Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts


History repeating...

One of the last time I posted, I started to say how Trump and Hitler are similar. Well tonight, during some reading on one of my ancestors, who came from Germany, I came across a newspaper article and it was scary.

Here's the quote I read aloud.

This is an exact quote by Hitler in The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954) on Mon 16 Mar 1936 on Page 13 

And for those of you who think I've just type this up, you can see it on the newspapers website itself. 

Below is a download from the page itself so you can see I did NOT take it out of context. 

Who now is getting more worried about how bad the US is becoming? 


Concerns over Trump against Hitler - Part 1

There's been talk from many different people about how Trump is like Adolf Hitler. Don't believe it? I can hear all of his supporters groaning and complaining at full blast now, so calm down all. Again, I deal in reality and let's take a look at this doing fact checking. Now I've tried my best to get websites from Trump and the presidency where facts are about the wall. Unfortunately its not that easy.

The Wall:
Credit - The yellow is Hitler's Border wall
Yes, they both wanted a wall. Hitler got his wall called the Atlantic Wall. Trump wants his wall along the Mexican border.

What was the Atlantic Wall? It was an extensive system of coastal defense and fortifications built by Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1944 along the coast of continental Europe and Scandinavia as a defense against an anticipated Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe from the United Kingdom during World War II.

Hitler's rationale was in "ordering additional men to the Islands and having decided the defences were inadequate, lacking tanks and coastal artillery, the Organisation Todt (OT) was instructed to undertake the building of 200-250 strongpoints in each of the larger islands." Take from the Atlantic Wall website.

While Trump isn't planning, or his public reasoning anyway, to build his wall for anything other than "national security of the United States.  Aliens who illegally enter the United States without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety." People are probably going to say these aren't the same things. Fine, then how would to take the next statement in the same document?

"Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a)  secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;"
Credit The wall being considers and temporarily put up is the black line

This document is off the White House's website from an executive order folks. If you don't believe me then click on the links above and see where they go. I hate to tell you, they are both using the same reasoning for a wall but its just along very different borders.

Its a Match: Trump's rationale is very much like Hitler's if you take a look at each of these statements. Its for the defense in either regard.

Press Restrictions and Freedom of the Press
There are more than one website which goes into how Hitler controlled the newspapers and radio. Before he was in power, he had controlled about 3 percent of the media. When he got into power, he decided what was to be written and by whom.  One history museum puts it like this:
Credit  - The last paragraph is almost the same as Trump's fake news comments
"Newspapers were greatly used by the Nazi Party to spread the party line. Newspapers were commonly purchased in an era that pre-dated television and along with the cinema and radiowas the primary mode of spreading information – information that the Nazi Party wanted to control. Hitlercame to power on January 30th 1933 and almost immediately set out plans that would give the Nazis total power over all newspapers. Once Chancellor, Hitler was in a position to implement from a propaganda viewpoint what he had written about in ‘Mein Kampf’".

It continues:
"...The Nazi regime deployed the radio, press, and newsreels to stoke fears of a pending “Communist uprising,” then channeled popular anxieties into political measures that eradicated civil liberties and democracy. SA (storm troopers) and members of the Nazi elite paramilitary formation, the SS, took to the streets to brutalize or arrest political opponents and incarcerate them in hastily established detention centers and concentration camps. Nazi thugs broke into opposing political party offices, destroying printing presses and newspapers."

Almost since the start of Trump's nomination, he's gone around bad mouthing reporters and the press. However, since he's took his oath as president where he gave his allegiance to protect our constitution, he's come right out and said "Fake News" that many times, its all you heard for MONTHS. Journalism is taking facts, putting some information around it and telling it how you see it. What the information is, is dependent on how the person or organisation see's what they are writing. This being said, there's always something that it factual about the news no matter what

This being said, if you take a look at the first amendment, it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 

I can hear people now saying "It says Congress NOT President get your facts right." I am looking for factual information but as you can imagine its tough. One article I found says: "As Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1789, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” and this is why so many are concerned about this step Trump has been taking and balancing on. In fact, many other presidents, starting with George Washington, have used the press to communicate to the people and a good reason why its there. This is the reason why there is a Press Secretary, so the president can get out his message. It is normal for one side to be upset what others write about it. I know I've watched over many different administrations and that's normal and the reason why the first amendment is there. 

Now getting back to "It says Congress NOT President" comment. If you remember the President takes an oath that states "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." and is part of Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. It says preserve, protect and defend the Constitution not go after people who try and use this freedom. 

It does say "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" and "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." 

And according to Article 2, Section 1 of the US constitution, he cannot get rid of or cancel out our first amendment rights. Nice try. And he has tried to limit and get rid of the free press. Trump "suggestion that the FBI should “consider putting reporters in prison” has been decried as a dangerous new assault on press freedom and prompted a call to action by American journalists who have been jailed in the US for their work." which is trying to limit the press by jailing them for doing their jobs within their rights. Note: This isn't exactly what I had in mind but it does cover Trump's Tweet about the fake news and controlling the news. 

In fact, Nixon tried the same tack.

Its a Match:
If you look at what Hitler did when he controlled the newspapers and what Trump says in the video above, its the same thing just different words. The problem is Trump doesn't have control of the media (meaning newspapers, radio and TV) but if he could, the way he's talking it would be the same thing as what Hitler did and what Trump has been trying to do - control what's being shown on TV. From cancelling the Press Secretary's briefings, to calling everything in site "fake media" he's trying to control what's going on with what's being released. However, the people who follow him do not see this as the same thing. If you can't believe this then look at what he's been doing - rejecting all news media to have a sit down interview with him; however, only one channel he does this for - Fox News. Talk about control and I'm wondering if he's got stock or some other investment within this company to give them unprecedented access to the President. Its something worth thinking about. 

Part 1 Conclusion
As you can see, by using facts, there IS an eerie parallel between them. I'm not saying they are the same, but if we're not careful the US has serious reasons to be concerned because we could end up having the same problem as Germany back in the 1930's and 1940s. 

Retreat/Reveille & Respect

Every night no matter where you are, the forces play retreat, also known as reveille, which you are supposed to stop what you're doing, be quiet and face the sun/where the flag is.

Its a sign of respect. Respect. Such a small word really but it means so much.

Respect is defined as:

  • a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
  • admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).

As a Navy brat, I grew up knowing what the sign is and how to show it respect.

Then you come to today where this person is supposed to be a role model. This is what you call a role model and deserves respect?

This isn't respect. If you don't believe me, look at the definition of the word. This is a way to make everything about Trump, his ratings and disrespecting our forces which is why we perform this ritual. 

This, below, is what you call respect even if you don't know what it is. 

As you can see, there is a HUGE difference between having respect and not. Knowledge and not. 

This is why I don't respect Trump. This is why respect is earned and he hasn't earned mine. 



To Knee or not to Knee: What's it about – THAT’S the question!

The United States or American is full of people telling it like it is. That’s fine, it’s written in our rights. Have you EVER read the First Amendment? 
As from the US Courts website: 

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:
  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
  • West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
  • Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
  • Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
  • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
  • Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
  • Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
  • Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  • United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  • Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  • Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

As you can see people have expressed their opinions in different ways. Protests about different things peaceful as well as violent. Some peaceful ones are:
  • The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom — August 28, 1963
  • An anti-Vietnam War protest in Washington DC — November 15, 1969
  • The Solidarity Day march in Washington, DC — September 19, 1981
  • The Anti-Nuclear March in New York City’s Central Park — June 12, 1982
  • The Million Man March in Washington, DC — October 16, 1995
  • The March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation — April 25, 1993
  • The Million Woman March in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — October 25, 1997
  • Protests against the Iraq war in America's largest cities— February 15-16, 2003
  • The March for Women’s Lives in Washington DC — April 25, 2004
  • Montgomery Bus Boycott - Montgomery, Ala.- 1955
  • Delano Grape Boycott - Delano, California - late 1960s
Yes, sometimes it’s gotten violent, but then people have come out to calm them down. Here are some violent ones: 
  • Police militarization and the death of an unarmed teen sparked riots in Ferguson, Missouri - August 9, 2014
  • The LA riots were the largest and most well-chronicled in American history - April 29, 1992
  • The little known riot of 1835 that shaped the American political landscape - August 1835
  • The Democratic National Convention riots that forever changed the public's perception of government Chicago, Illinois - summer of 1968
  • The Watts riots of 1965 were a pivotal point in the African-American Civil Rights Movement - August 1965 
  • The riots that paved the way for LGBT rights Greenwich Village   - June 28, 1969
  • The "Battle In Seattle" that was the precursor to the Occupy movement - November 1999
  • The riots that were a turning point for Latino culture in America  East LA - June 1943
  • Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 Wilmington, North Carolina - November 10, 1898
  • New York City Draft Riots New York - July 13, 1863
  • Battle of Blair Mountain southwest West Virginia  - August 1921
  • Richmond Bread Riots Richmond, Virginia - April 2, 1863
  • Battle of Athens Athens, Tennessee - August 1, 1946
  • Shays’ Rebellion  Springfield, Massachusetts - January 1787
All of these are because a group of people had something to protest against. In later years, usually within hours the president comes out and as people usually look up to him and agree the violence went too far but eventually it stops. 

With Trump? Nope. He tells us fault is on both sides even if one side wasn’t violent and had come looking for the nonviolent side.  Then he goes on to almost praise white supremacists? (Credit for first video below is from Time)

When Trump’s coming out didn’t seem to do anything but fuel this on, he spoke out again (see Trump's Twitter account for credit).

And this, as you can tell, is a scripted Trump. On many sides...hmmm what sides are they?
Since then, you can tell if it’s scripted he still gets his point across but its hidden. When it’s not scripted? Anything can happen.

Kneeling Protest
The latest thing Trump decided to take on was the kneeling in the NFL. In 2015, it was widely brought up when one of the players knelt in protest against rights he wanted to draw people’s attention to.

Credit Pictured is Colin Kaepernick, right, and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel in protest
People went up in arms and it was talked about. It was brought up as being disrespectful. However, it’s within our rights as American citizens.

The First Protest which Becomes Kneeling

Did you know the first protest was not kneeling, but sittingon the bench? It wasn’t noticed for 2 weeks. Yes, 2 weeks. Kaepernick (pictured above) did it for two weeks before being asked about it. He reasoning, which hasn’t changed, was due to how certain races were being treated and he was doing it in protest. He talked to his team and it was decided kneeling would be more respectful than sitting on the bench, so the next time he knelt, which is where the picture above was taken in Week 1 of the 2016 NFL season.

When Kneeling becomes political
Throughout the 2016 NFL season it was talked about, but people could see where he was coming from and it wasn’t violent or flashed in people’s faces. In fact, the only reason why it was brought up was because someone asked the question about why he did it.

Now we come to the 2017 NFL season. No one was talking about kneeling or anything until….

And then another followup.

This appeared. Then things went haywire. All of a sudden a calm, silent protest went to un-American and unpatriotic to say a few of them.  Now kneeling meant you didn’t respect the men and women who serve the country or the country itself. What the hell? It was never meant a protest or anything to do with the USA.

The kneeling thing was due to rights of a certain group of people moron. All it takes is a bit of research instead of spouting off at the mouth without looking it up or talking to the person who started it all. 

It was NEVER to do with America or the services of the USA. However, because of Trump’s tweet, and how uneducated and how forgetful people are, the so called president has made into this firestorm that never SHOULD have been.

In fact, my father, I and my family have all served in the military. My father, nephews, and uncles went in and signed up and did the time, but it was my family who kept the household going and dealt with moving, and all of their emotional crap when they got home. In fact, even after serving my father is still like he’s in the Navy, by the way it controls life, what he says and does. The way I look at it my father got out after serving his 20, but he’s in it for life.

Guess what? His family, even though we never signed on, is in it for life too. Trump did get one thing mostly right in a tweet. 

I've said this before, although the US has had some problems (but what people/country don't?), America was great and didn't have to become it again. It WAS great until Trump got in. 

By having Trump come out and say what he did? He dirtied that institution and everyone, including its families, which have served as much as the soldiers which signed on.

In a past blog, I’ve asked, when do you draw a line in thesand and stated I had enough with giving into the chances. If I hadn’t drawn a line then, I would now.  

Nothing should touch the soldiers, submariners, SEALs and many others which have freely given their lives and the families who have given up their loved ones either by death or by service, like mine has. Nothing. You use them to make a point felt, like this person has, and it’s a cheap shot that didn’t need to be done.

I thought I was the only one that felt this way…until others let their blood cool and spoke out as well.


From Facebook
My hat’s off to these people and I would gladly stand beside them in honor. Trump? I will never stand beside him. Ever.

Trump and laws on hiring/firing

Then Trump went even further in one of his next tweets. Misleading people as to the real reason why the kneeling was happening. 

Seriously? Fire people for protesting? And the main public servant is using his position to influence businesses? Crazy. I had to close my eyes, shake my head at this one. Then I asked myself could he do this? Was it against the law?

This is where it gets tricky. Why? Because Trump is playing with those First Amendment rights I've outlined at the start. To use a political magazine who deals with the law:
"If the president’s words are designed to trigger the legal suppression of citizen speech, he may likely be violating the First Amendment."
Then it goes on to say: 
"The president has also engaged in a verbal campaign designed to suppress speech that offends him. We know that speech cannot be censored merely because it is offensive."
This is the tricky part. Is he trying to censor speech (in a way) to limit the treatments of minorities? Or how the author of the article puts it:
"In some ways, Trump’s behavior is even worse than the Rhode Island commission’s. Whereas the commission aimed to suppress obscenity, a category of expression without legal protection, Trump’s ire is directed at core political speech protesting law enforcement’s unfair treatment of minorities. Trump’s allies have already begun organizing boycotts (for example, a “Turn off the NFL” campaign) to give teeth to the president’s intemperate attacks."
And what Trump IS doing IS working. I cringe again. What IS saving him?
"For all Trump’s braggadocio, there is no indication that he is invoking the law enforcement apparatus of the federal government to harass or sanction NFL players who are taking a knee."
Instead he's turning to the sports - NFL, NASCAR, Golf, etc to do his dirty work for him. Trump is using his marketing skills, and people's emotions, to get them to do his bidding. Its not law enforcement but business enforcement and marketing he's using. I wonder if in the future, he'll start awarding contracts to businesses, which are investigated (they are when dealing with the government) but will have an added line which is - did they kneel or how did they feel about it added in. Using this will be an excuse not do business, and in turn means costing businesses money, with them. Great influencer and its all done behind the scenes where no one will see it. 

I suggest more about this topic, read the article or else this would be even longer. 

For now, I turn on the news and start to see waves of people kneeling. Why? They are supporting their colleagues' freedom of speech. Again it’s within their rights. This does change the reason why people started the whole kneeling thing, but still the overall idea of why the kneeling started – in protest.


What people have taken it as?

Some think it disrespects the flag, anthem and its soldiers and again I cringe. Other's say this is what they, the veteran's, fought for - to have rights. 

The people who think this is disrespectful are just so wrong, but they are following a person, who by rights we should respect and follow but in this instance that doesn’t deserve the respect or to be followed – Trump.

In fact, LeBron James couldn't have said it any better.

There IS always this outlook to this whole situation as well (Credit):

People have even said, Trump deserves our respect. Really? First we have to start with what respect is. 
The definition of respect is:
  • a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
  • have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).
  •  a way of treating or thinking about something or someone. If you respect your teacher, you admire her and treat her well.

And I was brought up that respect is earned. This person does NOT fit within the definition of respect and certainly hasn’t earned it.

Why put this on here?
Why do I put my opinion here? Because I've been verbally attacked and abused over social media. People do NOT what to hear facts, they want to hear what Trump, the salesperson and marketer tells people. He makes a play on people's emotions and not the facts. His facts are always tissue paper thin, but he gets away with it because he then insults people and plays on others emotions. He's done this for years in business, which is the way its done. Government, as he's finding out, is another ballpark altogether. 


After the US Election in 2016

As I start this, the last debate has just ended hours ago. I've made up my unhappy mind, but its the best of the what I have to work with. However, the one thing that goes through my mind - what will happen once the election totals have been done?

I am predicting Total. Anarchy.

This is what I believe. Donald Trump said “I will look at it at the time,” he said at the final presidential debate. “I’ll keep you in suspense.” about if he'll accept the voting results. Hillary Clinton called his response “horrifying.” and to this, I have to agree.

Is this the sign of the times?  During the history of the USA, its always been taken as a major principal of American democracy - the peaceful transfer of power after an election. However, I think this will be anything but peaceful after the results are given.

This is the way a sore loser, or a child would react. What I can see happening is what happened back in the 50s and 60s - shootings, fire bombings, killings, etcetca. See the small video below on some history of riots. I believe this will be because Trump didn't get in and he won't do anything but encourage the riots or even concede defeat.

The on the other hand if Trump wins, we will have the same because people will be celebrating and going after others because they can. This is like the violence we saw at the Trump rally's until the news channels stopped reporting on it. 

I feel for everyone in the USA, because no matter who actually sits in the president's chair, we're all still losers.
Picture credit

I'm back again... It's now only hours until the voting opens on November 8, 2016.

I was hoping as time went by people would be getting more sensible in what they were doing and saying. However, mankind once again is proving to be an idiot. Yes, an idiot.

People are people and everyone has different views and wants out of life. You need to be able to understand this and move on. This is what they call BEING A GROW UP - or AN ADULT.
Picture credit

Instead we have idiots. We have people who are getting in fights - online, on social media, and in life. People, and this includes families, have split or have stopped being friends all because of an election. Yes, it is important and it will direct how the US will operate until the next one is elected.

What people are forgetting is it IS just an election and things may come and go but you are a part of humanity no matter which way you want to put it and you should act kindly to one another. The US does have laws which states everyone has a right to their opinion, so why don't you respect that?

Tomorrow will come...

And now people will start to head to the polls in a few short hours. I do not have a good feeling about this at all. Everyone has forgotten all the riots over history of the US. Riots never got anyone anywhere except arrested, hurt or even dead.
Can you say this? If not, then don't complain! Picture credit here

If you want to hear your voice to be heard, then vote. If you want it heard even further, then do a PEACEFUL march. Don't do something where people will get hurt.

However, I believe there will be intimidation, people will try and hack computer systems, guns and other violent methods will be used after the result is known. The thought of this is very sad.

I've even been told you live in another country and have the right to vote in the US? Yes, its called I'm a United States citizen and I have the same rights as you do. I just happen to live some place else, but keep in contact with my "roots" enough to know what is going on. The only way for this to be taken away, unless I'm dead, is if I commit a crime and I haven't.

My Hopes

My hopes is to turn on the TV and find that this will have a safe and peaceful end to this charade of a presidential election.  From the last I heard in many areas, over 80% of the US voter population is not happy with this election. I'm one of them.

However, I cannot do anything about it, so I'm hoping the ending is peaceful, respectful and most of all safe from any harm.


2016 US Presidental Voting

Well its that time again - voting for the US President. In the past, I've written up another blog post about the election. However, now its time to vote. Many people don't vote and others are very eager to vote. Usually, I'm not either or one way or another. I feel its that time again and vote. However, this time around its different. I feel I MUST vote - as a US citizen, I have a voice and can be heard when voting.

What's bad, is even though I do have a voice to be heard, who's actually there to hear it? What exactly are my choices and what do these choices actually know? I have been watching multiple news programs to get educated on what the views are to things like immigration, defense, economy and deficit. However, what I found was not many of these subjects are actually discussed. Instead we have 4 people who are in the running: 2 we seem to know everything about and 2 we haven't heard about. The 2 we seem to know everything about are acting like children. Yep, adults aged 50+ and they are acting like they should be in grade 5. Disgusting.

Who are these people?
  • Donald Trump 
He's a business man, who has had multiple business bankruptcies, loves to speak out, likes to not pay his bills to other businesses and employees, likes women as seen my his multiple marriages and sponsor/host to the Miss America pageant. Yes, some of these are not good and some of these are good (if not great).

However (yes there has to be a however!), what comes out of the guy's mouth? That's inexcusable. He says one thing and then not even 10 minutes later he says something else. I'm talking about interviews he's sat there and spoke to. This is not taped stuff or anything that happened past, let's say, year. This is during his run for the white house. If you are going to run for such an important job, then get your views straight at least!

Then you have his comments on Russia and its ruler. This shouldn't even be discussed while running for this job, but Trump's brought it up. This alone would make me not vote for the guy, but because I believe in doing things fairly, I still took a look at him and what he's said directly from his mouth and not from anything taped. What Russia has done to my family, and in a way STILL does to my family, I can never condone. If any of you read my genealogy page, Of My Flesh and Bones, knows part of my family comes from Poland. My father's side was absorbed into Russia for many years and its only been recently - after the cold war - they have finally had some kinds of freedoms. However, when my grandmother was born, they were under Russian rule. My grandmother, at the age of about 2 or so, had her father leave Poland, so he wouldn't be forced to go back into the Russian army. I believe this is only one reason he left. Then add on about 7 years later, my grandmother and great grandmother were forced to leave Poland at the height of the Polish–Soviet War. I was told they were the last to leave and I can believe this because they left Danzig on August 20, 1920 which is just before Warsaw fell. My grandmother was so badly malnourished when she got to the US, she had to relearn how to walk.

As of all of this isn't bad enough, I grew up being told in small bits we had people, family, that were killed by the Russians. Why? Because they were once royals. I can almost believe this because of where I've been able to track down where my grandmother and great grandparents came from - Eastern Poland along the Bug River. This side of our family I can track down living in this region for generations. In fact, I have a cousin (1st cousin 1 time removed) who still lives in Warsaw. His great grandparents was my 2x great grandparents.

This is the main reason I will NEVER vote for anyone who even likes Russia or whatever name they give themselves.

  • Hillary Clinton

She's been a lawyer, who has then gone into politics. She was once first lady because Bill Clinton was president in the 1990s. I know. I voted for him - both times. After their time was up there, they took a break and then she decided to buy a place in New York and run for Senate. She promised many things while in Senate, but never delivered fully I feel. She then ran again and ended up as Secretary of State after her first try at president didn't happen and now is running for President again.

However (got to love that word don't you?), she's been around and around the place. She has said much but hasn't delivered to areas I feel were very important. She promised so much for Newburgh, NY, one of the most violent places in the USA. However, she visited a few times, made these promises and then it was like she forgot about the place. Newburgh hasn't changed and its sad as at one point it was one of the most livable cities in the USA. I would love to see it brought back to this once again.

Clinton's got problems as well. Email server, while yes, she made a mistake, but some of the excuses and things that are now starting to appear? Not good. Then you take a look at the court/decision around the server and while it is questionable, nothing that we have seen yet has shown she was directly involved. Yes, people have met others within the government who were handling it, BUT remember she and her husband have been around the place for years, so you get to know people personally. She was a lawyer and yet she didn't know what a C was (for copyright)? Yeah right. I'm not very educated by degrees but I know what a C is for on documents. Bad decisions made while Secretary which resulted in people/soldiers getting killed. Now this I can understand, but what hasn't really been discussed is was the information reliable she acted on? Creditable? Vetted? Also, remember soldiers when they sign on, they accept something like this can and possibly will happen. I know this because my father served in the US Navy until he retired. Each time you reup or sign on again, its there in the document you are signing. Again, this is the stuff that's happened within the last year.

While she has done questionable things, but they have never been proven, the questionable actions and her integrity are very much in doubt.

  • Jill Stein

With Jill, I had to look up who she was, what she stands for and her views. She was one of the people who there hasn't been much to be said about. What I read about her shocked me. She's been a doctor for years and in the last 10 or so years she's started to look at running for political office.

However (there's that word again!), she's also been going green, and doing some of those types of things and this forms part of her platform. I have read (from her own website) her views are using these. While these are not bad, but you have to understand other people do not operate or think this way. I have also read some statement from her about children and wifi. Wifi if it was going to affect people would affect us all and not just children. This has not been proven but there are many variables involved with this.

While she's got a great education and a lateral thinker, I believe I'd be worried about how she would operate with military and other major decisions. I believe she could think in an emergency, but I don't think her priorities are in right areas.

  • Gary Johnson 

Again with Gary, I had to look up who he was and his views. Again, he was one of the people we don't know anything about. Its great he's been around for 2 terms which gives him experience which was one of the problems when Obama came on the scene I felt. However, he doesn't know many of the deals happening such as the TPP, is against everyone getting free education, doesn't understand about the Keystone Pipeline even after it was brought up LAST election, doesn't understand the minimum wage and why its an issue, restrictions with gun laws and doesn't understand why we have them, and if all this wasn't enough while he says he watches what he spends, the deficit in his own state shows differently.

While he's got the experience of being elected, its showing he doesn't know many key issues. Some of the issues I support, like everyone should pay something for their education and it not being free, there are many others like the deficit, I would be worried about if he were elected. Besides, if items were being brought up last election you didn't know about, wouldn't you have researched them before trying again? I know I would have spent the next amount of time getting to know those items up, down, back, and forth before anyone else asked me about them.

Last Presidential Debate
I started this post before the last debate between Clinton and Trump started (on October 20, 2016). I wanted to write a non biased article before the last time we, as a voter, gets to see them in action before voting. I have watched the first debate, where I believe Clinton was far ahead of Trump. The second debate, was better but it made them look like fish swimming around the stage with their mouths going. It was almost even, but Clinton still made a few statements that had impact. Then you had today's, and last, debate. They both did very well, although at one point I had closed my eyes while they were talking and tried to picture them in a foreign land speaking and how I would feel - proud or embarrassed - when they were speaking. One thing that stood out - Trump snorting or sniffing was real off putting with the sound. That would embarrass me.

Next, I added in the statements they were talking about and how wondered would I feel? Clinton was speaking powerful and insistently with facts or so it seemed (no fact checker here - I'll leave that to the guys who have been doing this). Trump was, if I took out the sniffing and snorting, or seemed like the people I used to work with in the government - they started the conversation before picking up the phone to talk to me and it was a casual chat among friends instead of one of leadership which I would classify it as non leadership type of speaking.

The Decision
My decision is what I've been saying all along - I want another choice - any choice. However (damn there's that word again!), we're stuck with 4 clowns and its all a circus. I think the only thing that has been missing is someone sticking out their tongue or pulling hair (oh wait didn't someone in one of the nighttime talk shows do that to Trump's hair to see if it was a wig or not??).
Taken from

I even have been saying on Facebook, Batman, Spiderman, and even Deadpool would all be better choices than what we are faced with this election day. However, if I have to take what I've said above about integrity (who has a tiny bit more - think in hundreds of thousands .000 difference which isn't much but it does matter), who actually talks true facts and they are verified, experience is a double edged sword, and who doesn't rant and rave like they are insane? I guess my vote will have to be Hillary because of this, but let me tell you - its such a thin line you need the strongest ever microscope available to see the difference.

Am I happy with my choice? HELL NO. In fact, I'm pretty pissed. We have that many over 318 million people that live there and its come down to these 4 clowns??

If we had someone that could balance a budget (any - government or business), did not have a string of bankruptcies behind them, had integrity, (in a stretch) honest as they could be, spoke passionately about the issues (not sound like they were reading them off of a card like these 2 seemed to be doing), didn't go around either accusing or calling other people names, and basically acting like an adult, I vote for them. Hell, if a baboon was running and he had all of these qualities I'd vote for him over the choices we have. I have to wonder if Warren Buffet would be available to run? He's released his taxes already, so he's already ahead of Trump.

Alas, we don't have even a baboon handy - we have these 4 clowns which just make me sad for democracy and for the USA. Also, I just want to apologize to all clowns for comparing the candidates using your name but its the closest thing I could come up with.


Gun Laws and the US Senate & House of Reps

Gun laws have been talked about since the first current mass shootings, now many years ago, but people keep asking - why hasn't the laws been changed? This is in response to the recent rejection of the US Gun Laws by the US Senate.

I discussed my views on gun control in my last post Gun Laws and Protection of Rights.
One of the many questions always asked to me is "why hasn't the laws been changed? Its crazy over there (meaning the USA)!".  I look at them and tell them its a 3 fold problem:

Fold 1: Laws have been written in such a way that there's so much fluff around them people can't tell what's fluff and the actual problem. Usually this is combined with what the public has been saying even though, most of those who have been commenting, have not done their research - they are repeating what they heard on the news.
Taken from US Congress website
Fold 2: House of Representatives. At first these termed politicians would not even compromise. Now they are compromising but because of Fold 3, the laws or bills have been getting rejected.

Fold 3: US Senate. These people have the same problems as the House of Representatives had - they don't like working with others. They'd rather sit and reject the bills/laws rather than make suggestions as to what it will get passed, so we can all move on.

I have 2 huge problems with Fold 2 & 3 above. First, most of these people have been in there so long, they will have to die in there. According to the list of US Congress who died in office, there have been 19 people who have died while in this office - since 2000. Yep, since 2000. If you look though, those who have died, have been in since the 1970's. Yes, there have been ones that have only been in a few years, but if you even look at the ones who started in the 1990's that is STILL 20 years.

The Amendment of the XXII of the Constitution for Two-Term Limit on Presidency, which was
From National Constitution Center
passed by Congress on March 21, 1947 and ratified on February 27, 1951. Yes, it was as current as that. Keep in mind, however, George Washington was asked to run for a third time as president and refused, so it has been an issue before the above mentioned amendment.

The people I have been talking to are getting to be more convinced there should be term limits for Congress - both the house and Senate. This would limit how many years people could serve in a row and would get rid of the mind set of once they are in, they are there for life. We all want change, but no one is actually doing anything about it. Why?

Its because those who have to write it up and vote for or against the term limits would be the same people who they would directly affect. It would be like accepting a job and then making the decision when or if you are going to loose that job. If you were in this position, what would you vote? I know it would be to keep my job. Somehow, someone will have to make the bold decision to one day bring this forward. Another way would be there to be such a backlash from the public, they bring it to the public for a vote during election time. I believe this way would be fair, but who would be the bold person or group to suggest it? I'm taking a guess - NO ONE.

The second huge problem I have with Fold 2 & 3 above, is how can an organization hold such a grip on the government? How did the NRA get so forceful, it can now influence politics. No one party, whether is political or an organization, should hold the US government to such where it starts to compromise itself. Yes, by listening to the NRA (National Rifle Association) politicians or yet to be politicians are being controlled. Case in point - Donald Trump.

In May 2016, the NRA came out in support for Donald Trump. This is even after Trump voicing his views for years about gun control and has many of his properties that are gun free. Good you say? Remember this is the same man that says ""I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally.
However, as of June 19, 2016, the NRA, and some of its members, have started to have second thoughts about supporting him. CNN reports "Top NRA leaders split Sunday with Trump's earlier position that armed club-goers are a good idea."

Is this just in recent times with the NRA? No, its not. In fact, the NRA is a major influence and has been for years with politics.  Its been very noticeable since the 1968 Gun Control Act. It was here they decided the end game being pursued wasn't "public safety," but public disarmament in the name of safety.  After all, the argument promoted by gun "control" advocates is "more guns = more crime" and "the number of guns is the problem." (Quora article). Even on the NRA Wikipedia page, it states "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates." My question is this, if the NRA is about safety and protection, then what in the world is it doing influencing legislation?

Besides, is this what the United States forefathers say this is what they had to protect and ensure the US didn't become? Isn't this what the Federalist papers Number 10 about? Doesn't it address the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. (Wikipedia)

James Madison author of Federalist Paper 10 Wikipedia
In fact Madison states "defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred." Isn't this what the NRA is doing?

I think everyone agrees SOMETHING - ANYTHING must be done to control these shootings. Maybe we should restrict them and then let up tiny bit of control? But there's a fear with thinking this way. The US people fear that once a freedom is taken away they won't ever get it back. Dumb? No, I'd say this is realistic. However, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.
Part of the federalist papers,_1898).djvu&page=132