What a positive, uplifting song, with a message we can all learn from. In this day of hate, hurt and hopelessness, we need more positive messages and upbeat music.
Watch this video!
“And there is a battle raging in your heart, but you must win.
It comes for all of us saying we are not enough.
So fight for your life; the world’s gonna try to sell you some lies.
No matter what you’ve been through, here you are,
No matter if you think you’re falling apart,
Last week’s Supreme Court decision was short.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Calling it a “frustrating and heartbreaking setback,” President Obama continued to make believe the SCOTUS decision was about immigration and not about Executive Branch overreach.
We are not going to analyze the 5th Circuit Court opinion that was upheld last week. We have done so in the past. You can read it here if you would like. In short, the 5th Circuit held (and its holding was upheld by the Supreme Court last week) that Obama acted extra-constitutionally in seeking to grant deferred action and work permits to up to 4 million illegal aliens, which is in addition to the nearly 1 million he had already approved. He had no authority to change or interpret laws in violation of current law, just because he didn’t like what Congress had or had not done.
Obama says it’s about providing a kind landing spot for poor immigrants who happened to enter the United States illegally. He says that anyone who opposes his actions is unkind, racist and anti-immigrant.
He is lying to you. Let’s repeat something – he is lying to you.
Obama knows well that his actions were illegal and unconstitutional. He took those actions anyway. Just as with Obamacare, he sought to get the Supreme Court to make up law allowing him to act in opposition to the Constitution.
Beware folks. These actions are not unique to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton will act the same way. Donald Trump has said he will do the same – that if Congress doesn’t act, he will. What is being attempted, and allowed, by both parties is the usurpation of Article I of the Constitution, illegally transferring such Legislative Branch authority to write bills and pass laws to the Executive Branch. It’s not new; it’s been going on for many years. Obama has just been very overt in his actions, while seeking to sound as though he’s just looking out for all the struggling little guys outside of Washington. It will be no more right or wrong with the next president, Democrat or Republican.
Do not be fooled by the talking heads and the politicians who say that the Supreme Court has just taken an anti-immigrant stand. The Supreme Court has upheld constitutional law and authority by reminding the president of the balance of powers.
Hey! Yes, you. Don’t look around. You! It’s time for some straight talk. Right now.
It’s time to listen to the voice of reason. Stop what you are doing. Stop what you are listening to. Take a breath. Listen. You’ll hear it. That voice of reason is calling out to remind you of a few very important truths that you may have forgotten.
Yes, that voice. Do you hear it? Do you remember it? Stop; breathe; listen; feel.
Okay, now that you’ve stopped and taken that breath, read the following with open eyes. Listen to what your mind and your heart tell you. Feel, not the “bern,” but what is inside of you.
Is it quiet now? We will now lower our voice so you can concentrate.
You are not defined by a presidential candidate. You are not defined by a political party. You are not defined by the media, the news outlets, activist organizations, the NAACP, ACLU or the NRA.
You are you! You are your family. It’s that simple. Look no further for the proper definition.
Who will be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders? Who knows? Who cares? They are all the same. In spite of the “differences” we keep hearing about, they are basically the same. Each seeks to take from you, in the name of creating a better world, what is so very precious and important – your agency to choose for yourself; your self-worth; your independence; your self-reliance; your destiny; your family values; ultimately, everything – and turn it over to the government, the courts and the media to determine, define and ultimately destroy.
Come now, listen to that voice of reason. You know I am speaking truth. Today’s candidates promise you they will solve all the world’s problems, including yours. Today’s media digitally and electronically define morality solely for their own financial gain; they use beautiful people, images, lyrics and rhythms to draw you into their world, requiring of course that you pay them for the “opportunity” to join their world. Today’s courts define and redefine morals, traditions and laws, enforcing by mandate what a few judges have determined to be the law of the land.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is your voice of reason telling you right now? Is it telling you that what you are reading is 100% correct? I hope so. It matters not what your political leanings are or what faith you practice (or do not practice) – what you are reading is true. Our lives have been hijacked by a relatively small group of greedy, power-hungry individuals and we are following their lead as sheep follow a shepherd. To the slaughter.
Now, stop. Listen again. What can you do about it? Are we destined to just follow blindly and be led down a path created by greedy politicians, companies and people solely to line their pockets with gold? Are we past the point of no return? Must we just follow the crowd because there’s nowhere else to go?
My humble, yet bold, opinion is – NO! What does your voice of reason say?
The center of the world lies not in Washington, or Hollywood, or New York. The center of your world should lie in your home.
Remember your God, your faith, your freedom, your peace, your wives, your husbands, your children, your grandchildren, your communities. That’s what your voice of reason should be reminding you of, what is most important and essential to you.
Are you defined by political parties and presidential candidates? No? Then stop acting like it. Vote for whom you choose in November, but under no circumstances should you allow the next president, the next movie star, the next Fox News or CNN report, the next controversial piece of legislation or the next “landmark” court decision to dictate what you believe, how you treat your fellow citizens, where you stand up for your beliefs, or how you raise your family.
Over the next week, we will be sharing with you some ideas on how to spend the remainder of 2016 (and beyond) so that you do not get caught up in the lie that your problems will be solved by the next president. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, sometime today, turn off the radio, shut off the television, put down your phone. Spend some time with your own voice of reason, not someone else’s. You’ll be amazed what you remember and think about. Then, discuss your realizations and enlightenment with your family members.
Please share this with your friends so we can get a large dialogue started.
For the past year, Donald Trump has been very outspoken about his plan to “build a wall” along the southern border of the United States. His stated goal is to stop illegal immigration. Sounds like a noble endeavor, when looking at it from the northern side of the border. But, Trump has been pummeled ever since with accusations racism and bigotry, especially and most loudly from, not surprisingly, Mexico and Mexicans. In light of the prognostication by Pew Research that Latinos will comprise about 12% of the total electorate in 2016, such accusations do not bode well for Trump’s presidential aspirations.
In spite of what appears to be an across-the-board dislike of Trump by Latinos, he is not swayed in his belief that his is genuinely loved by the Spanish-speaking (or those whose parents and grandparents are Spanish-speaking) populace.
Trump has predicted often in the last year something very similar to what he boldly stated to NBC News last year – “And I’ll tell you something, if I get the nomination, I’ll win the Latino vote.”
Perhaps he truly believes . . .
Perhaps he really does not care and it is all an act . . .
This seems the more likely scenario. If Trump truly wanted to win the Latino vote, he would not have released his plan on how he intends to secure Mexico’s agreement to pay for the wall he says he’ll build.
The Washington Post reported this morning that Trump will “negotiate” Mexico’s cooperation by prohibiting those not legally present in the United States from wiring money to their family members in Mexico. In a 2-page memorandum issued by the Trump campaign to the Washington Post, Trump outlines how an estimated $24 billion in annual revenue would immediately cease to be infused into the Mexican economy through such action. Trump opines that Mexico will immediately object to such measures, but will ultimately agree to fund the construction of the wall.
The Washington Post reports that:
The proposal would jeopardize a stream of cash that many economists say is vital for Mexico’s struggling economy. But the feasibility of Trump’s plan is unclear both legally and politically, and also would test the bounds of a president’s executive powers in seeking to pressure another country.
In the memo, Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to Mexico through money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The threat would be withdrawn if Mexico made “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to pay for the border wall, he wrote.
What do you think? Is this a legitimate action? Or is it extortion?
You can be sure it will be viewed and reported as extortion by Mexico, Mexicans, other Latinos, Univision, Telemundo, the National Council of La Raza, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and any other group that advocates for further “rights” for illegal immigrants inside the United States.
Perhaps you believe such action concerning the remittance of funds to foreign countries to be warranted. Why would a nation seeking to prevent illegal employment of aliens for their illegally-obtained earnings to be sent to another country? An excellent question that can and should be discussed and debated.
But not in the context of forcing Mexico to pay for a wall. And not by a presidential candidate that keeps claiming with his traditional arrogance that he will win the Latino vote.
Whether you believe it is legitimate policy action or not, this proposal certainly will not win Trump the Latino vote he keeps promising. In fact, today’s announcement will push Latinos further and further away from support of both Trump and the Republican Party.
The purpose of this article is not to debate the merits of Trump’s announced plan, but to directly and boldly state that Donald J. Trump cares not a whit about winning the Latino vote, and in fact seeks to push Latino voters further and further away from the Republican Party and traditional conservative voting ideals.
Let’s see if we can be more clear here – Donald J. Trump is not seeking to bring Latinos into the Republican Party, but is seeking to push them to vote Democrat. Plain and simple.
Do you agree or not? Please tell us why. Let’s start a debate on Trump’s real intentions as concerns legitimate conservatives, the Republican Party, and Trump himself.
We’ve long suggested that the GOP is not just a dying party, but on it’s last breath. We wrote on November 7, 2012 an article entitled RIP GOP, republished in part on this website here.
That so many voters believe Trump is the answer to this nation’s woes is just more evidence of the pending death of the Grand Ole Party.
A few weeks back, we published an article here demonstrating that when Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, he really is a socialist, seeking to use democratic channels to secure a more socialist society.
Please reread the article. We believe we were very fair and honest.
Some, however, have suggested otherwise. Rather than respond directly to the individuals who have barraged me with questions in the last 3 days, it seems appropriate to answer here. So, below is the answer we are providing. It is written somewhat informally, and very long, but answers the questions posed. What do you think? Are we right, or just totally off-base, as we’ve been accused of being?
Okay, so here’s an answer, somewhat long-winded, that should respond the barrage of questions that have been thrown my way in the last couple days. I’ll try not to offend, hurt feelings or be the jerk you’ve accused me of being. I have pulled from your comments what I believe are all of your questions. I will seek to answer each (although I may answer certain questions more fully in a different writing), and hope to do so without appearing to jump all over the place.
I will try to answer your questions as precisely as possible. Your questions are italicized; my answers follow. At the end, I share a few additional thoughts.
- “You have already proved that Bernie is not a socialist.” You say that I have already contradicted myself by restricting my definition of socialism to “government control of production.” I never said anything of the sort. I stand by what I wrote that prompted this entire discussion. Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. He seeks to own, control or regulate much of our economy, not just a part, and not just to provide limited societal protections. I have never said he wants the government to own everything. In fact, he has stated many times that is not what he seeks. But he does seek ownership in some sectors, regulation in others, and/or control in yet others, or use of additional private funds for public benefit. I only used Bernie’s words, together with those found on the website of the Democratic Socialists of America. So, there is no contradiction. None whatsoever.
- “You see, it seems to me that he is attempting to combine the two (Capitalism and Socialism) in a fashion that would be beneficial and prosperous to our growth as a Society and a Nation.” Everything I wrote about Sanders was based on his grand speech last year at Georgetown University, defining himself as a democratic socialist. Nowhere in his entire speech did he mention any derivative of the word “capitalism.” He is not seeking to combine capitalism and socialism. He is seeking to create a socialist society through democratic channels. What “seems to” you is not what Sanders says. It is funny how so many are putting so much effort into redefining what Sanders “really means.” Why not take him for his word without having to “interpret” his actual meaning? Are you so afraid of democracy and socialism? Or are you afraid it won’t be achieved without disguising it as something else?
- “You seem to disagree with this . . . b/c you think he is secretly a closet socialist who is using words to gain a position so he can secretly convert our economy and government.” Bernie Sanders is not a closet socialist. He is a socialist. He calls himself a democratic socialist, but a socialist is a socialist. He seeks to create an economy based on “fairness” to everyone where everyone shares in the successes of private corporations. He seeks such by using the democratic electoral process to do so. Thus, democratic socialism. Now, you suggest I think he wants to “secretly convert our economy and government.” I think no such thing. There’s no secret about it. In that same Georgetown speech, Sanders said exactly what he wants, and there’s no secret about it. Said Sanders, “[d]emocratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all . . . and that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.” Nothing secret here. His statements about converting our economy and government are overt and open, not secret.
- “So, based on your own beliefs, this belief that having any form of regulation is socialist, then by your own definition, we are already a socialist nation . . . .correct??? Because we are a country that already has ‘regulations.’ I hope you understand that your beliefs are at conflict with one another.” No one ever said that no regulations should exist. Regulations to protect safety, welfare, health, even financial security may be just fine, but socialism seeks, ofttimes through restrictive regulations, to eliminate economic conditions where some feel that others are unfairly better-off because of their financial situation. We can discuss this further at another time.
- “And, somehow you don’t see that. To me, that is . . . . . . scary.” Why? If I’m wrong and just totally crazy, what is it that scares you? You should not fear me at all. You should just discount me as a wacko and continue sharing your beliefs
- “You do understand that there is a strong theory that this situation (which was already bad) got even worse b/c of deregulation?” What situation? We were not talking about situations, but about ideologies. One could also argue in the alternative that “this situation” was created by such restrictive regulations and government intrusion where it does not belong.
- “So, here is the conundrum. You think regulation is socialist though we already have regulations. You think having regulations is bad. You think our current form of economy and or government is bad……yet you propose no solutions.” Apparently you failed to read the article I wrote. I wasn’t talking about solutions. This article was solely for the purpose of demonstrating that when Bernie Sanders says he is a democratic socialist, he really is saying he is a socialist and wants to use the democratic process to further his goals. That’s all. Solutions, we can discuss in more detail and depth later.
- “With that being said, I am sure you still need to assert that Bernie is a socialist and that somehow socialism is all bad. Such a waste of time imo. If you cannot see that we already have socialist policies and practices in our country, then you are really stuck. Anyways……” If this is such a waste of time, why write so much to me about it? I have never denied that many “socialist policies and practices in our country” already exist. I’m just pointing out the fact that what Bernie Sanders (and others, by the way) seeks is a continued path toward more socialist policies and practices. You and others try to pretend that is not what he wants, when he says it over and over and over. And, if the current socialist policies are so successful, why hide from the term?
- “Bernie has advocated for nothing that we haven’t already done in this country successfully. You don’t realize I suppose that the last great republican was very progressive. Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a socialist by you today and would be unqualified to be commander in chief based on his bizarre beliefs about what socialism is or isn’t.” I do realize exactly that, and agree with you about TR. But, there you go again, throwing out the R word. Nowhere do you see me refer to political parties in these writings.
- “So in the past you said that the necessary forms of government are police and firemen. The reason you say that that isn’t socialism is because there is no production involved. Isn’t that the same with health care.” It’s different. I will discuss this at a different time. We’re talking Bernie Sanders and democratic socialism here.
- “Do me a favor when you follow up my question please explain how the Constitution is written that denies Americans socialized medicine.” The argument is that Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, and also to spend that revenue for the general welfare of the nation. To make things simple, that is the rationale for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as held by the Supreme Court back in the 1930s. I don’t agree – how is it for the general welfare of the entire nation to tax everyone and spend on only a few; to deceive future retirees into believing their retirement is safe and secure, while acknowledging there is no real correlation between the collection of taxes (which many falsely believe are contributions to a retirement account) and the payment of money to retirees for their welfare and healthcare? But, it’s been so held. That doesn’t make it right. How, I ask you, is your freedom preserved to become dependent on the government for more and more, including all your healthcare concerns? You are not more free – you are more dependent.
- “Where does the answer lie?” The answer to this question is very complex, and would require more time and room than I have here. But, in short, the answers lie in maintaining the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution, in allowing the free market to work, in not shielding major corporations from liability, in not protecting such corporations in their illegal actions through bailouts, in not subsidizing other corporations, in not using courts to overturn the will of the majority of the nation’s citizens. And on and on. But, there are no answers in further descent into socialist policies. More to come on this.
You disagree with my conclusions, saying I contradict myself and thus am wrong. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect such. I have my opinion, which I base on historical interpretations of the United States Constitution, on how our constitutional republic truly functions and specifically on what Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America say. I have seen many written articles saying that Bernie isn’t really what he says he is. Well, if that’s the case, perhaps he’s a liar, or stupid, and doesn’t deserve your vote. Rather than think that, I’m taking the guy at his word. My article was about Bernie, democratic socialism and socialism. That’s what I’ve addressed here.
You are welcome to disagree with me. That’s your right. You are free to seek change to our form of government, to the Constitution, to societal norms and mores. But, if that’s what you seek, why fear calling your changes what they are? Why hide behind newly-defined terms and phrases? Be proud of what you seek. If you want a pure democracy, which would allow 51% of all voters to regulate and control everything in our nation (including how corporations act}, then stand proud for that desire. That is socialism, pure and simple. Why fear it if it is what is best for this nation?
You know, that same democratic socialism you seek could very well backfire on you. Then, what do you do? Perhaps your 51% votes to take all profits from those terrible pharma corporations you hate; and then the company on the verge of curing cancer has no money to finish its research; and then you get cancer; and then you ask the government to get that cancer cure instead; and then you realize that nothing in the government moves efficiently; and then you die.
Or, let’s say that you get your 51% vote to regulate fossil fuels out of business; then you realize that the batteries in electric cars are not cheap; then you realize that you cannot afford a new car to carry your tools; then you ask the government to subsidize your purchase of a new car; then you realize that the government money for subsidizing electric vehicle purchases actually came from revenues derived from gasoline taxes; then you can’t get your car; then you can’t make money to buy food; then you get hungry; then you die.
Or, perhaps you get your 51% vote to restrict executive salaries to whatever you deem reasonable. Then a different 51% votes to restrict the salaries of everyone, including self-employed inspectors, because they still make more money than most people in the nation. Then, you find yourself with a suddenly-decreased income; then you realize that you cannot afford your house payment; or your medical insurance; then you realize that if you move into your other house in the mountains, that you cannot commute because your electric vehicle loan payments are too high and you spend all your time on the road; then you realize you need the government to help you with food, housing, health, education for your children; then you find yourself fully dependent on government welfare; then you are stuck; then, eventually you die.
You see what happens here? Bernie Sanders wants a pure democracy to further his socialist ideals. There’s no way any of it is good for this nation, for the economy, for me, for you, for our children, for our grandchildren. No way. That’s why I oppose it. I will discuss this in a more detailed manner in the future. For now, our interest is whether there is a difference between socialism and democratic socialism.