Hillary Clinton

The last couple of days have been a firestorm of disbelief over the FBI director's announcement that they would not recommend charges be filed against Ms. Clinton, despite the mountains of evidence that she broke federal law, not the least of which is  18 USC 793, d - f, with a possible hit on section g, and further punishment to be doled out by section h, if permissable.

Parts d - f read as follows:

(d)

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

FBI Director Comey admitted in his statements that Clinton violated in part, or in whole sections of this, including not providing all requested materials, and the destruction of same (which likely caused a problem with said delivery.):

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

He also admitted to Congress earlier today that an FBI employee who treated classified information with extreme carelessness would be subject to job loss, loss of security clearance, and be unable to gain future employment in a national security position.  His testimony also let it be known that Clinton lacked 'sophistication' about classified information.  He also admitted under questioning from Representative Trey Gowdy (R - SC) that Clinton lied when she said that she did not send classified emails, which gets the "Duh" Award for today.  It's what she does, but now it's on the record that she lied about her criminal activity.  Sounds a lot like her former nemesis, President Richard Nixon.  Except he was deleting 'private' recordings and lying about them.

Yet, he still recommended that no charges be filed against her.  No one who has witnessed Clinton's political career could ever have expected her to be charged was living in a pie-in-the-sky world.  If Benghazi couldn't derail her, a little matter like giving national security items to our items wasn't going to be the thing that undid her.  If anything, her actions have become less horrific, if only by a smidge.  She lies, then lies some more, then lies again, then pretends like she has no idea why there is any concern about her actions and words.  It would be comical, if not for the fact that it is the future of our Republic that is on the line here.

Rather, my interest in her most recent abandonment of the rule of law is the fallout that she has endured.  She was ecstatic to once again have escaped any judgment, the Shadow President began his tour and told his pigeons to vote for her, all should be right in the Clinton world.

Except it's not.  Living where I do, it's impossible to not know, at a minimum, several hundred hard-core Liberals.  It's something in the water that leads to about 90% of voting age persons to lean in that direction.  It's sad, but I'm hopeful that it's cyclical.  Eventually the Piper's going to come calling, and they'll have to understand that there is a Cost to everything for everything, but I digress.

The fact is, even here, people are outraged by the fact that Clinton is skating by again, when so many others have been, and will be punished (See:  General Petraeus, Eric Snowden, Bradley Manning, Kristen Saucier, and Sandy Berger, for starters.)

I'm no big fan of Donald Trump, but this has to be seen as a windfall for him.  With everyone piling on to the Hillary situation now, he can just sit back and take potshots as he feels necessary.  That's a positive for him, because to date, he hasn't been accused of leaking national security documents, which has to be a plus.  While Liberals may not be mad enough to actually vote for Trump, there may be enough angry persons that stay home that it swings the vote in a couple of states (not here.  Not since Reagan in '84 has MA voted for a Republican Presidential candidate.)

One last thing that happened today was a group of Republican Senators called for Clinton et al security clearance to be rescinded.  If this were to happen, it would seem to be put a huge damper on her ability to hold the office of POTUSA, given all the national security items that the President must deal with on at least a monthly or bi-monthly basis (given Obama's track record, at least.)  Perhaps it's not too late for the *super* delegates to change their mind and nominate Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia at the end of the month.  Crazy is as crazy does.

A Response To a Misguided Blogger

 The impetus for today's thoughts come from an article posted by a friend on Facebook.  It's title "I'm Sick of Appreciating Teachers" gave me hope, especially as it was posted during 'Teacher Appreciation Week'.  However, the words that followed crushed me.  Simply stated, it was just another in a long line of puff pieces determined to glorify teachers, and set them on a pedestal that very few among the human species could ever hope to achieve.(1)

The main gist of the article seemed to be that teachers simply aren't paid enough for the work they do.  Which is a joke, as I have previously documented.  She laments that teachers are not paid ''a living wage" which is as dumb of a statement that can be made.  Teachers are paid well for the job they do, and what's more, they chose their profession.  Sometimes they chose it because it was what was available at the moment, others chose it because it had a very convenient schedule, and yes, there are those who do it simply because they believe in educating the next generation.

I would love to say that I am wholly in the last category, but I'd be a liar if I didn't pretend that a teacher schedule isn't something that I enjoy.  The hours in the day (though they often appear to take longer than normal ones) are not horrific, and the day to day schedule as far as when days off come along is pretty brilliant, much better than I have experienced at any job in the private sector, for instance.

To be clear, the days off are a necessity, because it is not just teachers who get worn out, but students, too.  The current stretch that we are going through at my school (post April-vacation until the end of the school year is perhaps the most brutal on the calendar for all parties involved.  There is only one scheduled day off (Memorial Day), and there is a plethora of state and district tests/assessments that need to be completed, with the result being that many students end up going through the days not unlike the cast of The Walking Dead.

However, the biggest problem that Kate Kooyman made in her article was to issue a blanket statement of how brilliant, un-thanked, and mistreated all teachers are.  It's a faulty line of thinking, no different than the public assumption in some sectors that other public sector positions are all good, quality people who are only interested in serving the public.  Like the U.S. Congress or POTUS, for instance.  This simply is not true.  As is the case in every occupation, there are those who do their best, those who care, others who are malcontents, and then those who are simply there because they have no better options.  It's important to note:  being a Teacher does not make you a Hero, it does not put you in line for Sainthood, nor should there be a constant outpouring of affirmation about how much the profession is appreciated.  Teachers, like everyone else, are people who are (for the most part) trying to get through their day while doing the best they can.

If Miss Kooyman and others who are so inclined to prop up the teaching profession really cared about increasing the amount of take-home money teachers receive, perhaps they could get on board with what Governor Scott Walker has done in Wisconsin - eliminate public sector unions and the protection they provide to those who are not doing their jobs properly.  As a bonus - those teachers who remained behind saw their pay increase by up to $10,000 per year.  Keeping poor teachers on the job simply because is bad policy.  Forcing teachers to join unions and pay dues even if (or despite) they disagree with the union and its policies is abhorrent.  Correcting these problems will help to lift up the profession, and make it more worthy of appreciation.

Except - it shouldn't be necessary.  Teaching is a job - one that can be highly rewarding - chosen by the person who endeavors to do it.  It should not be necessary to constantly heap praise upon it anymore than it should be to blame them for failures that are beyond their control.



(1) Bearing in mind, I am a member of the profession.

Pearl Jam Makes a Big Mistake

On nearly every occasion, I support anything that the band Pearl Jam says or does.  When other people take shots at them without cause, I intercede.  They're my favorite 'big' band, and that is never going to change.

That being said, no man (nor band is perfect.)  For evidence of that, I offer the statement that Pearl Jam issued on April 18th, 2016 as evidence.  

In it, Pearl Jam stated that as a band, they couldn't in good conscience play a show in a state that had passed HB2.

As a lifelong fan of the band, I understand that they have always been an activist band.  That's their prerogative.  They make music, I give them money, I don't care what they do with it, so long as they are not contributing to terrorist groups.  That's how capitalism works, even if they claim to oppose it with words and deeds.

However, to punish the fans who would pay ridiculous ticket prices, makes plans to travel, and generally get hyped to see their favorite band in the world.  Perhaps Pearl Jam has gotten so big that they forget what it was like to see their favorites, or it's because their favorites have become their contemporaries that they don't understand what it means to have a fan experience.  I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is this: there should have been a show in Raleigh, NC tonight (04/20), where thousands of adoring fans would have gladly listened to Eddie and the guys rip in to HB2 to their heart's content, whether they cared about the issue or not.  Pearl Jam fans are a tolerant lot when it comes to their favorite bands' pontificating on various political issues.  In fact, it's nearly a show standby.

To have the same band give them the virtual middle finger, and (in the most hypocritical manner possible) skip their tour date accomplishes nothing at all, except costing the band fans.  A message that was posted in reply to what I had written them on their Facebook page encapsulated the feeling perfectly:

It is 48 hours before the fucking show, Eddie. What a dick move.

All of the artists who are canceling shows in NC are turning into something I despise. Bullies. For the record, I live in a different state.

I love PJ. Eddie could have used his voice to do something so much more powerful than any law, which is beyond disappointing. I guess I expected more from him.

I keep thinking of all of the people who were taking their kids, going with friends or family- people who planned this, who are fans and have been since the beginning-people who got them where they are today, those who are traveling by plane and had hotels, who spent their hard earned money on tickets.... Yet some people are still supporting them!

Unfollowed, unliked, will never support PJ again. It's okay for him to discriminate because, WHY?

There's nothing I can write that will top that, so I'll move to the other point made in response that I thought was really powerful:

If they're not willing to perform, they should reimburse all fans for flights, hotels, time requested off work. Furthermore, they should pull all PJ albums, CDs and merch as well. Logic is a MF, isn't it?

 To me, this is even better.  It's one thing to injure fans (and all others that need shows to earn a living to feed their families in these down economic times), but the high hypocrisy comes when the band is still willing to make money off the people of N.C., just so long as they don't have to live up to their contractual obligations because of their self-subscribed 'morals'.  It's a joke.

At one point, I had considered buying tickets for all of the shows that PJ were playing this week, as I'm off school for the week.  In hindsight, I'm glad I did not.  If I had driven (or flown) to NC, and the band cancelled the show on me, I too, would be done with them.  As it is, I'll hope that they have the fortitude to show up for the show I had to pay 5x the face value of, because ticketmaster, nor the greatest band in the world seems unable to stop scalpers from buying every single seat within 2 seconds of them going public.

Maybe spend some outrage there, guys.

Will the Republicans Unify Around Ted Cruz?

For weeks on end, the talk in Republican circles has been what can be done to #StopTrump.  The talk of a white knight(1) coming in to a contested convention in Cleveland has gathered some steam, unfortunately, it's little more than talk.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did an excellent job of explaining why that cannot happen in an article he penned last week.  In it, he listed out several key reasons why the Republican candidate for President will be either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.  The highlights:

• According to Party rules, a candidate must have won a majority of delegates from at least 8 states. (2)

 To this point, only Cruz and Trump have done so, and unless some unforeseen event occurs, they will be the only two candidates to show up in Cleveland having done so.  Kasich missed an opportunity to build momentum when he was absolutely crushed in WI.  The fact that both he and Trump were outmaneuvered and out-thought by the Cruz team has effectively sunk his campaign, at least.  The fact that he is clinging to the hope that he might earn the nomination at a contested convention shows how little he understands about the inner workings of how the Party operates.

•  There will be no new rules allowing for an outside candidate, because it would negatively impact both Cruz and Trump, whose supporters would have to approve the rule changes.

So the only way that a new candidate can be introduced is if Cruz or Trump allows it, essentially?  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to occur.  I may not be a Presidential candidate, but I don't think either organization is dumb enough to allow that to happen.  So the Republicans will be left with the two candidates who brought them to Cleveland:  Cruz and Trump.

The question that the Party must now consider is which candidate will they circle up around and call their own?

Trump has tried to put forth an air of inevitability, that he is the candidate that will ultimately be chosen.  He's also been a whining, spoiled child through the entire process.  I have never believed that his numbers would rise, even as other candidates bailed on the race, because those that are attracted to Trump (for the most part) are wholly separate from those who participate in the voting process on a regular basis.  Those who were looking to a Republican taking back the White House in 2016 have always been looking for a way around his machine.

Enter Ted Cruz, whose candidacy was on life support according to many pundits as recently as a month ago.  Since then, Cruz has racked up resounding victories across the fruited plain.  Over the past few days, he shut Trump out in Colorado, and he has also been winning over delegates in several states who will be free to vote for him once a contested convention goes to a second ballot.  All of this leads to the increased probability that Cruz will be the Republicans' nominee.

This begs the question of whether or not Cruz will be able to motivate enough voters in the general election to defeat whomever the Democrats choose to nominate.  If it is Hillary Clinton, the odds are better for him, given that she is the second most despised public figure in national polls (*trailing* only Donald Trump.)  Bernie Sanders may prove a more difficult task, but if Republicans are genuinely serious about regaining the White House, they will get behind Cruz and support his candidacy.  The one hiccup in that plan would be if Trump ran a 3rd party candidacy, and possibly stole away some potential voters.  It seems unlikely that genuine Republicans would fall for this ploy, however.  This isn't 1992, Cruz isn't Bush, and Sanders is not Bill Clinton.

Of course, I also thought that Obama could ever win a national election, nor did I believe that Trump was actually in the race to stay, so my opinion may not be all that spot on.




(1) Mitt Romney amongst other names have been floated. If he is the best Republican hope, they may as well fold up the party.  Seriously, what has he won lately?

(2) This has not always been the case.  In fact, during the 1880 convention, James Garfield was nominated for President despite the fact that he had not run, and emphatically opposed his own nomination.  He had given the nominating speech for Senator John Sherman of his home state Ohio.  It was this nominating speech that in large part led to his eventual nomination.  

Spring Hope

Now that MLB's Spring Training is nearly a full month in, I felt it an opportunity to go back to the archives and share a poem of hope.  As a fan of the Boston Red Sox, it may be the last chance I have so:

             Each year
thirty collective dreams
encompassing millions of wishes
begin anew
hope runs rampant
that the year
may finally be here
that the summer months
may be filled with joy
and the hometown boys
might bring home the pennant
thoughts of where the local nine
may reside come September
are not entertained
for now there is
thoughts of Spring and Sun
and days are filled with Dreams

Dear Summer

From March 16, 2011, but it seems necessary with the weather that has been harassing MA of late:

Dear Summer
Please return fast
I promise not to waste days
as I have in years past

even when drops of rain
should fall

they will be celebrated

your recall is correct
that I have long berated
puddles that gather
when there's a game
that I'd rather see completed

but I'm desperate
so I promise
there'll be no complaints
if only you'll save me
from this snowy hell

beautiful days
under bright blue skies
shall be met with
thunderous applause
as I spin myself in to
a heat-induced haze

I long for nights
when I can laze about
and watch stars
plummet from the sky
granting wishes
with their descent

and if random hail and lightning
should befall us
I shan't hold you responsible
and will accept it as one of those things

even if it's a day at the beach
or a barbeque interrupted
I shan't lay blame at your feet
but will instead chalk it up
as thing that sometimes occur
whilst looking forward to the next day
knowing that it should be resplendent

Dear Summer
I miss you so
please return to me
pronto

A Benefit of Being a Minority Party Member

The impetus for today's argument comes from the fact that I live in one of the most liberal (read: chock full o' Democrats) states in the Union, while maintaining a Conservative world view.  Most days, particularly election days, are far more difficult than they would be if I lived in a state that is more Red.  Texas for instance. Perhaps even Florida, or Idaho.  Nearly anywhere that isn't here, for that matter.

There are days, though, when it is almost worth all of that, just to see the look on people's face when politics are brought up.  Bernie Sanders' campaign had people beating the streets for him today, each wearing a bright, shiny new pin stating their support for the candidate that the Democrat machine wishes would simply go away.  Or die.  Whichever one makes it easier to foist Ms. Clinton on to the general public as their *official* candidate, much like the RNC did with John McCain in 2008.  Call it the lifetime *achievement* award for political parties.  Why either party would want to do that, I have no idea, neither candidate is viable in a general election, but I digress.

I had two separate encounters with Sanders' supporters today.  The first one came on my daily constitutional (the dated, noun definition), but my look of disdain as I saw their shiny pins kept them from engaging me.  The second occurred hours later, as I was leaving my place of residence.  There was a younger gentleman, and an older one, too.  Both of them were consulting (I'm assuming) voter lists.  Strange to me was the fact that they were intentionally ignoring residences that I knew contained minority voters, given the rhetoric that I always read/hear about in the media.  Because of this, I may have stared at them as they moved their way down the street a little longer than I would have done otherwise, which encouraged the older gentleman to call out to me.  His words were:

I hope I can depend on your vote for Bernie Sanders.

 I laughed at him before I said anything.  Immediately I realized how rude that might be perceived, so I responded with "No, sorry, you can't."  Not content to leave well enough alone, I couldn't stop my mouth from continuing on, when he looked back at me with an inquiring look upon his face.  It may also have been simple confusion, I didn't stop to ask.  I continued by saying "I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate on the party.  He is by far the worst candidate running for President this election cycle."

The man looked as if I had mortally wounded him with my words.  He had no direct reply for me, but I could (just barely) hear him when he replied to his younger cohort "He must be a F*@%ing Republican."

It could have been worse, I suppose.  He could have accused me of supporting Ms. Clinton.  That would have been hurtful.

So while Massachusetts will be an afterthought come November (it's been 32 years since the state cast its delegates with a Republican Presidential candidate), but in the moment, with *contested* primaries for both *major* political parties, it's a more interesting place to be.  Even as a supporter of the minority party.

Corporate Slave

Tethered to this desk
held back by life's burdens
the question remains
How to break free?

Who among us is really free?
No one comes the resounding echo
We are all slaves in this world
Controlled by inner impulses

The proleterian pretend to

        have a choice
The ignorant assume that they do
The truly brave admit their faults
and thus relinquish their bonds

The Pope Says Trump "Isn't Christian"

Yesterday, the Pope took time out of his busy travel schedule to say this about Presidential *candidate* Donald Trump:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.

My words of advice for His Holiness come courtesy of Ice Cube:

You better check yo self before you wreck yo self

 I understand that the Pontiff may have an exalted opinion of himself, but I would not think that he would be so full of himself that he would decide to cast Trump to the Lake of Fire all on his own.  Most traditional Christians would assume that God Himself would make that decision.  One would hope that the Pope has not elevated himself to that stature.

One might also question the hypocrisy of His Holiness when it comes to walls, considering that his place of residence, Vatican City, is surrounded by walls. 

While I may not believe that Trump fully understands how our Constitution works, the words he proffers with regarding to protecting the citizens he would serve (whether he believes them or not is open for discussion) is something that is not un-Christian.  It's simply understanding that our world is a changing place, and that a nation has a right to protect its sovereign borders.

If the Pope wants to himself in American politics, perhaps it would be best if he abdicated the Papacy, moved to the United States, and got involved in the political structure at the lay level.  If he's not willing to do that, then perhaps he should simply keep his mouth shut, instead of looking to influence our political nation from afar.

Our Lost Moral Compass

The impetus for today's discussion comes from a conversation that I had with a friend a few weeks before Christmas.  Before moving along any further, it is important to note this:  my friend are diametrically opposed when it comes to most things political.  I strongly suspect he voted for Obama, and I know that Bernie Sanders is his preferred Presidential candidate for 2016.  That being said, he is an otherwise wonderful person who cares about his family and friends.

Our conversation happened in the wake of another *mass* shooting that had recently gone down.  In the wake of it, there was another outpouring of anti-gun hysteria.  He felt it was just another example of blaming something that really had nothing to do with the issue.  He pointed back to the 1980s when people blamed music, and to the 1990s when *violent* video games were to blame for all of society's ills.  Given the amount of legally owned weapons in the U.S. (some 200 million, according to reports), and the fact that most gun incidents are perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding citizens, he felt this was just the scapegoat du jour.  I happened to agree with him.


Our conversation then moved towards determining what the problem was, and we came up with a solution:  we have simply lost our moral bearings.  We didn't delve in to specifics, mostly because I deflected the conversation away from it, but it seemed a truth too large to ignore.  When a people have no moral compass, the only thing that matters is what they feel is most important in the moment.  Often, that is themselves.  "Generation me", as a friend of mine has dubbed it.

There could be many moments in our nation's history that would point to a loss of our moral compass, but for me, there is one moment that is so horrendous, I think it's as good of a starting point as any.  That date is January 22nd, 1973.  For those who are aware, that is the day that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that forever changed the landscape of the United States.

There are a couple of legal problems with Roe.  First, it took an activist Court to state that abortion would be allowed as the law of the land.  In order to do this, they had to completely invent clauses of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the text of which reads:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

They used 'due process' to come up with 'privacy' which was then translated in to 'murder of unborn children'.  To say the least, the original intent was not Honored, nor could any reasonable person infer that such a right is given, unlike the cases of using the 14th amendment to confer citizenship on to so-called *anchor babies*.  The amendment was part of the "Reconstruction amendments" (13 - 15), the original intent of which was to protect the rights of newly freed black, male slaves.  And also, in fine print "kill all the babies".  It was probably written in invisible ink, which is why it took all the way until 1973 for a decision to be reached.

Notwithstanding the Court abusing their Constitutional powers, a second problem exists with the decision, and that is how it is has been interpreted through the years.  The Court's intent had been to write a decision that was narrowly focused.  Whether they failed to do so, or whether is has simply been misinterpreted during the ensuing 43 years, I don't know.  It also doesn't matter.  The net result is that it was made alright in the eyes of the legal system to murder unborn children.

How could there not be a loss of a country's moral compass once such a decision has been rendered?

Others may argue that we lost our way prior to that point, and still others may say it came at a later date.  It doesn't matter at this point, we've clearly lost our way, and until we regain our moral compass, we could write enough laws to fill the entire Library of Alexendria, and we can't hope to gain back our footing.  We may have already gone past the point of no return, and our Nation could be in the midst of its death throes.

Why Have a Congress? Or a Constitution?

There's nothing more disappointing than putting your faith and trust in a person, or group of persons to watch out for you, and have them leave you hanging.  Or in some instances, helping dig the hole that you are about to be thrown into.

In this instance, I am speaking of the Republican-controlled Congress which has done nothing except kowtow to our current POTUS as he has run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, to say nothing of the will of the people.

I have been convinced for some time that only a complete and total act of stupidity (nominating Trump, Christie, or Bush) would prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the White House.  After the debacle that was 2015, I'm not entirely positive that's true, anymore.

The main reason that I mention this has to do with what the POTUS' press secretary had to say in response to the President's intent to remove (or prevent them from obtaining them) guns from the citizens of law-abiding citizens (something that was considered crazy as little as 18 months ago.)  A sampling of the P.S.'s commentary:

@POTUS believes in 2nd amdt. Said so today. Let's keep guns out of wrong hands AND protect our 2nd amdt rights. 

In case Mr. Earnest has forgot, that is the same man who swore that "if you like your health plan, you can keep you health plan."  Then nearly everyone lost the health plan they wanted to keep.  So, yeah, forgive me if the man's words don't tantalize me.

Close the No-Fly/No-Buy loophole. If too dangerous to board a plane, then too dangerous to buy a gun.

Because no one has ever ended up on a no-fly list when they shouldn't have.  Ooops...

I'm confident families of gun violence victims didn't find @POTUS's words or actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands "condescending".

Never let a good tragedy go to waste, right Mr. Secretary?  Also, who decides whose hands are *wrong*?

No govt action can stop every act of gun violence, but if we can prevent one innocent death, we should.

I think the one thing that the government has proven over the years is that they are fairly incapable of doing anything to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, especially if they're willing to go down in a blaze of glory.  There certainly is no other way in the world for someone hell-bent on murder or terror to accomplish their mission...except knives, cars, jets, rocks, bio-terror, bombs...no, really it's all about the guns.  If only we could get rid of them all, there would never be another death in this world.

Won't be solved overnight but if we work together to pass common sense gun safety measures, our kids will be safer.

When all else fails, pull at the heartstrings and swear you're doing it "all for the kids".  Also, ignore the facts about how many crimes are prevented or stopped because a law-abiding citizen has a weapon (and doesn't even need to use it most times.  Simply having the weapon is enough.)

I've written someplace before, but am unable to find it at the moment, that the 2nd amendment is the most strongly worded amendment you'll find going in our current Constitution.  There is no ambiguity in the language whatsoever:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SHALL.  NOT.  BE.  INFRINGED.

You will read many other commentators who will insist that our Founding Fathers never intended this to mean that you could own a hunting rifle in order that you may go fetch your dinner from the woods.  It's patently the dumbest argument ever presented, and if you fall for it, then you are deserving of whatever comes of that.

Our Founding Fathers, having just defeated the greatest military presence known to man at that time, were not interested in how persons went about getting their dinner, or any meal, for that matter.  They had thrown off the bonds of an oppressive government, to establish a free Republic, and it was their desire that it should always remain so.  They had no desire to see an oppressive government set up on these shores, and the right to bear arms was meant as a deterrent for a government that would overstep its bounds.  If you don't believe me, then feel free to research the history and commentary of the men who wrote the Constitution.  You'll find that to a man, they would not approve of government controlling arms in any fashion.

As the fallout from the POTUS' most recent usurpation (or attempts thereof) at *gun control* make the rounds, ask yourself the important question:  What would George (Washington) or Tom (Jefferson) have said?  If you believe they would favor the unConstitutional executive orders that have come out of D.C. over the last several years, than you absolutely deserve the  government you currently have.

Christmas *Poem* 4

Following in the footsteps of *poems* 1, 2, & 3, here is the final iteration in this grouping:

Christmas 4

If Christmas does nothing else
it provides us with a reason
to express to those who are closest
how much they truly mean
it may be in word or in deed
it's not necessarily 'bout
the biggest box under the tree
Not that there is anything wrong
with shiny paper and pretty bows
they help stir our emotions
but those feelings, much like the contents
are temporal by nature
friendship and family last a lifetime
and provide for us the cause
to celebrate the most wondrous season

Christmas *Poem* 3

Following hot on the trail of *poems* 1 & 2, here is the 3rd edition of a Christmas poem that I have written:

 

Christmas *Poem* 3

As Santa Claus
heads on in to town
I can't help feel
that we've let him down

As he makes his way
o'er the big city
can his heart be filled
with anything but pity

I stop and wonder
if he has taken
the time to ponder
how we went so wrong

If he stops to think
what has become of Christmas
and how the people he visits
no longer do it justice

Does sweet Virginia
run through his memory
along with the hubbub created
when she asked if he might be

the fact that we've turned
from all that made the day pure
does make any less
its historic lure

Piloting his sleigh
with Rudolph at the helm
all the thoughts that would weigh
a mortal man down

Must be lost in the sky
'cuz he still has that
same ol' twinkle in his eye

Optimism unseen
by those down below

Waiting on the day
when many more
will still Believe

Christmas Poem 2

Following in the footsteps of my first Christmas "poem", here is my second attempt:

Christmas Poem 2

With the world still at war
we all head to the store
in search of the perfect gift
to make Christmas right
all through the night
the children huddle with fright

uncertain that Santa
will find their door

the images they see
while watching their t.v.

death and destruction
rule the tube
and we all wonder
who is the rube

that has this
as a master plan

the world filled with dread
as we count all the dead
the number continues to rise
as tears form we close our eyes
and pray for a better day

a star in the sky
a star in the sky
fighting to be seen
through fog and snow
trying to tell us
what we should already know

no matter the terror
in spite of any tragedy
there is a lesson to be learned
by both you and me

our leaders in name
they aren't always sane
they look for a reason
even during this
most magical season

leaving the onus on us
to do all that we can
every last one
to help our fellow man

if we all were to help one
what a wonderful world
we could make

then last but not least
remember to leave
a glass of milk
and a big plate of cookies

Because Santa always has room
for one more

A Christmas "Poem"

Several years back, I got it into my head that I would become the Charles Dickens of Christmas poems.  It turns out, Dickens was a wicked good writer.  I'm a hack.  Enjoy, anyway:

Christmas

Rudolph with your nose so bright
and Elvis way up in the sky
Be beacons to us on this most holy night
lift our spirts and keep them high

keep in our minds the reason
that we are able to be so merry
let joy and peace reign this Christmas season
Oh Santa! I pray that you hear me

and for the little ones who wait
their beliefs not yet sullied
lying awake in a frenzied state
listening and listening ever so patiently

These starry-eyed children
who still can't sleep
huddled under blankets
listening for a peep

or a scrape
the dragging of a hoof
surely that was Santa
up on the roof

loaded down with presents
what toys might he bring?
for all the girls and boys
Oh! how they'll sing

Christmas morn', finally here
anticipation so thick, it fills the air
parents sit watching through worn out smiles
while ribbons and bows fly everywhere

perhaps family is the true reason
for each and every holiday season

Tom Brokaw Obviously Misses the Limelight

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't think that Donald Trump would stick around in the Republican Presidential race.  I'll also follow that up by saying under no circumstance will I vote for him when given the opportunity, either in a Republican primary, or God save us all, the Presidential election.

That being said, he's said a few things that I don't wholeheartedly disagree with, especially in light of recent events in San Bernandino, CA.  While it would be wrong to condemn an entire religion, or all persons who follow such a religion, it should give pause to our foreign policy, and those whom we trust to bring within our borders and allow the privilege of citizenship.

The reason I even mention any of this, after pointedly avoiding it for the most part is Tom Brokaw.  I don't know who let him out of his retirement pad, but he was out making remarks comparing Donald Trump's *proposal* to what FDR did during WWII.  In response to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, FDR decided to imprison American citizens of Japanese descent.  There was likely not much of an outcry at the time (though I don't ever recall reading about German-Americans being interred, despite the fact they were attempting to destroy us, too.  It must really have been the bombing that was the trigger.)

To be clear, excluding someone from *immigrating* to the U.S., for whatever reason, is not in any way, shape, or form the same as imprisoning without cause U.S. citizens and nationals.  On the one hand, you have citizens of a foreign nation.  On the other, you have the U.S. Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of race, creed, or what a person's forbears' homeland has done to us.  For Brokaw to pretend to be ignorant of that fact, or to actually be ignorant of that fact suggests that he is a moron.  There's enough of that going around lately, without him spewing forth such nonsense.  It would have been enough to say something along the lines of "Donald Trump is an idiot, and he is proposing a plan that cannot be enforced."  Of course, such a statement does not generate millions of views on the internet, nor does it bring Tom Brokaw back to the forefront of the news cycle for more than a moment.  Instead, he takes a position that is at least as ignorant as he claims Trump's is, and for that is rewarded.  I hate our country sometimes.  

We now live in a world where anyone can get anywhere on the globe within 24 hours (or therabouts.)  We have lax border security, and don't seem to care whether or not the rule of law set up in our Constitution is followed.  Protecting our citizens should be every candidate's primary concern.  If Brokaw actually cared, he might have asked the governments of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates why they have not taken in any *refugees* or even offered any formal aid, according to a report by Amnesty International.

Of course, if those type of questions were asked, then we might have an entirely different debate.  One where the priorities of the nation, rather than of an individual candidate or *celebrity*.  Then again, we might not be the U.S.A. if we did things that way.

Congressman Alan Grayson Is Either a Moron or a Troll

On Wednesday, Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL 9th District) told radio host Alan Colmes if Ted Cruz is elected President, he “will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job” according to the Constitution.

Before we get in to the ridiculousness that is that statement, I think it is important to establish the fact that Grayson is not always the dumbest man in the room.  In fact, at points in his life, he has been fairly brilliant.  Like when he earned his Juris Doctorate from Harvard in 1983 (graduating magna cum laude.)  During his underclassman career, he finished in the top 2 percent of his class, and finished his bachelor's degree in only 3 years.  Later in life, he helped found IDT Corp., and served as its first president.

Of course, he hasn't always been brilliant, nor has he been polite as he began and continued his political career.  No one is perfect, though, so we'll just overlook his bitter partisanship, and chalk it up to bitter bitter butter corn due to losses he had suffered in that arena.

Before we fully delve in to the moronic statement that began this post, I'd like you to take a couple of minutes to listen to Rep. Grayson push forward a resolution to teach students about the Constitution.  It's quite obvious that Grayson should have pushed a similar resolution for Congressmen/women (along with POTUS and VPOTUS, members of the Supreme Court, etc.), but for whatever reason, he did not.  Perhaps that was an early warning sign of his fallibility on the issue.

Later in the interview, he would go on to say:

In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way — because technically he’s not even an America.  His mother was born here, so I guess like [President Barack] Obama, it's interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.

I guess my first question would be the other side of that coin:  why didn't he have a problem with Obama not being vetted during his 2008 campaign for POTUS?  He was a big supporter of Obama's campaign, and has been a big supporter of many of Obama's unConstitutional attacks on these United States.

It is well known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and there have been those who have argued that even if Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he maintains, his mother could not legally confer citizenship to her son.  The son who would grow up to despise her.  I'm not here to go down that road, again.  Obama's term is drawing to a close, and scaredy cat Republicans who have had had 8+ years to figure out what to do about that particular Constitutional crisis, and they've chosen to sit back on their laurels.

Rather, I'd like to enlighten Congressman Grayson to the particulars of the Constitutional requirements for a person to become President of the United States of America:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Latin phrasing of this concept would be jus sanguinis (literally "right of blood") & jus soli (literally "right of soil"), and it is these concepts that are applicable to whether or not a person has the right to call themselves an American citizen.  As noted in the link above that detailed whether or not Obama may have been Constitutionally eligible to be elected President, determining exactly what 'natural born citizen' means is a bit difficult.  While Cruz would not qualify for American citizenship under jus soli, I don't believe (he was born in Canada), both of his parents are and were American citizens, which means that he would qualify under jus sanguinis.  This is a concept so basic, that Congressman Grayson shouldn't even need to take a Constitutional refresher course in order to understand it.

What it truly shows, I believe, is that Grayson is afraid that Ted Cruz is a strong enough candidate to defeat whomsoever the democrats put forth as their candidate in 2016.  On that front, I have an update for him:  unless some heretofore unseen democratic candidate emerges, a Republican will be elected President in 2016.  Grayson obviously has a bone to pick with all Republicans, but is doing his very best to scare voters away from Cruz.  That may work in some instances, but in others, it may draw people to him that might not otherwise had him as their first choice.  Persons such as myself, for instance.  Anytime someone so diametrically opposed to my belief system is so vehemently opposed to something or someone, it gives that item or person extra credibility in my eyes.  At the least, it will cause me to investigate the situation further for myself, to prove the moron wrong.

Another thought is that Grayson may be looking to get his name back out in front of the public eye, as he runs for the U.S. Senate seat that Marco Rubio is vacating at the end of his term.  I wouldn't think that insulting a Cuban-American would play well in many parts of Florida, but perhaps he is reaching out to those with prejudices against minorities (the very people he claims to despise) as he goes about his campaign.

However, it is also just possible that he's a moronic Troll.

The WWE Draw a Line In the Sand With ISIS

According to the (London) Daily Mail, the online group Anonymous has said ISIS is planning an attack at the WWE event Survivor Series which will be held in Atlanta, Georgia Sunday evening.  The FBI has said that there is no serious or credible threat, but they are taking it seriously nonetheless.  This must be a comfort to the thousands who will attend the event, to say nothing of the athletes who will be performing, given our government's recent track record of predicting exactly what ISIS is capable of doing.  Then again, it is possible that the FBI is attempting to deke ISIS into a fall sense of security, so that they might catch the terrorists in the act.

Bigger news to me is the fact that the WWE is (at the moment, at least) refusing to let the threat of a terrorist attack detract from their event.  While perhaps not as grave, it harkens back to how Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush responded in the hours after al Qaeda's attack on September 11th, 2001.  Cheney refused to go in to hiding, once others in the Presidential succession were secure.  Bush returned to Washington 9 hours after the attacks, against the advice of nearly everyone around him.

To confuse a WWE event with an attack on our nation would be ridiculous, but it's a positive attitude to see.  Terrorists thrive on the fear they spread, the way to combat them is to show that our way of life will not be changed, no matter what.  It shows that as Americans, we are not as weak as our current crop of leaders may lead terrorist leaders to believe.  Rather, the move echoes Bush's comments when he said

I knew these terrorists like al-Qaeda liked to prey on weak government and weak people.

ISIS may be terrorists operating under another name, but the message remains clear (for now):  Americans will go about their lives, whether or not their government leads.  The threat of terror is very real, but to succumb to it is to admit defeat in advance.  Kudos to the WWE, and the government officials who are charged with protecting the citizenry.

The U.S. Continues To Lead From Behind

Friday evening, as I listened to the horrific news that came out of Paris, I waited on the POTUS to come forward and offer a plan as to what would occur.  It never happened.  Mind you, he did come out and state that it was a great tragedy, and it was even a major setback in our battle with ISIS, but not once did he come out and say the words I longed to hear:  we are in a battle with Islamic jihadist terrorists.  These people are looking to destroy our way of life, and of course we will help the people of France in any way that we possibly can to help stop the global terror threat that is spreading around the globe. 

Instead, he went on to say that there was no credible threat to the U.S. from ISIS (despite the fact that ISIS has specifically stated that the U.S. is a top target.)  He also gave the thumbs up to continuing to allow Syrian "refugees" to come to our nation, despite the fact that governors from Florida to Massachusetts, out to Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas and points pretty much everywhere else have specifically stated they will not accept any new refugees from a nation that has such large numbers of terrorist leaning persons until there is a way to properly vett those who are seeking asylum on our shores, something that the FBI and other government agencies have specifically stated is an impossibility.  Not only that, but they can't even keep up with the thousands of people that should be getting observed already, but can't, because there aren't enough resources.

Of course, what else could Obama say, as he is the man who (in) famously called ISIS the JV of terrorist networks, and then admitted months later that he didn't have a plan to forestall their terror regime.  It turns out, he still doesn't, outside of sticking his head in the sand and hoping that someone else comes up with an idea.

Thank goodness the French (the French!!  I'm banking on the French, now!!) have no such qualms about what needs to be done.  They spent their Sunday bombing ISIS centers in the city of Raqqa, with no civilian casualties sustained.  To all those who are against that, or are worried about the consequence of such action, I have only this question:  What else could be done?  ISIS had already stated very plainly that they intend to continue their attacks against France and other Western nations, and as the U.S. is turning a mostly blind eye to the situation, it is a good thing that someone has the cajones to stand up to ISIS.  I just wouldn't have expected the French to be the ones to do it, is all, but perhaps the fact that this is the second major terrorist attack in their nation in recent years has awoke them to the dangerous world we now live.

As a citizen of the United States, I can only hope that our leaders at the highest level take appropriate actions to preserve and protect our Republic, to say nothing of the citizenry.

Rob Lowe, Paris. Paris, Rob Lowe.

So Rob Lowe got himself into a bit of trouble on Twitter yesterday.  I don't think he meant to do that, but perhaps when a future tragedy occurs, he'll learn to simply stay on the sidelines.  As a friend of mine has noted often, celebrities should avoid Twitter and all other forms of social media unless it is expressly for the purpose of promoting a project they are involved with.  Rob Lowe is not involved with European politics, and with his words yesterday, he put himself in the cross hairs of a large portion of the social media world.

I have no more to do with European politics than Rob Lowe does, and my opinions certainly do not carry the weight of his, because being a political-type blogger does not draw in the same amount of Twitter followers as being a Hollywood actor.  It's simply the world we live in, and I have no problem with that.

As an unbiased observer, I happen to think that Lowe is correct, and not just because his words echo my opinion from yesterday.  For those who missed it, I said:

 The time for pretending that there can be a coming together of the minds to solve the divide between the West and Islamic terrorists is gone.  Attacks continue on a daily basis in Israel, yet the press portrays Israel as the bad guys.  A *refugee crisis* was manufactured, much the same way it was in the U.S., which has allowed unknown amounts of terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the European mainland (to say nothing of the U.S. mainland.)  Western nations continue to absorb persons who wish to bring about the demise of the West, and then sit back and wonder where the problems come from.  Here's a hint:  from the people who you continue to allow in to your countries, even as said people state out loud that they want to destroy your country.

That message wouldn't have fit in to a tweet, and that is where Lowe limited himself.  If he had taken to YouTube, or other video formats, he may have been able to get his point across better than when he Tweeted:

Rob Lowe Verified account ‏@RobLowe

Oh, NOW France closes its borders. #Hollande

• Retweets 3,427
• Likes 7,285

5:56 PM - 13 Nov 2015

To his credit, unlike other celebs who make social media gaffes, Lowe has not backed down from his comments, nor has he removed them from his account (at least as of this writing.), which leads me to believe that he was not attempting to be crass or insulting, but rather was calling in to question policies that are harming the people of Paris directly, but greater Europe and the Western world, to boot.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Western *leaders* and the PC police continue to jeopardize the lives of the citizens they are supposed to protect.  While Lowe may have seemed to be insensitive with his remarks, what better time to make the point that has been largely ignored than while there is a tragedy occurring?  It's a page right out of the Liberal (U.S.) handbook, particularly whenever there is a gun tragedy, or a manufactured race crisis - Always use the storyline to push an agenda.  Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

I don't believe that Lowe was attempting to push an agenda, but rather was simply stating what all others who have the brain power to both walk and breathe at the same time:  things are the way they are, because of decisions made by the elected persons in charge.  If citizens want to be safe in their daily lives, they should elect officials that will put forth policies that protect them.  If they want to continue on in this new type of world where terrorists determine who lives and who dies, then there will continue to be consequences.  Hopefully the focus remains more on how best to protect the lives of the peace-loving citizenry, rather than any celebrity's remarks on the tragedy. 

Further, we can hope that this is the last such event that we have to mourn, because our leaders awoke to crisis that has been ongoing for centuries.

The Next Crusade Is Here, Like It or Not

This is a post I had begun writing weeks ago, when I read that the Swedish prime minister, among many others were concerned that Sweden was on the verge of collapse.  The causation of the collapse has less to do with the Swedish people, and the way they live their lives, and more to do with ideological failings of their 'leaders'.

Perhaps it's not simply ideological failings, but rather it is a belief that everyone can be saved, or converted to the *modern* way of living that has led to the problems that are occurring across the globe.  However, as today's attacks in Paris have shown,  there are some differences that cannot be bridged, no matter how many olive branches are extended.  The time has come to acknowledge this.

It is also past time for world leaders, and particularly those who are in positions of authority on the world stage to stand up and state

This is enough.  We draw the line in the sand here, and if you choose to cross it, we will crush you.  We will wipe every single man and woman off the face of the planet who seeks to disrupt and destroy our way of life.  We will not be overthrown, we will not be overcome.  We are who we are, you may accept that, or you may die trying to change it, but that is your choice.

 The time for pretending that there can be a coming together of the minds to solve the divide between the West and Islamic terrorists is gone.  Attacks continue on a daily basis in Israel, yet the press portrays Israel as the bad guys.  A *refugee crisis* was manufactured, much the same way it was in the U.S., which has allowed unknown amounts of terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the European mainland (to say nothing of the U.S. mainland.)  Western nations continue to absorb persons who wish to bring about the demise of the West, and then sit back and wonder where the problems come from.  Here's a hint:  from the people who you continue to allow in to your countries, even as said people state out loud that they want to destroy your country.  You should probably stop doing that if you want to continue on, and not be relegated past, failed civilizations.

The terror attacks in Paris may serve as harbinger for Western leaders, but it may not.  In the moment, France's President Francois Holland has taken a hard line approach, closing all borders to his country, he has imposed a curfew, shut the city down, and put the military in the streets.  Further, the government has the right under the state of emergency declared to control the media, and enter private homes.  This is a tenuous step, because a free people will tolerate such action for only so long, but it is a step that is necessary to help bring the situation under control in the moment.

Unfortunately, merely cleaning up the mess from this latest terrorist attack is not going to solve the problem.  What needs to occur is something that the people of Europe (or the U.S., for that matter) may not be all that interested in doing:  fully repel the Muslim invasion, and if need be, eliminate any who would pose a threat to the Western way of life.  What is needed at this moment is a leader as charismatic as Winston Churchill, with the gumption of George W. Bush.  Failing that, perhaps we could put some money in to resurrecting Charles Martel, who knows a little something about repelling a Muslim invasion.

If not, the future pages of history books will be written by those seeking to overcome us through any and all means.  To preserve the Western way of life, any and all resources must be put in to defending our basic rights.

Fall

the air has chilled
summer once again fading away
there's still hope though,
because none of the leaves
have thought to fall
to the ground
yes, the leaves are now plotting on their own
holding onto the branches as tightly as they can
trying to extend the life they have
clinging to the hope
that it may be true
that summer doesn't have to end
that dreams can come true
and life can be eternal

Israel Shows Great Restraint

Sometimes, when I read things that people have said who hold a diametrically opposed opinion to myself, I wonder why I even bother putting my thoughts out there, because they make my point so much better than I could ever hope to.

Such was the case recently, as I read through some of the commentary of Amman (Jordan) based cleric Abdullah el-Alawneh.  In short, he stated that all Jews are terrible, horrible animals that should die, but he went about it in a funny way.

For instance:

The jihad against the Jews is a mandatory jihad, incumbent upon any Muslim country and upon any Muslim who accepts Allah as the Lord and Islam as his religion, but it cannot be done through such an emotional thrust and with such excitement that only serves to harm us.

As I read that, I was reminded of how often I have been told that Muslims are part of a peaceful religion, who seek only to better themselves and the world around them.  Unless, of course, you happen to be in a part of the world that has Jews.  Then you should murder all of them in the most horrific way possible.  Also anyone who might tacitly or overtly support the Jewish state.  Just to be safe, anyone who has ever talked to a Jewish person should probably be murdered, too.  Also, innocents (non-Jews, non-Muslims, also known as "Infidels") sometimes need to be slaughtered, just because.  Apparently it helps with the recruitment message.  A religion of peace, though.  That's the main point.

Then in response to the question "Sheikh, is it true that (the Jews) do not attack you if you do not attack them?":

I haven’t lived in Palestine but this is what the brothers tell me. Our brothers in Palestine tell us that the Jews do not attack anyone who does not attack them.

So (as has been stated by most right-thinking persons, myself included), Israelis do not attack Palestinians, except as a matter of self-defense.  It's odd to me that I never see this in the *mainstream* press.  Always (or nearly always) they are portrayed as the aggressors, looking to wipe out the peace-loving, simple people that they allegedly *oppress*.  Very peculiar indeed.

 Abdullah el-Alawneh went further, stating:

Nobody should think that by saying this I am defending the accursed Jews. But this is the reality. If they killed any Muslim they saw, nobody would be left in Palestine. All the people would leave Palestine. They would flee to other countries. But all the people there stay put — in the 1967 territories, the 1948 territories, and Jerusalem. They remain there, with the Jews around them with their weapons. (emphasis added.)

So el-Alawneh, while not attempting to defend Israelis, does exactly that.  He admits that if the so chose, they could clear the area of all Palestinians, and likely do so with very little loss of life.  Yet, the Palestinians remain where they were, through the graciousness of the Jewish people (It is so very important to point out that in the history of the world, there has never been a Palestinian state.  Ever, at any point.  People who self-identify as such most often were parts of other nations that declared {and lost} wars with Israel, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Syria.  It is also important to note that "Palestinians" were not part of the vernacular until 1964, when the Russians created the modern use of the term during the drafting of the PLO charter.)

el-Alawneh would continue:

You see (the Palestinians) killing (the Jews), who only kill (Palestinians) when attacked, but like I said before (the Jews) only do this out of wickedness and heresy. They have principles. They want to be able to say: ‘We are better than the Muslims, who kill us unprovoked. We don’t do that'.

"They have principles".  Principles like respecting human life, defending their people, not attacking their enemies in an unprovoked manner.  Such terrible manners, these Israelis have.  It would apparently be much better if only they would engage in open, unprovoked hostilities.  Then the Muslims would be able to take the moral high ground for the first time and 'defend' themselves.  In defense of those that would seek to destroy Israel, it has been 15 whole days (as of this writing) since there has been a rocket attack against their State. Of course, that does not mean that terrorist attacks have not occurred, as they have, on a near-daily basis.  Yet Israel continues to allow Palestinians to exist, and live within the Jewish state.  Because they have *principles*.

If only the Palestinians could develop such *principles*, we may not have any problems to discuss.  What a day that would be.

 

Shut It Down

Today, the U.S. Congress once again abdicated their Constitutional duties, and passed a Continuing Appropriations Resolution, in order to avoid shutdown.  It is nearly a carbon copy (it may be, in fact) of the CR that passed Congress on 09.18.2014, a mere 377 days ago.  

Whenever the *threat* of a shutdown is broached, the fear mongerers immediately take to the airwaves and beyond warning that Social Security benefits, food stamps, and other federal payments will not be made.  In fact, back in 2011, the POTUS either lied to the American people with intent, or was ill-advised and/or ignorant when he said that Social Security checks would not go out if there was a shutdown.  Ignorance would seem to be out the window, given his position as the head of government, but perhaps he just missed a memo.  Obviously there would have been no way in the world for him to get in touch with people, it would have taken at least seconds to get that kind of information.  Besides, if he found out, then it would be a Lie, or he would have had to change his script.  Even without looking information up, or making a phone call, or sending a text, his statement  flew in the face of what happened during the government shutdown in the mid-90s, and what would happen during the 2013 shutdown.

So the question I always ask when a government shutdown is on the horizon is "Who cares?"  Outside of our military, whose job it is to protect us from foreign invaders, what job is essential?  Certainly no member of Congress, as they do their job just as *well* whether or not they are actually working.  In fact, I think time off would greatly improve the quality of output from most members of Congress.  A government shutdown is simply a threat used by a specific political party in order to achieve the means that they want to, and in this case, it leads to the minority party (Quick digression - I am using "minority" to identify the party that is not in power at this moment.  No other use of the word is intended.) having de facto rule, because the CR came from the previous session of Congress, when they had control of the Senate, and because most Republicans have less spine than a cestoda.

The lack of a proper government shutdown is a huge disappointment, in my opinion, because it means that the men and women who were sent to Washington, D.C. in 2014 are refusing to do the job they were sent there to do, namely reign in government control of their lives, and reduce the cost of government.  None of that is occurring as they act much more like liberal Democrats than the LDs could dream of behaving.  If Republicans are unable to live up to the tacit (and oftentimes explicit) promises they made in 2014, they will find themselves *out of power* when the 2016 elections occur.  If they continue to do their job in the same manner, it's no less than they deserve.  It's time for them to stop governing like they are afraid to lead, and fully time to actually start leading.

Either that, or head on home and watch the daffodils grow, as that'd be a more productive use of their time, though certainly a less profitable one.

The Fall Tussle

The Fall Tussle

Fall, let us discuss

the ways I loathe thee

first we can look at

what has become of my

magnificent tree

all summer long

it stood proud and green

you turned its leaves brown

now they fall to the ground

leaving it stark naked

and adding to my toil

do not think that this salvo

    goes unnoticed

truly you are the most

fickle of seasons

one moment a warning

of what is to come

the next a reminder

of glorious summer

that has departed

your nights consume

     our days

to the point

that the sun

becomes a stranger

this will not stand

there are those

who choose to

     defend you

  by comparing you

favorably to spring

but I never buy that line

spring comes with

the promise of summer

   and better days

you serve only

as a harbinger

for winter

and all that

may entail

you bring with you

      football

but take from me

      baseball

laughing at me

as if to suggest

this might be

a fair exchange

it is not

but rather is

another example

of the warped

sense of humor

you choose to employ

I am not amused

no, not at all

in my head

I conspire against you

plotting ways to foil

your dastardly deeds

but nothing comes to mind

perhaps if I brought in

      a ringer

  Leonard Susskind, for instance

a solution would arrive

but it would be

     just my luck

that he is

a fan of yours

no, I must go it alone

so I offer this small truce:

take your cardigans and corduroys

I'll send your cold, crisp mornings

and all I ask in return

is for a sliver of land to call my own

where I never have to hear your name

(Autumn or Fall?  Honestly, how pretentious can you be?)