evacuated, funds were allocated to improve security for over a year before the attack and never approved for use by Ms. Clinton. This directly lead to the death of the 4 heroes of Benghazi.
7. When explaining the attack to the world, she put the blame on a video which she knew at the time was a lie.
8. She exposed classified information to the world by using a private email server contrary to State Department policy and a breaking of federal law and a violation of the Non-Disclosure Agreement she would have signed as a result of having a clearance for classified information.
9. Ms. Clinton engaged in a "pay for play" scheme while Secretary of State as documented by the book "Clinton Cash" and other sources of which the information has never been denied.
10. She refuses to acknowledge the danger inherent in the ideology of radical Islam and its incompatibility with the Constitution of the United States.
11. She is a globalist through and through. She is willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of the United States to her perceived betterment of the world. She supports trade agreements like NAFTA which lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. It is these types of agreements which have lead to the ruin of our manufacturing sector. Look at Detroit to see the end result of policies such as these.
12. She advocates policies which would increase our national debt above the $ 19 trillion it is now.
13. Ms. Clinton is an individual who believes the current immigration law, which has never been fully implemented or enforced by either party, should be done away with and a new law with amnesty for those who have broken the existing law and are in the country put in its place. Before we attempt to fashion a new law, let's enforce the current one, see if it works, and go from there. You do not reward those who have broken the law, thus demonstrating contempt for the rule of law, by granting them amnesty.
I am all for legal immigration because there are those all over the world who are going about the process of immigrating to the United States in the proper legal manner. To allow others to be rewarded for breaking that law would be a slap in the face to those who are doing things correctly and demonstrating a respect for the rule of law.
14. Ms. Clinton cares nothing for the rule of law as demonstrated by her use of the personal email server, her quid pro quo behavior while Secretary of State, and not wanting to enforce current immigration law.
15. She refuses to acknowledge facts regarding the issues confronting those in our country who are socially, fiscally, and educationally disadvantaged. She continues to believe in the failed policies which have seen 5 and 6 generations of families still on government assistance with no end in sight for their self-sufficiency. In fact, she would continue and expand upon the policies adopted by the Obama administration which now see more people on government assistance than in the work force. She believes social justice as taking from those who are productive and giving that which they produce to those which haven't earned it or produced.
Justice is everyone having an equal opportunity and succeeding or failing on their own merits and the "content of their character". No group of people are inherently good or evil; each group has individuals who are one or the other. As long as we allow politicians, like Ms. Clinton, to pit us against one another according to our ethnicity or melanin content, the divisions we allow with persist and grow.

That is the case against Ms. Clinton and the facts aren't in doubt. She is what she is and has always been. Corrupt to the core.

What Is Hypocrisy?

I have a colleague with whom I can discuss any manner of things and it doesn't become an argument. I don't know if he truly believes the positions he takes or is just playing  "devil's advocate".

We were talking about faith and how it relates to issues of the day and influences my decisions and outlook about everything in life. I admitted I cannot live up to the standard as put forth in The Bible. He asked if that wasn't hypocritical. I really hadn't thought of it that way and now have. This is what I have come up with.

It isn't hypocritical because I am not hiding the fact I can't measure up to the standard I aspire to and which is set forth in the words contained in The Bible. I believe The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, immutable word of the living, omnipotent, omniscient,and omnipresent God. I am working my salvation out daily with "fear and trembling" and attempting to allow Christ to be seen more and more through me everyday. I am not hiding the fact I do not and cannot measure up to the standard I strive to meet; but neither do I live in condemnation because I can't. Because of this acknowledgment I am not being hypocritical. Anyone who knows me knows I am a very flawed individual with many issues to work through.

The wonderful thing about realizing the flawed and sinful creature I am is knowing I have but to accept the gift Christ gave through His death on the cross and then everyday allow myself to learn more about and draw closer to Him and He will begin making the changes in my life as I give Him more control and submit to His guidance. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; His mercies are new everyday. I don't have to be perfect; no one has to be perfect.

This also means I have to realize my shortcomings and not take on a self-righteous attitude. I must stay humble and realize I am an unfinished work; as is everyone around me. I am not God's hall monitor, I don't give out detention slips. If I know a fellow believer is struggling with an issue I am to be there for them in prayer and as a brother or sister in Christ. God will deal with them as He chooses, I am to be there to love and be honest with them. I may even have to disassociate myself from them at some point; but it should never be judgemental or with a spirit of condemnation. There should always be a door left for a return.

Islamic Theology And The Constitution Of The United States Of America

One of the things which has struck me since the mass shooting at the gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida is the adamant way progressives have went after guns, but refuse to address the actual motivation behind the slaying of so many innocent human beings. They refuse to acknowledge the stated belief system of Islam and its implementation in national affairs through the use of Sharia law, an Islamic based legal system. They refuse to acknowledge the action taken in Orlando is totally consistent with the legal system instituted and being practiced in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others.

It is a legal system which has three (3) classes of people: Muslims, people of the Book (Christians and Jews), and everyone else. There are ways of dealing with each and it is completely based on the Quran and the Hadiths. It is the system with gives ISIS/ISIL its legal foundation and the reason it beheads those who aren’t of Muslim faith or those Muslims they feel are apostate. Yet there are actual members of the legislative and executive branches of our government who feel it is compatible with the rights codified to citizens of the United States in the Constitution.

Under Sharia a Muslim woman’s testimony is considered to be worth half as much as a Muslim man’s testimony. A non-Muslim’s testimony is not considered as reliable. The regard eyewitness testimony as having more weight than forensic/scientific evidence (which would include fingerprints, DNA, etc…). Women who are raped have to have 4 Muslim men to testify that it was a rape and if not they can be charged with adultery and put to death. Homosexuals who act upon their desires can be put to death. Those who are not Muslim in a country whose legal system is based upon Sharia, can be forced into accepting the status of dhimmi and forced to pay a tax to be allowed to lived there or the have to convert to Islam or be put to death. This is just some of the precepts of Sharia.

This is the system which motivates Al Queda, ISIS/ISIL, and other Muslim groups. I have to be fair and say not all Muslims feel this way, but the ones who are carrying out the attacks like Orlando, Boston, San Bernardino, and Istanbul are motivated by these ideals which are anathema to our way of life and our legal system based upon our Constitution. It is why the Constitution must not be weakened thereby weakening the rights codified for us in the Bill of Rights. It is why the separation of powers must be adhered to and no compromise be allowed. Denial of these differences is deadly, ask the survivors and the family members of those killed in Orlando.

Ideas

Ideas

How do you explain the strength of ideas and the ramifications of not doing critical thinking when examining those ideas and how they stack up against your morals, your ethics, a nation's foundational principles, or a faith's foundational theology and teachings. We are in such a time where we need to be doing just that.
There is battle which has been bubbling just below the surface of our national political discourse and also global political discourse. The battle is between national identity and sovereignity and globalization and the homogenation of the global population. Do individual nations remain allowed to be sovereign within their own borders and the international community or must they sacrifice their uniqueness and individual culture to become part of the global community? It is the driving idea and battle exemplified in the recent "Brexit" vote where the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. It is the fight being fought, without being identified as such, in the current presidential election in the United States of America.
We are trying to hide this battle behind individual issues such as immigration, free trade, diversity, multiculturalism, social justice, racism, and other labels; but, it all comes back to the notion of globalization or nations being allowed to maintain their national sovereignity and the uniqueness which has long identified their national personality and approach to life. Are we going to force people to change give up their free will and submit to some global way of life. It is the essential question being asked and must be answered with a resounding no to globalization. People must be allowed individual liberty and free will; it is their birthright as human beings. Globalization must and will take that away from as demonstrated by recent actions within our borders by its proponents.
The taking away of free speech is demonstrated by the use of speech codes and the efforts underway to criminally charge those who speak out against the acceptance of man-made climate change. Any time accepted ideas are challenged they idea just has to be vetted again; those who disagree must not be jailed or punished because you can't refute their argument. If you cannot refute the stand of your retractors then perhaps you need to reexamine your own position. Especially an idea where there are scientists on both sides still trying to hash it out and one side as already been caught discarding data which didn't fit its hypothesis.
The creation of "safe zones" is another area where this is raising its disingenous head. "Safe Zones" are areas people can retreat to to get away from ideas which hurt their feelings because they disagree with their belief system. Our nation was built on actively engaging in discourse about the issues of the day with a "no holds barred" type of debate; it was what The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers were all about. The debate over the size, scope, and powers of the new government which went into the framing of the legal foundation of our consitutional republic was epic and engaged the greatest minds of their day. It gave us our Constitution, which recognizes the necessity of the individual free will of its citizens and what they would allow their government to do; but most importantly, what they would not allow their government to do. It codified the innate human rights each individual human being is born with and which must not be violated. It is the very foundation of what we term today as "human rights".
It is because this fact is no longer taught in our public school system which has led to the very moment we find ourselves. We no longer understand that our human founding fathers were flawed but put down on paper that which we take for granted; namely the right for each of us to be ourselves individually and collectively. Yes, they didn't end slavery; which some knew was a blight on the national conscience. Yes, they didn't extend full individual sovereignity to women; as I said they were flawed human beings who were the product of the society that produced them. It is also the reason they amendment process was included in the Constitution; to allow it to be changed as needed, after careful deliberation and national debate.
This is why those who want to foist globalization on us have done all they can to make the Constitution less in the eyes of those graduating from law schools and term it a "living document" which is fungible by those who sit in interpretation of it. They understood passions die as time goes by, which was intended by our Founding Fathers to allow for a true debate on the merits of the issue not emotion. It has led to judicial activism and legislation from the bench instead of interpretation as outlined in the Constitution. It is leading to the document no longer meaning what the words on the page say; but rather, whatever the emotion of the time we live in finds acceptable. Our rights are slowly whittled away until they no longer exist and we lose that for which so many have bled and died.
This thinking also undermines the rule of law which guarantees we are all equal before the bar of justice. Without the constitutional guarantees codified in the Constitution or if the Constitution is weakened to the point where it is ignored, those individual rights and the rule of law goes out the window and becomes whatever the judge sitting the bench at that moment says it is. Or if the individual charged with the enforcement of those laws can pick and choose which laws are applicable, then the rule of law no longer exists and we have no protections for the least of us. The law will be whatever the whim of the judge or prosecutor say it is or whomever can purchase the outcome they desire.
Globalization magnifies these issues because the government will be run by the multinational corporations. The governments will institute policies which will enable the multinational corporations to transfer goods and money with the least amount of problems. This will make it more difficult for new and small businesses to exist. Power and wealth will become even more consolidated and the difference between the rich and poor will become greater.

If nations will take the steps to ensure their countries invest in the maximization of their natural resources to enable to the growth of their nation’s economy and the upward mobility of their populations. Each nation and population would control their own destiny while maintaining their unique identity and belief system. But if globalization is allowed to take place the decisions about their nation and people group will be made by a group of people who know little to nothing about them and their goals and identity.

Think through ideas before embracing them. Research them, think through their consequences. Will this idea bring about the desired goal you have for your life.

Afraid To Tell The Truth

I am so tired of people afraid to tell the truth about what is happening to our country and the enemies we face. The terrorist attack at the nightclub in Orlando, Florida in the early morning hours of 12 June 2016 is a perfect example. We have the President of the United States and the individual from his political party who hopes to be his successor afraid to call the act, its motivation, and the reason for it by name.  The cowardice that demonstrates proves both are unworthy to lead a cub scout troop.
If you do not have the intestinal fortitude to call things as they are you are a coward. Mr. Mateen called 911 to swear his allegiance to ISIS. Mr. Mateen shouted Allahu Akbar as he was conducting the attack. Mr. Mateen has been investigated twice for his connection to Islamic fundamentalist groups. These are facts not in dispute and to not meet them directly in an effort to preserve some people's feelings is ludicrous and harmful. You must identify the challenge to face it. Islamic fundamentalism is the issue.
Instead, President Obama and Ms. Clinton choose to blame an inanimate object for the actions of an animate human being motivated by an ideology which believes it is okay to behead those who do not accept your belief system, punish women who are raped by convicting them of adultery, and that homosexuals should be killed for their behavior.
Christians know the Word of God says homosexuality is a sin, but do not wish to kill anyone. We do not wish to stop anyone from making those types of choices for themselves as free will is God's gift to us all. It also means we will not refrain from reaching out with the truth of God's Word; but violence is not part of that equation.
The American people have a clear choice when it comes to electing an individual who will actually face the real problems facing this country or one who will try to ignore and be in denial about the facts. Denial will kill you.

I Am Voting For Donald Trump

As I have watched this presidential campaign unfold, as an independent, I was watching to see whom the major parties would nominate and whom I could have enough in agreement to vote for.c
The Democrats are certain to nominate a woman who has failed at everything she has tried; from being fired from the Watergate Commission for ethics violations to a failed attempted to pass health care reform during her husband's administration to her failed "reset" of U.S. and Russian relations to leaving for men to die in Benghazi, Libya after they had asked for security upgrades for over a year to storing classified material on an unauthorized email server because she couldn't be bothered to do things the correct way or arming ISIS to her general inability to tell the truth about anything. I can't vote for that candidate or any socialist whatsoever; socialism is a historically failed system wherever it has been tried.
I also cannot support a party which embraces speech codes, hires people to protest at an opponent's political rallies; both of which stifle people's First Amendment rights. I cannot vote for a party which doesn't understand that sexual predators will use any means possible to get their prey which is enabled by allowing men to use women's dressing rooms and restrooms. It isn't a concern about the less than 1% of the population which is transgendered; but rather, the sexual predators which will use that opportunity to attack those they want. I cannot vote for a party which believes I should be held accountable for something done over 100 years ago which my ancestors had no part in. I cannot support a party which thinks the government should take money I have earned through my toil and give it to someone who isn't willing to put in the effort to work for the lifestyle to which they aspire.
This left me looking at the other parties with candidates. I looked at the Libertarians, but I don't believe all drugs should be legalized or open borders. I looked seriously at the Constitution Party but they have not really reached a point where I feel they are a legitimate alternative.
After watching the events of the last several weeks at Donald Trump rallies, I am voting for Mr. Trump. I am tired of people who can't protest, but would rather turn a legitimate protest into a criminal activity by damaging property and people. I am against ILLEGAL immigration! I am for LEGAL immigration! If you do not know the difference get yourself educated. If you came here and didn't do so via the proper process, you have done it illegally; you should be sent back to your home country.

Socialism, Really?

I can't believe we still have those within our country who want to go to the failed system of Socialism and the impingements on liberty it will entail. Of course, I never thought we would have those who would want to protect their feelings getting hurt by words; but we do have that in "hate speech" codes and laws. What are we becoming? Are we afraid for someone to disagree with and challenge our beliefs? Are we that insecure in our belief system? I am dumbfounded to how my nation has changed in my 51 years. I am truly ashamed of what we are becoming.
This country was founded on the principle of individual freedoms upon which the State could not infringe. We are consciously now doing away with those liberties, granted to us as human beings, because we can no longer handle the most important of those rights....personal responsibility. We want someone else to take responsibility for our housing, medical needs, sustenance, education, and emotional well being. We want to live in this prote ctive cocoon where we are allowed to do as we want without the responsibility of our actions and to not be told we just might be wrong in our way of thinking. We want to believe these things cost no one anything, most of all us, and live trouble and responsibility free. Sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch; someone always has to foot the cost. The laws of physics apply even to economics. If you give something somewhere you have to take it from somewhere else.
Why should those who are willing to take the responsibilities which go along with those basic human rights have to foot the bill for those who will not?  Why is it not understood, and taught, that to provide you with something you don't have to pay for; someone else has to have that which they earned, taken away from them. This isn't a function of the state, or shouldn't be though we have made it one. You are responsible for you.
As a Christian, I will tell you I and the rest of Church have a responsibility to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I try to do just that. My guide in those efforts is the Bible and the teachings it contains. Those teachings tell me, these efforts are to come through the Church so God gets the glory for those gifts and actions. It is to be a part of evangelism and demonstrating the love of Christ to those and put them on a road to being able to take care of themselves and then assist with caring for the less fortunate. The State is to have no involvement; especially one which is secular.
How, in this country, have we somehow brought into existence a moral standard which doesn't put personal responsibility front and center in each citizen's mind? Why isn't basic economics taught to enable our people to understand basic debits and credits. It is the rotten foundation which our out of control national debt is built upon. We think we should have the big house or car someone else has just because we want it, or it makes us feel bad not to have it. We should be taking the desire for those things and using it to fuel our legitimate efforts to attain those baubles instead of being resentful someone has something we don't. We aren't entitled to have what others have! You want it, earn it!
Listen if someone disagrees with you on an issue and your feelings get hurt or you become uncomfortable, check yourself. In that instance it is incumbent upon you to first analyze your own belief system and work through the issues there to enable you to effectively discuss your beliefs. Usually if you are having an issue with what someone says to where you are feeling that threatened, you are the one insecure.

Religious Freeedom

It is amazing to me we have allowed ourselves, especially Christians, to be so confused as to which bathroom people should use, who should be allowed to marry and what God's take on homosexuality is when the Bible is very clear. I do mean very clear. I will only use the New Testament because the Christian church's standards are there.
Jesus defined marriage as being between and man and woman in Matthew 19 verses 4 through 6. These are Jesus' words. Very explicit in their definition and shouldn't be open to discussion. He wasn't speaking allegorically or euphemistically. Jesus was being literal.
As for homosexuality just read Romans 1 verses 24 through 27. Again it is very clear, very explicit and literal and descriptive as to these practices being sin. Later in the same chapter it gives homosexuality the same standing with other sins.
Please stop being confused, read your Bibles, know the truth, and stand on that truth. Do not denigrate others, because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Yet, we have to stand up for the objective truth of the Word of God in a loving and caring way with grace.
The truth is, it is none of my business whom you are with until you bring me into your confidence. When you do that, I then have to examine myself and my morals and ethics to determine if that is right for me to associate. It would be the same self conversation I would have if you told me you worked off the clock, were stealing, or any other act which is contrary to the standard set in the Bible. It wouldn't mean I would absent myself from your life or try to condemn you in any way; but, I may have to limit our involvement.
I am to be salt and light but I am not to be an active participant in sin or give you the impression I consider what you are doing is right. Tolerance is not saying something is right; it does mean I accept the fact you get to make the choices about your behavior and thoughts for yourself without my approval and I must decide whether I can associate with you or not.
We make this much more complicated than it has to be. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or want any ill to come your way. What is does mean is we each have free will to make the choices about our own lives and we give each other the space and respect to make those  decisions. This isn't a zero sum game. Your acceptance of Christ as Savior or agreement with me on every single issue isn't a requirement for us to be acquaintances or friends. It simply means we disagree about some things and have agreed to disagree amicably.

14 January 2016

Many things going on in my mind and am just trying to sort them out. I am glad the Benghazi fiasco is back in the news with the new movie which has come out. I am glad the professional politicians are getting their heads handed to them and I am happy about it. Professional politicians are the reason this country is in the shape it is in. We have allowed them to play us against one another and divide us when in many cases we believe in the same things. Most of us know we have to live within our means, we should respect our neighbors even if we don't agree with them. Why are we allowing this? They separate us from each other and our money. I only wish we would wake up and do things the right way. Be very careful and thoughtful about who would be the right person to lead this country and would adhere to its foundation, The Constitution.