Do Americans deserve what they get?

Instead of Washington, DC being the center of a thriving democracy where the people’s business is done, some think DC has become a swamp of stale ideas, corruption, and career politicians doing everyone’s business but the peoples. Some of these politicians appear to care only about their power, prestige and re-election; not the people’s will or their Constitution.

In 2016, voters elected a President who doesn’t care about power, prestige and re-election. Finally, “John Q. Public has a champion!” Where is the support for our champion; our President? For our commander-in-chief?

Wake up, John  Q Public! Finally, there is light at the end of the tunnel, someone wants to fight for you, making your life easier and what do you do? Do you sit back on your haunches as the the media relentlessly attacks and gets away with attempts to discredit our President or do you dig in? Why do you allow petty infighting to destroy a ship of State which has ISIS on the run, economic indicators rising, is creating jobs and more and increasing wages at those jobs?

Yes, Donald Trump is lightening rod for controversy, but why is it that we stand for a media which gives our President 93% negative coverage so that his message never gets out? For believing the media unquestionably, do Americans deserve what they get?

President Trump is not without his warts; he’s rough around the edges, uses salty language, and says what’s on his mind. Sounds a lot like LBJ and JFK, FDR and Nixon? But where was the media in condemning their faux-pas? Dislike for Mr. Trump is not based on his policies; it is based on his personality. When did the Presidency become awarded to the winner of a personality contest? I submit that many Americans would rather see President Trump fail, than the country succeed, Have citizens confused personality dislike with policy dislike?

What about Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorable’ comment, Michelle Obama’s [pride] ‘in her country’ remark, LBJ’s n** remarks, Nixon’s mouth? Yet, the media surely circles like buzzards on Donald Trumps head. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama wanted to increase border security, cut down on illegal immigration and were for increased funding to achieve these goals. Yet, Donald Trump wants the same thing, too, and he’s the racist, the insensitive one. John Q. Public, is there parity here? No. What are you doing about it? I rest my case.

Does the press need to apologize? No. we have a free press, but that press has a responsibility: accuracy in reporting-or at least a good faith effort. MSNBC and CNN need to “Report the facts” Just the facts, and let the American people believe or not believe (unless they host an opinion show). After all, opinions are like **holes; everyone has one…”

 

 

Who’s out of touch?

Nancy PelosiThis morning, we woke to the news that Walmart, joined scores of other corporate giants, sharing wealth they received in anticipation of lower corporate tax rates; they gave up to $1000 bonuses to employees and increased by $2 the hourly wage: totaling $700,000.

Benefits didn’t end there. Walmart expanded their maternity and parental-leave policies: full-time hourly employees would receive 10 weeks of maternity leave, six weeks of paid parental leave and up to $5000 adoption allowance.

Yet, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to these bonuses as ‘mere crumbs,’ ‘pittance’ and ‘pathetic.’ Not enough. In Nancy Pelosi’s world of economic privilege, $1000 may not seem like much; therefore the ‘pathetic’ comments. But, to the Walmart greeter in the rust belt, to most Americans, this is money which can be squirreled away for a college fund or have many productive uses. Unfortunately, to be able to do  this, Sam’s needed to close 60+ stores.

I may not have legislative experience, but I have sitting-around-the-table meat/potatoes experience that says I can buy more with my salary and a bonus, than I can with my salary, and no bonus. The sheer emotional benefit of being more financially secure cannot be understated. It doesn’t take a genius or rocket scientist to know that putting more money in the hands of the American worker is one way to stimulate the economy. ‘Trickle down’ economics has worked unlike shovel-ready jobs.

Ms. Pelosi also said that the raises [in minimum wage] are ‘insignificant.’ Insignificant to whom? Possibly $256/month is insignificant in your world, but it is hardly insignificant in mine? In middle America’s. We saw decline in salaries and benefits when the minimum wage was mandatorily arbitrarily increased to a softer, gentler sounding ‘living wage’. But, increase this wage too far, too fast and smaller companies will need to lay people off, decrease benefits or both to compensate for their lost revenues. There is only a finite amount of cash available.

These seem to me to be more examples of the left thought process not playing out to the finis; liberal short-sightedness. The left increased the minimum wage in Seattle while not thinking that this meant more money ‘going out,’ so benefits to full-time workers were increased.

We’d all like to see everyone living in the lap of luxury, but to accomplish that fact, would mean too much sharing of the wealth of the few. Eventually, when we have eaten at the carcasses of the 1%, would you have us broaden our scope to the top 2%, then 3%? How soon would it be before we all come to live off you?

Invoking the 25th amendment isn’t simple

You had to have been living under a rock not to have heard calls for President Trump’s impeachment, emotional instability or unfitness to hold office. There is talk of invoking the 25th amendment.

The 25th amendment; now there’s an answer: not so fast, Jack! The 25th amendment lays out the order of succession if the President is incapable of ‘being President’ like JFK. The Vice President assumes the role of the President. But article IV, of the amendment (which contains the legal process of invoking the 25th amendment)  and this is where the waters get murky.

1. The Vice President and a majority of the executive (cabinet members) need to agree that removal from office is in the country’s best interest.) They petition the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate in writing.

2. The VP immediately assumes the Presidency

3. The President can then appeal to the Congress that he is, in fact, capable to hold office. the decision. He can appeal to get back what the Vice President ‘took.’ If his appeal is successful, he is able to take the job back that he relinquished to his Vice President.

Problems? I see a few: All decisions of this magnitude need to have as a priority, “what is best for the American people?” What is best for our Union runs a close 2nd…I submit that unless the situation is dire, the damage that can be done to our Union by removing a duly-elected President from office, unless he is clearly unfit to do the job is too great. The polarizing effect would be too great and the country would suffer.

The Vice President and other members of the executive would not have jobs without having been chosen by the President. Would they turn their backs on him? Et tu brute? Sounds like a cabinet-level mutiny to me. I’d like to think I live in a world where unless a President has been deemed unfit for office by a psychiatrist or medical doctor, he stays in office.

The President stays in office until such time as he has been declared unfit (not disliked by many armchair psychiatrists who have never seen the President)  This is no laughing matter and I doubt that with a Republican House and Republican Senate, that removal would happen.

 

 

Demented?

Lately, we’ve heard claims of our President’s dementia, how unfit to hold office he is. Are these claims worth the time or energy spent listening to them or writing this post about them?

I think not. If they were true, our national security, our treaties, our plans, our whole government, relations with other countries would be suspect and a shame and at risk- if our president were incapacitated. But, I also feel that there are enough checks and balances, enough people who surround our president on a daily basis who would see their futures rocket to earth like comet, that they would/could not keep demented cat in the proverbial bag for long.

It has also been said that our president isn’t the ‘sharpest tool in the shed,’ a moron, an idiot. In some circles it is said that our president is ‘as dumb as rock.’ I differ. No matter what you may think of Donald Trump politically or personally, this 71 year old works 18-20 hour days, was accepted into the Wharton School of Business, doesn’t travel with the ‘turnip truck’ crowd; rather, travels with the elites. Am I now to be convinced that this man has a mental deficiency so great that it defies the many with whom he comes into contact?

This same man has been a major success in his life. With no political background and no organization, he ran for and won the presidency of the United States when the opposition was certain in all minds, except his. to win. He kept his head when others couldn’t, has a list of accomplishments during his first year as president not the least of which is an incredible turning  around in the US economy. Yet, this man who has been such an incredible success in running one of the worlds foremost reality shows, in real estate development globally, in hosting a hit reality television show and owning the network: this man is dumb?

The line from the original ‘Die Hard’ movie comes to mind when I think of the claims of non-intelligence or idiocy: “Hey, Babe, I negotiate million dollar deals for breakfast…” I believe our president is more than capable. Incompetency has been the rallying cry for years when a candidate beats to a different drummer; in this case, his.

America; a new start to an old experiment

Nearly 230 years ago, Americans were given a gift. A gift that people had already fought and died for; and what we did with that gift was for us to determine. That gift, the United States of America needed a lot of tweaking, but its skeleton was already established in the US Constitution. That gift is our inheritance. Are we going to squander it, fighting amongst ourselves, or are we going to respect that precious gift and celebrate our diversity as well as our unity?

Sure, the American experiment was a work in progress and was definitely ‘rough around the edges,’ and there was a looming question, a holdover from revolutionary days, about slavery. America’s civil war was not fought about slavery only, but it was fought about rights: does the federal government have the right to tell the states to have slaves or not?

Do the discussions, arguments, rationalizations, accusations and demonstrations accomplish anything other than to divide this country more? When I think of division, I’m reminded of the “House Divided” speech in which Lincoln admonishes us that “A House Divided against itself cannot stand”

Have we become that house divided? The US was inspired as an experiment, “Can men govern themselves through a representative system? ” Some say that the experiment which began in the ‘Bill of Rights’ and which was to govern the American people, had 2 purposes:

1. to prevent unreasonable seizure [in many instances, of land] by the government without adequate compensation

2. to prevent invasion of Americans civil liberties -without justifiable cause.

Prevention of these sounds simple enough, eh? Apparently not. Some people feel that the government is best when it provides for all the needs of all it’s citizens. Others feel that the federal government should be streamlined and not involved in our lives. Where do you fit?  What do you think?

“Can a federal government of the people grow like ours has without destabilizing?” Can America truly become a ‘melting pot’ with each person bringing the strength of his experiences with him and not losing his identity.? You may have your own thoughts as to whether we can or can  not, but I think we’re becoming dangerously close to what Abe Lincoln referred to in his House Divided speech.

Why do I feel this way? We are becoming divisive. More divisive than I”ve ever seen before and I’ve lived a lot of years. So, I guess it is time for Americans of all thought, to answer some basic question Do we want a large federal government which tells the states what they can and cannot do? Or do we want a small central government with more power given to the states to determine what is in the best interest of its citizen? How much should the federal government be involved in the everyday lives of it’s citizens,

What is the role of the federal government? To keep us safe from harm, provide for national security and domestic tranquility or to keep us safe from harm, provide for national security, provide domestic tranquility, and ascertain that we all attend college, are covered by health insurance, all budgetary desires are met and see that we all get a basic K-12 education, energy independence? Where and how do state and local governments bear responsibility and fit in?