Wedding Bells, The Report

Recently I shared via this blog that Rocky and I were getting married. That was just two or three weeks ago. We needed the legal protections and benefits of marriage and, with it now available, we went for it.

Our pastor had an opening on Sunday, February 14^th and we jumped at it. A quick request for our kids and grandkids to join with us and a few people central to our lives, we actually didn’t have a formal invitation list. The idea was to have a small, simple ceremony without much fuss.

We did let people know what we were doing informally via the blog and Facebook. We had no idea how others would react and we were surprised when 100 people showed up, celebrated with us at the ceremony, and remained to enjoy a typical church pot luck supper! The food was nothing short of fabulous! The camaraderie and love in the room was breath taking. And, Rocky and I felt enormously supported by everyone.

Facebook responses numbered nearly 200. We had no idea so many people would be this loving and caring. They were and are. We are blessed and humbled by the out pouring of love from each and every one of them.

Also to be reported is an excitement we feel that is tangible. As important and life changing as our commitment ceremony was nearly eleven years ago, the wedding was different and we feel that in ways unimagined.

We are grateful to a nation and state that supports same gender marriage. We have been active church members and contributors for a very long time. We take our spiritual life seriously. It enriches us and presses us forward toward greater self knowledge and development. So too marriage. We take that seriously. It is an important part of who we are.

I know there are those who don’t understand this, but that’s their problem to work through, not mine to be other than who I am. They need to open their minds and hearts and see the whole world as it really is, not a mirror of what they thought is was and should be. One vision is narrow; the other is open and expanding.

Now there is an endorsement to spirituality if I ever saw one!

Thank you to each and every person who shared with us in thought, presence and action in our wedding. We are grateful beyond words.

February 18, 2016 

Supreme Court Atilt?

Yes it is leaning towards the right wing hegemony that matches the House of Representatives and the Senate. The problem is, left and right ideologues forget a primary principle: the middle is a merge of both right and left. They are composites of one another.

I’m a centrist. I believe that government has a purpose for being. I think the Constitution lays that out pretty well. I also think that ideas from both the left and the right make sense in determining not only which laws ought to be written, but how they also should be interpreted.

Try as we might no one can write a law that applies to a highly complex, diverse people fairly over all contexts and needs. It cannot be done. Instead all sides are considered to find a workable agreement that can be enacted and enforced. Implemented. Used and guided by. Did I say workable?

If a hard position is taken in an argument, one that has no wiggle room at all, then the law is clear until it is implemented.  Think of this law: Thou shall not kill. I know, this comes from the Bible, but all societies throughout all of history have enacted a law that deals with this same thing. But think of it – the law says you cannot kill another human being. So, let’s say you do. What is society to do? Will they imprison you for the rest of your life? Or will they execute you? Will they torture you with hard labor at the end of a whip?

Execute? Did I say execute? Let’s see, that would mean society has the right to kill a breaker of the law about killing another. How can killing of one person be the reason for taking the life of the law breaker? You see the dilemma here, right? If we outlaw murder then we have to outlaw execution, too.  Wiggle room needed?

330 million of us; think of it. So many differences attempting to be treated as one. Not possible. Also unthinkable, one religion. Not possible. So…

We accommodate differences. We accept them among us and deal with the issues they raise. Wiggle room. Life is not one thing but many. So too are the expectations, behaviors, mindsets, religions, political interpretations and everything else.

We do accommodate each other not because we are polite and civil, but it is in fact the only way to make things work. We all give a little and gain a lot. It is how the world works. That is until someone tries to ‘simplify’ things and force us to be what we are not.

We are not the same, you and I. We are quite similar but very much different from one another. It is this plentiful range of possibilities and diversity that enriches us and complicates us. Political power, governance authority, all of this, has to accommodate huge differences among us. That is reality, the way life is.

Conservatives feel government is a bad thing and needs to be limited.

Liberals feel government is a necessity and is useful to get a lot of things done that alone we cannot accomplish.

Middle of the Roaders accept the workable ideas from both the left and the right to make things workable. Work needs to get done. Someone has to do it. Authority to do it has to be available. A range of actions are needed to accommodate the differences among us.

Thus is born the centrists. They are the people who populate the institutions of our nation and make them work – the courts, police departments, libraries, colleges and universities, economic development centers, land use and building permit departments, fire departments, public schools, hospitals, vast numbers of charities, churches – all these institutions do the work of the people because the work is important. They get it done because not doing so means human suffering.

Think about this for a few hours. Let it all sink in. The people on the Right focus on principles and restrictions and clarity. The people on the Left focus on getting the right things accomplished for the good of the people. It is not about power but good they focus on. Right and Wrong are convenient points to think about, but they are hell to implement. Too many variables to consider.

So something in between the two end zones is needed to allow movement, accomplishment. Progress.

So, we witness the two end zones fighting each other for control of the argument. All the while the work of the nation is getting done by the other good folks.

The Supreme Court has been in the control of the Republicans for the past 60 years or more. Rarely has it been controlled by the Democrats. That’s a political fact. And yet we have this powerful skirmish for power between the Republicans and everyone else – to name a 9^th justice of the Supreme Court so the ‘balance’ of power is maintained by Republicans.

Why?

There is a vacancy to fill and the current sitting President has the authority and the duty to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy. And he will do so. When that happens, the Senate has the duty and authority to consider the candidate and fill the vacancy as expeditiously as possible. There are other justices who will die or leave their position due to health in the coming few years. Age is what it is and will do what it does. Filling vacancies will fall to the then sitting President. For now, Scalia is gone.

Let us get back to business and allow the workings of government to proceed. Tilt or counter-tilt. Whatever; get on with it.

Ideologues! You can’t live with ‘em, and you can’t live without ‘em. Although I’d like to try!

February 17, 2016

The Passing of Antonin Scalia

I don’t have to be politically correct so I won’t. When I first learned Supreme Court Justice Scalia had died, I felt relief spread through my body. I think you would have to be a mature gay man to understand my reaction.

Mr. Scalia was anti gay in a huge way. He claimed the culture and mores of our nation were Christian, Biblically based, and hetero-sexist. He claims the constitution was written by men who believed those tenets in their day and thus was the basis of the US Constitution.

I think he is wrong. The law – whenever it is written – has impact far beyond the time frame of when it is written. It sets out with clarity what it is legislating about and how behavior is to be conducted and enforced. What is lost is the context in which the law was created. Understanding the universe in Biblical times was scant. Science was non-existent. Scientific method and education methodology was non-existent, too.

Religious beliefs were all over the place from none to full control of the nation-state in enforcing the religious thought of the day. Throughout history leaders of governments – political power people – told the populace what they believed and expected loyalty from them for those beliefs. After all, the leader was taking responsibility of the well being of ‘his people’ and the least they could do was give him loyalty. Of course that meant obedience when needed.

It didn’t take much time before leaders wanted their citizens to agree with him in social, moral, legal and religious matters. It was precisely the abuse of these ‘matters’ that gave birth to freedom of religion or at least the desire for it. England morphed from Roman Catholic to the Church of England which is really a protestant form of Catholicism. Henry the 8^th was the king who wanted freedom to divorce his wife and marry another woman. The Pope said no so he told the Pope to get lost, and established the Church of England. Unfortunately, in time, the Church of England enforced many of the same improprieties and power moves unfriendly to the believers.

So freedom of religion protest movements began again in England and all over Europe. Eventually, the New World was settled and pilgrims sallied forth from England to found new, independent protestant churches. Congregationalists were the English Puritans of New England, Methodists and Presbyterians, Lutherans and what became Episcopalians were formed in short order. Furthermore, these struggling congregations duplicated themselves as they aided the move westward to settle this new, huge land mass.

Freedom of religion? It was lived out here in America. The sole point of this was to freely meet with like minded people in theological matters and practice your religious beliefs. Didn’t agree with one group? Then you were free to join with another more to your liking. Didn’t find such a thing? Then you gathered with other like minded people and formed your own discussion group, fellowship group, or a new congregation of believers. Some of these were traditional while others practiced bold new ways of worshipping their God.

Not all churches were Christian. Some were Jewish. Some were Unitarian. Others were philosophy and history fans who met regularly and discussed matters of the day. None of these churches sought power over the government. Read Thomas Jefferson and his discussions with people of the same era and learn how religion was avoided by most of the founding fathers of America. The Constitution specifically didn’t mention religious beliefs because the writers knew the trouble they would create.

Religious freedom and the other Bill of Rights items came later after the Constitution was written and approved.

For any judge of the lower courts or the US Supreme Court to say religion and law are wedded from the beginning of this nation is a travesty of their oath of office.

Abortion, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights and many more issues all are part and parcel of the religious morality arguments. What would God say? What would Jesus do? These are debating points made moot by the Constitution. No law should be founded on a religious principle.

But Scalia begged to differ.  He was a conservative power mind who felt government is limited in power and that the freedom of religion gives power to the people to regulate their own lives. He is partly correct here. Religious freedom gives people the right to regulate their own lives provided they do no harm to others in the working of their religious beliefs. No law should be enacted with respect to or by religious beliefs. That means we don’t harm religious beliefs or practice of same, but neither are religious beliefs empowered to enact laws to harm other people who do not share the same religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion has two sides: Side A gives each of us the right to choose our own belief systems and worship according to them; Side B says I have no right to impose my religion on another person.

I believe abortion is a woman’s choice. Therefore, I make no law requiring abortion or denying abortion. It is up to each woman to make that choice. No law or court ought interfere with this constitutional right to choose moral issues. It is the moral confluence of abortion and religion which denies government power in this issue.

Scalia thought otherwise. He argued similar on gay rights. He felt there was no such thing. His religious beliefs kept him from allowing others the right to live their truth. You can’t have it both ways.

Scalia was an ideologue of the conservative “My Way or the Highway” stripe. Now do you understand why a gay man, a father, a grandfather and a supporter of women's rights, minority rights and religious rights found fault with Antonin Scalia? His was a hideous personality intent on enslaving huge groups of people to his narrow point of view. He had the power and he used it.

I say good riddance to such manipulation. May his soul rest in peace with the universe he so dramatically misunderstood.

February 16, 2016

Russia Proclaims Cold War

Such nonsense! Russia claims a new cold war has begun between the East and the West. Well it is true if they say so because they are the ones at war with whomever.

The West is not at war with Russia. Period.

It takes two parties or more to have a war. Sort of like North Korea. If they want hostilities to break out I guess all they have to do is continue to act warlike and commit acts of aggression against a sovereign people – like South Korea, China, parts of Malaysia, or pick a fight with the US Military. It’s an easy thing to do, an act of aggression. But it is not an easy thing to keep going. War with North Korea would be short and unpleasant for them. Their first act of aggression would meet with a response far outside the size of their initial act.

Besides, North Korea has everything to lose and nothing to gain. They already have starvation broad spread among their people. Living standards are next to nothing unless you are in the leadership caste of the military or government. But those living standards and perks come with the threat of summary execution so one has to question the living standard in the first place.

Any war with North Korea would be too expensive for them to maintain unless their’s is a suicide pact of some sort.

Now Russia is another matter. They have the materiel, the systems and the manpower to maintain a warlike posture for some time. But when that is gone their capability is gone. They have no money to resupply their manpower or materiel and systems. Russia is broke. Their programs are failing as their economy fails. The oil bust has reduced their international revenue flow to near zero. Their oil stores are full now but they cannot afford to use their own inventory and then replace it.

That is the nature of the oil industry bust. Yes, it is temporary. But everyone needs to remember that the oil industry is unlikely to return to the old normal anytime soon. They are, in fact, in danger of being replaced by other fuel and energy sources unrelated to oil. Unfortunately those new sources will almost replace oil as a dominant energy source. And it is about time this happened.

Oil is a fossil fuel that pollutes everything it touches. Pollution kills fauna and flora and people, too. So it is time to reduce its presence in our life style and replace it with nonpolluting energy sources.

Back to the Cold War. Russia has domestic problems. Their method of managing those is via propaganda directed at its own people. For Mr. Putin to remain a hero or potent leader, he must show he has muscle and nerve. We know he has both. But a leader, especially one who desires hero status, must steer his society clear of danger and death. Leading it into military excursions for propaganda purposes is expensive with little positive gain. Furthermore, if an error is made in such excursions, Russia will face a backlash from injured nations that will dash the peace for a long time to come. Totally unnecessary. And everyone understand this.

There may be some Russians at home who don’t understand this, but everyone else does, even Putin. So adventure-ism for propaganda purposes at home is a high cost risk for practically no gain.

There is no Cold War. If one were to actually form, it would be between the entire Western civilization and Russia and a few of its smaller allies. That is the true nature of the world today.

Yes, China is a major factor, but there is no way that China and Russia will combine to wage a Cold War. China would lose far too much and for no gain whatsoever. So Russia is mouthing an empty message.

Perhaps Russia needs a few skirmishes among its own people and the ruling classes? Now there’s a Cold War that might have worthwhile consequences.  Too bad the losers would be both domestic and government leaders.

February 15, 2016

Sanders or Clinton?

Much has been written that concludes Bernie Sanders is beating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President. I think this is erroneous on two fronts: first, it is way too early to make the conclusion; and second, Bernie’s issue discussions are not the reason he is beating Clinton.

What will matter by the end of the campaigns will be the nation’s evaluation of who will be the better President making decisions and leading the mechanisms of government to manage and tame critical issues. The American people will want to know who they can trust in office to do the job well.

And I think in time people will understand that a President Sanders is not a viable choice; rather another President Clinton is the workable choice. And here’s why.

First, experience counts. Clinton has been next to the very seat of power she is asking us to elect her to. Both as First Lady and confidant of President Bill, Hillary has witnessed every huge issue (and many small ones, too!) and how they played out at the time and, most importantly, what impact they had on later development of critical issues. The long term effect is the dynamic here that requires active management. Hillary knows this and has experience with it. She also sat next to President Obama as Secretary of State and was included in the world’s greatest issues and challenges these past seven years. She knows the score and will hit the ground running on them when elected. Bernie cannot hold a candle to this experience.

Second, Clinton has governed as outlined in the previous point. She has been a Senator as well; but so has Bernie. Senators set policy and contribute to legislation. They do not govern in the main. They advise and consent. Someone else doing the governing and leading, not them. Clinton understands this solidly.

Third, age is an issue but one avoided due to political correctness and civility. Bernie is 74 and will be 75 if elected. He will be 79 at the end of his first term facing re-election. That age does not auger well for longevity for him or anyone else of similar age. It is a practical consideration we must face as a nation. Bernie’s age does not limit his usefulness as adviser, confidant, issue researcher or policy maker. But it does, I think, preclude him from the pressures and draining experiences of being the leader of the Free World and Commander in Chief of Americas military might. The rigors of the job make young men old. Let’s not start with an old man and take the risk of learning if we were right or wrong on the longevity issue.

Fourth, women make up 50% of the population of our country. They are the leaders of most of our households, and critical thinkers in our institutions, schools, and corporations. It is time for them to take on the Presidency and prove they are the equal of men. It is their time to do so. Maybe then equal pay for equal work will finally come to fruition if we have a woman President? I’d sure like to see if this happens. First we have to elect a woman to the office. Now we have the opportunity to do just that.

Fifth, we are early in the process of electing our next President. Let the facts, rhetoric and events unfold naturally and then take the pulse of the process. Currently we are just feeling our way into the early stages of the process. Way too early to conclude much of anything.

I think Hillary will demonstrate staying power and wind up as the party’s nominee. I think Bernie will end up a favored adviser and compatriot helping to educate the public on the issues that truly matter and need our attention. He is an excellent spokesman for those issues. 

I do not expect any such thing to happen in the republican party. Way too fractious and unfocused. All they have to talk about is fear of anything and everything. Just like always, they talk about who and what to fear, never any ideas on what to support and work hard for.

I guess working toward one’s own feathered nest and greed takes all of their focus from the really important issues the voters have in mind!

February 12, 2016

New Hampshire Lessons?

The cavalcade of political campaigns goes on and on! What it means is not always what is seems. At least the media makes something out of everything but time will allow us the wisdom to discern what it all really means.  In time, you know. All in good time.

So, the early selection process for the US Presidency has swept through New Hampshire as it does every four years. It is a different process than Iowa’s, and it makes more sense to us. Still the meaning of the results do not always come easily. There are nuances to consider. Later in the season the rest of us will choose among one or two candidates who remain on the ballot. The long list of candidates will be pared down by the time we vote, and for my money, it’s a good thing. Too many candidates who are not serious or of serious quality to perform the job. Those will hopefully be weeded out before Illinois’ primary polls open for business. At least we can hope!

For now, let’s take a look at what New Hampshire voters did on Tuesday night last.

First, the Republicans.

They chose Trump with 34.4% of the vote. He earned the first of his delegates to the national convention – 10. John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, came in second with 16.4% of the vote earning him 3 convention delegates. In third place a close race between Cruz with 11.4% and Jeb Bush with 11.2%, each earning their first 2 delegates for the convention. Rubio came in a distant fourth with 10.5% and no delegates earned, with everyone else falling well behind him and also without delegates. 

These results mean the following candidates will fall by the wayside and withdraw from the race: Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have already formally suspended their campaigns; Jim Gilmore, will likely do so very soon; and Carly Fiorina withdrew Wednesday, and so did Chris Christie. Ben Carson will likely withdraw before or just after the South Carolina primary. 

Second, the Democrats.

They chose Bernie Sanders with 59.5% of the vote and 13 delegates awarded. Hillary Clinton came in second with 38.8% and 7 delegates. This result was expected. Bernie has had New Hampshire sewn up for several weeks after months of long, hard work by his campaigners. The rest of the nation is yet to be heard from and New Hampshire’s results will get their fair hearing.

What it all means.

Well, that’s not for me to say with clarity at this early stage. And that’s precisely the point that needs to be made. Throughout the media and internet opinion sites writers are claiming clear portents of the future from the early campaigning and Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. But I think they do all of us a disservice. It is way too early to divine any lasting meaning from most of what’s happened so far. 

Oh, a few things are clear:

• The electorate is angry and the indecision of current elected officials both at federal and state levels of government
• Young voters are anxious to get involved and help the nation make key decisions
• Women voters are jumping at the reins to get involved as well
• No one wants to be yelled at or demeaned
• Absolutely no one on the republican side of things is talking solutions to any problem they raise as an issue
• Democrat candidates do talk issues and definitively so
• Democrats even talk solutions and support long term vision
• Democrats are for things; republicans are anti everything

That is about the sum and substance of it all. Oh, and one more thing: the enemy is Obama and the mess he has left us with. Let’s remind ourselves of the mess Obama fell heir to following Bush’s tenure in the White House, and that Bush had the full support of Congress while that same Congress has been a major blocking force to Obama’s every move. Obama has proficiently defined the problems and offered solutions and requested collaboration from all parties. None has come forth; he was left alone to make good things happen without any help. A leader does not always have followers within the bureaucracy, but the voters are different. 

Unless voters do something about the cooperation and collaboration problem in government, nothing is going to get done as a result of the 2016 elections. Is that what voters want?

I think not. I think they truly want government to work. The major problem is this: Republicans do not believe government is good and must be tamed and reduced in size and effectiveness. Democrats believe government is good as long as the people participate in it.

This is the fundamental difference between the parties. It is ideological. Republicans claim only individuals ought to have the right to govern themselves without interference from government. Democrats claim the opposite, that government provides the leadership and resources to tame the truly big problems and to govern against the ill effects of greed and power some people wield through economic and brute forces.

That is the issue to be addressed in this election season. Not the personalities that poor thinkers and non governing types project on the electorate at times such as these.

At least the Democrats are discussing real issues while the republicans fiddle as Rome burns to the ground.

Now, let’s get serious about serious matters and dismiss the chaff with noisy voices.

February 11, 2016

Hillary’s Truth

Let’s list the ways political enemies have ganged up on Hillary Clinton as she campaigns for the Presidency:

• She’s married to Bill Clinton; surely this means something dank and dark [Oh  please!]
• She received many emails 24/7 as she tried to be both public servant (Secretary of State) and private person while being yanked everywhere on the globe at a moment’s notice  [She’s not the only Secretary of State mired in the miasma of complex communications during fast moving change in communication technology.]
• Those emails were from government sources so many of them had to be secret, maybe even top secret? [Far from it. And many became top secret long after their initial appearance.]
• She makes millions of dollars annually from speeches paid for by many groups; some of them are bankers and others; are they buying her favor now for when she gets into office? [We have freedom of speech, remember? And freedom to earn a living. In America both can converge to make astounding amounts of money from time to time. Good for Hillary and Bill for making this work!]
• She’s white and female; are we ready for this America? [We better be; we have mothers, sisters, wives, mother in laws and countless aunts and cousins who are all women. They are fully half of our population and fully capable of doing government work!]
• She has worked with foreigners for years in public office and as Secretary of State; she must support illegal immigration [That’s a policy issue that will continue to be a tough nut to crack.]
• While in the US Senate she voted for the authorizing of Bush’s war in Iraq; surely that shows poor judgment? [So did just about everyone else and that was a popular response to 9/11 in spite of broad worry that it might lead to chaos; it did!]
• She’s a liar, claims Trump; and so does this make it true? [Hardly; it points more to Trump for his broadsides and rudeness against just about everyone. Such style that guy has!]
• She’s a…(fill in your favorite campaign claim or slur against Hillary)

This is a hell of a way to pick a leader in any country or under any political structure. It is demeaning, dehumanizing, anti-intellectual, anti-feminist, and any of many other negative sobriquets. It is down right uncivil.

We are trying to learn what each candidate stands for and what kind of person they are. Are they adaptable to fast changing conditions? Can they learn on their feet? Can they delegate and also receive valuable inputs from staff and others, make sense of it, and make sound decisions? Can they withstand unbearable scrutiny in office – both public and private moments? Do they have the experience that demonstrates all of those things?

Is youth and energy a factor? Should it be? Or should it be discounted? And of course why?

What are the primary problems we face in America? What conditions do we want to prevail in times of good. Do we know how to measure and value these issues accordingly? Which problems are the most important for us to attend to right now? And then, which issues come as the next projects to fix, and in what order? What rationale are we using in ordering these priorities?

Once the above is done, what do we do about each problem in their rightful order? Does fixing one problem create problems elsewhere that we will need to address in time? How do we avoid doing that?

Of course the really big question: What do we do to fix anything? What resources are available to do this – funding, change to the infrastructure to support the fix, ideas that will prove sufficient to fixing the problem, who is involved in making these decisions, and how transparent are those decisions to be managed?  Doing this sort of work takes diligence, dedication, delegation and a trust in collaborative work with many other people and experts. This work is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced. It is also not well suited to people who have little intellectual curiosity and willingness to do research.

The candidates on the republican side of things bad mouth Hillary for a reason. They recognize she is that good a candidate, an intellectual thinker, a solver of problems, a willing engager of people from all stripes of life who might work well together to solve a problem.

Governance is not a science in spite of an academic field named for it – Political Science. Governance is working with diverse people with creative abilities to manage problems for the good of the people without damaging the people. It is a difficult job. Ever tried to lead a PTA? Did you find it hard to do? So many different personalities to account for and accommodate. The objectives were clear and fairly easy to address. But did you do it and without too much rancor and back biting?

Well now you understand a tiny bit of what it is like to balance different ideologies, warring factions in legislative bodies, and then working with leaders from other regions. Add now the factions and fractions of international affairs, global economics and physics.

The Presidency of the USA requires a towering intellect and a personality that is very flexible. Even then leading the unwilling masses of America is very difficult. Observe please the many accomplishments of President Obama who has had an entire Senate and House of Representatives at war with him blocking every initiative. He has continued to lead the military, the foreign policy camp and still quelled a recession, rebuilt the banking system, created a stable platform for economic stability and rebuilding, forged international partnerships for future peace strategies, led international discussions of enormous scope and importance, and come out the winner for America and the peoples of the globe. With naysayers and doomsayers nipping at his heels, he still stood proud, spoke softly and with feeling. And with intelligence. Please, let us not forget this vital element!

I compared Mr. Obama with each of the candidates. The only one that compares well is Hillary Clinton. She does not live in a bubble. She lives in the real world and understands the stakes of that world and hopes of it as well. One wonders if Trump and can even spell some the terms he would have to deal with if elected. And Carson? Or Rubio and Cruz who are so fond of demeaning their enemies? And enemies they have because that is their primary means of political speech: find an opponent and tell the world why they are so bad and my position is so much better.

If you have to manufacture enemies to win an election, then something is very wrong - with you. Illegal immigrants are the enemy? No; they are the answer to so much of what is right in our nation and always have been. Abortion the problem? No; this is a social issue of high conscience that ought remain in the privacy of the woman and home, not of government. Religious freedom the primary bone of contention? No; that is still a private matter for each person and has no business being a part of our government or election discussion. We already have freedom to worship and believe in our own way; but we have the responsibility to not let my religion interfere with yours. That does not mean you get to make laws that force your religious beliefs down my throat. Understand?

So, just because some loony tune talks about a subject doesn’t make that subject a central issue to our election behavior. What it does do is call into question the person’s intelligence and abilities to be considered for a high elected position.

That’s why I’m for Hillary. She can take care of herself. She can manage Bill. And she can do phenomenal good for the American people without antagonizing the entire global village.

Hear, Hear!

February 10, 2016