Marco

I watched Marco Rubio's announcement yesterday and found it to be somewhat more inspiring that Hillary Clinton's on Sunday.  He at least said something.

I noticed two things about him, other than he's a bit hyper when speaking. He didn't get into social issues and he seemed to know his subject matter.

It's said his youthful looks will be a deterrent.  They shouldn't be any more than Hillary's looks should be when she needs a botox fix. What matters is the candidates view of the issues and even what those issues are. Rubio seemed on track with my views.

You know what I really liked?  He has a sense of sincerity about him that seems authentic.  When he talks of his modest upbringing and the tremendous opportunities he's had in his life he sounds somewhat awed that what he's been able to achieve is really true.  Rather like Jordan Spieth getting used to having won the Masters on Sunday at the tender age of 21.  Was he too young to win?  Were his clean cut good looks a detriment to him?

Of course not.  He worked hard to develop the skills and the nerves of steel to accomplish the feat.  Why not the same for Marco Rubio?

It's said we've tried a one term Senator before and look how that's turned out. I don't think it's the time as Senator that matters nearly as much as what he's done before and how well.  Has he done his homework?  Does he understand the gravity of what the country is facing?  Does he have solutions?

He was truthful in saying not much is going to change until Obama is out of office. He repeated it time and again and I hope those listening understand just that. What will change after that depends on who we put into office.

Watching the candidates at their kickoffs is fun.  Everyone is hyped. Everything is rosy and they have the world at their feet.  It will for most of them be the best day of their campaigns.

I look forward to watching all of them as they take this step. Do they actually start off saying something of substance or is it all political puffery.  I want to watch them, listen to them, hear the inflection in their voices.  I like campaigning the old fashioned way.

I don't give a tweet about having social media fill the gaps on You Tube or Facebook. I want the candidates to flesh out themselves. After all I'll be voting for flesh and blood, not a 140 word sound bite.

Hillary

So we're now supposed to address Mrs. Clinton as Madam Secretary or Senator when referring to her.  No more Hillary.

Personally I would think she'd like Hillary.  After all it puts her in league with Oprah, Madonna or Cher.  Personalities so famous in their own right no last name is needed.

What?  It isn't respectful enough? After all she's running for President, not just a show biz personality.  Huh.  Hillary it is for me and always will be.

How can you take seriously a person who is going to announce her candidacy by Twitter?  Please.  What are we devolving to?  Is she going to be a stealth campaigner just as she has been a stealth pre-campaigner tease?

Is she going to make all her views on policy in tweets?  140 words?  Boy, that would really be laying out well defined positions.

Okay.  Whatever.  I don't want to see Hillary Clinton as President. Period. Because she doesn't deserve it and being a woman isn't enough.  We gave one inexperienced candidate the benefit of huge doubts and look at what we have.  I don't want to see a trend of overlooking doubts as the way we choose our candidates.  I want their positions to be clear, truthful and what the candidate actually believes, not what a cast of 200 or more tells  them. Whether you agree or not at least there would be no doubt where they stand.

We've also spent the last 6+ years with a President who is loose with the truth.  Do we want that again? I don't and I see no proof  from Mrs. Clinton that her truthfulness scale is any higher than Obama's.  Truth as expedience should not be a position.

C'mon O'Malley, Webb, Cuomo and the rest of you who think you should bow to Hillary's mandate that you not run against her. She deserves the challenge you would give her and so does your country.  I'd like to rely on the Republicans to know how to play the hand given them but so far I don't see evidence of that as a possibility.  Sad but true.  Maybe they'll surprise me.

Would I like to see a woman President?  Why not?  But there are far more important things necessary to be Presidential material.  Being a woman isn't one any more than being black was for Obama.  It worked for him in his community.  I hope woman aren't as biased and realize that this is not the time for a woman if it isn't the right woman.

Hillary isn't.  Trust me on that.  You sure can't trust her.

The Gays And Evangelicals Both Need To Watch Their Step

Just as Gays are gaining acceptance throughout the country they shoot themselves in the foot.  Of course in some cases so do the Evangelicals.

It's not that they want certain rights but more how they're going about it. The same with the blacks. If anyone looks at them cross eyed their either racist, homophobes or anti-religion. Bull!

First, I wonder why anyone would want someone to bake their wedding cake, do their flowers or take their photos at their wedding if said person doesn't want to - for whatever reason.  If it's against their strongly held religious beliefs why shouldn't they have the right to decline?  Why should the Gays have the right to demand they go against those beliefs.

If they're not careful they're going to have even more people opposed to them then they do now.  In this country we're supposed to have freedom of choice.  Not have someone say I can do what I want as long as it's something they agree with or have to put up with being publicly smeared or even receive death threats for having a different point of view?  It's disgusting.

It shows, too, how civility and tolerance is becoming a thing of the past.  Everyone wants their own way and everyone else has to go along with it.  All it does is build resentment which leads to even more intolerance.

Personally I don't care if a person is gay or not.  I don't care if a person is black, brown, yellow or polka dot.  I don't care if a person is a born again, a Catholic, a Jew or a worshipper of the great outdoors.  Just don't get in my face and try to force feed me your beliefs. It's the quickest way to make me change from being non-judgemental to being very judgmental.  With that you'd lose my support and my friendship.  Put enough of us together you'll lose everything you've fought so hard to get - acceptance.  You're call.  Not everyone will cave to belligerance as easily as politicians.  

The Devil Is In The Details

So.  The framework for a nuclear deal with Iran is now a reality.  We'll have to wait until June 30 for all the bells and whistles which have been agreed to are spelled out if our President cares to share them.

I'd feel better if John Kerry hadn't been so loose with the sanctions.  No matter what he says, they cannot be "snapped" back in place should Iran renege on the agreement.  Sanctions were our ace in the hole, not war as the administration would like us to believe.

I wished I trusted Obama and Kerry but I do not.  If, however, Iran's feet can be effectively held to the fire it will be good but only to a certain extent.  I'm sure when the announcement about the completion of the framework phase hit the airwaves every Arab country in the region put Pakistan on speed dial if they weren't already there.

Not only is the United States not trusted, those in the region are smart enough not to trust Iran either. Therefore there will undoubtedly by an arms race with Pakistan and North Korea obliging. It's difficult to believe but if the war escalates it's likely to be bloodier and more devastating than the current war.  It will be Shia against Sunni and neither are particularly interested in any niceties of civilized warfare.  Such as they are.

I cannot help but wonder why Iran's aggressive behavior hasn't been made part of the deal.  As is they have carte blanche to continue with their march to take over the middle east and to ultimately destroy both Israel and the U.S.  

Unfortunately the original premise of preventing Iran from ever developing a bomb has been negated.  It's one more example of red lines being erased by this administration.

I hope I'm wrong in all of my summations.  I really do.  It's just that the personal ambitions of both Kerry and Obama overshadow what most people who know the region and the disposition of the involved countries warn against. I can't help but believe the many are more knowing than the two.

Time will tell.  An uneasy time at that.

On The Brink

We're seeing in real time what happens when the United States relinquishes its position of power in the world.  Forget this leading from behind rubbish.  It's an oxymoron, emphasize the moron.

Another more convoluted one would be negotiating a nuclear agreement with a terror state while the terror state continues to cheat on a current agreement. It is also spreading its tentacles into a multitude of countries in a scheme which will ultimately bring it face to face with ISIL, both wanting the same end.

The Arab States are coming forward.  The U.S. is nowhere to be seen in a leadership role anywhere. A civil war is brewing between Shites and Sunnis and it won't be pretty.  It isn't pretty now.

What's also puzzleing is why are we having these negotiations in the first place if Iran isn't looking to make a bomb, as they insist?  That seems to have gotten lost in the rush for a deal.  They're contridicting themselves by their actions.

This is a lead up to a concern I have about the next Presidential election and the Democrats in particular.  We currently have a President who thinks and behaves as though he is above the law.  He isn't but there is no recourse.  I don't think the founding fathers ever imangined such a person would ever assume the Presidency meaning the people would be to smart to elect such.  Wrong.  We elected him twice for all the wrong reasons.  The first time we misunderstood what he openly told us about his goals.

The second time, why? We didn't think Romney 'understood' the little guy?  We didn't trust his religion?  We knew Obama was on shaky ground with his Benghazi story although the bulk of it didn't come out until after the election.  The suspicions were there never-the-less.

We knew of the escalating flaws in Obamacare.  We knew trouble was brewing at the IRS, along with several other issues. Yet we re-elected him. Like a TV show, were we curious to see how it would play out? Well, we're seeing it.

Now we face 2016 and Hillary.  She expects no challengers yet she has a sack overflowing with ethics questions, misdirections and a paper trail destroyed by her own hands.  We'll soon be free of one who has treated the office of President as his own personal dictatorial pedestal.  Why on earth would we want another to occupy it?  For that is exactly what Hillary wants. We should topple it, never to allow it to rise again.

Come on Democrats.  Harry Reid is retiring.  Hillary will have to groom her own personal savant willing to blindly do her bidding.  I'm sure she will have that in Chuck Schumer if he assumes the leadership.  Promise him face time before a camera and he'll be putty in her hands.

Isn't there anyone wearing the Democrat brand who sees this for what it is and will challenge her for the sake of the country?  Please?