My Least-Favorite Things

Remember when Sean Penn

Gave Madonna some bruises

And there’s John Travolta

Who liked men on ship cruises

Roman Polanski who raped

And left country on wings

These are a few of the creepier things

There is Bill Cosby

Who raped 13 women

Oliver Stone preferred

A perverted audition

Britney Spears flashed her guard

And showed him her blings

These are a few of the creepier things

Then Harvey Weinstein

Liked fertilizing flowers

Bill Clinton was accused

Of raping Jennifer . . . Flowers

Kevin Spacey said that

Pedophilia’s his thing

These are a few of the creepier things

When each new claim

Hits the media

And I start feeling blue

I just look at Twitter and then understand

All the cries of hashtag, “Me too!”

Okay, that was a very rough parody of Julie Andrew's “My Favorite Things”, but I think you get the picture.

It seems like more and more we hear of people behaving badly towards others. Usually when you have a “themed” media onslaught, I wonder what is the real, more terrible story being ignored. You know, what is this a distraction for? Sort of like, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” or more appropriately, “Pay no attention to the bill being passed by Congress.”

Then I wonder what if this IS the real, more terrible story.

And I want to cry.

“Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.”

Sigh . . .

© 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

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

Stuff My Brain Says #36

One of the major differences that I've read concerning Republican and Democrat politicians is that most Democrats have a background in the legal establishment (a.k.a. "lawyers") and most Republicans have a background in business (corporate or private). As far as running the government is concerned, both have their pluses and minuses. I think the real benefits are seen when politicians leave office. Most Republicans go back to what they were doing before taking office (or retiring). Democrats, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, seem to keep hanging around like the annoying relative at the end of a family function - they never know when to go home!

© Emittravel 2012