WWDD? (What Would Donald Do?)

There was a lot of hoopla over a recent, and obvious, breach of national security, when a journalist was invited to a chat group of high-level government officials discussing a bombing raid. By hoopla, I mean some were saying the discussion was classified and being made in a chat group, others were saying that the chat itself had no classified information, and others that the journalist was a conspiracy nut who is working for a publication that is doing so bad it should be out of business.

I had a security clearance in the Navy. Part of being a Radioman. And from what I've read of that chat, it was clearly a security violation by individuals who were proving that the "meritocracy" hiring model that our President says he adheres to was obviously being ignored. Right to the Vice President putting emojis in the chat like he was on Facebook.

First off, I want to know WHY this chat was taking place? Somebody want to contact the other President (the one who bought his position and is clearly pulling the strings) and ask him why these particular government officials are not IN THE OFFICE where they can have this discussion in a secured location? I thought all government employees need to be in the office. Therefore,  there is NO REASON they should be in a chat. Maybe he needs to send them an email asking them for five things they did today to justify their jobs.

And second, I like to look at anything that takes place in the Trump administration and think about what Donald Trump would say if the same thing took place under Joe Biden's watch. For instance:

"Sleepy-Joe is proving once again that he is incapable of running the country and keeping Americans safe. There is no way under my administration - an administration that would be the best administration ever, and I've been told this by many very intelligent people who know - that this type of security violation would ever take place. Every person in that chat would be FIRED. That's right: FIRED. Because Sleepy-Joe won't admit that he is unable to do his job, these people will continue to put the American people at risk."

Of course, as of this writing, nobody has been fired.

So, whenever you see something questionable under this administration, just ask, "What Would Donald Do?"

-jp

© Emittravel 2025

Stuff My Brain Says #81

So far it seems like every GOP endeavor has fallen short or outright failed. And I think I know the reason why. It’s really quite simple. You see, nobody in the GOP really thought that Donald Trump was going to be President. They believed what the media said (that Hillary Clinton had over a 90% chance of winning the election - based on their polls).

The GOP had eight years to prepare things like Repeal and Replace and did nothing. Why? Because not only did they know they did not have an actual challenger to the Democrats, they knew that with Hillary Clinton as President, they would NEVER pass any of their endeavors. So they figured they had at least four more years (if not eight) to actually come up with anything of substance.

As a perfect example of procrastination, the GOP is living proof that there is no minute like the last minute.

© Emittravel 2017

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10

It's broke . . .

First off, let me make this perfectly clear: this (particular) blog post is not meant to bash Hillary Clinton. I've done that plenty in other articles. As a matter of fact, I've made it a point to make sure my bashing is truly nonpartisan (I bash BOTH sides of the aisle!) What I do want to get across is that this is a serious concern and it needs to be addressed.

For the first time in American history, we have the potential of electing the first…

…I know, you were expecting "woman" or "female" President. Uh uh!

For the first time in American history, we have the potential of electing the first SPOUSE as President. And this, my dear readers, is something I've not seen addressed.

Oh, what has been addressed is to what we should call the "First Husband". What about "First Mate"? Well, first off, that sounds like something from a Popeye cartoon. And second, this country isn't ready for an LGBT President. But that isn't the point.

The point is that, in this particular case, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being President. You'll notice that I didn't say "unqualified". She is definitely qualified. According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

What I did say was that she was DISQUALIFIED. According to the 22nd Amendment:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once . . . "

Hillary Clinton was married to Bill Clinton when he was President for two terms (1993 - 2001). And THAT disqualifies her from becoming President.

According to whitehouse.gov (excerpted from “The First Ladies of the United States of America,” by Allida Black. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association.):

"As the nation's First Lady, Hillary continued to balance public service with private life. Her active role began in 1993 when the President asked her to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform [later known as "HillaryCare"]. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues."

Hillary Clinton was not much different in her role as First Lady as others before and since. All tend to take active roles in influencing public policy. Which is both good and bad. Good, in that many of the ideas and actions are beneficial for the country and its citizens. Bad, in that the First Lady has unelected power that holds sway over the office of the President.

In the case of the Clintons though, the opinion was that "we are the President" - which is an opinion that only gives weight to my argument.

I once heard a minister once say that "…the Bible says that man is the head. And if the man is the head, the woman is the neck. And what does the neck do? It both supports and TURNS the head." There is great power in influence. How the First Lady is addressed and treated has great influence on one's standing. Can you imagine bad-mouthing your boss' wife? I didn't think so.

(I used to work for a small company that was owned by the wife, but ran by the husband. No big deal, except that the wife took an active role. So much so that you would get contradictory orders from each. And you didn't want to upset either.)

Now, imagine that Hillary Clinton has become President. This means that former President Bill Clinton will be there. Do you honestly think a former President would not get the respect of that office? It would be "Good morning, Mr. Clinton." Or perhaps "Good morning, Mr. President." Each would be valid. And if a First Lady tends to take an active role, how much influence do you think a First Husband (a former PRESIDENT) would have? I would say, so much (possible) influence as to be in conflict with the 22nd Amendment.

"But J.P., nothing in the Constitution prevents the First Lady from becoming President."

True. But honestly, do you think that the founding fathers ever considered their wives running for President? They didn't even think a woman should VOTE. It was a long time from the writing of the Constitution to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Which means they never gave thought to the possibility of a former First Lady running for President.

Now, if a President (of either gender!!) serves only one term, there would be no issue with the spouse (of either gender!!) serving one term. But outside of that?

So, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being President. The same if Michelle Obama were to run.

Now, if Rosalynn Carter or Barbara Bush wanted to give the job a go…

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Stuff My Brain Says #78

Have you heard of these 2016 Presidential candidates:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat Party)
Donald Trump (Republican Party)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
Jill Stein (Green Party)

Well, I'm sure you've heard of the first two. The second two? Maybe. What I want to point out is that all four have something in common:

Clinton / Kaine
Trump / Pence
Johnson / Weld
Stein / Baraka

Did you guess it? Okay, one more hint:

This decision is considered the most important, first decision a candidate will make.

Give up?

They have all violated the Constitution of the United States.

By that I mean that they have each picked their "running mate". And that is unconstitutional.

According to the 12th Amendment, both the President AND the Vice President are elected separately. In the late 1960s that changed. Correction: the methodology changed; the Constitution was not. Which means that whenever a Presidential candidate announces their running mate, they have violated the Constitution.

Which is really confusing considering the following:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing like starting off with a lie…

(For a more in-depth explanation, check out: "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9".)

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9

It's broke . . .

You may have noticed that last Sunday I didn't post a new blog (blog? blog article? blog post?). Last week was the Republican Convention, and being that I live here in the wonderful city of Cleveland, I did what any sane person would do: I got the heck outta Dodge!

(Now, to be perfectly honest, if I lived in Philadelphia, where the Democrat Convention is to take place, I'd get the heck outta Dodge too!)

Actually, Friday the 15th was the celebration of ten wonderful years of marriage to the most beautiful (and patient, and forgiving, and tolerating . . . ) woman in the world. I took that day off in order to celebrate; along with the following week for a mini-vacation. It just so happens that the convention was taking place the same time we were on vacation.

We went to Maumee Bay State Park and stayed at the lodge. The park is located on the coast of Lake Erie, between Sandusky (think Cedar Point) and Toledo (think Mud Hens and Tony Packo's). Nothing like catching a couple of Mud Hens baseball games!

Me and the most beautiful, patient, forgiving, tolerant (etc.) woman in the world!

Getting back to the topic of this post . . .

Currently we have a two-party system. The Republicans and the Democrats. A.K.A. Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Stupid. The part that pisses me off the most about both of these groups is that deep down they don't give a rat's ass about doing what is best for the country. Oh, they say that they do. But honestly? All either party cares about is doing what is best for their own party. Getting re-elected and staying in power means more to them than what is best for the very taxpayers paying their salaries.

I know I talked about third-party options previously, but no one ever takes groups like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party seriously enough to make a dent in the two-party monopoly. Though that may change. Usually, the Libertarians are dismissed as a bunch of people who only want to legalize drugs. Well, with Colorado and Washington both legalizing the dancing with Mary Jane, and many more states looking at that viable tax revenue option, Libertarians will soon seem like the "normal" of the bunch.

The 12th Amendment gives us the procedure for electing both the President and the Vice President (also known as the Electoral College). In a nutshell: the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes President AND the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes Vice President. Two separate elections. Now, somewhere along the line, our benevolent party leaders decided that it wouldn't be good to have a Democrat President and a Republican Vice President (or vice versa), so they decided to make a change and have the party candidate choose their "running mate".

You may notice that they didn't change the Constitution via Amendment (like when the 18th Amendment - prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol - was repealed by the 21st Amendment). They simply decided to ignore the Constitution for the betterment of the parties.

So, the system is broken.

My wife had a great idea, and I think it's the perfect solution: Let everyone who wants to run, run. The person with the most votes becomes the President. And the person with the second most votes becomes the Vice President. Parties be damned!

And I agree. Let the games begin!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8

It's broke . . .

Every four years we go through the same thing: A bunch of rich people spend all kinds of money running advertisements, traveling all over the country giving speeches, and holding massive conventions, all to convince the populous that they are regular people like you and me, and to convince us to go into a small booth and choose them for President of the United States. And each election cycle the amount of money spent - nay WASTED - could be invested for far more beneficial ends; like, say, the very things they want to spend money on once in office.

I’m a Clevelander. I love this city. And not just because the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals this year (breaking a 52-year curse over the town) either. This year we are to hold the Republican National Convention in our town.

And it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

With all of the recent shootings by and of police in the last few weeks, one thing we in Cleveland don't need is a bunch of Trump hating protesters coming to town and possibly stirring up trouble. And why? Because the GOP chose to allow Donald Trump to run in the primaries as a Republican, and now regrets that they did it. They want a do over. They call "mulligan"!! And frankly, if something doesn't happen soon to correct the Good Ship "Grand Old Poopheads" they will be handing over the election to Hillary Clinton.

Though, from what I remember, Hillary Clinton may be the cheapest to elect anyway. After all, doesn't she already come with a bunch of (stolen) White House / Air Force One towels and cutlery?

I've been thinking of voting for a third-party candidate this cycle. Why? I can't stand either of these yutzes. I think these guys got it right: Everybody Sucks 2016.

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you will throw your vote away."

Or -

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you might as well vote for Clinton (or Trump), as you will give her (him) the election."

For one thing, you have to realize that your vote means squat. And if you vote absentee ballot, your vote means less than squat (as absentee ballots don't get counted anyway). As much as Americans want this to be American Idol (vote early; vote often), electing a President is not a popularity contest. Just ask Al Gore, who had more popular votes, but still lost to George Bush.

And for another thing, I am not only registered as Independent, I'm also independent of thought. I don't tow the party line. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat because my daddy was a Republican or Democrat and voted Republican or Democrat and so did his daddy and so did his daddy. There is more here at stake than the pride of whether or not your state is red or blue!

If you are reading this and are a U.S. citizen of voting age (and "hello" to all of you not from 'round these parts), you are also a tax payer. That means you pay the salaries of all of those yahoos in government. Which means, you are the President's EMPLOYER. He (or very possibly "she") works for YOU, not the other way around. Which means you are actually in the hiring position right now.

Let that sink in for a minute.

What do you do, as any good employer does, when needing to fill a position? You interview candidates for the position and look for the best.

So, as an employer, you find yourself with two individuals vying for the position that are morons. They are self-serving, rude, lying, and unscrupulous - you know, perfect politicians. So what do you do? Do you chose the lesser of two evils?

NO!

You look for other candidates. You tell both of those to hit the road and you keep looking.

Or, you look at third-party candidates.

So, my voting for a third-party candidate would not be a wasted vote. As a responsible "employer", I'm voting for the person I think is the best to do the job. If the rest don't, and my vote is over-ruled, so be it. At least my conscious is clear.

But to pull this into the title of this article: What we need to do is have all candidates submit a thesis of what they plan to do in office and why they think they are the best person for the job. And NO NAMES. That way all we voters have to work with is legitimate facts and no bullsh**.

Then maybe. Just maybe. We will stop this cycle.

And save a little of this wasted money while we're at it.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore

With the primaries basically over, the all-out scuffle for the presidency is in full swing. And with that comes the attack ads, the fake accents (depending in which state a candidate happens to be making a speech), and the repeated soundbites, providing little-to-no actual honest information for the voters.

When Hillary Clinton decided to have her husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaign with her, Donald Trump almost leaped over Trump Tower in a single bound for joy:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" - Donald Trump via Twitter (@realDonaldTrump) 12/28/15

Of course, many would say that Trump, no stranger to playing offense ("AW-fence" or "ah-FENCE" - your choice), is out of line if he attacks Bill. The question is, is he?

Funny thing about the internet. I was always told that what you post is permanent. Yet, there have been mandates made to Google from European countries that if a person requests to have their history "removed from the internet", Google has to comply. This means that if someone wants bad things in their history to be unsearchable, Google has to make it so. I guess that goes for politicians running for President as well.

You see, I did some searching, but was unable to locate the video on the internet that I KNOW I saw when it took place (in 1992), where, in an interview with Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary makes the statement:

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." -- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

Whether or not Freud would think that just a slip, there are a few major implications to that quote, and in Trump's favor:

IF TRUE, then when it comes to vetting (making a careful and critical examination of) a candidate, then both the President AND his/her first . . . uh . . . mate, would be up for grabs. No longer can a candidate "hide" their spouse's past from the press and the American people. That means statements, tax forms, et cetera, are open season.

IF TRUE, then when it comes to the ballot, both the candidate AND his/her mate should be on the ticket, since a vote for one is a vote for both.

IF TRUE, then not only should the candidates have to debate each other, but their mates should also have to debate each other. Especially when you consider the mate's influence on the decision-making process ("I don't know, where do YOU want to go to eat?")

Is it okay for Donald Trump to attack Bill's history? I think so. After all, Hillary made it "clear".

One other thing. If her statement is true, according to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, Hillary may have ALREADY served two terms, and is therefore disqualified from running for President.

©Emittravel 2016

A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice

As a short addendum to my "Who Told You That?!?" post, I wanted to address another example in recent social media:

"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I want to be a part of history electing the first woman President."

Let me make this perfectly clear: IF you vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are sexist. IF you vote FOR Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are ALSO sexist.

So what's an open-minded, 21st century person to do? You are to vote based on criteria that directly pertains to the position. In other words, if you feel that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the JOB, that you agree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then vote for her. If you don't think she is the best person for the JOB, and you disagree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then DON'T vote for her.

You do NOT vote FOR or AGAINST Hillary Clinton based on whether or not she has ovaries. THAT is sexist.

And lest you think I'm only talking about Hillary Clinton, the same voting criteria pertains to whether or not you vote FOR or AGAINST Donald Trump, or any other candidate.

The President of the United States is considered the most important and powerful position in the entire world. Why in the hell is the election process treated like we're choosing the next American Idol?!? (Which, by the way, is the reason Donald Trump won the GOP primary: he treated it like a reality show, and he knew he could win a reality show. Shame on us!)

So which is it? Is the President 'The "Leader" of the Free World' or not? You need to choose the what.

And then you need to choose the whom.

©Emittravel 2016

Independent Influence

I’m really looking forward to the Primary reality show season to end.

As an independent voter, the whole shtick has little appeal for me. It won't be until after the primaries have concluded, and the general election commences, that I will devote any brain synapsis to the process. Until then, blah blah blah . . .

I've often thought how wonderful it would be to get rid of the whole party system. (Don't worry college kids, I'm talking political, not frat.) You know, come out and disband them. But that will never happen. Oh, you could have something happen to eliminate both major yahoos, but eventually sheep of like minds will herd together again. It's inevitable. And one major reason for this is "influence".

It has been said that an independent will never be elected President. I disagree. An independent can be elected, but they might as well spend their term(s) flying around on Air Force One. They will get nothing accomplished. Why? Because Congress is made up of sheep in herds.

One reason John McCain didn't get elected was that he was neither a good Republican, nor a good Democrat. He carried the party affiliation of Republican, but he spent so much time working "across the aisle" that neither side ended up trusting him. There is no such thing as nonpartisan in government. It is a fancy word for one party submitting itself to the other for the benefit of hopefully getting the other party to submit to themselves the next time.

A truly independent President would get nothing accomplished. First off, that person would forever hold the honor of "stealing votes" from the other parties - denying them the Presidency. And second, if the independent President worked with one party, the other party would be slighted and not work with him. And if that President then worked with the other party, then the first would be slighted. And then? See the above paragraph.

I've heard that Donald Trump, currently running under the Republican banner, is threatening to clean House once he gets in office. That he will publicize the corruption - i.e. "financial influence" - in Congress. You know, point out who has ill-gotten gains. And I believe this. He has said that he had given money to Hillary Clinton's previous campaign because he is a business man, and he knows how the system works (if Hillary got in office . . . ). He said he has given to both parties for the same reason. He admits to "financial influence" being the norm.

If Donald Trump becomes President, he will be a lame-duck President from the get go. Not only will he not be a Democrat. Not only will he have gotten the election in spite of the GOP (they are even threatening a brokered convention to get rid of him - which means they WILL hand over the general election to the Democrats - and that is historically true). He will piss off Congress enough that neither party will work with him. He might as well be an independent candidate.

But come on, reality shows aren't REAL, right?

©Emittravel 2016

Pompous Circumstance

Just last week we had the traditional "Let's Stand and Clap at Everything the President Says" speech, a.k.a. "The State of the Union". Unlike the other talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., I'm not going to give you my opinions on the particular things the President said. I can't. I didn't watch the speech. I had no intention of watching it. And no, I'm not an Obama-basher (okay, maybe I am, but not at the moment); I didn't watch them even when G.W. Bush was giving them. I have only caught pieces of the speech given by different Presidents over the years, only because they seem to take over every network channel during them (I love you, Netflix!)

The reason I don't watch it is because the founding fathers of our country did not intend it that way:

Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"

(Side note: What the hell is it with the capitalized words in the middle of that thing?)

As it states, the President is supposed to give Congress information of the state of the union, along with recommendations. George Washington delivered the first before a joint session of Congress in 1790. Thomas Jefferson thought it too similar to a speech that the King of England would give and stopped the practice (you know, not presidential, but monarchical). From that time on, it was given as a written report to Congress - read by a clerk. I think it was read out loud by a clerk because Xerox hadn't given us the copier yet.

Woodrow Wilson was the first to give the report orally to Congress since Jefferson stopped it. Most Presidents have given the report in writing; Jimmy Carter was the last to do this. Calvin Coolidge gave the report (now a "speech") on radio for the first time in 1923. And, since most Presidents like to outdo each other (how many Presidential Libraries do we need, anyway?), Harry S. Truman gave it for the first time on television in 1947.

Here's where I think it has gone astray. No longer is the State of the Union a report given to CONGRESS, but a political speech in front of the American people. As Congress now stands up and applauds every time the President takes a breath, you can almost hear Thomas Jefferson saying, "I told you so!"

The speech is stupid for another reason: why, oh why, would you have the majority of your government officials in one building at one time? There are all kinds of methodologies put in place to make sure that not everyone is in attendance, but still! Why would one risk it? Hasn't anyone seen "Mars Attacks" or "Independence Day"?!?

All kidding aside, there are plenty of opportunities during the year for the President to address the American people. This should NOT be one of them. Instead of a serious report, it is an opportunity for grandstanding and occasional abuse (of the other Branches). Go back to giving it in writing. Hell, even email it!

Nothing is worse than watching the State of the Union. Outside of the rebuttals that follow, that is.

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #62

In recent news, a non-profit organization held a fundraiser where people paid $50k to spend the evening with President Obama. First off, why would ANYBODY pay $50k to spend the evening with ANY president? After all, isn't he a public servant? Isn't he on the payroll? Doesn't that make him an employee of the people? Should you have to pay $50k to meet with your mayor? I know it was a "donation", but try to attend without paying it. See how far you get. And another thing, if you are paying to spend "quality" time with someone, doesn't that make that person a prostitute? Of course, when it comes to politics, those two professions ARE pretty close in comparison . . .

© Emittravel 2013

The President's Novel Idea

President Obama has a unique plan to handle the financial crisis, but it will only work if Republicans will get off of their high horses and embrace it. For every $1 in tax revenue (a.k.a. "increases"), there will be $2 in spending cuts. Novel! And it will work! The solution to the growing debt has been found. President Obama has shown his incredible, breathtaking intellect at work.

Not so quite. Here is what I want to tell Republicans (and fiscally-minded Democrats - and I know you are out there!):

Ronald Reagan was offered the same plan. He found that the only way to get significant spending cuts would be to accept this and raise taxes.

George H.W. Bush was offered the same plan. Mr. "read my lips: no new taxes" embraced this plan as the only way to get significant spending cuts.

How did that work out? They both accepted tax increases (hurting Reagan's reputation of limited government and literally eliminating Bush's chances for re-election). The promised spending cuts? NEVER HAPPENED. And what did you get? The Democrats trumpeting how the non-tax-increase Republicans LIED and increased taxes when election time came around. They don't care about the debt: they only care about getting votes (and unfortunately, so do you Republicans.) The ruse? "Compromise." In order for the media to show that you are willing to compromise, you need to accept what the Democrats are dishing out. If you don't, you are obstructionists to progress.

If I were you, I would demand to see those cuts put into action FIRST, and THEN allow the tax increase. You know, "show me the cuts, and then I'll show you the money".

Hurt me once, shame on you. Hurt me twice, shame on me. Hurt me three times??

© Emittravel 2012

. . . Or Press "3" for Annoying

This is sort of a sequel to the blog topic 'Press "2" for Polish' that I wrote about a year ago. The reason for it? Today, November 6, 2012, is election day here in the United States. Not only do we get to chose our next President (okay, THAT is another topic in itself - "Why You Don't Chose The President"), but we also get to vote for various elected officials, tax levies, etc. And that means voter ballots.

For me, the ballot was three long, double-sided pages. I got to read the item presented and then fill in the appropriate oval with a black pen, designating my choice/decision. The ballot was then fed into a double-sided scanner. And you know what? The ballot could have been half the size. Why? Because half of the ballot was in Spanish. Again, as I said in 'Press "2" for Polish', we are a largely Eastern European family here in my neighborhood. Though there are individuals where Spanish is the language of their roots, it doesn't seem to be prominent here.

Now, what follows may really annoy some of you. But as I state in my blog bio, get thicker skin. My intention is not to offend, but offences do come.

Up until several years ago, if you came to live in this country, and wanted to make something of yourself, you would learn the English language. For well over two hundred years, this has been the norm. People from all over the world, and backgrounds and cultures completely foreign to each other, came here, learned the English language, and made something of themselves. I admit, sometimes it was the second generation immigrant who really mastered the language, but not exclusively. When I was in the Navy, I would meet people in other countries who were so proud of their ability to speak English. And they WEREN'T living HERE!

So what happened? Why the shift to everything being in both English and Spanish? Sure, there are theories out there that sound "reasonable", but you know what? I'm thinking that the reason for the push for Spanish is that there is a belief by various individuals and groups in this country that Spanish-speaking people are too stupid to learn English, and therefore must have everything in their language. Understand, I don't personally think that is true. I'm thinking that learning English is easier today than ever - just look at all of the technological advances in education formats. But I can't help but believe that this MUST be a (viable) reason for the dual-language phenomenon over the last several years. And if I were you, I'd be VERY annoyed and insulted by that.

Of course, there IS the whole voter block thing . . . but that is for another blog topic . . .

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #46

Hey candidates! If I can't trust you to tell me the truth in a 15 second commercial spot, why should I trust you as President?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #44

I would like to ask President Bush how it feels to be a three-term President. Since everything has been his fault over the last four years, he must still be sitting in the Oval Office. I guess that means the Democrat campaign slogan should be "Give Obama a Chance!"

© Emittravel 2012

Why You Don't Choose The President

It's official: GOP candidate Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan for his VP. Will this turn out to be a good choice? We don't know. There is the impact on the election and, more important, the impact on the potential administration. 

We understand why the election impact: a candidate is trying to capture a voting block that he may otherwise be not as likely to win over on his own. (Note: I'm using "he" throughout, since when the gender of the person is unknown, "he" is grammatically correct usage. Using "he/she", or alternating "he" and "she" makes reading clumsy for the audience.) What I want to address is the impact on the administration. Mainly, why do we let candidates pick their own running mates?

According to Federalist #68: "The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter." The 12th Amendment gives instructions on choosing the President and Vice President. In neither document does it state that the Vice President is chosen by the President - neither as President, nor as a "running mate". 

Shouldn't the Vice President be elected in the same manner as the President, as described by our founding documents? I understand that choosing one's own running mate allows the balance of the ticket, but one of the main responsibilities of the Vice President is to take over in case of the loss of the President. If something happens to the President, wouldn't we want the SAME things in a Vice President? Isn't the point to have a seamless "change of command" in such a loss? Why would we want someone who would take us in a completely different direction? 

Think back on all of the President/Vice President combinations we've had. Would you honestly have voted FOR the Vice President chosen?

Barack Obama / Joe Biden
George W. Bush / Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton / Al Gore
George Bush / Dan Quayle
Ronald Reagan / George Bush
Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondale
Gerald Ford / Nelson Rockefeller
Richard Nixon / Spiro Agnew / Gerald Ford
Lyndon Johnson / Hubert Humphrey
John F. Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson

The above list goes back to just before my birth. Just think about the combinations. Why would anyone willingly choose these combinations? Sure, some of those aren't so bad, but if given the opportunity to choose, would you have done the same? I don't think I would have.

But again, when the game is to get elected, what is best for the country slips in importance.

So remember when going to the polls: Since the Vice President is selected as a running mate, you don't, ultimately, get to choose who is President. If something were to happen to this person if elected President, would you REALLY want their chosen Vice President to take over? Brrrr - is there a chill in the room, or is it just me?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #35

Currently, President Obama is pushing for his "Buffet Rule" - a minimum tax rate upon the wealthy. He said that they were not paying their fair share. That's right, with about a $5 Billion/year estimated influx of cash to our oh-so-financially-trustworthy government, the concept is nothing but a gimmick. In other words, just a little class (envy) warfare in an election year. He says it's all in the name of fairness. I say that is a LIE. Mr. President, if you really want to spew such rhetoric with a straight face, how about, in the name of fairness, make the 47% of Americans who pay NO income tax pay their share? That would validate your (faux) sincerity and bring in much more to the coffers than the "Buffet Rule".

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I forgot: this is an election year. You don't want to piss off all of those folks living off the government (in other words, receiving the benefits of this nation without the same sacrifice as the rest of us) now would you?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #31

The President is talking about a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" to protect people online. I think this is a good thing, especially for the government. Like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, once it is in writing the government can then start to ignore it.

© Emittravel 2012

"Leader" of the Free World

I, like everyone else, tend to hang around with like-minded people. It's easier on the blood pressure. These people seem to be really disgusted with President Obama, and for good reason. Yet, I don't think it is necessarily the man they dislike - most would not mind sitting in on that "beer summit" if given the chance. And I don't think it is necessarily his politics they dislike, though for most of us non-Chicago dwellers, politics-as-usual reminds us of scenes from "The Untouchables". I think that people are disgusted because President Obama has shown that he is indeed mortal. He is one of us. "Just a slob like one of us" (with a bow to Joan Osbourne).

How did that happen? I don't think it started with President Obama. You could go back to President Clinton and his MTV interview ("Boxers or briefs?"), or President Kennedy and "Camelot". I'm not sure when it started, or with whom the honor was bestowed, but it did happen: We, as a people, have elevated the position of President of the United States from a co-equal branch of government to Leader of the Free World. We have made the President into more than he is. We have flooded him with praise, and the secret service to go along with it.

The reason the Republicans are having such a tough time at picking a candidate is that we the people are not looking for a competent person to fill the role of the Executive Branch, but god. We want someone who will stop the oceans from rising and (finally) bring peace (whatever THAT is) to the Middle East. 

What we need is someone who will bring balance back to our government: three co-equal branches of government - remember civics class? They each hold the same amount of weight. If the President is the "leader", than so are the other branches. Think of it this way: If President Obama is leader of the free world, then so is Dennis Kucinich (yeah, that feels REALLY good, doesn't it?)

I don't really blame President Obama for being "The One" - he was knighted that by the people. Secretly we WANT someone to take care of us, to provide with cradle-to-grave care (which makes me wonder: if government is to provide everything we need, WHY do we need jobs??)

We can't have it both ways, folks. You can't be mad when "god" and "goddess" spend millions of dollars on themselves: every deity, in every religion, demands sacrifices and gifts be showered on them. Don't they deserve it?

Recently the National Guard was pulled from protecting the borders. The "argument" was that there were too few to make that much of a difference. I think that it's so the illegal immigrants can make it to the voting booths easier. Here is an idea: if we are not guarding the borders, let's remove that fence from around the White House, and the guards who protect it. After all, "god" should be able to protect himself . . .

Maybe it's time we stop bowing. Remember: he takes his pants down to poop like the rest of us.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #26

If you vote for or against a candidate because of race, sex, or whatever, you have PROVEN that we have not progressed as a people. I just heard commentary where the Republicans are alienating the Hispanic base. You know what? I'd LOVE to hear a candidate say that they don't give a FLIP about race, sex, or whatever, and that we are ONE American family, and they want what is best for America. THAT candidate will get my attention.

If you voted AGAINST President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST. If you voted FOR President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST.

We will not have progressed as a people until we look past race, sex, or whatever, and have actually listened to what comes out of a person's mouth. In other words, and I'm dating myself here, the ideal candidate will be the Unknown Comic!

© Emittravel 2011