Political

I would love to  be proven wrong on the Iranian Nuclear deal but unfortunately dreams don’t usually come true if the facts (below) point to a different outcome. So I ask you to please prove that the facts I outlined below don’t lead to a path toward greater destruction and a more dangerous war in the future.  

(1) Iranian Government is one of the prime sponsors of terrorism, what makes us think that giving them more monies won’t increase the amount of innocent dead bodies around the world?

(2) The Iranian Regime has broken many international treaties in the past why do we believe this would be any different? Worse then that, this treaty deals with weapons of mass death and destruction, therefore there is no room to be wrong.

(3) Inspectors must give Iran c. 15 days before they inspect a suspicious nuclear activity what makes us believe they won’t move the weapons in advance of such an inspection.

(4) What is occurring right now before the U.S and world actually bring this treaty to their governments? Some of the countries will be lifting sanctions earlier so Iran can use this time and monies to build it’s nuclear devices before any deal is even agreed upon by the U.S.

(5) How quick do we really believe the world would put sanctions back on Iran if they actually are able to discover a violation in this treaty and at that point “what difference would it make”?

Could Donald Trump’s Presidential bid be inside deal to get Hillary Clinton elected?  Let’s look at the facts (below) and then you can decide if this is a crazy conspiracy theory or has the truth dripping from it. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? I INVITE YOU TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW.

(1) Donald Trump’s campaign has said he would consider an independent run for the Presidency if he didn’t get the Republican nomination.  If that occurred it would pull enough votes away from the Republican Party as Mr. Perot did to put another Clinton in the White House.

(2) Donald Trump has made scathing attacks on other Republican’s in the race.  He has broken the Reagan Rule about refraining from personal attacks during a Presidential run.

(3) Mr. Trump has flipped like a pancake on many of the important issues Republican’s hold dear including (Abortion & Obamacare)

(4) Donald Trump’s quote on  Hillary Clinton “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren in March of 2012.  “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard.”

Scott Walker has made a powerful speech on why he should be President but I think we need to evaluate the pluses and minuses (below). As you can see I have many more positives. WHERE DO YOU STAND AND WHY?

POSITIVE

1. Strong Record of Achievement! (Cut Deficit, Lower Unemployment, Greater Educational Achievements etc.  etc.)

2. This record was achieved in a Blue state (Wisconsin)

3. In an Executive Position (Governor)

4. Powerful Speaker

5. Has a rags to middle class story.

6. Appears sincere

7.  Strong consistent conservative values and message.

8. Young and new.

9. Positive message.

NEGATIVE

1.  Annoying bald spot that gets in the way when he shakes hands.

2.  White Male (typical Republican Candidate) against women.

3.  Has strong enemies out for blood (unions) who are well funded and have their own army of supporters.

 I want a Presidential Candidate who will openly and defiantly will defend parental rights against the assault of government.  It has gotten to the point where a state (Oregon) will give a youth as young as 15 years old drugs to deal with changing their sexual identity without parental consent.  Government has imposed their values and beliefs on our children by making sure they leave their faith/values  at home when attending a public school, making it extremely difficult for parents to discipline their own children through fear of child protection bureau’s and even given them medicines and abortions while keeping parents in the dark. It’s time that we have a candidate that say’s enough is enough! Yes government should help those families that are having difficulties and of course protect those who might be subject to child abuse yet a drop does not fill a bucket. Most parents are good caring parents and we need a candidate who understands government doesn’t raise children parents due!

If your opposed to illegal immigration then I guess your opposed to restaurants, hotels, and even fruits.  If American Citizens would take the jobs of picking fruit, dishwashers, cleaning personnel, landscape work etc there would be no demand for these workers to come across the border. I’m all for the border being stronger to prevent individuals from illegally entering our country but  let’s us not be naive for without the demand there wouldn’t be a supply.  While we bemoan the drug dealer let us also realize that if there wasn’t an American drug user this dealer, whether home grown or illegally imported, wouldn’t exist. Therefore if we truly want to end illegal immigration a protective border will only be a hill to climb but cutting off the demand will truly stop the supply.  In turn let American’s take up the jobs these hard working individuals fulfill and let us realize that we will pay more for the basic items and supplies we now take for granted.

In a 5-4 decision the United States has imposed it’s will on all 50 individual states that they must recognize gay marriages.  If we are going in this direction then why not legalize Polygamy in all 50 states as well as long as there consulting adults?

The correct decision by the Supreme Court on whether to recognize “Homosexual Marriages” would make everyone  unhappy.  It would insure that those unions that were performed in states that recognize “Gay Marriage” would have to be recognized in all states but wouldn’t force any state to perform this act in their state. Therefore if a gay couple moved from NY to Texas their marriage would have to be accepted by Texas but Texas wouldn’t have to actually have to perform these ceremonies within it’s borders. The reason I believe this is the correct decision is because of the “interstate commerce” clause in the constitution. States individually would still have to decide what marriage within their borders.