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.

Come On People All Lives Matter

There are some serious gaps in the education of our youth (and I mean going back decades, so that we find ourselves with an ignorant and uninformed adult population as well).

That has to be the explanation of all the very stupid things people are saying and doing these days. Right? I mean how else do you explain the stupidity of the Black Lives Matter movement? Or the This life is better than that life concept that has followed?

I say this because there is a storycoming out (not on any mainstream media outlet, of course) about a young ex-Marine who was assaulted by a gang of black youths (he figures five between the ages of 16 – 21, including one female) outside of a McDonald's. They had been harassing him inside, cornering him and shouting the question did he think black lives matter. He was knocked unconscious and robbed of money, credit cards, VA id and driver's license.

Here is a young man who surrendered his rights and the possibility of his very life to protect the freedoms these ignorant punks (and that is what they are, “usually a petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian”) enjoy.

So I am going to get real here. I mean really REAL. I am aiming this at EVERYONE! Men, women, children, politicians, civilians, black, white, red, straight, gay, transgender, rich, poor, middle class, the powerful and the powerless . . . EVERYONE in the United States!

The founding document of this country, the one that separated us from our colonizer nation, the one that outlined why we became who we became, explains things pretty clearly about who we should be as a nation.

The Declaration of Independence.

It starts out “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .”.

For the uninitiated into the English language, let me translate. “Here is the obvious truth.” Its obvious, or self evident, to anyone who cares to simply open their eyes and see. Here are some truths and they are obvious. Pretty simple. But some people numbly look at you with a blank stare and go “huh?” and then ignore the document.

Okay, so we move on. “ . . . that all men are created equal . . .”. WOW! That line just blows away all of these separatist movements. All. Men. Are. Created. EQUAL! By men, the founders meant men as in mankind, as in humanity, as in EVERYBODY. So, everybody. Created equal. Boom! Black lives matter movement shut down. Because ALL lives matter. Says so in the founding document of this country. Rich lives, poor lives, homeless lives, working lives, black lives, white lives, ALL lives! End of discussion on that.

Now here comes the boom that makes the actions of thugs like the ones who attacked that Marine and like the ones in elected office un-American. “. . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.

You may ask what the heck “unalienable” means, and what are unalienable rights? Well you would be in good company because this has been discussed over and over by many people in the past. But here is the 411. Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away. That's it. They are rights that you are born with. Like the right to breathe. No one can take that away. They can take away your ability to breathe. But your RIGHT to breath? No, they can't take that away.

So what are these rights? “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now these are not the only ones. As I said before, you also have the right to breath. But the founders thought that would be kind of obvious to anybody, so they prefaced these rights by stating “that among these are”. So there are others but they wanted to include these three specifically.

Everyone has a right to life, to be alive. Therefore taking a life is not to be done for the hell of it. Any life. (And yes, I know, the taking of lives in war, any war is necessary to preserve life. A contradiction to be sure, but as I said, not simply done for the hell of it. Self defense, protection of others. Usually undertaken by those willing to sacrifice their own lives to defend the freedoms of these rights I am discussing.)

Liberty. Freedom. Everyone has a right to be free. You can be enslaved, in so many ways, but you choose to fight for this because everyone has a right to freedom. We fought a war to be free. People have staged protests to be free. Because it is a right everyone is born with.

And finally, everyone has the right to pursue a happy life. To be happy. To pursue it. A right. Born with it. Not to be taken away. Ever. By anyone.

So how do we secure these rights so that no one takes them away? The Declaration answers this. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Which means it is up to the government to preserve these rights. Governments that derive their power from the governed. That's us. The governed. The people. The voters who put the government in place.

But here is the rub. We the people have to ensure the government abides by the tenets of our country. And what to do if they don't? Well, we have elections to make sure that the ones who fail are replaced. But what if it gets so bad that we find ourselves falling apart at the seams, as we are now? There is an answer for that, too.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Kind of extreme. So if we want to avoid the latter, the abolishment of it, then we need to get active and work on altering it. By voting in people who do not derive their popularity or power from dividing us.

United, we stand. Divided, we fall. In modern times, one of our Founding Father, John Dickinson, used these words in a pre-Revolutionary War song called "The Liberty Song". In July of 1768 Dickinson wrote: "Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall!"

These Black Lives Matter movements do just this. They divide us. As do all of these “fill in the blank” Lives Matter groups, and as do all those who seek to usurp power by dividing us. And politicians who only wish to garner the largest amounts of votes. And they not only do a disservice to us as a country, but they tear apart the very tenets this country was founded on. That every one of us are created equal.

To that point, there is not one single candidate for public office in a very long time that is not guilty of dividing us. And we let them. We fall prey and victim to their manipulations.

I say it is time to stop listening to them and start listening to the concepts that formed this country that is the envy of the rest of the world.

Only by standing united, as one citizenry, as Americans all, will we fight off those that would divide and conquer us. Whether they be outside sources such as ISIS or Communists or Socialists or money grubbing, power hungry corporations, we must battle them all by ignoring their attempts and uniting.

Another document that looked to create a better country, a better world for all that followed them – for posterity – is the Declaration of Independence.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is time. To stop being sheep and to stop believing in “the spin” of all these divisive people and groups. We are ALL Americans. Not black Americans nor white Americans nor rich Americans nor poor Americans nor any other kind of such and such Americans. We are Americans and we need to stand united in the knowledge that ALL are created equal. All lives matter. Our Founding Fathers tried to make sure we understood this.

Normally I say agree with me or disagree with me, it doesn't matter. But I can't say that this time. Read it for yourself, don't just take my word on it. But if you disagree, if you think that all lives don't matter, that we are not all Americans, that we do not all have rights that cannot be taken away, that we don't need to stand united, then we will not all fall divided – then there is not much I can do for you. So just think for yourselves. Read what this country is all about. If you don't like that we are all one citizenry, then maybe you should think about finding a country that lets you feel divided and promotes divisiveness. But really, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

I hope you have a great day, and that you take my words into consideration the next time you hear someone saying something that divides us.

Charles  

RAPID Act or short cut for donor interest?

With all the bruohaha from local environmental groups and paid protestors, I am very surprised that there is no news or petition or any murmur from these groups about this particular bill running through the legislature.

The bill will streamline the current permit approval process for energy, infrastructure, and other construction projects by setting hard deadlines, cracking down on prolonged lawsuits, and consolidating agency management of the approval process from start to finish. It was passed by the House by a bipartisan vote of 229-179.

In a press release from Marino's office:

Marino’s RAPID Act Passes House Judiciary Committee

Washington D.C.—Congressman Tom Marino (PA-10) issued the following statement regarding the passage of the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2015 (H.R. 348) today in the House Judiciary Committee:

“I am encouraged by the prospects of advancing and passing reasonable, meaningful and much-need regulatory reforms like the RAPID Act. This Act passed the House in both the 112th and 113th Congresses – every time with large bipartisan support, and I have every expectation it will do so again in the 114th. The RAPID Act’s mission is simple: federal agencies responsible for permitting critical infrastructure and construction projects, especially in the energy sector, must provide approval or disapproval of a project in a reasonable amount of time. This is a positive and significant step in the right direction which helps jump-start many commonsense projects across the country as well as create jobs. I am thankful to Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on the Committee again and look forward to advancing more regulatory reform bills.”

See the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman, Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) statement below which was released earlier today:

The House Judiciary Committee today approved by a vote of 15-11 the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2015 (H.R. 348). This bill, sponsored by Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Tom Marino (R-Pa.), streamlines the approval process for federally-funded and federally-permitted infrastructure, energy and other construction projects and delivers faster approvals.

The RAPID Act recognizes that delay and uncertainty in the process for new construction and infrastructure projects, undermines job creation, and economic growth for hardworking Americans.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Subcommittee Chairman Tom Marino (R-Pa.) praised today’s Committee vote.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Our country’s burdensome and time-consuming regulatory process only adds to the American people’s frustration with the federal government. Bureaucratic red tape slows the permit approval process for infrastructure investment, and continues to be a barrier for many Americans who look to these jobs for stable employment.

“The RAPID Act would bring accountability and expediency to the permit approval process by setting hard deadlines, instituting oversight on those who control the process, and cracking down on costly and time-consuming lawsuits.

“This legislation will be an open door for the American people who are looking for work in challenging economic times. The RAPID Act is a concrete mechanism that would act as a job creator for Americans across the country, to the effect of 1.9 million jobs annually during construction of the projects, and hundreds of thousands of jobs every year following the completion of the projects.”

And yet, SILENCE from those who are busy screaming about things they can do nothing about. This is something that requires closer scrutiny. Wonder where the naysayers are now.

Agree, disagree . . . it really doesn't matter to me. Just don't let others think for you. Don't believe their spin. Think for yourselves for a change. Don't even just blindly listen to me. I am just the voice in the wilderness bringing these things up for debate. But you know, this is just me . . . . thinking out loud.

Have yourselves a great day.

Charles

(Rep. Mike Kelly - R-PA 3rd District - defends the Act.)

Been a while, but this bugged me

I know its been a while. I have been busy trying to do work that will pay the bills. Although I love doing this blog, it really doesn't pay the rent, phone, electric, car, etc bills. But this article by one of my mainstream colleagues kind of peeved me. I started to write a comment reply and it ended up getting to long. So here I am responding via blog.

Olivier Knox over at Yahoo News! wrote and article entitled "Everyone knows politicians lie. Why don't reporters say so?"

In the article Knox asks if it is an important question. "Does it matter?"

Part of the answer is that we don’t necessarily know when someone is lying — meaning when they knowingly pass along something that isn’t true with the intent to deceive.

One official told me Clapper’s assertion that the NSA doesn’t collect information about millions of Americans was technically true because the intelligence community definition of “collect” means that an analyst has reviewed the information. So the NSA could scoop up millions of phone records and that wouldn’t technically count as “collection.”

More broadly, there is the thinking that if someone believes their statement to be technically true, it doesn't meet the definition of lying — at least for reporting purposes

This article splits way too many hairs. Although it is not always necessary to label something a "lie" or someone a "liar", it is certainly incumbent for the media - mainstream or otherwise - to make the public aware of the falsehoods. To ignore that the President has told one or more of these falsehoods gives the public a false sense of security in their commander-in-chief when he does not deserve it. It IS important to point this out. When a government official lies because of incompetence (he didn't mean to tell a lie, he just doesn't know what is going on), the media needs to be the eyes and ears of the public and let them know. So many elections are accused of failing to focus on the issues but the truth is the media isn't giving them the information they need to BE INFORMED. The only poignant and true thing this reporter tells about the media is that they fear losing "access" for their next story. It should be government officials and politicians who fear losing access. The media should be the disciplinarian here when it comes to access, not the supposed public servant. If an official lies - or misrepresents the truth due to "technicalities" or "incompetence" - it should be they who fear the media for shining that light on their lie, incompetence or misrepresentation. The media, as the fourth estate in this country, has a responsibility to the public to not only report but investigate and report on government, industry, the public.

Well, thats my bit. Anyone who has read my blogs before knows how I feel about the reponssibility of the media to the people. I know this won't be my last complaint about the whole argument of media access to government officials or government activities. It surely won't change if these two things never happen.

1) The media does have to stop being "pansies". ("“I do think the blogosphere is too quick to say ‘You guys are pansies 'cause you won’t say lie,’” Ron Fournier, the National Journal writer who worked for years at The Associated Press, told Yahoo News.") I think Fournier is a little sensitive on this issue. If they would step up no one would be quick to call mainstream media "pansies". But since they won't step up AT ALL, the label sticks.

2) Politicians need to understand that their actions and words, whether an outright lie or a incompetent repetition of unsubstantiated information they are passing along as fact, have consequences. They lie or they unknowingly pass along a lie, their credibility with the public MUST be called into question. It must be they who fear losing the media and the public.

Anyway, thats my thoughts. You can agree or not, its all good. Don't take my word on it. Look at all the information from all sides and make your own decision. An INFORMED decision. Think for yourselves and avoid the spin. But, hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Them's the choices??

In Missouri, they are saying - and by they, I mean Democrats - that the 1% gap between the two choices for Congress is worrisome. I agree. But not for the reasons they - again, the Democrats - are saying.

Here's the email from Jennifer Granholm - you know her, the former Canadian governor of Michigan - about the situation in Missouri.

"Despite Todd Akin belittling rape survivors, the Tea Party’s largest Super PAC is considering throwing millions behind him. And today, projections show Republicans could take over the Senate by a single seat. Here are the latest polls:

***PUBLIC POLICY POLLING UPDATE*** September 22, 2012
Missouri	Claire McCaskill (D)-45	Todd Akin (R)-44
Massachusetts	Elizabeth Warren (D)-48	Scott Brown (R)-46
Arizona	Richard Carmona (D)-43	Jeff Flake (R)-44

An Akin victory could actually hand Republicans control of the Senate. 
 
You have only eight days to stop them — we’re up against the final and most vital end-of-quarter deadline."

So here is my thought . . . Them's the choices?? Holy crap, I don't want to see either one of these scatter-brained nitwits anywhere near the seats of legislative power in this country. I mean, it is a no-brainer that a stupid, neanderthal such as Akin should not only be booted to some curb but be placed in solitary confinement so he doesn't hurt anyone. So, I don't think I really need to go any further. This man is simply put an embarrassment to both men and humanity. End of discussion.

But McCaskill is so liberal that it has got to make her eye teeth hurt just to think or speak.

McCaskill's voting record is s sight to behold. Really. Here, just go and behold it. She is willing to vote for just about anythynig that has a mandate but no way to pay for it. She won't limit handouts to farmers who really don't need it. She won't prohibit drug companies from delaying the release of generic drugs - oh but she will mandate you gotta get Obamacare. She will demand more taxes be paid by those who are already paying the lion's share (thus ensuring they don't have any capital to create jobs - while MILLIONS of Americans suffer without work) but WILL pass a tax cut to the middle class equating to NOTHING that will do the middle class any good.

The only thing of late she has steered clear of voting on is - sugar subsidies. Guess her liberal sweet tooth couldn't stand that much saccharine.

So, the choices in Missouri are just an example of what choices Americans have at the polls. Between two evils. Just like in the Presidential race.

Obama or Romney.

But thats the media for you. They will TELL you these are your only choices.

Just like in Missouri - where the choices are ACTUALLY Akin, McCaskill OR Jonathan Dine - on the Presidential scene, in most states (47 right now) there is the choice between Obama, Romney OR Gary Johnson. Now, you might not really like Dine in Missouri, but he does offer a third choice.

And you might not like Johnson, but he offers a third option - a LEGITIMATE option to having to choose between the lessor of two evils.

Johnson is the former two-term Governor of New Mexico. He has an impressive list of accomplishments as Governor, battling things that this President has not been able to tackle properly. He has definitive things to say about the issues. Not just vague promises of Hope and Change.

So, despite what the popular media - whose ethics should be called into question daily - would have you believe the choices are limited to the ones THEY want in office, the choices are actually bigger than you thought. An informed voter makes for a better America. A popularity contest makes for a worse world.

You decide.

Agree, disagree . . . I don't care. Just get informed, use your brain, and stop swallowing the drivel they - the politicians, the media, the spin doctors - are forcing down your throats. Do that and it will be better all around. As for me, as usual, I'm just here Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

The politics of hypocrisy

Okay, so I get an email from the Democrats. Here's what it said.

"National Republicans have just launched blatantly deceptive attack ads against Dr. David Gill, our Democratic candidate for Congress in southern Illinois. If you haven’t seen the ads, they’re a shameful attempt to confuse voters in a key race that could help us win a Democratic House majority."

Now here is the reason I say it is not only hypocrisy but its lunacy. Because all you have to do is substitute the other side and it is just as legitimate an argument.

"National Democrats have just launched blatantly deceptive attack ads against Rodney Davis, our Republican candidate for Congress in southern Illinois. If you haven’t seen the ads, they’re a shameful attempt to confuse voters in a key race that could help us keep a Republican House majority."

See, the GOP could run the same ad.

But the rest of the email could actually be used by both parties.

"The truth is Dr. Gill will work with President Obama to expand access to health care . . ."

If you're a Democrat, you LOVE this guy. If you're smart - er, I mean - a Republican, you HATE this guy.

Anyway, I think voting for NEITHER party would be best for America. Lets throw all the jerks out on their back sides and start with people who remember it is not supposed to be a CAREER to be in politics. You were never meant to stay in COngress for DECADES. You were supposed to do your civic duty, represent your neighbors and then GO HOME. Some of these cretins just forgot to go home. So its time for us to tell them to do so.

As for President, the two gunning for the job - one a donkey and the other an elephant, make what you will from those true references - are not worth our spit. They continue to "blame the other guy" instead of telling us EXACTLY how they are going to fix things. (Four years ago, the country's majority went with the vague HOPE and CHANGE guy without getting specifics and we can see what a complete shambles that has wrought us.)

So why not go with Gary Johnson? He has specifics. He is talking about what we want government to do. (At least those of us not too lazy to work for a living, dream for a brighter future and are willing to take responsibility for ourselves.) Less government intrusion into our loves. Smaller government. Which, of course will lead to less taxes because THAT is what our taxes are supposed to be for - paying to run the Federal government, not pay down some ludicrous debt.

So lets all vote out as many of these losers as we can and fill the seats with citizen servants and NOT politicians.

I actually dare you, America.

Agree with me or not, just think about it. I do that and we have as possible better future. DON'T THINK and you get what you have . . . and in my book, thats pretty pathetic.

Either way, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Typical politician Scam

This may be just a glitch . . . but it seems like a typical politician scam. And really emblematic of the problem in DC.

I received an email asking if I wanted to win a trip to the DNC in Charlotte. I figured, hell yeah. After all, they were exposed by me in a recent post about the "Dinner with Barack" scam. Then Romney added a "No purchase necessary disclaimer. Followed closely by Obama.

So I clicked on the "enter without making a donation" button. But it took me to a page where in order to enter I HAD TO MAKE A DONATION.

Read below.

"NY TIMES: Bill Clinton to Have Leading Role at Party’s Convention
Former President Bill Clinton is set to play a central part in the Democratic convention, aides said, and will formally place President Obama’s name into nomination by delivering a prime-time speech designed to present a forceful economic argument for why Mr. Obama deserves to win a second term.

Charles -- This is going to be good.

President Clinton on Wednesday. President Obama on Thursday. You don't want to pass up this opportunity.

There's just one day left to get your chance to be there: Chip in $3 or more and you will be automatically entered to win a free trip for you and a guest to the Democratic National Convention >>

We’ll cover hotel and airfare. All you have to do is choose who you’ll bring along.

Don’t pass this up: http://dccc.org/Democratic-Convention

Ryan

Ryan Jham
DCCC Rapid Response Director


Sweepstakes Rules and Restrictions: No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Void where prohibited. Click here to enter without contributing. Sweepstakes Information: You may enter by contributing. Alternatively, you may enter without making a contribution by clicking here and following the directions to enter. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on July 31st, 2012. Sweepstakes only open to citizens of the U.S. and lawful permanent U.S. residents who are residents of the 50 United States and District of Columbia and 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law). Prize consists of the following prize package: Transportation for two to Charlotte, NC and four nights of hotel accommodations for two (approximate retail value $1,900). Winner's guest must be 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law) and meet other requirements as described in the Official Rules. Odds of winning depend on number of eligible entries received. Promotion is subject to Official Rules. Click here for full Official Rules and details. Sponsor: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee | 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, DC 20003

(202) 863-1500 | www.dccc.org | Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

This message was sent to: XXXXXXXXX@XX.com | To unsubscribe, click here: http://dccc.org/optout.
Change or update your email address and contact information by clicking here."

I stripped out everything but the link to the donation free entrance. Go ahead. Put in a fictitious email and a real zip code. See where it takes you.

Unbelievable scum tactics.

And these people want us to put them in charge for four more years?

If you want this kind of bait and switch stuff, you go right ahead. I would say you will get what you deserve. But then, we all will get stuck with it.

I'm still waiting for that night in armor to pop up at the last minunte and sweep ALL the scum out of DC.

But I don't think that will happen.

Agree or not, right now I don't care. Its just me, as usual, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Weighing in on Chick-fil-A

Okay, here I am, having to weigh in on the Chick-fil-A issue.

Only because ALL of you extremist, on both sides of the issue, are MAKING me weigh in.

I have my own personal opinions on marriage, gay marriage and what it means to me personally.

I am not going to expound on it. It is just that. MY - OWN - PERSONAL - OPINION.

I will talk to family about it. I will talk to friends about it. But I am not going to make a public display either way.

However, all of the morons out there who just HAVE TO MAKE THIS A PUBLIC ISSUE are ignoring one very basic principle of America.

FREEDOM.

Unlike many other nations around this spinning globe we all call home, in America we have freedoms. Freedoms secured by the wisdom of our founders and the courage of those who voluntarily have defended over the CENTURIES. Freedoms founded in faith and secured by blood.

Two of those very basic freedoms are being ignored by everyone speaking out on the Chick-fil-A issue.

Freedom of religion. This is one of the most misunderstood and maligned of all our freedoms in America today. Instead of being in a country where if you are not a follower of a specific religion you are either shunned or dead. we live in America where it is ILLEGAL for the government to force religion on us. But this also means that our public figures and government workers should also be allowed to express their religion. The whole separation of church and state rhetoric today has been turned upside down and destroyed by those who hate and/or fear religion. They say you cannot have a menorah or a nativity scene on your desk. You can't say have a blessed day or Merry Christmas in a government building. This is a denial of the basic freedom we are supposed to be afforded. Everyone is supposed to be afforded. Private citizen or government worker alike.

The falsehoods being spread about this freedom is at the heart of the problem today in the Chick-fil-A stupidity.

The owner of this fast food restaurant has a belief. According to his beliefs, gay marriage is wrong. He has never made a secret of how much he feels about his faith. Sunday is the Sabbath and thus very important to him personally. So his restaurants are closed on Sunday. Now, with gay rights in general and gay marriage in specific being polarized by politicians trying to pander to specific groups to get elected / re-elected, this owner has come out and stated his personal objections to gay marriage.

So what?! It is his right to feel this way and adhere to his beliefs. Although I may not agree with his public rendering of a private choice, I applaud him for sticking to his faith. So many will abandon the beliefs on the altar of public opinion just to make a buck or gain public approval. This guy didn't.

And if you disagree, that is also your right. If you want to not frequent his restaurant. Fine. Again, this is your right. You have the freedom and choice to decide where you want to eat and what businesses you want to patronize.

The problem comes from those who want to publicly demonize this man. People who want to characterize a whole faith and lambast them because HE DOESN'T THINK LIKE THEM.

But lets remember a few other things about this man. He gives to all kinds of charities. Always has. He offers his employees benefits not normally found in the fast food industry. he always has. He helps his employees with educational choices. He always has. Aren't you glad that he "doesn't think like" lots of other businesses out there? If anyone else was a philanthropic as this man you would be praising them. But because of this man's faith, you crucify him. You demean him. You demand he change.

But what if someone said they didn't like the way YOU think? What if they demonized you for the way you raise you children, give to your church or charitable organization? What if you were told you were a hateful person because you wanted to send you child to a good school instead of a public school? What if you wanted to move out of your crime infested neighborhood to a nice neighborhood and were lambasted publicly as a racist, a bigot, an evil person?

How would YOU feel?

And then there is the freedom of free speech. If you want him to just SHUT UP about what he feels is wrong, you are guilty of stifling his free speech. What if you wanted to protect your children from a child molester living in your neighborhood? And you spoke out about the evils of people who molest children? What if you demanded that convicted molesters be registered and you be notified of if they move in near your home or school. You feel it is your right to speak out, yes? But what if someone told you to JUST SHUT UP? Wouldn't you feel your rights were being denied? So why is it okay to try and keep another American from exercising their free speech?

Finally, all the politicians who are speaking out so vehemently against this man and his beliefs. They don't care about you. They don't care about your feelings on this. They are simply pandering to get your vote. If you don't think so, you are being foolish. They said nothing over the years about this man not allowing his restaurants to be open on Sunday. Even though many people complained because they wanted their fast food on Sunday. They didn't complain about who he donated money to in the past. Lots of them actually got money from him in the past, so fo course they wouldn't complain. But now that it is a hot button topic, now that so many are crying out HATRED, they are jumping on the bandwagon. Think they would do this if it were NOT a national election year?

Again, if you think they would, you know nothing about our current crop of politicians. On both sides of the so called aisle. They are all interested in keeping their jobs.

So don't patronize his establishment if you like. That is your choice.

Keep up this public rant in the media, from our politicians, from the whole social media outcry. Then look in the mirror and tell me who is hating. Decide to "destroy this man's business" because he doesn't think like you and then tell me who is the hater.

And just wait. Some day you will be on the other end of this argument. It may just be something you say that doesn't jibe with all the extremist out there. And YOU will be on the receiving end of cries of HATRED and RACISM and EXTREMISM. It will be YOU who they go after and try to "destroy." THEN . . . then, tell me who is the haters.

As I said, I am not going to voice my opinion on the issue. That is between me, my conscience and my family and friends. I am more concerned with the whole "bandwagon" thing and how you are being used by those who want to further their own agenda. You can agree with me or disagree with me, but just take a moment and think about what all I just said. Think about what all everyone else is saying. Then look inside yourself to see how YOU really feel on the subject. So long as I have gotten you to actually examine YOUR thoughts on this, then I have done my job and it doesn't matter either way how you decide. Because, hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Duh-bama news

Here's an interesting tidbit from the White House visitor news. Obama is pro-abortion. (And when he was in the IL legislature, he would not support legislation that protected fetuses that "survived" abortion attempts.) Yet a woman MUST register an unborn child (which I must remind you is termed a "baby" not a fetus - kind of suggesting a right) and include the gender, if known. Weird. And kind of hypocritical.

I wrote about Dinner with Obama and brought up how it seemed inappropriate to have this "campaign" function at the White House - as well as kind of illegal maybe to essentially sell lottery tickets for this. No one else was talking about this. Then SUDDENLY its Dinner with George Clooney at his house. Well, not to be outdone, Mitt Romney is having a "Lunch with Mitt" thing. But at the bottom of HIS email, it says "No purchase necessary." I think this is not only interesting (since no one but me was talking about this) but makes a point. Obama was asking people to "purchase" this chance to eat dinner with a sitting President at the White House. Selling the office. Pretty sad.

And for you twit-wits, who would say "uh, da President does those fund raiser dinner things" and I shouldn't even be making a deal about it. But you see here is the difference. Obam does not sell those tickets. And it is a ticket, like going to the movies or something, and not a lottery / raffle / etc. Someone else is doing a fund raiser and the President uses his position as the head of the Party to be there and endorse this person the dinner is for. Even it its for himself. But to sell these raffle tickets, gambling, and use the White House (which does not BELONG to him, it BELONGS to us) is pretty much an abuse of office.

This item is more about the duh-bama supporters than anyone. The President's recent "gay marriage" announcement - which followed the weird and creepy Biden "finger movements" speech - is all about politics. His numbers were slipping even after he denied all blame on everything from the economy to the wet spot on the carpet (just kidding - but he would deny it if it would help him get re-elected). So he did something his handlers told him - openly and loudly support gay marriage. And it did.

From CBS News: "Obama's campaign has declined to say how much it has collected since the announcement but some staffers have asked supporters to give money as a way of expressing their approval."

Anyone who can't see that this is politics plain and simple and they are being used, in my humble opinion, is an absolute idiot.

Don't get me wrong, they all do it. Pander. But since this is "duh-bama news" and not "duh-lected official news" I am just concentrating on this senseless dolts.

But you know, you can agree or disagree with me and it makes no real difference to me. So long as it is you - and not some spin doctor speaking THROUGH you - doing the agreeing or disagreeing. I want you to THINK FOR YOURSELVES, STOP BEING SHEEP and AVOID THE SPIN! Anyway, this is just me, Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

postscript - I hope all of you mothers out there (and I mean that in the awed, respectful way - not the cynical way some of you might take me to say it) have an absolutely wonderful Mother's Day. - Love you and miss you, mom.

Politicians and family values? Seriously??

Okay, I just have one question. How can ANY politician or political Party talk about family values with a straight face?

I mean, anyone who thinks this is possible is seriously delusional.

“If Newt wins, we won’t be able to make family values an issue in the general.” This is a quote from an evangelical leader.

As if ANYONE in politics can make family values an issue. Even if you think you know about a politician, or a party, the next thing you know someone is talking about open marriages or affairs or a gay thing or a child porn thing or some fetish that makes your skin crawl. Or there is divorce or other marital issues that come to light after - sometimes YEARS after - you elect them.

So let us just take the issue of family values or honesty or trust completely out of the picture. Because you can be assured of none of these from ANY politician. You can make it an issue if YOU want, but don't expect to be able to hitch a ride on any political apron strings. Or at least your SHOULDN'T hitch a ride on any political apron strings.

Evangelicals are (mostly) nice people, who really do want the country to do well. But they just delude themselves with politicians. Throwing your entire group support behind a politician or political party is ludicrous. Well meaning, but ludicrous.

Fortunately, the evangelical leadership is throwing a wet blanket as opposed to a brick filled sack. This is because it seems that only the leadership (and the few fanatics who think they are infallible) trusts politicians to be faithful, decent, trustworthy. Most of the evangelicals in the "real world" understand the worldly ways of politics and politicians.

Unfortunately, the few "fanatics" that join forces with the leadership have a LOT of money and a LOT of influence. So what they say and do as far as political support will garner a lot of press and momentum for whoever they throw it behind. Be it Santorum or someone else.

Agree or disagree, tell me politicians as self serving scum or there really ARE decent politicians at the national level - it makes no difference to me. What does matter is that I get you to really look at the issues, look at the history, look at the records, and THINK for yourself. Stop being SHEEP and following whatever the "leadership" of whatever grouping you belong to TELL you what to think. but heck, this is just me, THINKING OUT LOUD.

Have a great day.

Charles

What do they have to hide?

I know the Democrats have a lot to hide this Primary season. But what is the media hiding? Why are they STILL playing favorites when it comes to Obama.

In South Carolina, the SC Democratic Party decided NOT to hold a Primary in 2012. What they decided to do was hold elections during their party reorganization meetings between now and the end of March. Of course Dick Harpootlian will say it is because of the expense. But thats not very open and democratic of them. And the only way to find this information out was by going to the SC Elections website.

No media is interested in how Obama is doing in the Democratic Primaries. I mean, here is the sitting president with "no opposition" in the Primary and he only got 82% of the vote in New Hampshire. (There is no way of knowing how many votes he got from the Iowa Caucus because those numbers aren't available anywhere.

But the mainstream media only seems to be interested in reporting the GOP races.

Why? Wouldn't the people like to know that the Democratic Party is not as "unified" as they would have you believe? Don't you think they would be interested in knowing that if Hillary were on the ballot, Obama would have a RACE on his hands? I mean, there are states and districts all across the country where Hillary would actually BEAT Obama at the polls.

But where is the media on any of this. Asleep at the wheel and STILL a tool of the Democratic Party and the "Yes We Can" front man, President Obama himself.

I not only demand that the Democratic Party open this information up instead of hiding in the shadows of their slick and deceptive leadership. And I chastise the media for not standing up in the role as the Fourth Estate. They squander their privilege as the watchdogs of government for the people and maintain their "need' for access to the current powers that be. That is a sad excuse, as they should neither be influenced nor controlled by ANY governing body, because they are the people's eyes and ears within that said body politics.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the idea of the 'fourth estate,' it was considered a separate body to watch over and advise the other three main groups within government. Its current position as the eyes and ears of the people came from Edmund Burke and others during his time. They promoted the idea that the media (which they referred to journalist as a professional group, or editors of papers - but with today's diverse media of radio, television and internet, is any news reporter) is the watchdogs of government, being only beholden to their readers. Unswayed by who was in power, as those individuals were transient and served by the will of the people, they (media) are free to shed the light of truth and public scrutiny on those politicians and elected officials, so that the people could stay informed of how those they elected governed.

Without an unbiased and unswayed media, the people have no advocate to keep watch over their interests. And today more and more politicians fail to realize they govern only by the will of the people. So today, more than ever, we need the media to NOT abdicate their responsibilities.)

Agree with me that the Democrats are hiding the growing unpopularity of their President by those in his own Party or that the media has abdicated their responsibilities, or disagree with me on any and all topics discussed here. Either way, it makes no difference to me. All I ask is that it be YOU who agree or disagree, and not that someone TOLD you to agree or disagree with me. I just ask that you look at all the points I make and THINK about it. Think for yourself and don't be SHEEP. If you do that, than I consider my job well done. But hey, this is, after all, just me Thinking Out Loud.

Have yourself a great day.

Charles

Why politicians need to back off of DADT

Well, I am going to wade in on the DADT policy. That is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Normally I would not write on this topic but it is really getting me ticked off.

A little background. While in High school, there were several friends of mine who were gay. Some denied it, some were more open (at least to friends). And we didn't care. I remember telling a one such person when he kept getting angry about people calling him gay, "Hey man, we don't care if you're gay or not. Just stop denying what is obvious to all of us and get on with life." He kept denying it and went a little nuts. There was an incident with him in a tree, half naked, yelling he was Jesus Christ. It was sad. He finally admitted to it and has turned his life around.

I was also in the Navy for six years, and again, there were people who we knew were gay and we didn't care. I remember going to a place in Hawaii, the Lava Lounge, one night. It was a pretty cool place. We did note that the people were dancing with same sex partners. The bartender came up and, very concerned, asked us if we knew it was a gay bar. We said we did and did he want us to leave. He laughed and said 'heavens no' and that he would let people know we were straight so they wouldn't hit on us. That is how we felt about it. Don't hit on me because I am straight and it's all cool.

So now to the big debate on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The politicians, Obama included the most, need to stay the hell out of this policy. It is a military issue. Some people were not cool about it in the '70s and '80s because of misconceptions about gay people. They were afraid, and for some it was a valid concern, that it could be used by foreign governments to pressure gays into divulging classified information. And it was a concern by some homophobes who were not comfortable talking about these things and were afraid of being hit on or molested.

But today, it is more openly accepted and the Cold War is over. So the classified information stuff is no longer an issue. And with women in the military these past decades, the whole argument about gays not having your back has been alleviated for many since they feel women can have their backs, so can gays. (It's the whole misconception about gays being effeminate and weak. Such a lame argument.)

The main sticking point to all of this is that it is a MILITARY ISSUE. Not a political one. The LGBT community would best be served staying away from politicians promising stuff to them and go to the military community instead. If the military decides the concerns of decades ago are no longer valid, then it is both within it's right and it's purview, to change the policy. lawmakers need to stay out of the argument. If the military says to drop it and not make it such a big deal, then the politicians should just do their jobs and cancel the DADT law.

Now don't get me wrong, as a conservative, this issue is strictly a 'government stay out of this arena' one. As a Christian, I don't approve of the lifestyle, but I don't hate the people who live it. I am not the kind of person who says "I must change these sinful heathens!" That is not what Christianity is all about. And those like the Westboro baptist types are sick for disobeying God's command on this. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. I guess the Westboro people really must hate themselves.

As a vet, I think the policy does more harm than good these days and should be done away with.

But mostly, as a conservative, I feel the government is way too involved in people's lives and need to back the heck off.

Agree with me, disagree with me, it doesn't really mater to me. But if I make you open your eyes and stop listening to the extremists on both sides and think for yourself, than I have done my job. But hey, as always, this is just me, Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.