Friday

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. 

Not. 
At. 
All. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday

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).

Credit
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.


Credit


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.
Credit

Credit

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):

Respect
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. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Trump – Chances and Vote for him I did NOT

Above has 4 people no longer working with Trump Credit for Picture
When Trump first won as President, I gave him a chance and tried to hear him out. However, the way he spoke and what he said, I took as very offensive. I think I’ve even put on this blog I’d take everything he said wrong and back it up with facts, but when someone spews so much misleading and false things, there was NO WAY I could keep up. I have better things to do with my time.

This being said, I was hopeful the power he now had gone to his head and hopefully, it would calm down and he’d become better. I gave him a chance. Then another. He then started calling people names. Then another chance.  He then started to fire anyone whoseemed to either not give him answers, someone to blame and then it got to the pointof not going to do what he said even if he was put there as a balance of powerby our founding fathers.

But when do you draw the final line in the sand and say “You’ve had enough f0cking chances!” and throw up your hands and give up? Yes, I got to this point within 5 months of his term. I gave up because he appeals to people’s feelings by spewing feelings and not facts. By calling people names and not facts. (Video below from YouTube.) Only he can tell you the insults. This is not someone I'd want to represent the USA, but here he is. Talk about unprofessional!

Could I have done the same as Trump does? Have I had the same name calling without facts done to me?  In person? Online? I hate to say it, but yes to it all. I’ve had people walk up to me once they hear my voice and ask me what the hell you [meaning me] the American people were thinking? Trump, really? I’ve overheard things when I worked temporarily in a job stating how can we trust her, she’s an American, she voted him in. Trump’s not trustworthy and he’s crazy. I’ve had sad looks thrown my way by people who have known me for twenty years.

My only comeback? I. Did. Not. Vote. For. Trump. This stuns people and I could tell by the mouths that fall open, the eyes that get wide.
Credit What people look like when I tell them. But my face looks like this when they approach me too.
I’ve had people and have seen world leaders online say the USA is a joke. Or the USA is becoming a joke. Or what is going on in the USA? And many other comments of the like and each one I have to agree with. The USA is now the laughing stock of the world when we used to be looked upon as great.

“Make America Great Again” how in the world can you say this when everyone considers you nothing but a joke? In fact, America has had its problems. This is true, but at least we still had some kind of standing other than “You’ve got to be kidding right?” My own answer? A grown.  A covering of my eyes with both hands and shoulders hunched over in defeat.

Credit
However, I believe this is the largest hurdle I have to employment which is very sad. How else can I explain that I’ve had job offers until they seen my educational history where it lists I grew up in New York USA. Then all of a sudden I’ve had jobs disappear into thin air right in front of me. It’s very scary and I feel very defeated. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday

The new US President & Planned Parenthood

As you can see by the posts in this blog, normally, I post only to say yes there's an election and this is how each person feels on each issue. I clearly get the information from their own websites and from their own mouths. If something seems cut in the video then I disregard it. Its fair and simple.

Then I can look at the issues without all the white noise and such from everyone. Then I make my choice. Again fair and simple. Usually its time for hope...
Taken from here

Then I usually don't post about them. I might say I didn't like this or that the president or Prime Minister said or did, but that's usually how far it goes. This time its different for the recent US elections.

Why?
Hell I give anyone and everyone chances. I figured ok, I didn't vote for the guy but I'll give him a shot - then spend time sitting there with my mouth hanging open as he goes on and on about how great he is and how he won. Yes, we all get that - now can you tell us what you called everyone here to talk about? After about 5 minutes I get board but keep an ear out for an actual piece of information - like what he called everyone here to talk about. I had done this on 2 separate occasions. And after each I still didn't know what he had wanted to say. Unless it was look at me, I'm great and I won. Yes, we got that part already established. It gets very frustrating.

After that, I was and am done. Especially after reading his tweets. If you were to take a pebble every time he says - I'm great, look at me, I won, I'm fantastic (and you can insert any other adjective word with the same meaning) - then add a pebble and add another one and soon you will get a pile. I can see him saying it once but every time? (note: I didn't watch his congress statement and its for the statement/rants/etc prior to this time.

Abortion Stand & Planned Parenthood
One of the first things he decided to go for was Planned Parenthood. As a Roman Catholic, I am against abortions just because someone got pregnant. Too bad, you did the deed now you sow the seed. Its a life just after implantation in my book.

However, to get rid of Planned Parenthood just because of abortion? Do people even know exactly what Planned Parenthood does? Everyone equates Planned Parenthood with abortion. I've even had people state

"Just like the abortion thing, the executive order does not stop abortion it stops the government from paying for it for the purpose of family planning. I agree with it 100% why should I pay for someone I had nothing to do with to have an abortion just because they decide they don't want a child. You maybe ok with bull shit media, I myself am not and look at the true facts of this stuff."

Yes, this is an exactly quote from a friend in the US. It floored me by how they didn't know the laws and how, even in this day and age, they didn't even do research on it.

I agree, the government should not pay for the purpose of family planning. The friend and I both agree. However, what Planned Parenthood does and can pay for with federal funds? Its not these types of abortions my friend outlines.

From me - Full Disclosure
I did have an abortion. Did I want one? NO WAY. Did I fight not to have one? YES and was overruled. So why did I have one? Because it was an ectopic pregnancy and if I did not have it, I would have died. As I've said to a few friends, if I had become pregnant after the new president's legislation comes into effect, I would be dead and my husband a widow. Keep reading and I will explain.

How can I be sure Planned Parenthood doesn't spend money on this?
Its as easy as looking up the Hyde Amendment. The what amendment I can hear you asking and saying. Yes, people there is an amendment called the Hyde Amendment.

From the Congress' website:
"Hyde Amendment Codification Act - Prohibits the expenditure for any abortion of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law.

Prohibits the use of federal funds for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, and plans receiving federal funds must keep them segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician."

Henry Hyde
This law has been around since September 30, 1976 and was put there by the House of Representatives (voting was 207-167). It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois
and this information was taken from Wikipedia.


Which is exactly what my friend and I both agree on.  However, for some reason, people are under the impression Planned Parenthood uses federal funds on all types of abortions - those outlined above and the type my friend mentions. Reality? They can't or else their funding would be denied.

The New President's legislation - H.R. 7
The president had said during the debates that any abortions should be. Then he tried to change them up a bit during the rallies. However, have you actually read what the legislation he signed (Yes, the president had moved swiftly on this one) is actually about? The legislation is called H.R. 7 is titled

"No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017

January 24, 2017
(House)

H. R. 7 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017
(Rep. Smith, R-New Jersey, and 47 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 7. The legislation would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law to be expended for any abortion, or for direct payments to insurers for health benefits coverage that includes coverage for abortions. H.R. 7 also would prohibit the purchase of abortion coverage with matching funds from federally subsidized programs, including Federal and State Medicaid funds. The legislation would not relate to the treatment of any complication caused by or worsened by an abortion, nor to the treatment of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. This bill would continue to prohibit the Federal government from paying for affected procedures with the taxes of Americans who find abortion morally or religiously objectionable."

Yes, this is the legislation that he signed in everyone.  Again it says "the legislation would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law to be expended for any abortion". Remember I told you I'd be dead and my husband a widow? I wouldn't have been able to get federal help if I had no funds to get an abortion. This meant I couldn't have an abortion. This meant I would be DEAD.

When Trump first started to sign things and they outlined them on White House's website, it was easy to find. However, when I went to look for them for this post? Not so easy to find. I'm only throwing it out there - was it on purpose or was it to bury it? The change in the website is quite huge.

All the legislation and links go to government websites. Don't believe me though - google H.R.7 or no taxpayer funding for abortion or even Hyde Amendment.   You will get the information and see how correct I am...

As for the bull shit media, well some of it is and some isn't bull shit. This when I quoted is not bull shit unless you think I didn't get it from Congress and the White House's websites - unless you think what they put on their websites is bull shit?

Most people who know me, know I tell the truth and I don't screw around. Lately, I don't have the time or energy to screw around or any reason to lie. To me, information and knowledge is power. Those without the information needs to get the power which is why I wrote this post.

Edited to add:
As of  March 6, 2017, Trump now says hes willing to fund Planned Parenthood if they stop abortions. Here is the article. My question is - what type of abortions? Then again he could change his mind too...he's good like that.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

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.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday

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 https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/70/b5/15/70b51555942953c0518809d3bd561c07.jpg

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.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Federalist_(Ford_ed,_1898).djvu&page=132

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday

Gun Laws and Protection of Rights

 When events happen like they did on June 13, 2016, with the Orlando Florida shootings, people start to look at who is to blame. The first reports out included the words such as: religious,  ISIS, Islamic State, terrorist attack, dead, victims and gay. I stood back took a look, flipped the channels and listened to more people and they used the same type of words but the meaning was as clear as those first words.

The next topic to be brought up was who would be to claiming this shooting, how many dead, what exactly happened, and the US gun laws and what type of gun was used. How sad in today's world we immediately want to know the gory details of who did it or who was responsible, how many are deceased, and what type of gun. What about what trauma people are going through, where people can meet up, where people can go for more information, and/or how can we all help or what information is needed. This way we can all do something proactive instead of waiting for the things to come to us.

Since the first reports, the talk has now turned back to the US gun laws and their control. This always seems to get people upset in some respect and mad. Its like watching groups of pitbulls go nuts at each other in a fight.

On the one side we have people who love their guns and will do anything to protect them. They are chanting - We want our Second Amendment right - The Right to Bear Arms. People are saying things like:
Taken from https://twitter.com/hashtag/secondamendment
and then this
Taken from https://twitter.com/hashtag/secondamendment

 What people don't seem to realize is the US has had mass shootings in the United States, which was back in the late 1800s. Yes, 1800's! In other words, these happenings are NOT something new -
they've happening over 200 years now. Remember, the Second Amendment was written in 1791 and has been doing its job. However, and this is a HUGE however, times - like everything else - have changed. Guns back in the late 1700s and up until the past generation - yes, a generation - have been used most of the time pretty responsibly.
"Reprinted from the Boston daily advertiser, June 3, 1887."

What's happened in the last generation and responsibility?
When I grew up, by the time I was 8 years old, I could shoot rifles and handguns and make different types of bullets. It was what I was taught by my father. However, when we did go to shoot, we respected what it meant and how the skill involved and took precautions.

Now people are too busy to be taught on how to shoot properly and all the other responsible things that go along with owning a firearm - making sure no one gets hurt, cleaning, practicing, and on and on it goes. Add this to how people who are currently buying them and they don't know how to store a gun or the ammo that goes along with it. They buy it and then tell everyone they have a gun. A gun is not an accessory - its to be used either in sport or on the very rare occasions to defend yourself or
Taken from http://www.juliegolob.com/the-road-to-responsible-gun-ownership-gunsafety
your family. You shouldn't have to walk around with one strapped to your side either. If you are out and about, there are trained and professional people out there that have them if you need them. For some reason the generation today think they are a fashion accessory or they believe if something happens they have a gun and they can protect themselves. Guess what? More often than not, people will run, hide in a ball or hide behind something more than shoot at someone. Think about it - if you were shopping for food and something happened, you wouldn't be grabbing for your gun, you would be trying to get away from the gun shots.

Ok so you are not buying that one. How about this... if you carried your gun with you and there was a shooter who you didn't see before they started to fire and they got you (whether you are shot or dead) and you couldn't move. What if the shooter's gun jams or they run out of bullets? They will be looking to see who if anyone has a gun they could use. You do and so they pick up the gun and start to kill people - maybe even yourself if they see you are still alive - would you...no could you be able to live with yourself that you brought something with you that can be used to kill others.

Or even how about this... a shooter arrives in the same place and starts to shoot. You have your gun and decide to act and go towards the shooting. When you near, you pull out the gun to be ready to fire. Then you hear someone - probably the shooter?- coming close to you, so you step out and shoot. It wasn't the shooter it was maybe your spouse? Your adult child? A neighbor? Friend? And you've just killed them because you brought a gun into a situation which shouldn't have been there.

Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, which is what everyone has been using to keep your guns. "The right to bear arms".  However, did you know the amendment is more than just to bear arms? This was written back in the late 1700's. They still mainly hunted for their own food back then - they didn't have a grocery store or butcher to go to and had to do it themselves. It makes sense for them to have guns. Now? We take a car ride to get the hunting done.
Taken from http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm



Further, back then we had slaves which went out when good ole Abe Lincoln was around. They needed them to "keep them under control" or so the says went. I think its a bunch of hog wash, but back then it was "the done thing" with the slaves - again its been gone for generations.

Taken from http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm
 To see/read more, see this page.

Again, what else did we commonly have back in the late 1700's? Militia. What I can hear you saying... Militia which is how they put it in the movie "The Patriot" as "Farmers with pitchforks" or in this case guns. They had this so if any army came onto the US land at any point, the people could defend themselves against foreign invaders.

How did we get from foreign invaders to strangers?
This is something I'm still trying to figure out to this day. People are now trying to use this (the second) amendment to have all firearms. They are chanting loud and proud. To me they are just showing their ignorance.
Take From http://books.simonandschuster.com/Enough/Gabrielle-Giffords/9781476750071

Obama, and thus the Democrats, are NOT trying to take your guns and ammo. They are just trying to LIMIT how many people get shot at once. They are still allowing you to have your guns but they are just trying to limit what type of guns are used. This is NOT against any amendment or the US law at all.

The NRA and Republicans are doing the scare tactic of they want to take away your guns - ALL guns. No, you poor, misinformed people, they are not going to take your stupid guns - they are trying to limit how many bullet holes people like this moron in Florida put into civilian bodies.  Instead of listening to what spin doctors tell the public, maybe you should do your research and find out exactly what wording has been used in the amendments and things that have been filed with the Senate and House of Representatives.

Remember Gabrielle Giffords? She was in the government - until another person with a gun shot her in the head. She, like many of us, just want "promoting responsible gun ownership and encouraging lawmakers to find solutions to gun violence" as their website states for the book they wrote. They have also created an organisation called Americans for Responsible Solutions. 

Compromise

Like everything in life, or a marriage, there eventually comes a compromise. Why don't people do or think of this instead of fighting the entire thing? Make suggestions of what they don't like AFTER THEY DO SOME RESEARCH on what has already been said.

Possible options:
Some of my compromises would be something like this below: 
  • Make regular mandatory gun safety requirements where people must go to show the responsible gun and ammo handling. 
  • Outlaw any multi shot gun above 5 shot per 10 seconds (or something like this). 
  • Limit the cartridges to only hold 5 shots, so people can still keep their multi shot guns but can't spend more than 5 shots per go. 
  • Limit the cartridges to only hold 5 shots, so people can still keep their multi shot guns but can't spend more than 5 shots per go AND make it harder for the cartridges to be changed, so the innocent people if they are being the target can get away. 
  • Maybe some or all of the above?
I'm sure there are many other possible compromises... Can you come up with any?

Now we have the possible compromises, we need to tell someone. What is the sense in coming up with possible compromises if you do not tell the people who make and decide on the laws? Write to
your representatives in the house and senate and give them your detailed compromises to the problem. They might just use them and make this problem we seem to have people talk about every few months.

Am I against guns? No, I'm not. I've used them and believe there is a time and a place for them. What's my view of the second amendment? I believe its there for a reason and it is a living document as such it must be viewed as that. However, to just use a few choice words out of the whole amendment? That's just wrong. I believe people, meaning the public, must education themselves before taking views of certain public persons and making these public persons views theirs. Read upon what they are talking about and just don't take what these public persons views are as correct because generally they spin the information so it fits to what they want everyone else, including corporations and organisations, views and their agendas. Isn't it about time you make your own agenda instead of taking someone else's?


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)