Post Anthem

I'm going to pushback in a way that won't be popular because as a contributor to politically correct narratives, every now & then it makes sense to be incorrect because the sense of genuine understanding & commitment gets lost. Essentially in the Colin Kaepernick, bait & switch, response every Red Blooded American assumes that racial inequality is a myth and that no one who doesn't live in poverty should come to the aid of people who do. One of the narratives that so called progressive thinkers are using is that Racism is going mainstream. I whole heartedly disagree with that notion because racism has always been mainstream to anyone not white. You see in order to understand bigotry, sometimes you are an innocent bystander. I've never been exposed to overt racism because I stick within the confines of minority population. I have taken it for granted that I can count on people of color to do and say or just simply be the way I expect them. It's when I have to get out of my comfort zone and thrive in environments that aren't usually my typical places of preference or circumstances of choosing that I feel the most racism. Let's use for example the travel industry. I work in the finance industry, so during certain times of the year I have to travel to gathering which are definitely not my cup of tea. I see many people on these trips and most of them are white people. I don't know what it is about airports or cities, but essentially they are dominated by non-minorities that's if you don't count the people working there. Occasionally they're one or two minorities in the Captains seat of the plane or on the flight crew, but all the major positions are Caucasian/Anglo Saxon whatever moniker you prefer. How does this relate to my claim that racism is mainstream? Well to confess, even I'm prejudiced in my thinking about things when it comes to traveling. I go to an airport way before the sun rises and I expect a line of people at the security checkpoint because white people are punctual. In a sea of white faces, I make sure the stewardess or steward makes eye contact with me, so I will get special treatment in the no backlash department because you know us minorities really know how to even the scales. Were on the look-out for racism and in many situations, we expect it. No matter how politically incorrect that sounds, it's true. White folks don't have to mentally locate identification and other critical documents in their mind when being stopped by police. When you walk into a convenience store and see what could be more or less a person of suspect behavior, you immediately make eye contact with them as to say, "Look whatever is going to go down, let me out of here." Minorities know these unspoken communications. I even wait sometimes in large crowds to walk behind the rich uppity white ladies because if someone's going to get victimized, it's not going to be me. That sounds pretty awful. I know it does, but it's because of the "Privileged," assumption I can count on certain things to be true. Recently, I was walking in an affluent neighborhood of a city where I didn't expect danger. The friend I was with was familiar with the area and as we walked they stopped and asked a young man behind me, "What do you want?" It took me by surprise because I was aware that people were walking behind me, but had no idea I was a target for theft. It was in the moment of realization that it occurred to me that my prejudice about safety and the appearance of the area was incorrect. Now I can admit I have lapses in judgment because I wasn't from the city. My point is that in a rich society where we see dominant culture and yes that means non-minority & upscale professionalism, there are people like me who walk the fine line between being mistaken for a minority or mistaken for a white person and I suit all the roles as a matter of upbringing. Now this is where Colin Kaepernick fits in except he has the added privilege of being rich, successful and easily identified. So going against most all sensible judgment he decided to take a stand against racism by not standing for the National Anthem. My personal opinion is of course that he has the right to do that, but I'm also inspired by his sentiment because He knows or at least I assume he is aware of how this will get under the skin of all so-called patriots. What we're getting at is the fact that no matter if your acting to make a point or your taking advantage of a circumstance for your own gain, all that is going to result is outrage. We live in a time where super sensitivity is outwardly projected. Minorities are now viewed as instigators in all situations because of the notion that racism doesn't exist because we elected a black president. Biggest assumption of them all is that America has had eight years of holding it's hatred & vitriol and it's showing more now than ever. Now I called it an assumption because I'm not a professor of minority/race relations, but I've observed this false equivalency that somehow minorities are responsible for their own mistreatment and it's time to move on from this subject. We can only move on from it if it discontinues if it stops. As much as the progressives want to put it behind them and claim racism is coming out of the closet, it's never been in hiding for minorities. Maybe somewhere in social class & status, peers have managed to disguise their revolt for tolerance, but the core of conservatism has always been resist diversity. I'm not blatantly claiming Democrats haven't always been ideal Liberalists or a progressive movement. The term Dixie-crat alone establishes the origins of the Democratic party, but somewhere they were able to become the union supporters and the champions for all ethnic groups. We can debate how and when, but the faces at the DNC this year said it all while the RNC gathering appeared to be a combination of White Nationalism, Fascism & Capitalism all rolled up into one big display of doom & gloom in America. The core of our democracy is not centered on the shared values we have in common, but has been purposely divided to be a contrast of possession of this countries values. Thus we get shouted down for being offended by disproportionate favor in today's society. Referendum on amnesty and affirmative action are mainstream ideas that even the liberals have failed to defend, so now that were at the pinnacle of the failure to enforce truth, we've resorted to debating falsehoods as legitimate concerns. Every single thing the opposing voice in America has said is that this nation is not great and our military is weak. We've been told that our current economic times are catastrophic and that is in complete factual opposition to the truth. It doesn't matter anymore what facts indicate, as long as you can get enough people onboard with your claim. The mouthpiece media of these subjects have moved the goal posts so many times there literally is no common ground anymore. Liberal representatives have yielded all collective progress accomplishments to take up space in what is now a nineties conservative value system. We use to be against Wall Street and Financial conglomerates. Now we speak to them directly for donations in favor for their agenda. This is why Bernie Sanders was able to rise as a third party candidate, but the minute he registered as a Democrat the contest was over and he held onto his current constituency while building an outsiders profile. "Feel the Bern," groups were right to go to the convention floor and protest. That is how we get things done in America, but essentially the flood gates opened when unchecked flows of financial revenue were allowed to enter the political arena. Let's not kid ourselves about money in politics because it's always been there with loopholes concerning political finance reform. Without an audit trail of dark money we've legitimized hate speech as free speech, so to bring everything back to a point foaming at the mouth about a football player, a quarterback who is in the most violent sport, is hypocritical. It's an excuse to go after one more minority by saying he hasn't the right to exercise his belief or opinion because the granted society has not issued approval of those actions. "We want our Country Back," they say or "Were Going to build a Wall." That sounds like a gated community to me only they want it from sea to shining sea. That's just not practical and certainly isn't reasonable or based on reality. The reality is minorities and historically immigrant ethnic groups built this nation's infrastructure. Now that America doesn't make anything anymore, the poor middle class have nothing to do except look for reinforcement that their country no longer resembles a place they remember and they are longing for a return to the good old days. That's a scary thought when one considers it has taken more than a half century to get racial equality or gender bias recognition to the mainstream. Red Meat Americans say soldiers died for your right to acknowledge the Nation's Flag or it's Anthem, but the truth is they died for freedom and that also means having the right to protest American Values if you consider they aren't as just as claimed. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I write these opinion pieces. It's not because I'm afraid of what mainstream opinions will do with something near and dear to my heart which is my belief, but how could I possibly get through to anyone who only wants to see my point of view as offensive to their values? The truth is people are stuck in their ways of thinking because they're insulated enough that they don't have to appeal to anyone else. Think about it how can a billionaire from New York announce his campaign for the president of the United States without some indication that there is enough fear & panic already existing in this country to carry himself this far without ever changing his hate filled message? I'm going to turn now to a familiar line of discussion because I think it's critical to understanding this topic of Liberal and progressive values and how they have fallen short in emphasizing their own failure. We have a certain relationship with this country as its first minority group historically. Before you go, "There he goes again," hear me out on this. You have to realize my Native people weren't always a minority group, we were a majority at one time. We had economic and social values before the first signs of modern society even appeared on this earth. There is historical evidence of this yet today we are a figment of people distant past that only exists in history. Consider that I'm a minority of a minority. That means whatever the greater minority group experiences you have to break that in to fractions disproportionate of those ethnicities and then apply a minor tiny portion of equality to Native Americans. That's portion of a portion of a portion that the other ethnicities have in representation towards speaking on topics in the mainstream, so that's why I don't give up on continuing to write about disparity or equal justice. One day, sometime a Native American will write and in doing so they will search and look back in time to find reference for a subject from a indigenous point of view and they will find this and many other writings like it because I left it here just like our ancestors left us our language and traditions. So it doesn't matter to me if anyone is swayed by these topics or discussions. All I want is for people to know we were here and we never gave up fighting. We fight for all rights of all peoples because unless you have had your ancestors wiped out to the point of extinction, you don't know what annihilation is. It's not just historical trauma and a half a millennia of genocide. We still go through systematic and institutional racism today. Right now my people are in North Dakota fighting a pipeline installment on sacred & historical lands. In greater society people mention that Native Americans claim everywhere is sacred & historical, but to us it is because we have nothing left but our sacred lands. All areas have been devastated by this nations manifest destiny. Our Elders fought in wars for America and even devised a secret code to win a World War. So if our people can thrive amongst genocide and mass attacks on our culture for the sake of profit and decimation, why can't a non-native, non-Caucasian sit in protest instead of stand? Why can't a descendant of slaves with mixed racial blood lines and a future of prosperity recognize and injustice and make a point of bringing attention to it. That's the point I'm trying to make. If we can recognize a member of another minority who has no personal ties to our movement and our goals has in fact made a statement that we support and are committed to seeing through to the end, than why can't all people recognize "What is Right is Right and it's not always White." There are all colors represented in the rainbow and there are all nations watching America right now to see if we really have overcome our original sin of colonialism and were fighting to say, "Yes we can." We've never stopped fighting these injustices. They never went dormant at anytime for us, so if the Liberals want to say racism is now in the mainstream, we will simply disagree with them and point out that it's always been in the mainstream in our experience it's just that they're finally starting to open their eyes. It's not an us against them world in our experience. It's all of us trying to right a wrong and stop perpetuating myths and misunderstanding about any man, women or child's dignity here on earth. We were born equal, we live and we die just like everyone else, so who's to say what is the right way to protest or the wrong way? We're not saying racists speech is un-American, were saying it's inhuman. Nobody should be persecuted for being different.

Midnight in America

All I know is class system or Charlemagne's cavalry and the kingdom of the Franks. We have such western way of thinking today that deduces us to assignments of wealth or status, but the romantic times of Gaul or the mad mission of Don Quixote. Things like the writing of Sir Walter Scot interest me also. I will disclose right now that this entry into what seems to become a political blog for me is highly plagiarized. Since that doesn't seem to matter anymore I put together a number of quotes and recitations to support the essential argument that is being made right now in America. See even though you won't hear me come right out and say it, I've mentioned just about everything I know according to feeders of influence in western society, but I've been very careful to not mention the Moors which I will now. Personally, I avoid talking about them because of the circumstances today. Once people hear the word Arabic, they're more or less immediately suspicious, but as a genuine interest in history how can we not discuss them. In the times of Corsica & Sardinia, The use of the Moore's heads in coats of arms and territories seem to be more or less a mockery of capturing their empire even up to the last pope Benedict XVI, but that is related to crusades of Christian versus Muslim. Now being a descendant of Native American heritage, I could easily point out the hypocrisy of the crusades and back up my debate with numerous recitations in history, but for simplicity let's just discuss the historical influences of the cultural contribution to the things I'm discussing here. I'm not going to attempt to write his name, but it means son of a Gothic woman, Sarah the Goth traveled to Damascus and married an Arab and had a son who wrote the conjugation of verbs. Now this is important because it contributes to the legal interpretation of estates and their descendants. See a lot of people don't acknowledge the fact that Arab Royalty were heralded for their scholarship of dynasty. From Morroco to Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad, it is referred to as the Holiest city. The Royal Clock tower is the world's third largest building with the largest floor space. This term Mecca is really pronounced Mekkah, but foreigners use the translation to mean a place that draws a large number of people. The reason I bring it up is because in a nearby cave the arch angel Gabriel began to bestow divine knowledge to the prophet which in turn later became Islam. That's where I believe separation begins in determining race & religion because as a Christian one finds the new testament as their guiding principle, but as a follower of the teachings in the bible, one would have to go further back in time to the old testament to locate empires and their rulers. Even the logic of time is kept accurate. It's like I once said previously that studying language is more telling in understanding origination in culture as the split in different dialects is directly parallel to ethnic origin. It is said that they're three original languages, Indo-European, Semitic and Aryan. Nazi's chose the word Aryan to describe a blonde master race, but Aryan's are a linguistic group rather than a genetic group. Same is true for the Semitic family which includes the Arabs and the Jews. Last we have the Finno-Ugric group which is spread out across the map, it's the language of Hungary as well as the Baltic and Estonian tribes. So desensitizing the words Aryan to understand that it's meaning discusses a group of people who speak the same language is crucial to understanding much of the modern science that follows. Things like Flora & Fauna environmentally separated and evolution where Fauna is split into two groups the Ethereal & Aquatic, contribute in understanding that species can use oxygen from the environment or breath it from the air. I went a bit scientific there, but only to point out the positive and negative connotations of language and how it contributes to the consideration of facts. No one person is expected to treat everything as equal as we tend to favor explanations that coincide with our own understanding. Even though I'm quite exasperated by the current republican nominee for president, I can't help but wonder if his heritage has anything to do with his rhetoric. Besides keeping great speeches in his bedside cabinet from the Fuhrer, I can't help but wonder if the connection to Swiss & Austria has anything to do with his self-made importance. We see his interest in Slovenia and Russia at face value. He is involved at many levels with investments in those areas and it's almost as everything right down to his arranged marriage is pointing towards something obvious that Americans just refuse to realize either though lack of sophistication or some sort of color blindness that dims their vision to see his motivation to acquire power. I don't mean to turn this message into a political slam, but it's interesting because the media never brings up these facts and I think it would reduce the amount of confusion into who this man is and what he believes because of the obvious connection to Aryan Supremacy. I ventured into it briefly discussing science, but the essential enigma of intelligence & intellect are wide spread debatable facts. It's not like we don't know about it and haven't been in these arguments before . Before I drop it though, I find it funny that everything it supposedly represents this figure is none of those things, so it defeats the central them of elevated supremacy. I found this book on Amazon. Now bear with me because I'm going to include the detailed notes so you can get a feel for what some of the core values were talking about here because like I said in inner circles it's important to understand what people use as their guiding principles. I also warn you that it's long and hard to follow, but these aren't my words there taken from a best seller for a particular audience. "Earth's biota has already crossed lots of periodical geological catastrophes (apocalypses) every 7000÷13000 years. Early developed Aryans, evolved from the Cro-Magnon people and became the tallest clever people in the world of 8 to 10 feet. First king in the pre-flood world became supreme priest of Lemuria his Excellency Baal, ~15,500B.C. The Aryans founded their settlements over the Eurasian end African Continents and formed huge Empire of Lemuria which destroyed by Atlantis. Planetary Empire Atlantis had been destroyed by last Apocalypse in 10,465bc. Their civil and military (including atomic) vehicles mainly captured by potentate from Delhi. Before the world nuclear war - Nuclear Conspiracy Against Aryan Race, Hermes Trismegistus built up the majestic Giza Complex in Egypt. We've decoded to you the old Aryan and Aryan-Areal alphabets, antediluvian engraved writing in the Libya and Baalbek. In the book is published smaller Aryan-Latin-English dictionary and decoded antediluvian texts. You will understand terrible sensational news – who was robbing sunken Atlantis Isles during the Cold War. Of course here is published conclusive evidence on robbing. Ground-breaking date for the main-streamers on Stonehenge - 10,450B.C. and what is written in the Stonehenge by using planetary coordinates and how the Stonehenge confirms date written on the Giza Plateau. Atlantis Isles sunken in 10,465B.C, but survived many Aryan military nuclear vehicles, including lots of powerful nuclear bombs in the nuclear bases of "Agarthy", within the interiors of rocky mountains. Surviving Aryans created two hostile military groups "Orion" and "Draco". Center of the "Orion" was Jerusalem. Center of "Draco" became "Elephant City" - Delhi.... ...This is an amazing, unique and most sensational book ever written to you…." Now that's real and it isn't a hoax book or paperback for fiction based entertainment. So much for guiding principles!! No wonder conservatives want to do away with science and start teaching creationism according to their references the earth is nine thousand years older than previously proven. People were walking around ten feet tall before the dinosaurs and they had Nuclear power which was used to destroy Atlantis. Well I'll be! Conspiracy theory isn't just a current dementia because it's been alive and kicking even before the first single cell microbe bacteria apparently. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Anyway, so yeah facts matter because this fact-less campaign that has been going on for about a decade is getting a little tiresome. There isn't really anything left to say about it all except oh yeah, the Russians are coming the Russians are coming! I'm really going to hit below the belt now. I was reading that the majority of this years supporters, let's pull a number out of my arse, say 43% according to Kaiser Family Foundation & Harvard University are "non-college white males." It goes on to say that these unemployed men between the ages of 26-46 are living at home with their parents. Now I'm no one to mock this because at one time in my day I stayed five months in between school and employment at my parent's house. I have a hard time swallowing the fact that 64.5 percent of the voters in the 2012 election were non-college white males though. The balance between now and then is we actually have more white males in college because of the lending laws they didn't vote for or more precisely that they voted against, so the guiding principle or policy of the platform of the party has more to do with keeping young white men unemployed than anything. This is true even more so because when you add voting regulation that makes it harder to vote for other demographics coupled with economic policies like shutting down the government or holding budgets hostage, you increase fragility into the system of lending, buying and ultimately hiring of these middle aged white males with no college degree and no skills to do the jobs available. This is also the your parties base that you need to vote for you to keep you in power, so it makes no sense and as a result when asked about this the reply is, "the other party is in power." which isn't true because of the majority in both houses, so what gives? That's why the system is broken and why people are unsatisfied with government and a majority believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. It's because of the age old practice of listening to your constituency and caring out their interests instead of running negative campaigns that capitalize on a broken system that you broke. I said that backwards, but it fits because you have to reason backwards to make it work. If that's not confusing enough consider this next point. To understand this next quote, you have to consider this is the justification for hiding the truth. "Open conversation, conducted with the expectation of privacy, isn't necessary for the precondition formation of collective wisdom and consensus. If we eviscerate the possibility of transparency in politics, we decrease the likelihood of poor decision-making." In other words, include Legal Lingo in your parties platform to say the uninformed voter is our base and here is the rationalization for it. This is regime rhetoric and the result of consorting with a third world dictators. Being complacent about rouge attacks within your own borders to use them to fan the flames of hatred, is moral turpitude of essential ethics. It's the compromise of national security for your own benefit. After months of vilifying other people for rigging the system you're engaging in system rigging of your own, to cry foul is a misnomer and often arises because the thing you named, "Crooked," was proven admonished and received its vindication a long time ago. If it were true illegal activity, its true nature would have been discovered by now and would have been brought to light for all to see. You may also be simply using a word incorrectly or misleadingly to deflect attention from your own scandal, but essentially the truth will eventually come out. With the assistance of one particular 24 hour news network devoted to twisting facts into pretzel like contortions of their former selves, we've seen everything from police state references to Jim Crowe dogma and confederacy worship. If I see the likes of Pat Robertson again claiming Rapture & Apocalypse, I'm going to take my ten dollar donation and give it to the first person claiming they can counter his claim to the moral high ground. It's a disgrace to Christians everywhere to see these Machiavellian creatures insisting on promoting hate messages. "Remember it is better to be feared than loved, because those who love you will always expect something from you but those who fear you will be cautious and willing to find a good standing in your standing!" That is straight out of the Prince II the most prominent studied chapters of advisement to keep empirical power. See Donald, they rest of us underlings have the same access to information because we live in a free society, so elitists who are depending on having an edge in the game can also say, "Deal Me In." I’ve run out of words to express my shock and how completely beyond the pale that Donald Trump is as a potential leader of the free world, the commander in chief of our country. This was truly beyond the pale. I mean, he is encouraging Russia, which by all accounts was behind the leak of one of our major political parties, to do more, to go beyond, to try to hack into Hillary Clinton’s server to find missing emails to kind of get in the middle of the scandal. It’s as if this is a child playing with matches who doesn’t understand how badly he and the country can get burned. It’s a very serious thing. And I think that the one thing about Trump is that he is very clear for all to see. He is making very clear what he thinks, how he comes by information, and I think, frankly, the lack of seriousness and the intemperance with which he speaks about important national security matters should certainly give people pause. And I don’t think there’s anybody who would think that was anything but a fair reading of what we’ve seen here. Vladimir Putin is dangerous. He’s been dangerous to a Democratic president, to a Republican president, President George W. Bush who thought he had a better relationship with him. And now this nominee of the Republican Party wants a closer relationship with Vladimir Putin which is what he said. And he thinks that he has the ability to have a better relationship. There’s no evidence to believe that’s the case. “Government governs best which governs least”—have been used by the right wing to wage a war on federal authority while trying to change our perceptions of the past. In the late 19th century, far from wanting to eliminate the power of the federal government, “All the robber barons depended on government and their manipulation of it.” Railroad financiers Collis Huntington and Leland Stanford managed to see “higher purpose” in the bribery of politicians: “If you have to pay money to have the right things done [said Huntington] it is just and fair to do it.” The right has also made ceaseless war on unions, which “did more than any other organized force in American politics to address the concerns of less affluent citizens.” The unprecedented concentration of wealth among the few have built what sociologist Isaac Martin calls “a rich people’s movement.” “Christian conservatism, polarizing right-wing media, and growing efforts by business and the wealthy to back stop and bank roll Republican politics.” The conservative media helps whip their people into line: “If you stray the slightest from the far right.” As early as 1988, Newt Gingrich, in a speech to the Right Wing Heritage Foundation, called for “a civil war” with liberals: “This war has to be fought with a scale and a duration and a savagery that is only true of civil wars.” “speak like Newt.” A Gingrich associate characterized the tapes as “all about how to demonize the opposition, how to use invective and scary language.” And, Democrats are the enemy of “normal [sic] Americans.” I've been a listener of conservative radio. I remember when they use to attack Bush I and W for being centrist republican presidents. Since then times have changed in that we can listen to those same broadcasts, but now they call them podcasts to transform to the new age of digital technology, but it's the same red meat rhetoric. One of the problems of working class American experience is that once Big Business understood that outsourcing their labor was a way to lower costs and boost profits, they all moved over-seas leaving vast amount of Americans unemployed. These things increased financial instability and lead to the Great Recession of 2008. Since then, the Carl Rove associates have been blaming every single symptom of trickle-down economics on Democratic leaders when none held the power to let Wall Street loose on the financial markets. Every single bet that lead to the housing crisis, the tech bubble, the manufacturing exit and finally the Mortgage & Lending crisis was the result of letting the financial managers write their own rules. The Occupy Movement didn't just suddenly appear one day out of thin air. Marchers for equality and racial justice didn't just happen to coincide with national attacks of gun violence and mass tragedies. People are upset and afraid and being left to fend for themselves in a country where 1% of the population holds more wealth than the entire 99% of the country. "Lives Matter!" no matter if you are Blue, Red, purple or Black, everyone matters to this planet. For that matter, Climate Change can be scientifically proven that humans and their actions are affecting the environment. We're not adolescent or uninformed about this phenomenon. It's very obvious that these issues are being politicized for the benefit of already wealthy & powerful companies. In countries where valuable natural resources were discovered: Rather than thriving, such countries often crumbled, economically and politically. The newfound wealth, instead of raising living standards for all, generated violence, as well as accelerating the growth of inequality and corruption. That can be said for material wealth as well, but American exceptialism considers that were insulated from these vulnerabilities and were not. When you take this idea of global economy and apply it to reality, were losing because of our greed. In most cases, you invest, build a market than eventually profit. The only thing were offering the world is our military and that funnels money into the hands of contractors not free enterprise. We grow food for other places, but don't have much of an aqriculture lobby. We outsource are assembly lines than import the products to sell here. You can't just take the consumerism society and expect to grow domestic markets if you don't pay anyone a wage that can spend. Succumbing to trickle-down economics has proven time and time again stagnant markets. It's math folks, basic equations that result in a positive number or a negative one. Let me change the subject and describe the judgment where we begin to go wrong by citing the media's coverage of the republican convention. "I didn't hear a single commentator mention the way Trump, in full furrowed frown and eyes narrowed to slits, would step back from the podium after a pronouncement during his speech and let the roars wash over him. I for one had never seen an American politician make that self-aggrandizing gesture, and I have seen a whole lot of political speeches. Why is this important, and why should some pundit have noted it? Because Trump’s is precisely the posture you see in films of Hitler and Mussolini speechifying. Precisely: The Great One accepting the servile gratitude of the crowd while he strikes the pose of an unappeasable god. We haven’t had that gesture in a democracy. Now we do." That's a vivid reminder to the complacency of the media to do a critique of a legitimate party candidate running for the highest office in the land. Only one journalist made this observance after pointing out that only one on the air journalist made any attempt to solidify how ridiculous the whole spectacle was. One! People are in shock and scared to say anything in fear of being beaten into submission with repetitive tweets or full blown press conferences. Bias is strategy with this candidate and he is using it to demonize a basic liberty. We are supposed to question statements and claims for truth and compare how that fits into reality, but with a reality tv host we won't even do that? In contrast, this is how journalists cover the competitors nomination: " They’re stories of how Hillary has never been able to sit idly by in the face of injustice. Those stories … are all true. That’s why she’s hated. It wasn’t just the people who supported better facilities, genuine opportunities, and greater equality that noticed Hillary. She was just as obvious to the people who didn’t want those things. They started early throwing obstacles in her way, not because she was incapable, but because she was so very, very capable. For forty years, she’s been shouldering aside not just screams of “lock her up” and cries of traitor, not just Bengahzi and email and a hundreds different “gates,” but claims that she did everything from stealing the White House furniture to murdering an old partner." "But if Hillary hasn’t let all those individual attacks slow her, and she’s not going to let the accumulated weight stop her now. She has to move forward without wasting her time trying to fight the fog of lies." "70 percent of Donald Trump’s statements as “mostly false” or worse, while Hillary rates only 28 percent in those categories, Hillary isn’t going to fight on the ground where the Republicans want her to fight. She’s not going to spend three months fighting four decades of lies." On another Note, Thursday July 28th should be highlighted for the definition of Religious Liberty to be clarified. During an appearance at the Democratic National Convention, "Khizr Khan Helped Democrats Take Back Religious Liberty." “In this document,” he said, holding up his pocket Constitution, “look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” Liberty and equality: Two constitutional guarantees that are intertwined and interdependent, each building on the other, each a critical component of freedom in a democracy. “Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?” Khan continued. “Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America. You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.” In essence, pointing out the fact that people's belief is sacred in that it is an essential freedom to choose the core values that's guides one's own life choices and it has nothing to do with culture or religion. This is a stark and powerful reminder that not only does the current populism component promote a narrow world view, but this type of separatist message is uniquely disqualifying and on the verge of un-patriotic. That is a huge goal achieved in that an immigrant that has acquired citizenship and then lost a child in a heroic act fighting the very enemy proposed by the political opposition can challenge the party's nominee to examine the law which his son gave his life to defend and realize it is the exact opposite in understanding of what the candidate claims it is. This is the dangerous know nothingism of the right that has claimed a real victim today in the form of a political leader and the mass that will follow him to our doom.

You Built that Expletitive

I'm going to talk about myself in this piece and it's not to grandstand or make my lifestyle or choices the central theme of this blog entry. I need to acquiesce my acceptance of nomenclature of what it means to be successful yet remain passionate about moral values and less antiquity. When I was a very young man, my father provided examples for me to work hard. I wasn't raised in poverty per say, but rather from the enlistment of my father's participation in the Vietnam War and later his education, he provided me with a framework of principles & moral standards that I still use today. My dad once said, "In those days you went to war or to college and I wasn't rich, so I went to war." Now let's look at that statement and consider that were talking about. This is in 1957 and I feel it's an excellent example of an era that signifies the past great industrialized era of our country. Back then, to be a member of a minority was to be poor. That was it there was no equal rights even though civil rights were in they're developmental stage of becoming reality, you were poor and their was no class divide. The only divisions were you were poor black or white and even other race, but you were all poor. With this thought in mind, you can imagine that being shipped thousands of miles from home to another country where entire swaths of nationalities were either living in bedlam or utopia, you were acclimated to assimilate to new surroundings. I bring this up because it seems to be the point that is missing in today's society. Were living in times of division and chaotic discourse in society yet no one seems to be speaking up about these issues from a historical stand point that seems to provide any reasonable solution. So in attempt to put forth some plausible reason, I'm going to use my upbringing as an example of how hard work and determination really do pay off not just in lifestyle or worldview, but in moral & ethical standards. My dad is a veteran. He came home to citizens of his own country spitting in his face for serving his country. "You were alone," were his words. He was referring to the way the officers and enlisted men and women traveled. He mentioned that from the foreign countries they were together in groups, but once entering the United States, they split up and traveled alone not to bring attention to themselves as veterans returning from an unpopular war. He quietly returned home and worked. He eventually went to college to receive his education and return home again to serve his tribe. This where I point out that my upbringing was a little different from others because of my father's experience. He rose through the ranks of laborers and eventually became an innovator of programs that matched others skills & abilities with labor they were qualified for. In this part of his life, say around the late sixties to the mid seventies is when my sister and I were brought up. I was born in 1969 and it's the year the U.S. put a man on the moon. I always remember my dad working. He built things with his hands and we were always going outside to put something together or work in some fashion. My memories of hot summer afternoons and working until the sun went down are the most impacting to my life, as I have no doubt that it is the core principle instilled in my mentality and approach towards life. I belief you get what you work for. That in itself is a simple concept that was the example of my upbringing. If you wanted something, you worked for it. I never have been afraid of hard work because in my mind there was always a pay off for one's efforts. It didn't matter if you just had the satisfaction of sweating profusely or developed callused hands, but there was a level of satisfaction that came through achieving something. One of the most vivid memories I have in this time of my life were the other people I learned from besides my dad. My father was a real cowboy and we lived on a reservation, so he was an Indian Cowboy. Some people might not know what I'm talking about, but for those that might not understand it was the idea that you have the mentality of grit and pure toughness. The added the dynamic of being humiliated because of your race or the color of skin tends to add understanding to what I'm talking about. These men in my life associated to me a lifestyle that had a very profound impact on my outlook. Complaining wasn't a thing anyone ever did on a regular basis. A lot of decisions were made out of necessity rather than convenience. The world was tough, but you had to be tougher if you wanted to survive, so that is foundation of my experience at a very young age. My dad didn't want me to go to the military. Well, I had health problems, so it wasn't a reality for me to do that anyway. He provided a strong structure of discipline and communication that can only be characterized by results. This is the way life was you didn't appeal to higher authority if things weren't to your taste or convenience. You sucked it up and dusted yourself off and moved on. Today we live in a touchy feely society where everyone is entitled. I have come across this many times in my life and have always just ignored it because it never seemed to be a viable option. For me, that was just something other people did as last resort whenever they couldn't get what they wanted through their own efforts. Eventually, I started to realize that some people operated that way and that is just how they viewed the world. If you don't quite understand, I'm happy for you, but if you don't it's the idea that the world owes you something or that there is some benefit your missing out on because someone else is keeping it hidden from you or out of your reach. I'll come back to it later. The point is that my perspective relies on what can only be determined as a self made man. My thoughts are simple be respectful of others and treat people the way you want to be treated. I didn't make those points of view up because they were instilled into me from a very young age. Fast forward some 35 years and today the world is confusing. I left the country briefly in 1986 to go to China. I went to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and then Canton, China which is in the middle of the Asian continent by the Great Wall. The things I saw impacted me greatly from an overall view on life. I would encourage anyone if given the opportunity to leave the United States and travel somewhere in the world. Just being exposed to other cultures and nationalities gives you an open view on society as a whole. You come to appreciate everything you have ever taken for granted. For example, today we have this wedge between institutionalized law enforcement & the public safety. To serve communities is to take a vested interest in said community and walk around introducing yourself to people and getting to know specific details about areas under your responsibility. Now going back to a concept of respect & dignity for yourself and others, it's simple in my mind that when you fail other people, you fail yourself. It is your job & duty to communicate ideas and concepts that allow for open and fair discussions in your everyday activity. I'm going back to an old traditional style of thinking here in that if you take pride in your work your effort will be undeniable. I bring it up because in foreign countries the military is the law enforcement and they are not expected to be civil and obedient to societies standards. They answer only to their superiors and that's it. The general rule of thumb in other countries is don't step out of bounds and you will be okay. Now That's a very brief description. You have to understand what I mean by don't step out of bounds because it applies to your behavior including the words you say. Etiquette is a good social skill to have in western society, but the whole world is not like our experience in a democracy where you have inalienable rights. In other countries if you speak out about your personal opinion on leadership or government, you simply disappear. I'm not using scare tactics to make a point, but it's a well known fact that political asylum only applies to those who carry valuable information. It's just like I described the days of minorities pre civil rights era, everyone was poor and there was no difference. That means if your a journalist or the off spring of someone rich & powerful you might have a chance of surviving a kidnapping or some other form of being physically detained, but if your nobody you just disappear in some foreign countries. So taking that matter into fact, why do you think so many people risk their lives to come to the United States? Think about it when I say entitlement and appreciating your life here in this country. I brought up my father's service in the military because of his effort and every single person that has served in the armed forces currently or in the past is the reason we have the freedoms we enjoy. Speaking openly against your leaders is a privilege in this country and although you have the right to speak your mind openly there are still consequences to inciting hatred & vitriol into society. Pitting citizens against law enforcement and races against each other is not civilized behavior. Chanting "Lock her up," at a political convention is not rallying the supporters of a free society. I can go on and on, but it would be the equivalent of preaching to the choir in a blog entry. I have some extremists in my friends list. They are kept there on purpose, so that I know that my bias and rhetoric is kept to an acceptable level of reason and understanding. I come from a background of do it yourself and get it done mentality. There are no short cuts in my book there are no scape goats in my thinking. If you act outside of the boundaries of law, you pay the price, but today I watched a lady, a school teacher get yanked out of her car and thrown against a pickup truck before she was thrown to the ground by a man with a badge and a gun that was at least three times bigger than her. She's been quiet about this for a month and finally she's getting the chance to have that incident brought to light because of all the other incidents proceeding it. Now she's alive and has video evidence of the incident. Sure she was screaming and flailing about through the whole video, but who wouldn't be? It's like I said, in other countries you don't get a choice you just disappear. Is that what the leaders that are pitting one race against the other are proposing? The onslaught of build a wall and kick everyone out sounds like a return to the 50's to me, is that what were proposing? Are we considering turning back the hands of time 66 years? The candidate that gave a speech yesterday took his outline from 1962. He had the option to pivot to the center for a major political election, but he decided to go full Mussolini in front of the whole world. Today David Duke released a video declaring his candidacy for senate. He credited his opportunity to run for office because of the success of the previous candidate I mentioned. For those who don't know who David Duke is he is the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan a white supremacist group. The men that I talk about that fought and died for this country would never let anything like this happen, so the question is how do people who are entitled that never worked for anything get to the point that they want everything and don't want others to exist? That's the question I think a lot of people are asking today and if they are not than they are perhaps unaware or scared. It's our job as decent human beings to recognize threats to our future and the safety of others. This type of rhetoric isn't political grand standing it's inexplicable. The dark soul of the real American heritage has been awakened in the form of bias, prejudice & superiority. It doesn't matter that the man leading the charade isn't even a politician. The system of checks and balance is off kilter because in reality these snake oil salesman have been setting up the conditions for this to happen for at least three decades. Divide and conquer America and sell off the rest has been the goal all this time and that spectacle of a public gathering solidified it's legitimacy. All I can think is the metaphor of music when it comes to the conclusion of the convention. The Rolling Stones was one if not the greatest rock bands of all time. The songs they became famous for were taken from jazz and rhythm & blues artists of the south. These artist were African American. The Rolling Stones didn't know where the songs originated from, but after many years of success acknowledged the roots of the music and made effort to bestow the credit of the music's source to the rightful owners. America was never discovered. It was home to millions of Native Americans for centuries. It's destruction and rebuilding was provided by immigrants of all nations from all over the world. This is the last frontier. If you destroy this nation and everything it stands for there is nothing left to destroy and rebuild. We the people have the right to live given to us by god and no other. Rather if your Christian or Catholic or Protestant or Methodist you have freedom of religion. Anybody in their right mind would recognize that those words were hateful and meant to destroy anyone who didn't agree. That's your monster conservatives, "You Built that!"

Note to Consider

Yeah camaraderie that's what it's called. I wasn't really good at that when I was in school. Although, I wasn't anti-social or anything I guess I never valued it as much as I do now. I think when I was young I was so focused on results for myself. When I hear parents talk about their children and grades, I understand the value of grades, but I never pushed myself when I was that age. That's an important part of learning. Now I pay attention to what I do because others are watching. The youth go through different challenges today and I try to see myself in their shoes. I read a lot in order to have the right words to say. Speaking of teachers, I respect the people I work with. In order to properly represent our culture, we seek mentors. I find it kind of funny because guys like me and others are the last people I would've guessed to be examples because we were athletes. I didn't care about expression of ideas until I saw it hindered. The first time it occurred to me is when I was in a position to help others. For instance, remember that gal from Spokane who was the leader of the NAACP? She was exposed for not being African American. I thought that was so hypocritical of anyone to criticize her. This lady worked her butt off for the issues. At least that was my opinion. When I saw the pictures of her when she was younger, it was pretty obvious she wasn't a minority. Isn't that like gender confusion or something? Instead of her sexuality it was her race. She identified with people of color. Lawyers, Doctors, professionals from all walks of life have done it before. The worlds so dedicated to political correctness. Like were watching each other so closely. I'm implored daily with readings on interpersonal communications. It probably doesn't help that I focus on race. Nine times out of ten that's the problem. Actually, I'm going to correct myself because it's class & stature relations that's the problem. I reverse course on that thought because even within different cultures and classes, the disparity between rich & poor is wide. Race is represented, but based on our biggest differences become about our economic status, otherwise how could an Anglo Saxon become the spokesperson for the colored people? We all tend to retreat to our comfort zone when challenged. Take Sarah Palin for instance, a momma grizzly that can see Russia from her porch. She's a great example of what I'm discussing. A great image on the surface until a person starts looking past all the pageantry. I was really impressed when she came on the scene. That admiration quickly turned into head scratching though because she started out good, but suddenly she couldn't even tell us what books she had read. She defended herself by saying reporters are looking for the moment of opportunity with Gotcha! Questions. I thought naming an author is hardly scandalous. What's funnier is when Rick Perry couldn't tell us the three branches of government he would eliminate if he became president. I kind of went into the supporting evidence afterwards concerning his credentials. You see if a person is legitimate and discusses these issues on a regular basis, they are deeply familiar with the details. Sarah, not having read a book and Perry promising to end a government program that he can't even name is an all-time low in intelligence. That's the type of ignorance scares me. I keep these subjects in my blog to remind myself that qualification to be commenting on a subject requires that one should first know the subject. I know I write progressive rhetoric and that's the concept that I'm going for. I figure if I can motivate people to resist demagogues than it's an indication of proper messaging. I picked that narrative because this state is split in opposite and opposing parties. On the west side are Urban idealist and the like and out here we have all red state folk. I figure if I can thrive amongst the opposite political types eventually I can take serious analysis into my own parties agenda and eventually implode stereo types. I think that's the point of modern activism because obviously the status quo isn't looking out for anyone, but themselves. I need someone to examine the mechanics of my words though. Just like the political figures who stumble and fall, if I don't do my homework, I can fail at writing. I don't have expertise to organize my thoughts into language, so I'm just kind of free styling without judgment.. Punctuation is key, but framing the sentences is critical in being able to articulate a message. Command of the facts help to obtain credibility. Anyone can mangle the English language like a fifth grader, but it's the art of persuasion that I pay attention to. I don't worry about plagiarism because I feel the flaws in writing are an obvious indication the words are my own, but I do copy my favorite authors style. Sherman Alexie was my best friend's neighbor in our youth. He had health issues, so we weren't allowed to play outside. His mom was vital in instructing him. His life was quite tragic yet for a Native it was typical. Now he's one of the most recognized writers for the type of books he writes. I think the key is his style. He speaks truth from the heart yet he dramatizes the narrative. He's giving the reader basic facts of life on the reservation, but he creates interesting characters to draw you in. I know because I recognize them in real life. They are based on real people who are not that interesting. I can see that it's from our particular perspective or viewpoint that we don't find our own lives peculiar, but when we expose our reality to outsiders the opposite is true. I like George Will to. The waves of controversy he sent across the political spectrum by leaving the G.O.P. is an indication of lowering the bar. People are into tearing down political figures in this era and it's no different than the French revolution or America fighting for independence. These are full time operations with think tank recommendations bordering on ridiculous. I can imagine social scientists are working around the clock like during the Cold War. Manipulation of public opinion is big business. I think that's my caveat in notoriety. We tolerate some questionable behavior in order to get a glimpse on how the mind works. Although it's the outrage of peddling ignorance, if it wasn't for the scandal & outrage, I wouldn't have reason to push back. I think all educated people are probably looking to dissolve the current state of ignorance ever present in America. Cool heads will prevail, but we have to fight these arguments one at a time. Things like inventing your own math need to go away, as well as inventing your own facts. It's not a repudiated attack on disseminated information , but it's definitely a proclamation to hold the uninformed accountable. Basically what I want to achieve is that when I write an opinion piece academics will instantly recognize the scholastic influence and improve the argument. Today I read a piece on ,"Opioid of the Masses," referring to the decay of moral fiber in hometown citizens. This quote caught my eye, “We’re expected to be shepherds to these children, but they’re all raised by wolves.” those wolves are here. There not coming in from Mexico, not prowling the halls of power in Washington or Wall Street, but here in ordinary American communities and families and homes. The indication that folks are turning on each other in that statement is reality. We setup a strawman in the form of an oppressor, but it's us who are attacking one another. What type of example is that for children or what can we say for ourselves in front of the elders. Sentiment is everything when concerned with the state of affairs, but where is our morality? That is why I am combing through the past to find the evidence of our future. Influence is the commodity were peddling like a street market produce supplier. In order to sell your product, people need to see the value in what you're saying. Right now the Semitism (accountable) is present. The racial slurs are thriving and the suspicion of each other is growing like a tumorous lung puffing on a cigarette. United We stand and divided we fall. We all know the words by heart, but have we ever stopped to consider the message. I will borrow the words of James Comey, current F.B.I. director immediately after the takedown of George W. Bush's domestic spying program, “We know that our actions, and those of the agencies we support, will be held up in a quiet, dignified, well-lit room, where they can be viewed with the perfect, and brutally unfair, vision of hindsight. We know they will be reviewed in hearing rooms or courtrooms where it is impossible to capture even a piece of the urgency and exigency felt during a crisis,” adding that such pressure made reasoned thinking all the more necessary: “‘No’ must be spoken into a storm of crisis.” I also borrowed this from an anonymous source regarding the blindfold lady justice wears: "The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality." These inspiring words guide our thoughts and just as we were taught to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, One Nation under God Indivisble with Liberty and Justice for all. So in the spirit of independence and celebration of our vast history of turmoil, grownups must lead the charge to bring some civility to our life today. Don't you agree? The pursuit of freedom is not the same as the protection of freedom. When you swear an oath you are prescribing to certain conditions under which sacrificing some alienable rights will assure the safe passage for others. That's the concept being ignored today yet many long for the time when America was great. "Make America Great Again," prescribes to this idea, but without the valor to achieve it. Being that is the substance of our modern day philosophy, it is sham, a doppelganger being used to supply vitriol to the unincorporated and disenfranchised. "The Wolves," come in sheep's clothing to offer themselves as the victim yet they are undisciplined in judgment. They cry, "fair opportunity to have their needs met," yet they are looking to conquer all those who are truly in need. This is moral and ethical question today.. Just ask yourself, Who is to gain from the lessoning of convenient memory? Make lists of those allowed to move about freely? Subjugate monitoring policies for the oppressed? Hasn't history told us what this behavior leads to? Yet there are those that will claim it's needed. Reverse racism isn't a thing. A monolithic system that derides freedom & equality cannot be considered patriotic. Turmoil, blood and civil war are anarchist at best. Feudalism turns a population of tenants into service towards troughs that offer protection. Giving homage as tenets of society while being obliged to live as serfs is not freedom. The American war machine is no longer productive abroad so now it is imploding within. Take Great Britain as example where infighting and referendum have resulted in invoking article 50. Every finalist in the conservative contest for leadership has stated that it is a discussion of the terms in which Britain will leave the European Union. They are very careful not to bring up the fact that it is a negotiation. Now what does that tell you when leaders will not mention the fact that it is a negotiation? It means that fallout from two opposing sides has resulted in chaos & confusion. What is the leading principle we have here in America holding democracy together by a thread? Civility! When civil unrest occurs, civil disobedience follows and that results in a police state ruled by marshal law. Invoking laws and triggering state of emergency is wartime activity within secured borders. Now I must ask, is this the result of political saliently on behalf of the voter or the conservative party? In other words, who is inciting violent protest? Are the voters? I know I see evidence of squirmishes at rallies, but the worst I saw was violence at a KKK rally. Now for whatever the reason the KKK started showing up at political rallies is anyone's guess, but lately the connection between one candidate in America is stoking racial aggression. The statements that violence is acceptable and financial bailout will be available for riot inciters is reprehensible. This is where we are in America. Reasonable debate is no longer the foundation of our democracy. Political Science Majors can and will tell you all of the circumstances in which civil unrest occur. I can make graphs & charts to pinpoint the topics and explain the indicators. I think it's easier if I just state that political tactics have been exhausted to sway public opinion. The microbial adjustment of the needle in public opinion has barely moved in the last eighteen months. News cycle after news cycle produce outlandish claims that every little story has unleashed a torrent of scandal that has devastated the party leaders and yet the polling shows no public opinion has changed drastically. At the conclusion of each week the news is reported, "bombing in some foreign country, shooting in our own and party affiliates tote the line of the establishment as usual." Yesterday, the F.B.I. released a long awaited enquiry into a proposed scandal of epic proportion and what did we learn? No charges will be brought because although negligence has been found, it does not require a criminal charge. This lead to meltdowns and hair pulling by conservatives to cry foul and vow to bring yet another enquiry and spend even more of the tax payer dollars. When does it end? When do the wolves in sheep's clothing become satisfied? Is there anything that fills this void of moral aptitude or ethical examination? I'm not just siding with the liberals here either. Everything they do and say seems to be a calculated move to paint the competition as unreasonable and foolish. The problem is were past the return to sane and professional behavior and it has the public firmly entrenched in a unforeseeable future. Is our next step to wall off our borders and implode from within like Great Britain? What about the outcome of the next election? We haven't seen regular or normal behavior from those required to lead in over thirty odd years. Scandal after scandal after scandal is a waste of energy and frankly compromises the integrity of everyone it touches. The sole purpose of capturing the moral high ground is to help others achieve the same understanding and raise the bar of intellect & education in America. I started this post by mentioning camaraderie & education. I talked about speaking to young people with examples and attitudes that provides good information on how to communicate to others. I chronologically documented the beginning of the downfall in political correctness and attitudes of civil and patriotic unions of allegiance. Apparently in 524 years we've progressed merely an inch in society. With all the technical advancements in communication and science or medicine, we've seem to come to a consensus that our democracy is still just an experiment.

The Do Nothing Sect

The "Do Nothing," sect of the world is under pressure from outside forces to act on many levels within the convenience of stability. I kind of like the way it sounds. In many cases, we see status quo reactions to multiple tragedies and apocalyptic size of events daily and there is this stead-fast section of society that chooses to repeatedly ignore it for selfish reasons. Steady as she goes, leaders may bellow as receding shores of normalcy slip away. I'm referring to violence in America where we see at least thirty or more people killed by gun violence everyday. The cash registers ring and shots ring out time and time again. I guess were just suppose to turn a blind eye towards it and go on with life as usual, but eventually someone has to say, "Enough is Enough!" That's what Democrats are doing sitting on the House of Representatives floor, refusing to move until they get a vote on banning people from purchasing guns that are on a "No fly," list. Now it's been discussed and the No Fly list is a terrible attempt at combating terrorism because it's vague and has no appeals process, so essentially any American could be added to the list without due process. Now the political approach of justifying the protest action is that Democrats know that a vote will never come to pass. The point of the argument is to bring attention to the bills that are under scrutiny for revision or at least an up or down vote. These type of procedures will get elected members on record for their constituents back home to either support these principles or reject them. Now that is pretty powerful movement that is being created because essentially what has been a stalemate of almost a decade of non-action, will turn into many vulnerable candidates this fall. In crucial states, changing a minority to a majority for one political party. What you have is a whole party working together for a common goal and that's a powerful movement considering that the motivation has been lost and stagnant for a least a decade. We've seen the opposing party govern with the credibility of taxi cab driver in a city where no consequences prevail. Essentially the bar has been lowered so badly that now the best of the political candidacy the do-nothing party has to offer, comes from outside their own party. This is a disaster and a bomb-shell of epic proportion for their campaign and most of all their campaign supporters. They are fractionated and it's an every man, woman & child for themselves debacle. The massive movement of Liberal & Progressive power is being centralized around one particular issue and that's Gun Control. This framing of subjects will be a creation of atmosphere for the governing horizon of our country for years to come. Over 90% of the citizenship are in favor of some common sense Gun Control Regulation, so starting with an Anti-Terror/Mental Health gun measure that isn't a full proof plan, but it's a start. My opinion is this, we will at least establish a principle in the marauding field of No Principles and no Action. I waited along time before I decided to comment on these political theatrics because I wanted to review and research the information for accuracy before I stepped into the debate circle. Common Sense is the best measure of action in all situations and what it comes down to is that many areas of leadership, not just here in America, but in the World are being exposed for bigotry and prejudice on an unconscious level. The final straw for me was when I was reading into the Brexit examination of the European country of Great Britain to leave the European Union out of dissatisfaction with it's ability to promote economical growth. What struck me as odd is that the analysis was that The President of the United States submitted a proposal to the leaders of Britain back in April which focused on the Global Security of the world and the tie of the British Empire to the European Union through the UN Security council resolutions and thus the ability to coordinate and remove suspected terrorists from the sections of Europe where no law exists to do so and this was met with a response that essentially said, a descendant of Kenyan ancestry had no business interfering with Anglo-Saxon affairs. Now to be fair, English is an eloquent language and it results as a simple, "Butt Out." Mind you, we have to consider the reason behind the response and it amounts to prejudice. They dismiss his advice because he is black. At the same time when we go back to the debate on Gun Control and the issue at hand is the High Powered AR-15 and other War-time weapons like grenade launchers or High Caliber Rifles with Banana Clips and it's the same argument where it's okay to own these weapons if you are white, but not black. The way to back up the statistics on this claim is to look at state by state population and consider the breakdown in demographic by race. Of course the Southern States have the majority of rights pertaining to guns while the urbanized states have more regulated laws. This goes back to messaging and financial backing of the NRA. So for all intelligent considerations, arguing that common sense proposals and popular ideas have no basis simply because they come from minorities is ridiculous. Nobody cares where these proposals come from, as long as they are approved by the public. That's where the current majority is in trouble because essentially what is being revealed is that a majority doesn't necessarily mean better or sensible. I've been reading some evaluations on constitutional law and to my surprise the founders were aware of the balance of power within government and they built procedures within the Union they were forming to prevent willy-nilly leadership choices like the one's were seeing today. So today we see press releases on Immigration and affirmative action. Coincidence? I think not. What you have is this stir in the media to cover the tracks of their own creation. For at least eighteen months we've seen coverage of presidential candidates dropping one by one and sometimes three at a time to yield to a bully pulpit candidate that has proven by and large that he has no intention on pivoting to the center for a general election and that's where everything began to fall apart. In order to win a general election the candidate must appeal to wide range of voters not just the small fractions that vote in primaries for delegate capture. Essentially, records speak for themselves and the long range game plan is to endorse proposals that Americans accept as their principles. Although I'll admit many politicians will contort any and all language of branding and messaging to fit this picture, the essential check & balances comes into play election time. The scare tactics era has ended because the actual risk of danger has arrived. We are not in fear of having the government taking our guns, we are now in fear that they will allow them to flow into the hands of the wrong people, hence the race against race debate is outdated because we are all targeted for being American. Global Terrorism has taken root right here in America, but not through infiltration or immigration like the opposing party would have you believe, but through recruitment and conversion. On principle, these events are caused by revolting against a campaign of rhetoric proposed by the conservative party and it's blowing up in their face. When you promote racism, sexism and misogyny, the result is an extreme response that is devastating and has disastrous results. Acquittal of bad actors during societal upheaval is not the most attractive result. People are starting to see the risk in the underlying tone of your message. Just as I mentioned British exit from the European union or Brexit as it is tagged. Obama's proposal was not intended to point out favoritism or dogma of an elite society, but to highlight real risks in population security. This resulted in an appeal that came from a fractionated party with the vision that dividing people by color would be fit enough of an exercise to draw weakness into the picture. The problem with that argument is that is the same philosophical argument we are hearing here in America. The debacle is unraveling and those that point the fingers are being revealed as the dividers. Constitutional champions cheer freedom & liberty only when it suits their own agenda. Today we see leaders sitting in protest because the party of freedom & liberty will not consider a debate or any type of vote on a popular privilege such as the Right to bear Arms for fear of what the National Rifle Association will do to them come November. I called it a privilege and the definition sticks if you withhold the ability to own or possess a firearm to only apply to a particular Demographic and that is the fact that is being revealed today. This is neither leadership nor the will of the people in that Newtown, San Bernardino and now Orlando all have happened under the watch of the majority ruling party in both houses. No control measures, means no control and right now anyone can purchase a weapon that has no other effect on civilization other than mass annihilation. Even the inventor of the popular weapon has admitted that the intention of such a powerful firearm is meant for war-time activity, shattering the falsehood that it is used for hunting. So before the break going into the summer, the elected officials will have to dodge questions and run for cover, as they have just entered into a political firestorm of accountability with the added ammunition of having no direction in their fractionated party leadership and a contested nomination in their own candidacy for president. Nobody will get behind a plan that is going nowhere fast and it's an indication of a sinking ship. Every man, woman and child for themselves is not a democracy. In order to own the tragedy of their own making they will need to clarify their stance on the issue and defend their position on the floor of the house. Presently, they won't do that so the tactic of no business going forward until this issue is resolved is at hand. Apparently, blocking any meaningful legislation is not just a one party tactic. In fact, the Democratic party has used this tactic numerous times in the Reagan, Bush years. Once again, my opinion isn't in favor of an elite ideal or a superior art of persuasion, but a simple timing issue. You can be wrong on principle and right in honor of an ideal, but you can't be wrong on principle and wrong on an honorable idea at the same time unless you are blinded by some sort of threat. That is exactly the position these elected officials find themselves into today. On that note, lets go back to look at the European Union and the British Exit again. Russia is the threat as it has been annihilating the eastern European Border for two or three years if not longer. The people who reside to the fascist Divide & Conquer rules, don't seem to understand Global Politics let alone Global Economy. The U.N. isn't only a peacekeeping entity, but a council on trade. Once the British leave the council will they expect the same protection in the form of tariffs and economic trade? It is a common known fact that Great Britain is a world leader in cyber security. On that note, it's not a secret that they remain uncompromised by keeping American based technology such as Apple out of their country. That might be news to some here at home, but No Apple doesn't dominate the world as they would lead you to believe. The point is that it's because of the negotiation and agreements honored with the U.N. security council that G.B. reserves the right to keep out foreign competitors. Now once that's dissolved, so is the protection from competitors and not just in technology, but in banking and finance. So you see, just like it is financial suicide for the Gun Lobby in America to be appear to be against the people it's for or vice versa, it's in G.B. favor to be within the protection of a 28 country participation of understanding. I haven't even begun to question the border to border security or the international waters in that pointing out parliament is in the middle of a meltdown of epic proportion. Okay, so now that I've briefly summarized the Western conflicts let me tackle the obvious. This all relates to destabilization of the middle east and here is the kicker, how did the Persian Gulf and surrounding territories become destabilized? The short answer is, it's been destabilized since the Cold War, but what recent events in the twenty and twenty first century contribute to the mass ongoing conflict that we see today? If your answer is American presence in the region than your pretty close, but if you answered American invasion of Iraq then your correct. Yep, I'm going there. George W. Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember that? The U.N. inspectors found no smoking gun and the American public found out it was all a revenge scheme on Sadam Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. Let's recount, Millions if not Billions of dollars in American funding to the region to go to who? Oh yeah, the defense contractor pals of his dads. Then we have 9/11 and then we have the Great Recession and then we have the Bank Bailout. Should I go on? Then we have the Arab Spring and then we have the fall of Libya and then we have Iran's Nuclear threat and then we have Kim Jung Un. I'm running out of breath here. Then we have Russia!! Then we have Libya and HRC's Bengazhi which is still being investigated I might add longer than 9/11 without a smoking gun. Meanwhile in America, you can purchase a weapon anywhere that is meant for those conflicts and attack people based on rhetoric that one particular Political Party is peddling today and guess what? They won't even keep the C-SPAN cameras on to cover what the other party is doing so the American public knows what is going on!! I think that about covers it. Did I forget to mention Donald Trump wants all Muslims under surveillance and to arrest those that "Might," have information on others. And… He's out of money. And… He's suddenly meeting with evangelical leaders to figure out a plan going forward. Plus he just gave a speech that cements his position in knowing nothing about any or all of the subjects that I just covered. Oh, one more thing. It was all his campaign managers fault, so the Donald got to utter his own famous words, "Yur Sooo Fired!" except he had his kids do it. What a Bastard.

Media

I've been noticing something in the media and online that has been happening for quite sometime, but now it's getting to the point that it's so obvious I think it's time to say something. It will come as no big surprise that my big disclosure is that the Media is lying. It use to be every now and then you find discrepancies in facts and figures, but that went out the window along time ago. The kind of lies I am referring to are falsehoods on face value right from the get go and they just build one story after another on the same premise. I was even on a local website and found in the comments section a moderator's reply to a comment that the whole story was false and I remember thinking the employee for the news outlet sincerely believes in the integrity of the released article, but she fails to admit to herself the whole story was based on an opinion rather than fact. I think the story was about crime and the stats read just like you would expect them to where minorities were the major focus of the entire report. I think what the point is that Media has a target audience. I'm not going to say its reported disproportionately, but the bias stands out. You can ask me for instance, "How can a news story based on statistics be biased?" In a liberal site comments about mishandled allegations and investigations are at the forefront of the story. On a conservative stream the same story will add extra information about crime repeated in the same location or attempt to connect one year to the next. I think to myself, "We get it. Stay away from that area because it's a high crime area." That's what I mean by journalism being biased. If certain facts are accepted, why report them consistently to a targeted audience? What I mean is if your in a suburban area and the story is about an inner city urban area what relevance does the story propose to your area? If you go downtown they don't have stories running about grass clippings and the fed ex man being late, do they? You see how my tone changed a little bit there? Well that's what I mean about news stories is that it's slight, but it's noticeable. I keep a steady stream of news feeds for entertainment value. You see it's my personal opinion that most media outlets consider themselves real and legitimate news sources. For local news I watch regular programming. For national news, I enjoy public broadcasting or free journalism that is funded by public funding. News for profit is a steady stream of crux & additive that doesn't really seem to stand out as opinion pieces, but they are. I also use Yahoo News. I open a reader everyday and have just come to accept that all the stories have an agenda, so I read them that way. It's one thing to realize all news is released this way, so I keep twenty or so feeds with a mix of Liberal to conservative reputably good sources on hand. If I want to see a story from different perspectives, I just switch resources and read the same story. It's pretty predictable to observe talking points. I can read Supreme Court case issued in a story from conservative sites. I can read the same story from liberal media outlets. I like to keep a couple of radical sites on hand also. It's like balance between the two extremes. Isn't that funny? I just told you the secret to knowing the difference between news and infotainment is looking at extreme websites. Take for instance the local media story about crime. It gets interesting when you go to radical sites and read the same story. Make no mistake there is no more middle ground and there hasn't been for quite some time. Fair and balanced news is a thing of the past and if a media outlet is claiming it, it's a falsehood unless they are publicly funded and you will hear how other sources claim that public funded journalism is slanted. I'll admit that I know that because free journalism is not free, asking for donations and running stories will be a major feature of the news, but it's not the prepackaged opinion we see on profit sites. News is delivered the same way a favorite food snack is. If they were to modify the ingredients, it would change the flavor more than likely to the distaste of the consumer, so it doesn't happen. You ever notice how Nielsen Ratings aren't emphasized the way they use to be? Now every outlet has their own survey and publicist management firm watching every detail of viewership. They can monitor a twitter or a Facebook site for likes and dislikes as the story is broadcasting. For lack of a better word, it would be bad programming to do it any other way in today's instant feedback era. Consumerism use to be a power that the consumer controlled. It use to be well regarded considering choice and personal preference. Now corporate strength and branding dictates the product and availability. For example, think of an iphone. Consumers will stand in line for hours to purchase it. It's the allure of the limited availability and it's considered a status symbol. Well that's the way the media works only the dictator of choice is not the consumer, but the advertiser. It's the basic concept of money in journalism. If revenue dips then changes are made. If shares climb and it is after all a market science, more variety is added to appeal to a larger audience. So what have you learned from this little discussion so far? Money bad, journalism good? Well it's not that simple. You see I'm engaging in journalism right now. I'm laying out an organized set of information for you the viewer to decide and discover an opinion of your own. The difference in my presentation considers how to phrase the information and it involves a technique of narrative. In a fact finding article, I would propose an overall question at the beginning and re-enforce the fact that I am searching for answers throughout encouraging you to participate. In an opinion piece, I would make a statement and produce evidence that supports the statement and add a conclusion that more than likely would appeal to my audience. This is the major difference between to types of journalism,op-ed opinion and reporting. The line between the two has not disappeared, but the grey area has been replaced with agenda. For instance, let's look at stories of the national presidential election. It occurs to me that the Phenomenon of Outsider versus the Establishment is the overall dominate theme. Candidates in both parties claim several policy platforms to convince the voter they are either for the established government policies or they are against them. Media and news outlets amplify this message on a broad scale throughout the campaign. Without leaning towards one candidate or the other, let me make a simple statement to test in theory if opinion pieces work better than reporting. In my reporting agenda, I will state that all the candidates are technically politicians because they are participating in a political process. In my opinion piece, I would say one candidate is more original in the debate because they propose platform ideas that do not conform to the usual agenda. In both examples I am not biased and I am not attempting to influence the viewer. Where that becomes a clear direction of informing and influencing changes depending on where I go from the beginning. Of course campaigns are several month if not years in the making. The political landscape shifts from time to time and from one location to the other. So in essence the coverage of these campaigns has become a market in itself. What media corporation covered it the most and what strategy did they use to cover it? Is it specific according to the media's audience or it's contributors? See I put back on my journalism hat and asked you to decide. The point I'm trying to make is that revenue flowing in the media circle inherently provides incentive to keep a carnival atmosphere alive during the campaign. It's an evolving story that has characters and narrative riddled throughout the campaign. One candidate has several news stories following every state by state result, as do others but one more so than others. Why do you think that is? For the most part, you might reply because it's an important part of the news story, but in my opinion it's to keep the viewer tuned in. I only have to say the first letter starts with "B," and it rhymes with Ozzie and everyone instantly knows what I'm talking about. So on the other side, we have another contributing story line that goes something like this, the candidate speaks plainly and that appeals to the voters. I would have to say that's also a factual statement that keeps viewers tuned in. Both of these narratives are not exceptional. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. The only difference is that it's being escalated to the point of confusion and chaos. Were seeing mass protest and violence. I would ask at this time, is this fueled by the candidate or the media? You can decide that answer, but I'm in the opinion it's both one working off the other. Both candidates are exceptional in the area of media spin and the media is more than happy to spin in all directions for both candidates. To me, that does not conform to the practice of informing the viewer. Actually it contributes to uniforming the viewer because we never learn anything new. The narrative is false other than it creates hype by being repeated over and over again by the media. This is what has become a common place in our news today and on that fact it's a spectacle. It's not about who can gain the public's confidence anymore. It's about who can scream louder during a chaotic event. The media is creating the chaos because it's good for business and it's their business, but what ever happened to the consumer's choice or the consumer's power? Really folks think about what were talking about here. We don't even vote in primary elections, so why are we counting results like it matters? The only vote that counts is the delegate results in which two parties of the establishment choose a nominee to run in the general election. Even then our vote doesn't count because there is the popular vote and then the real vote. I'm not telling anyone to not vote, don't get me wrong. I'm just reporting the facts. So what do we do about this situation? How do we get straight forward journalism out of this election? For one, I believe we have to realize it's about consumerism and we need to get money out of politics. I think about my elementary days where I learned the pledge of allegiance and I don't recall reciting the words, "I pledge allegiance to the Dollar Sign of whatever corporation is funding me at this moment," so why would we allow are leaders to pledge that? Did you vote for Citizens United? Me either, just in case you don't know what that is it's the court case decided by the Supreme court that essentially defines campaign contributions as Freedom of Speech. It officially legalized Super Pacts where millions if not billions of dollars can be contributed to politicians without a public record of where the money came from. It's Dark money and it leads to nowhere because of the following: "Nonprofit 501(c)4 Social Welfare Organizations. Also often referred to as Super PACs, although not actually Political Action Committees at all, are instead IRS recognized 501(c)4 Tax Exempt Social Welfare Organizations formed for the purpose of improving the Social Welfare of society." Did you get that? Not actually Political Action Committees at all. To add insult to injury, contradictory language with emphasis: "formed for the purpose of improving the Social Welfare of society." Okay that sounds great right? No, because the Supreme Court decided that an institution, a PAC (political action committee) has the same rights as a person. So what does all this have to do with the media? It's simple, dark money and elections are cousins recognized legally now. Media Corporations are owned by Dark Money, hence news coverage is not reporting at all because it's just one 24 hour 365 days a year endorsement of an election cycle. Leaders no longer lead they take turns submitting resumes to corporations to in turn cut tax breaks for them. We the people, the real citizens are not united because the media keeps us divided. It's not rocket science and now that were at a place no other country in the history of the world has more dictatorship than us right now. Think the "Panama Papers," but out of the forty richest people in the world, most of them have investments in the United States. The U.S. is for sale my friends and it always has been. Politicians scream about China and scream about Russia and scream about Saudi Arabia, but where do you think all this dark money comes from? It's theater my friends and we don't get to be the audience because were the extras in the drama. Look at the news stories and tell me who the citizen is today. The voter is the actor and the politician is the director. It use to be the other way around, but through years of legal wrangling and erosion to citizen rights, we've been reduced to pawns in a spectators game where there is no referee and no rules. Anything goes and the worse the better. I don't know about you, but that's not the kind of revolution I had in mind. I Kind of got away from my initial point because the best example of how the Media Lies is in politics. Reporting use to be about information and the transfer of knowledge. It's not about the scoop anymore, but it's about getting scooped or duped whatever you prefer. There is a name for it. It's called, "the Low Information Voter." I ask myself, "How does one become a low information voter?" Currently, if you accept anything on the internet or watch general programming, you will be a low information citizen. That's just how it is and if you care to test this theory, do your own investigation. What you will find is that even after you make an effort to unearth reliable information, you will need to discern if the information is presented with an agenda in mind. I blame this sort thing on the education system. That might sound like a stretch, but hear me out on this one. In my day, education wasn't so much about finding the answer, but teaching the student on how to find the answer. Today and for a long time now, teachers teach to the test. Students are evaluated on answers and not process. In my opinion, that doesn't encourage development because it measures compliance. Think about it. If you are given the answers to a test throughout the school year and you do homework on those answers all year long, what have you learned? You've learned how to follow direction and you will be tested on it. That measures compliance not knowledge. By not teaching students to solve problems, the result is adults that don't investigate and follow the media at it's word. They don't question what information is given and they don't investigate the topics. When you research subjects not only do you find answers, but you find the process used to find answers. That is what leads me to declare the media is manipulating the public for the benefit of sponsorship which makes sense in a capitalist society, but not so much when it comes to freedom of choice and the Democratic principles. We often think, "One man, one vote," and that is a good value to self government, but this blatant theatrical display is a spectacle and a fraudulent contortion of American Exceptionalism. Billionaires buying votes is not a Democracy and it doesn't matter who is buying because this country and it's principles are not for sale. Tell that to the media and the Oligarchs. Values are based on perception and since were coming out of a recession and gone through 63 months of job growth with an added 9.3 million jobs since February of 2010, you would have to investigate the facts and consider the perspective. The overall message according to the statistics is that the American Economy is still recovering. I'm not going to speculate on how much or how fast in that the facts claim recovery. Now if you listen to the media and to be precise if you listen to the conservative media, this administration is the worst the United States has ever seen. The dogma of politics has gone completely out the window. We've gone from speculative to exaggerated to pretty much false reporting in the last eight years. The media could have lied to make it sound better than it is or they could lie and say it's worse than ever before, but the fact of the matter is that they lied to pursue their own agenda. It doesn't matter who wins or who loses anymore because it's about the game not the outcome. As long as anyone with a legal & moral agenda can point to some misinformation and be protected because they can claim that they were unaware that the information was incorrect, we have ourselves a lying contest. It use to be that this sort of behavior was rejected and extinguished from the information spectrum, but as long as their is a consumer audience for it, it's justified. Selective hearing is the new accepted behavior and not because the audience prefers it, but because selective reporting is the only information available. Now you can dismiss that statement if you want to, but consider that in a Left wing versus a Right wing confrontation one of the think tanks has to convince the public the other is lying. In this situation, stating the truth is no longer persuasive enough. It's like lying is infinite phenomenon. In order to uproot the deception, you have to prove the supporting evidence is false. In most cases that would be sufficient, but we rely on media to do that for us and in this case there isn't an entity out in the information super highway available to debunk an fact check a decade worth of misinformation that has the opposing audience as a base. They spent years reinforcing dogma and rhetoric that keeps their audience riled up and loyal. This goes for both liberal and conservative news groups. Over the years, we've seen everything from hiring and firing scandal infotainment chess matches to Brian Williams admitting he wasn't in a helicopter near active military engagement. He was there, but he wasn't near a fire fight light he claimed he had been. So what would be the reason for a normally honest and legitimate news anchor to make such a false claim? If you guessed, "For the story," you are absolutely correct. It proves the point that nothing is off limits or safe. Speculative journalism has replaced reporting. This isn't news and it by far isn't new. Integral values went the way of manual dial rotary phones and T.V. channels. It's push a button preference. Speaking of preference, it makes me wonder "Are we to blame for our own world view?" It's a well known practice that in order to perfect a message it has to be practiced over and over again to maintain delivery of the statement to create a core belief or a value. In that regard, what is the underlying message or value? What is the single most integral part of the practice we see concerning the news and media today? If you answered scandal than you get a prize. What is it called today? Tabloid Journalism? Think about it if a news report once legitimate coverage they opt to release to a tabloid journalism outlet first. TMZ or Brietbart's online media is the medium where people go to first because as crazy as it may seem those once radical news sites are the most reliable today. Like I said in the start of this writing that you have to keep some radical sources available because from there you can get started right away into looking at what might be fact, fiction or speculation. To give you an example, yesterday there was a story about Iran claiming that Kim Kardashian is a spy. Funny as that sounds, all the news outlets picked up the story. Now the liberal sites treated it like it was a joke because more than likely it wasn't meant to be taken seriously but to just to drive traffic to any site that picked up the story, so it might have been a social experiment to see how fast the news would travel simply because of the name or maybe it was a manipulation to test a theory of American Journalism. Whatever the take, it goes to show that outside agitators are aware of this phenomenon I'm mentioning that American news media is an extension of some sort of social political theatrics. All I'm asking, is what is driving those theatrics?