Hands Up Gesture by Rams and Lawmakers a Pathetic Ruse to Divide the United States

Recently members of the St. Louis Rams and also some members of the United States Congress made a mockery of the decision made in Ferguson, Missouri not to indict Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown.  In an obvious attempt to incite and divide, many people have used an unproven report of Brown's "hand up" to justify protests alleging to be about police targeting and brutality of African Americans.  Is this an act of responsibility or gross irresponsibility as an American citizen?

The pristine nature of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence innately binds Americans with a covenant to honor the flag and the rule of law.  It denotes that we will stand as Americans and the greater good of the nation.  At the heart it means that we are to be separate from the carnal portions of the world that delve into self inflation and apathy.  We, as common folk and lawmakers, are to be unifiers and not dividers of this great nation.

As for the lawmakers, there were several unworthy individuals bent on inciting the public who took to the floor of Congress with "hand up" gestures.  New York's Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clark along with Texas' Sheila Jackson and Al Green all puffed up their support for the rebellious action of the St. Louis Rams' "hands up" gesture on the field.  Right or wrong this is completely irresponsible for any lawmaker to do.  They are not being impartial and patient nor are they honoring or trying to understand the decision of the justice system.  No lawmaker should ever give in to frenzy in order to score points.  Leave the scoring points to those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Your job is to unify the nation and understand all points of view before making any decisions.  In my opinion these members of Congress should have been chastised for their reckless behavior on the floor of the Congress.

Hillary Clinton a Worthy 2016 Presidential Candidate?

What qualifies a person to run for the Office of President of the United States?  Aside from the cold hard facts outlined in the Constitution of the United States are there other apparent qualifications to consider?  As we observe President Barack Obama extending back through the line of the Presidency we should also reflect on ourselves as simple American citizens.

I was rather disturbed and put out recently at a report I heard of the requirements that Hillary Clinton imposes on an organization for her to come and speak.  I will stick in there a side note that most of her speaking engagements of late have lacked in attendance big time.  Anyhow, there were absolutes of available sodas, temperatures, rooming, travel and even hiring of an aid.  The former Secretary of State has the audacity of requiring only a presidential suite of multiple rooms.  The former public servant demands a specific minimum requirement for a private jet.  The elected Benghazi dodger also stipulates the hiring of a stenographer at the expense of the organization to record her speech seen only by Hillary Clinton herself.  What does this say about the prideful nature of some who seek public office?

The first historic example that comes to mind is George Washington.  He openly spoke of how he really didn't want the Office of President.  In fact, he rebuked officials who wanted to crown him a king.  There are other notable men and women in history who held the true heart of an American public servant.  That true heart compels the individual to action and that their views are what America and their constituents need at that time complimentary to the Constitution of the United States.  This "American heart" is essential and should far outweigh the eloquence of speech and the cunning mastery of deceptive statecraft.  In addition, it is the everyday American's responsibility to keep their heart connected to our founding principles enough to not be swayed by those other darker means which man uses to get elected.

They are unworthy!  If the American heart is not truly evident in the demeanor and record of an individual then they are unworthy to hold the Office of President of the United States.  If they are unwilling to reach out to the public when invited in the spirit of extending the hand of understanding and higher good of the people then they are unworthy.  If they charge exorbitant fees for their omnipotent presence then they are unworthy.  If they set frivolous demands for their presence then they are unworthy.

I don't like picking on specific people but Hillary Clinton is unworthy of the Office of President of the United States.  Her heart is turned inward at self gain instead of outward toward the American good.