Senator Rand Paul Sushed CNBC Female Anchor

Senator Rand Paul recently sushed a female CNBC anchor.  Normally I wouldn't find this worthy of blogging about but the arguments are taking a course that is way off base.  This post will be short and sweet and to the point.

Female anchors are coming out of the termite woodwork adamantly saying that they wouldn't tolerate being "sushed" on their own show.  This is bull at it's finest!  Being female has nothing to do with it, and the incident is being used as a vehicle to further the equal gender rights cause and to smear the name of Senator Rand Paul.  Personally I find it irresponsible for any journalist, male or female, to make any assertion of sexism.  Nine times out of ten, anytime you get two people together there will be opposing points of view and even more important character differences.  Quite simply Senator Rand Paul felt like he was being overwhelmed and not allowed adequate opportunity to answer the question given him by the anchor.  Simple as that.  In my opinion she was getting too emotionally involved with the issue of child vaccinations.  She was taking it out on the Senator.

Actually, I give the Senator a big "kudos" for standing up and attempting to put this anchor in their place.  Notice I said "their" place and not her place.  It illustrates that I don't care what the gender is.  Anchors and journalists are not perfect or infallible.  Anyone who claims they are flawless has severe mental issues.  If the interviewee feels they are being taken advantage of it should be their liberty to address it.  Senator Paul could have gotten overly vocal with her.  Wow!  Then we'd be talking about lawsuit.  Never get too vocal with a woman (sarcasm - but true).  I think his reaction was appropriate.  It was a simple gesture to alert the anchor to quiet the soul for a moment and listen and to regroup in a professional manner.

This is where we've gotten over the sexism issue.  It is the exact same with the race card that is so carelessly played in politics.  People tend to expose themselves as pure boneheads when they overreact and prematurely judge sexism against someone over small and frivolous occurrences.

When you bring someone on for an interview you receive the answers to your questions and let the public decide.  You do not go looking for a fight which is what some of these anchors are leaning toward when they cry wolf - or sexism.

Is There a Greater Social Purpose in a Government Council?

All levels of government are scorned and met with skepticism spanning the entire spectrum.  Whether a school board, city council, state or even the federal government there will always be those who differ mildly and strongly with the decisions made.  What can be said of the system of government we have established for us?  What personal gains can be made from our contemplation of a system of representative council where a group has equal say and input into decisions affecting the greater?  Here are a few of my thoughts.

History is filled with examples of tyranny.  Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin historically seem to be in competition to see who can murder more people.  Well, chocked up on their eternal record are each millions dead.  Genghis Khan arguably exercised a degree of tyranny with his endless brutal campaigns of conquest.  In more modern times we've got Saddam Hussein's murder of 45,000 Kurds in Northern Iraq using chemical weapons.  This incident among many on his resume.  Though all these had people who operated under him they were all, more or less, personally appointed by the dictator who had a warped sense of the greater good.

It is historically obvious that when a people become apathetic to their own sliding situation and are made to feel like they have no control over their prosperity and happiness, they eventually fall to the flaxen grips of tyranny, poverty and strife.  From there, their generations suffer sometimes hundreds if not thousands of years.

Our species, believe it or not, is motivated by faith.  It is the root cause of our progression.  It is the root cause of our happiness and also advancement in medicine, sciences and technologies.  It is the hope or foresight of what can be that gives us all a common thread from which to climb.  It is what separates us from the beasts.  We are - in essence - creatures with the ability to be inspired.  Obviously given the murderous and degrading state of the world we apparently all don't have the same hope or vision of the future.

Though we are a flawed civilization, mankind had devised avenues whereby nations can be empowered by a government representative of its people.  Don't get me wrong all governments are subject to the enticings of corruption.  Yet, it is the faith and hope of the people that their elected (representative) leaders will collectively solve the problems of the governed and provide opportunities of prosperity.  It is a hope in a righteous government.

All good things are met with harsh contention.  It is the yin and the yang - good and evil.  It is the light and the dark.  It is the choice or free agency to understand decisions and have hope, or have only suspicion and hate of leaders.  It is the choice.

The plight of many elected officials is the bearing or the weight of the responsibility place upon them by the faith of their constituents.  It can be overwhelming.  Decisions including millions of dollars often accompany even local governments.  Confusion and unsurety can make the decisions a little unsettling.  Unaccustomed, many decision that leaders absolutely know will adversely affect some will also provide anxiety in the heart and a sickening of the stomach.

The cure of both the constituents and also the elected government officials is the same - faith.  Constituents need to learn faith in their leaders.  Leaders need to keep their pure intent in check and learn to lean on the faith supporting them by the people.  The magic of representative governments is that major decisions are made through a collective effort.  Yes, incorrect decisions are made from time to time but the end result is directly tied to the faith of the people.

There is a social doctrine connected with sharing the yoke or burden of decision or the mantle placed upon people of all walks and of all roles.  In the old days heavy loads were often pulled by two oxen.  These oxen were bridled over-neck with a common yoke that was anchored to the load.  They shared the load and pursued a common course or path.  Bearing the load is no different between people and the oxen.

It is my hope that as a people we can refocus our faith in leaders and in each other.  It is my firm belief that only this will inspire actions of change if they are needed to expand opportunities and prosperity and most importantly happiness.  No, we should not be passive and "let the chips fall where they may."  However, it is all our obligation to first understand and approach with an open heart the decision making process of our leaders.  An open heart is the only way to be truly inspired toward a correct path.  This may compel one to either agree or rebuke an official accordingly, but the calm heart and approach is key.

Hopefully this will serve as good counsel (from one who knows) for the weary at heart among the people and those whom they chose to represent them in matters of social progress, freedom and happiness.

Amazing New Insight into Islamic Extremism vs Christianity

In 2015, Paris' Charile Hebdo magazine was attacked by extremists.  This, in a line of blatant attacks on those exercising a freedom of speech.  Surprising revelations can be learned from this spiraling situation.  Is there a social disaster on the horizon?

Yes, there are certain edicts of Islam that can be taken out of context.  I will concede to that.  Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) I am well aware of bigotry and the misinterpretation that many may have about a faith that they do not share.  In every faith you will find devout followers, jack followers, blind followers due to family or environmental traditions and then you have your extremists.

This may enrage certain segments of society but I really don't care at this point.  I'll get to the point of what's stronger?  It is obvious that the declarations of extreme self-proclaimed Islamists are skewed toward intolerance, hate, threats and of course - death.  There are basic human frailties that are met with death after frivolous trials including converting from Islam to another faith and the unfortunate happenstance of adultery.  There are tactics of fear included in the extremist doctrine such as no graphic portrayal of the prophet Muhammad or accompanied adverse literature.  There are rewards of self gratification such as many women in the afterlife through their proof of faith.  These are but a few of the extreme strongholds that I will concede may not be shared with many mainstream Islamists or even the Muslims.  Not being intimately familiar this that area of faith it would be unfair for me to pass judgement on any particular point of their doctrine regardless of the media attention and "so-called" experts.

However, it is evident to me that the above mentioned doctrines of extremism require no personal faith at all.  They are all geared to either satisfy the cravings of mortal man or bent on the intimidation of those within or outside that system of belief.  It requires no personal effort to better oneself or uplift those around them.  It requires no personal hope that sincere goodwill is pleasing in the sight of God.  In fact, it requires no personal relationship with God.  It is my experience that things so earthbound and finite are strong in their season but in the end are destined to fail.  That which doesn't require the stronger part of your spirit, that being charity, compassion, perseverance and faith, will eventually be conquered by the collective effort of those who do exercise the stronger part.  Were it not so, God would be manifesting Himself in visual person regularly among the children of men for the assurance of belief in Him.

I don't claim to give a pass of any kind to Christianity.  Millions have been killed in the name of Christianity over the centuries.  Perpetrators exercised the same intolerance and lust for conquer as our modern day Islamic extremists do.  It also required no pure faith in that which is not seen, but instead relied on intimidation and ultimatums.  Let us as Christians not be so blind to that one simple fact.

Regardless of your professed faith, if it doesn't include the tolerant understanding that not everyone shares your faith or must share your faith, then that system of belief will lead to death and the plundering of personal choice and accountability.

So that is my amazing new insight.  If you are an extremist, watch it!!  If you are intolerant or without understanding, watch it!!  I believe we are on the precipice of great and wonderful expansions of human understandings in science, medicine and basic human purpose.  I don't think it is a coincidence that we are individually living in this time preparing for it.  We are specially called out to live in this time because we are able to learn the triumphs and failures of mankind's past.  In essence, we have the ability to learn to love one another with much more depth and meaning than most of our predecessors had the ability to in life.  Not because they were less but rather because they had to learn what their time offered them to learn.  Our limited time is to learn the culmination of history and apply them for the good of the whole.

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.

President Barack Obama Illegal Immigration Reform Grants Votes for Political Party

President Barack Obama has paved the way for millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico points south to reap the benefits of their illegal actions.  Contrary to the United States Constitution and in absence of the U.S. Congress he has granted "tokens of gold" to untold numbers who have crossed our southern border from Mexico.  To some this is a reprehensible action worthy of impeachment.  To others this is worthy of placing Obama on a mantle of godhood.

A couple days ago I watched a statement by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.  It is important to be objective especially over explosive issues like immigration.  So I watched Earnest and others like him.  Shortly thereafter I even watched a passionate statement by journalist Geraldo Rivera.  What I had witnessed was appalling and completely unworthy of the posts they hold.  There is a growing trend among the realms of the United States elected officials and appointees.  So dangerous that it threatens to tear the fabric of our flag.

From our past our leaders spoke with honesty.  They spoke on issues and tried to orate their positions by persuasion to the people.  Their intent was for the good of the people as a whole in moving a nation forward toward prosperity and justice.  In large part we may have lost this since Abraham Lincoln.  The notions of addressing the people as a worthy President sprung back a time or two since, yet still the looming political power grew in influence.  Our Framers addressed a common people who voted to separate from British rule and become a nation as one.  Of course corruption existed, but it was evident that specific men of character and courage were raised up to set the stage for a great nation meant to lead the world.

Every person who advocated what President Obama had done set any and all blame on the immigration plight squarely on the Republican party.  That isn't my opinion.  That comes straight from the lips of the omnipotent President Barack Obama.  This is the first red flag.  You cannot have full faith in your initiative and have it become a feeling of peace in the hearts of those you are trying to persuade if you are doing so by deliberately factioning out the country.  As a President who claims this stroke of the pen to be a moment of solidarity and wonderment for millions of people cannot possibly bring about peace by planting contention and divisiveness in the hearts of Americans and illegals alike.

The second red flag was the excess use of "compassion."  How rude and condescending for anyone to address the American taxpayer in such a way!  We are the most compassionate nation on earth and our President and his blind supporters dare to tarnish the good heart of America, and further the agenda of making all of us feel ashamed and dirty because of our association as Americans.  Now if that don't spell Communism then I don't know what does.

The platform was that this initiative was a kind and compassionate thing to do for vast numbers of families.  That to not do so would be stripping children from their parents.  Not only was this literal camel fodder but to have journalists come on the scene with fish hooks in their mouths was very distasteful.  As they say, hook, line and sinker!  Compassion and justice can be found in abundance on all sides of the issue.  How juvenile it is to address compassion only through the eyes of an illegal.

Compassion!  What compassion is there in this illegal executive action for the thousands of taxpayers whose children have been murdered by illegals?  What compassion is there in this illegal executive action for the millions of taxpayers who are bound to pay for health care for those who have knowingly stealthed across the border?  What compassion is there in this illegal executive action for Americans whose insecurity as a protected nation has grown exponentially?  What compassion is there in this illegal executive action for Americans that daily live in a legal manner to reap the meager living they earn while so many in illegal situations are benefiting off of them?

Let all Americans know that the victory for elected officials in this entire issue of immigration reform is in votes!

Yep, not a victory for America, but rather a generational victory for select political parties.  That's what it is.  Were it not so our borders would've been shored up long ago.  Were it not so our beloved President wouldn't find the need to sell us a blanket initiative on the fabric of "compassion."  It has nothing to do with compassion.  Compassion presented as a platform for a political speech is always the last thing truly considered in the action itself.

Another red flag is gridlock.  Though we have many newly elected people in Congress there are those speaking out that Congress is in gridlock.  They use this as a crutch to legitimize the President's "buckaroo lone wolf" action of doing it alone contrary to the established frame of the Constitution.  Americans choose!  Do you want a President who is so willing to act on his own at the peril of America's most sacred edicts?  You would know full well that this would be setting the stage for all future Presidential actions.  The other choice is the "gridlock."  Is it better to let the chips fall where they may and have Congress endlessly debate issues while still functioning within the frame of the Constitution?  I would vote for the latter because we must exist as a nation under the rule of law.  Our survival should not leave any room for flying solo in the highest office in the world.

The objective of the Office of President of the United States is to lead - not rule.  Our President Barack Obama would do well to prayerfully consider this.

Mexican Drug Gang and Conspirators Labeled Domestic Terrorists?

Cold-blooded murder is a disgusting display of civility.  Our modern reasons differ little than in times of old.  This story of a Mexican drug gang, with possible government official ties, murdering dozens of students just rakes me to the core.  When will mankind actually get tough with ISIS, Al Qaeda and equally inhumane - drug cartels.
Mexican Drug Gang Burn Dozens of Students
This reminds me of a movie I recently saw again with Will Smith.  It is called I Am Legend.  Like many it is a story of the end of civilization due to a biological epidemic.  The main character, played by Smith, tries to save mankind by using possible antidotes on those infected.  From a display encounter with an infected person he states that all human characteristics are now totally absent (or words to that affect).  In the true case of the Mexican massacre I don't see how this is any different.  How can an individual, or in this case possibly several, blatantly set out to commit murder and then to purposely burn them so they cannot be recognized yet still claim a degree of humanity?  It is unconscionable for one victim - but over 40!!!

This is mass murder!  We've all grown up hearing of corruption in the Mexican government and how they cannot be trusted.  Yet, would it not be proper now at high tide to official label these drug gangs as domestic terrorists?  Though it is a term coined by the United States I'd say it would be proper for the U.S. to use in this case as well as other cases.  As I ponder what it would take in the human heart to pull such a plot off, I discover being beside myself in solitude.

This should further ingrain the need to seal the border.  Though not a cure it would be a sure step in the right direction, and a token to all people throughout the world that the free people of the United States will not be intimidated and will protect and serve the best interests of it's people.  We cannot combat murder through guns or drugs without defining a line.  That line must be the secured physical borders shored up by the rule of law.  That is not only a battleground but it is also a symbolic gesture in the American mind that helps guide our decisions in the matter.  Perhaps if the border was secure it would make decisions on drug cartels and illegal immigration not so gray and blurry, but instead clear and decisive.

I sort of got off the point but I just wanted to put down in words my own grief in how low mankind goes to satisfy their malicious agendas - even to the murder of others.