Ousting Trump With The 25th Amendment Is A BAD Idea

Using the 25th Amendment, as many are talking about today to take the Presidency away from Donald Trump, is a nightmare. (Read more about it here.)

Hate Trump, love Trump, it doesn't matter. There are ways to legally remove a President. Investigations that reveal he did something wrong, illegal, treasonous and leading to impeachment is the only SANE way to do it.

If those in power decide to use the 25th Amendment it would not only be DANGEROUS for America today, it would set a PRECEDENT for future elections that could eventually erode the people's right to choose their leadership.

THE DANGEROUS PART

America's leadership in upheaval would be a sign for everyone from Russia and North Korea to ISIS and corporate entities worldwide to dig in their claws and complete their desires to bring America down. Many of these countries, groups and organizations have been working in various subtle ways to destabilize, destroy and/or take control of America. If the 25th Amendment were to be used, subtlety would go out the window.

It would be a sign to the financial world that America is a "bad investment" and our economy would deteriorate below the point of sustainability. Its is bad now, despite what our government would like us to believe. But with that government in turmoil, the truth will be public knowledge and it would spiral, with international financial groups taking their piece of the pie while it is in freefall. And the people will be the ones to suffer. All the thin veiled realities of the low paying, no benefit, part time work that replaced good stable paying jobs with benefits would crumble and people would lose hope. This later torn psyche of the American people would be difficult to rebound from.


THE FUTURE OF OUR DEMOCRACY PART

The use of the 25th Amendment would now have a precedence that would be a cliff we could not un-fall off of. Any popular candidate would have to worry about the entrenched powers in DC deciding he was unfit for the office and removing him for any number of reasons, so long as they all decide to do it. That is 536 voices overriding hundreds of millions who participate in the election process.

There are those who say that the people don't really get to choose. But if the Trump election shows nothing else, it shows the fallacy of THAT argument. Whether you were the half of the country who voted for Trump and declared victory in ever increasing hate rhetoric or the half that voted against him that cried in their collective beers afterward and searched out their "safe spaces", the truth is that the election process was not governed by the powers that be. If it were, then we would be looking at a different Presidency right now.

If the people lose the perception that THEY are the ones who choose their leaders, voter turnout will be even more abysmal that it currently is. Apathy on a grand scale would set in American leadership will finally, once and for all, truly be decided by those in power, those with money, those with an agenda that does not match the best interests of the country at large.


THE BOTTOM LINE

The use of the 25th Amendment in this fashion will be the final nail in the coffin for the 241 year experiment in freedom and democracy would come to a dismal end.

But hey, thats just my thoughts on the matter. Don't listen to me. Use the gray matter between your ears and look at ALL the facts, not just the ones that people want to tell you, and decide for yourself. Think for yourself. Don't be sheep.

Anyway, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Tell Them to STOP on the Replace and Repeal Nonesense

On the issue of Republicans wanting to start the Repeal and Replace thing all over again. ("Repeal of Affordable Care Act Is Back On The Agenda", as reported by the New York Times)

Why?? Because their guy is facing an embarrassment and their leadership is facing calls for them to step down.

But again, why?? Its all a political charade. Its all about THEM and its supposed to be all about US! So here is a quick editorial opinion on it.

OPINION - DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT - Contact your representation in DC! Dem or GOP, doesn't matter, call them, email them, twitter them, Facebook them . . . hell, go stand at the door to their offices! Let them know that the repeal crap they are trying is NO GOOD! The legislation they keep trying to write to "replace and repeal" is NOT THE WAY TO GO! Tell them to work on individual legislation to FIX the problems with Obamacare! The House started doing this with H.R. 372 and 1101! Tell them that THAT is the way to go! Make them understand this is not a thing that is a prize to be won between the political parties, this is something that affects the lives of Americans and it is OUR wishes, not theirs, that need to be listened to!

If you want them to keep doing this instead of their job, if you think that one party MUST prevail over the other no matter what it does to the American people, then go ahead and encourage this bad, immoral activity in Washington DC.

But if you, like me, want it to STOP, then do something about it. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. Thai is the government of the people, for the people, by the people.

But hey, thats just me Thinking Out Loud!

Ironic, No! Sad, Yes!

Not a long blog. Just a telling one.

Don't you think it just a tad sad - I would say "ironic" but that word is not proper - that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is now to be know as the place where free speech died?

Berkley, you may not like what the man has to say, but YOU said he has a right to say it.

Agree, disagree, I don't care. But I would never stop you from saying it.

Have a great day - if you can.

DeVos Not Fit For ANY Cabinet Position, INHO

A friend of mine, a college professor – who is often on the opposite end of the political spectrum than me, I might add, yet we still seem to remain civil and can actually have intelligent conversations concerning the subject – shared an interaction with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC).

As you can read, she has been teaching for some time and actually has reason to be concerned with the nomination of the Secretary of Education – it is her career and passion to teach young (and old, like me) minds. So for her, and millions of teachers out there, the selection of the next Secretary is a personal issue for them.

(I start off with the comment my friend made on Facebook that accompanied the letter back from the Senator)

“FYI and for the record, I have been teaching for 19 years and find DeVos to be completely unsuitable for the position. I had to earn a degree in education to stand up in front of my students. She has no such degree and no such experience with our public schools. She did donate a hefty sum to Scott's campaign so take that as you will.”

(And now, the letter.)

Dear Mrs. XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me in regards to President Donald Trump's nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Education. I appreciate your input on this issue and the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, a new president must nominate hundreds of top political officials to fill out the new administration and this process typically begins before the sitting president leaves office. There are three stages to this entire procedure: the first step is the nomination by the newly elected president, the second step is the consideration and confirmation by the Senate, and the third step is the appointment by the president if the nominee is confirmed by the Senate.

My role in the process of appointing top political officials is explicitly laid out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the president shall nominate with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

I believe a great education is one of the most essential things we can give our children, and it is important that the American dream remains in reach for every American. However, despite tripling federal investments in K-12 education since 1965 and increasing involvement from the Department of Education, substantial achievement gaps persist and our rankings among other developed countries in math, reading, and science continue to decline. A larger federal government is not the solution to any of the challenges we face as a nation, and it certainly is not the solution in education.

For decades, Mrs. DeVos has been an advocate for parents who simply want more choice in determining the best education for their children. Her passion for helping children is undeniable and I am optimistic that, if confirmed, her leadership will help generate innovative solutions that will unleash students' potential like we haven't seen before.

I grew up in a low-income community and almost failed out of high school. Since coming to Congress in 2010, I have been a strong supporter of school choice. My mission has always been to help kids growing up in poor neighborhoods, like the one I did, to achieve their dreams. My desire to achieve that goal has not and will not waiver, no matter who leads the Department of Education.

Like me, Mrs. DeVos supports and respects the value of a public school education. But if a school is unsafe or unable to adequately prepare students, she believes that parents should have the ability to pick a better, safer school for their children; whether that school be public, private, or charter. Mrs. DeVos is a supporter of all schools.

Rest assured, I am fully aware of the gravity of this decision and I will not consider it lightly. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate begins the confirmation process.

Again, thank you for sharing your perspective with me; I hope that you will continue to do so in the future. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff.

For more information, please visit my website at www.scott.senate.gov and subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter. I also encourage you to follow me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/SenatorTimScott and Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenatorTimScott for daily updates.

Sincerely,

Tim Scott

United States Senator

I responded to my friend - and I would say the same thing directly to Sen. Scott, given the chance - “Perhaps you can remind Sen. Scott that being an advocate and passionate about something does not translate to being qualified. I have been an advocate of NASA and passionate about us doing more to get us back out there and doing interplanetary exploration. But that hardly makes me qualified to run NASA. Nor does it even make me qualified to be an astronaut at NASA.”

Just because a President nominates an individual for a cabinet position (or Supreme Court . . . or anything really), doesn't mean Congress HAS to confirm them. I mean, if I were President and I had to fill all these positions, I would look to those I know for both possible candidates for those positions and recommendations to fill them. Doesn't mean I KNOW the right person for the job.

That's where the confirmation process comes in. That's where you look at the person and say yes or no. That's when you LOOK at their qualifications.

Their qualification! Not what they are passionate about! Not what they have been advocates of or for!

And DEFINITELY NOT in response to how much money they have or have given to you. (The latter of which might look suspiciously like a bribe – just saying!)

As for DeVos herself? Here is a little bit about her qualifications . . . or lack thereof.

• She was chair of the Michigan Republican Committee. Not a qualification for Secretary of Education.
• She is married to the Heir of Amway. Not a qualification.
• She was the chair of American Federation for Children. Not a qualification and actually seems like conflict of interest type of thing.
• She is head of many philanthropic groups. Not a qualification. Means she's rich, not qualified.
• She has a Bachelor's degree in business administration and political science. A qualification, but not what one would say is a good one.

There are those that may point out the precedent set by previous Presidents where the Secretary of Education did not have a degree in Education. True.

She was George W Bush's Secretary of Education did not have one in Education. But that really didn't work out too well, if you recall. Margaret Spellings, one day after being confirmed, threatened PBS demanding they nit air an episode where an animated bunny learns about maple syrup from kids with lesbian parents (despite the fact that the episode only has the kids saying they have a mom and a stepmom, which can easily be assumed to mean dad got remarried . . . . but Spellings' mind went to the lesbian route and was offended by it). She advocated “No Child Left Behind”, and insulted Connecticut when it resisted by calling the state (not a person but the whole state) bigots. As for the student loan controversy, this followed her to University of North Carolina, where the decision to bring her in as President led to the resignation of the university's board chair.

“Spellings made over $330,000 working for the Apollo Group, the parent company of University of Phoenix, a for-profit online college that has been widely criticized for taking advantage of its students and delivering poor results. Although federal education funds account for nearly 90 percent of the company’s revenue, graduation rates were as low as 4 percent under Spellings’ tenure.” ~~ News Observer, November 2, 2015

And finally, as recently as 2016, Spellings Presidency at the University was marred by her lack of discretion, insulting the LGBT community. (Seems she really still has a problem with lesbians, like she did back in 2005.

So do we want someone like Spellings? Is it a good precedent to follow, having someone in the position to oversee the nation's education system, policies and all, without a degree in education? And honestly, coming from someone who is highly educated but holds no actual degrees, do you really want someone as Education Secretary to only hold a Bachelor's degree . . . and in political science?

I think not.

As much as I thought, way back 2011, that Tim Scott was an intelligent individual who wants only what is best for his constituents, I must now say things have changed. Scott has become a party tool. Instead of dispensing his duties for the benefit of South Carolinians, he seems to only hold what the party wants him to hold as important. His response is a political one. Not a response one gives to his constituents. (And its a form response, as others have gotten the same . . . exact . . . letter. Just the name is different.)

As for the letter? It begins, very condescendingly, as though speaking to a child, when – in fact – he (or his staff) knew they were speaking to an educator with nearly two decades teaching. Very insulting. Then it goes on to sound like a press release praising DeVos . . . . not a good sign when this person is supposed to still be weighing the facts in a confirmation hearing.

There is the line about DeVos supporting public education. In actuality, her work has been more for the benefit of private institutions then for helping the public education system.

And then there is (especially in reference to the comment above about the DeVos support for the Scott campaign) the political donations. The DeVos family has been donating HUGE sums of money to Republican Party SuperPacs and individual campaigns (such as Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina) for decades. And do they do this out of the goodness of their hearts or because they believe in the party or the candidates (remember, she once called Trump an “interloper” and representative of the Republican Party)? In truth, in a 1997 Op-Ed in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, DeVos wrote "[M]y family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party….I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now, I simply concede the point. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections."

This is a telling passage in this OpEd by DeVos. But the whole editorial is even more telling. She states that “[i]n politics, money is speech. You don't have free speech without it.” She seems to feel that those with money “know more” than the politicians, therefore, their money is important to a role in free speech of all Americans. She likens campaign finance reform to an assault on free speech, saying without the big money she and groups like labor unions spend during a given election year allows voters to be more informed when they vote. Yet in the same article she states how the labor advertising done by labor unions were “misleading, and in some cases, dishonest.”

DeVos finishes off this article with a dire extrapolation of the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill.

“For those who support attacks on free speech, such as those in the many versions fo the McCain-Feingold bill, perhaps they should be thinking through to its long conclusion. They must be willing to place limits on the number of news stories the media can run, the number of editorials they can print, the number of newspapers they can sell, and the number of news shows they can air. If we are going to restrict free speech, we need to do it for everybody.”

The ideals she expresses throughout this editorial equating money with free speech, the way she places on the same level news stories and paid for political advertisements, is so far afield of free anything, let alone free speech, that one has to wonder how her priorities in life got so skewed.

Is this a person we want shaping the educational system in this country?

For my money, which is nowhere near as much as the DeVos family fortune, I can't see how anyone, even someone who benefited from this huge resource of cash, can think she is right for this or any other political position.

Senators like Tim Scott should be appalled at the level of sanctimony and privilege DeVos displays in this article.

(Unfortunately, if you read Scott's letter, it sounds his mind has been made up, despite the opposition by his constituents. One has to wonder, if not for those he represents, then for whom does he act as cheerleader for DeVos.)

I include as much information and resources as I can in this editorial of my own. I let you, the reader take form it whatever information you can glean and make up your own mind. Because, as always, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day!

Charles

Author's Notes:

• The October 6, 1997 op-ed DeVos wrote for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call is not available online. The archives editor at the paper has sent me a copy of the piece and I include it here.
• An email to Senator Scott's office, specifically to his Communications Director Sean Smith, about claims whether DeVos contributed to his campaign have not been responded to as of yet. I guess you can take that as either a “no comment” or as “we don't care to respond to an American citizen's request for transparency. (Or maybe its just a “we're too busy to answer some nobody journalist's question” response.)

Hypocritical President Slams Russia Without Knowing US History

President Obama slams Russia and declares retaliations for their "interference in US elections. And people cry foul as Trump slams CIA for its reports about Russian involvement in our elections. (The latter I will address later.)

But I have to stand dumbfounded at facts that seem to slip the minds of those declaring this reason enough for a war with Russia or for invalidating our election process.

Kind of hypocritical of Obama and the US to freak about Russian interference in US Elections. Example after example shows the US involvement with the overthrow and undermining of governments throughout the world and over decades.

Here's just a few:

Rwanda

http://humansarefree.com/2014/04/the-us-genocide-in-rwanda-you-will.html

Ukraine

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142

Iran

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran

Quatemala

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

Brazil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'état

Bosnia

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2071.html

More recently

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/cias-gold-standard-for-in_b_11201644.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.6d26dba693a8

http://xpatnation.com/the-cia-operations-that-undermined-latin-american-democracy/

I cannot understand how this really intelligent man, who is a Constitutional lawyer yet trashes the founding document with almost every edict he issues, would be such a hypocrite about others interfering with our elections . . . . 

Okay, never mind. Any intelligent individual can see this administration is out of control. And the blind sheep who follow all of these far left and far right are the ones who keep putting these megalomaniacs into office.

Outside of the facts, the rest is simply my opinion, my take on things. And you can either agree or disagree. Because this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Let Gary Debate

Hi gang! Looks like Gary Johnson is becoming more and more known across the country. More people are realizing they have a choice.

Got this email from the campaign the other day:

****************

Let's Get People Talking About #LetGaryDebate! There's a reason why major digital media outlets like Mashable are talking about our campaign. Because you have all done an incredible job of pushing this campaign across social media. And over 600,000 people have signed the petition to #LetGaryDebate. Over 30 million people reached on Facebook alone just last week! Now, we have just launched a campaign that can help the #LetGaryDebate campaign go viral.

There is one simple way you can help: Change your social profile picture to let people know that you want to "Let Gary Debate!"

Changing your profile picture using Twibbon will keep your current social profile pic, but send a subtle message to all of your friends that you are one of the 62% of Americans that want a third voice in the presidential debates.

Change With Just a Click:

After you’ve added the #LetGaryDebate overlay to your social profile, pleaseSHARE with your friends on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or your favorite social network. Imagine 600,000 social profiles demanding to #LetGaryDebate. This alone will catch the attention of the political community. All we need is your help.

Click HERE to Change your Profile! ***************************************************************** So lets all get out there and make a difference. Lets get Johnson on the debate stage. And I don't care if you intend to vote for him or not> We need the conversation he is going to bring. Lets get away from all the immature nonsense the Trump and CLionton campaigns have brought to this election. All the name calling, all the he said / she said B******T that has been the hallmark of this Presidential election season . . . all of it . . . will go away once Johnson makes them start talking issues and solutions. And who knows, the more you hear about his fiscally conservative (read responsible) ideas and his socially liberal (read caring) plans, you might actually come to realize that he is what is needed in America today. But even if not, you will have the two major parties (who have held a duopoly on this country for decades) getting back to putting needs of the country ahead of their egos! Agree or disagree, I'm just trying to help you be more informed. This is just me, Thinking Out Loud! Have a great day! Charles

Trump, Trumpism, Charles Murray and the Anger of Americans

COMMENTARY - Trump vs Murray?? Charles Murray wrote this back in October 2015: "It could be the 1850s and the Know Nothings. Same fear, same rhetoric, same fascist tendencies. And I don’t use “fascist” loosely."

Yet today Murray writes in the Wall Street Journal (online - which you can only read the full story by logging in or subscribing) "If you are dismayed by Trumpism, don’t kid yourself that it will fade away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course that the country has taken, and its appearance was predictable. It is the endgame of a process that has been going on for a half-century: America’s divestment of its historic national identity."

So which is it, Mr. Murray? Is Trump and all he stands for the same rhetoric as the 1850's Know Nothings, representing fear and fascism? Or is it an "expression of legitimate anger"?

Like most "pundits" and politicians today, they just don't understand the appeal of someone like Donald Trump. Do people ACTUALLY want to elect The Donald as President of the United States of America? Mostly not. But what other choice do they have to vent their anger and frustration at a government intent on lying to (poorly) and dividing (convincingly) the entirety of the American people? What other choice do they have when there are so many incompetent people in power who really don't get the economy like a businessman of The Donald's obvious skills in that area? What choice do they have when the other choices are people who are cowards in the face of international mayhem?

With the damage this current president has done to not only the fabric of American society by the psyche of the American spirit, not to mention the nilly willy way in which he consistently violates the separation of powers with his use (or misuse) or executive orders, the people are frustrated.

Its also why Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side engenders so much support. Even though he has been a part of the problem for decades, he "says" the right things to a people who would not support ANY Republican. He is their ONLY choice to vent.

So what is the answer? Do away with parties. At least for President. Everyone can run on their own merit, their own ideas, their own platform. The person with the most votes (by the people, not some elusive "Electoral College") gets the job. The person with the second most votes becomes vice president. Its the only fair way in today's environment of political shenanigans and payoffs via party PACs and donations.

The American people are neither Republican nor Democrat nor Green nor Socialist as a whole. And neither should the President be. The President is NOT the leader of his respective party. He is the duly elected Executive for ALL the American people.

But you know what? This is just my opinion and thoughts on the matter. You can have your own opinion and thoughts on the matter. But thats what is great about our country. We can each have our own opinion and try to convince others of our ideas being the . . . .okay, I was going to say the right ideas. But in truth, as in governmental structure, there is no "right" and "wrong" idea. Its the BEST idea among all the competing ideas out there. Whats best for US. And I do mean US as in the capitalization "us".

Bottom line, though, is that America is pissed. And it will continue to be pissed long after whoever is elected president is sworn in. Because none of the damage done in the past 70 years can be corrected overnight. Or even in four years. But even if it doesn't, and even if Americans stay angry, if something isn't done to make corrections NOW, it will just keep getting worse. And THAT is the appeal of Trump and Trumpism. So Murray might finally have it right. Not sure because I will not be paying for a subscription of the Wall Street Journal to rad the conclusion of this article of his. I just can't afford it.

So, as I always say here, agree or disagree, thats up to you. Just do your research and think for yourselves. Don't be sheep and think what the pundits or your "betters" in politics tell you what to think. Not even me. Because this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Obama / Trump comparison? Not!

I don't understand all the comparisons / references between President Obama and Donald "The Donald" Trump.

Like in this editorial carton. Or this one.

No matter what you might think of either one, at least The DOnald knew how to fire someone.

Bernanke. Eric Holder. Van Jones. Ed Montgomery. Carol Brower. Dan Fried. And the list drones on.

But, you know, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

GOP 2012 Mess?

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Donald "You're Fired!" Trump have both decided not to run for the GOP nomination in 2012.

"They're all backing out," one person recently quipped to me. "Its all because Obama killed bin Laden. They're afraid to run against him because they won't have a chance."

First, Obama did not kill Usama bin Laden. SEAL Team Six killed bin Laden. It was a concerted effort over three Presidencies to find and take out this delusional, sick madman. Clinton tried, backed off when the first attempt failed. Then Bush directed concentrated resources to find him. And finally, Obama was President when it happened. He did not personally do the intelligence, fly the mission or pull the trigger.

It is certainly a plus that he got to tell the public that America's Number One bad guy was gone. But this one act cannot cover up all the negative he has done for this country. At least in the eyes of conservatives. (You all are welcome to comment and dispute this if you like.) And any true conservative would not balk at the challenge to stop him from continuing down this road.

In 2008, President Obama somehow got into his mind the absolutely erroneous idea that a 49% to 51% is a "mandate from the people" to go ahead with all his crazy programs and policies. He was decidedly slapped down on that notion with all the TEA party activity and the 2010 midterms. The country cannot allow this man to be unchallenged on a serious level in his bid for re-election. There is no telling how much he will believe a re-election win will be a new "mandate" for his policies.

Second, I would not like to think that anyone such as Mike Huckabee would fear running against the President. I would HOPE that no true conservative with the chance to run for the GOP nomination would back out because he or she was intimidated by the President being the one in office when bin Laden was taken out.

Let's face it. No matter who was President, the intel would still have been gathered. (It is absurd to think that our intelligence community would give up even if the President didn't give it high priority.) The order to follow up would still have been given. The approval to go in and take him out would still have happened. Even if Donald Duck or Rumsfeld or Cythia McKinney were sitting in the oval office. Because no intelligence liaison or Sect. of Defense or Joint Chief would have allowed a President to miss an opportunity (again).

So, for The Donald, I believe it was mere ploy (as it was in 1988 and 1992) and he is and always has been the consummate showman who will do what is needed for good PR. Irish author Brendan Behan once quipped, "All publicity is good, except an obituary notice." I am sure Trump is very familiar with this.

As for Gov. Huckabee, he said doesn't feel the sense that God has a nomination in mind. He said when supporters were encouraging him, he felt the love and commitment. But when he was alone, his inner voice differed. He said it best on his blog on HuckPAC website. "All the factors say GO, my heart says NO."

I think the 2012 election cannot be a cake walk for Obama. The death of Usama bin Laden cannot be the deciding factor for millions of Americans. The whole body of work this President has undertaken to steer this country in the wrong direction needs the attention of the American people and they need to speak out loud and stop being led like sheep by the left wing pundits, the liberal leaning mainstream media or the charismatic voice of a President.

American voters need to look deep inside themselves and see the reflection of the ideal America, the one where the American Dream still lives. And they need to then look at the facts of what Obama has done / is trying to do, and they need to make a choice.

The GOP cannot roll over as well. It needs a strong conservative leader who will not back away from the challenge of getting America back on track and getting Americans back to thinking for themselves instead of thinking like sheeple.

Agree or disagree, as usual, and it is fine by me. So long as I got you thinking about other things, looking at things in another light and closing off your ears to the PR spins of everyone out there (yes, even me) and doing some self reflection, then I have done my job. Because hey, this is just me, thinking out loud.

Have a great day.