Last night a conservative, gay speaker name Milo Yiannopoulos was prohibited from speaking at U.C. Berkley by rioters. This is ironic in that Berkley was the home of the free speech movement in the 1960s. It is also ironic in that many, if not most of the protestors, would tell you that the internet should be free and not have speech restricted.
Many will assume that the protestors are just a bunch of crazy Californian liberals; but, that would be a mistake. In fact, the U.C. campuses have been increasing the number of out of state students for years in order to increase revenue as in state people pay less. The cost to attend Berkley for non residents is about $60,000 a year, the cost for residents is about $23,000 a year according to their website. The average household income is about $50,000. So, how many families can afford to send their kid to UC Berkley, not too many. It is way beyond the reach of most middle class families and is getting even more remote.
Lets consider the reality of a college education for the middle class. Well, to begin with if they take out loans they could end up with a quarter of a million in debt and the opportunity to make eight dollars an hour. The higher education system is a business anymore, it is about branding and selling. It is a privilege which is very much limited to the children of the well to do and the colleges sell them on the idea of a good time. College is no longer as strenuous or difficult as it once was and the focus of classes has moved from business and science to social issues. As it becomes harder and harder for middle class families to send their children to college, the colleges themselves become populated more and more by the privileged and those children become less and less exposed to the middle class.
The people protesting at Berkley and now worried about manufacturing or farming jobs in the United States, they are much more likely to be interested in starting or working for internet companies. We are creating an America of two classes which are completely removed from one another and that is dangerous in many ways. What are the shared interests? Can we find common ground when there is no shared interests? The truth is that Americans attending UC Berkley have more in common with students who go their from other countries whose families are well off than they do with the middle class in most of this country and certainly than with those in the Midwest.
What we are witnessing is the effects of the technological revolution in the same way that the industrial revolution split this country into different classes with different interests. Look beyond the simple left right paradigm and look at the class paradigm or you will not understand what is going on.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Quebec Atrocities and Media Jumps to Conclusions
Last night the media was busy discussing the shooting at a mosque in Canada. The media immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was an anti-Muslim attack possibly caused by the United States travel ban. The problem is that at least one of the shooters appears to have been an Arab.
Pimpernel is a pacifist and rejects these types of heinous actions, I have written about this more than once. Our thoughts and prayers should go out to all of the victims.
Some small points and then the real issue. Firstly, the shock and anger over this shooting is surprising considering the fact that the west kills hundreds of Muslims on a daily basis in the countries that the travel ban has been placed on and nobody in the west seems to care. The media doesn't even bother reporting on all of the drone strikes done in the last months of Obama's presidency.
Now lets get to the media coverage. Within minutes of the shooting being announced the media was drawing conclusions. That is always dangerous and rarely accurate. When a Muslim couple in San Bernardino killed a number of people at a business the media jumped to the conclusions that it was Muslim terrorists and began speculating that the couple were part of a sleeper cell or connected to Al Qaida, I immediately wrote that we should wait for the facts to come out and not assume a reason. Turns out over a year later, NO connection to any terrorist organization has yet to be found. In fact, it looks like workplace violence.
We don't know the motivation behind these new shootings and the police have not claimed to know as of yet, so why did the media spin the story so quickly? The corporate media is trying to compete with the internet independent media; unfortunately in the worst way. When anything happens the internet immediately begins speculating without checking the facts, now the mainstream corporate media does the same thing so that they can seem relevant. This is especially true of shootings.
When there is a shooting the pro and anti gun proponents roll out their standard answers and if Arabs are involved the Pro and Anti Muslims sides come out with their standard answers. Neither side waits to find out the truth because both sides fear it will work against their stories. Before my readers make a conclusion I would ask that they wait a couple of weeks and let the facts come out as they will. Don't jump to conclusions, wait for more facts. We don't have to be as reactionary and biased as them mainstream media.
Pimpernel is a pacifist and rejects these types of heinous actions, I have written about this more than once. Our thoughts and prayers should go out to all of the victims.
Some small points and then the real issue. Firstly, the shock and anger over this shooting is surprising considering the fact that the west kills hundreds of Muslims on a daily basis in the countries that the travel ban has been placed on and nobody in the west seems to care. The media doesn't even bother reporting on all of the drone strikes done in the last months of Obama's presidency.
Now lets get to the media coverage. Within minutes of the shooting being announced the media was drawing conclusions. That is always dangerous and rarely accurate. When a Muslim couple in San Bernardino killed a number of people at a business the media jumped to the conclusions that it was Muslim terrorists and began speculating that the couple were part of a sleeper cell or connected to Al Qaida, I immediately wrote that we should wait for the facts to come out and not assume a reason. Turns out over a year later, NO connection to any terrorist organization has yet to be found. In fact, it looks like workplace violence.
We don't know the motivation behind these new shootings and the police have not claimed to know as of yet, so why did the media spin the story so quickly? The corporate media is trying to compete with the internet independent media; unfortunately in the worst way. When anything happens the internet immediately begins speculating without checking the facts, now the mainstream corporate media does the same thing so that they can seem relevant. This is especially true of shootings.
When there is a shooting the pro and anti gun proponents roll out their standard answers and if Arabs are involved the Pro and Anti Muslims sides come out with their standard answers. Neither side waits to find out the truth because both sides fear it will work against their stories. Before my readers make a conclusion I would ask that they wait a couple of weeks and let the facts come out as they will. Don't jump to conclusions, wait for more facts. We don't have to be as reactionary and biased as them mainstream media.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Hawaiian Pro-Immigrant Morons
Here is a video of protestors in Hawaii over Trump's keeping people from 7 radical countries out. I call them radical countries because the Obama administration chose the seven countries for special scrutiny over radicals in their country.
YouTube - Protesters at Honolulu Airport.
Imagine how insulting it is to real Hawaiians to see whites protesting the fact that we are enforcing our borders. We stole Hawaii from the minority indigenous people, just like we stole America from the Indians. You don't see a lot of native Americans protesting that more people cannot come into their lands. If native Americans or Hawaiians protested in favor of keeping out immigrants, what would the media response be?
YouTube - Protesters at Honolulu Airport.
Imagine how insulting it is to real Hawaiians to see whites protesting the fact that we are enforcing our borders. We stole Hawaii from the minority indigenous people, just like we stole America from the Indians. You don't see a lot of native Americans protesting that more people cannot come into their lands. If native Americans or Hawaiians protested in favor of keeping out immigrants, what would the media response be?
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Trump, Immigration and Media Lies.
USA Today - Experts question legality of Trump's ban on Muslim countries. The title of the article alone is dubious. While many on the right would call America a "Christian" country, it is not. Iran can be called a Muslim country as it is a theocracy; but, that is not true of Syria which is a socialist democracy.
The truth is that the ban is legal whether you agree with it or not. There are seven countries which we are not allowing people in from, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. In fact, we have prohibited visitors from Iran before under Jimmy Carter during the 1980s Iran hostage crisis. We have a history of prohibiting people coming here from other countries and case law supporting it. What is particularly ironic is that President Obama, as he was leaving the White House, passed a rule that said we would no longer accept people from Cuba automatically if they reached America by boat. That didn't get a lot of discussion except in Florida.
The Washington Post - Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions. This is another piece of propaganda. It implies that Trump only banned people from countries where he does not do business; but, in fact, there are a lot of countries where he does not do business, like Russia. He has no businesses in Russia and never has. Trump does have a golf course in Scotland, I guess he could have barred people from the United Kingdom from coming here. People from Lebanon can still come and that is a Muslim country that he doesn't do business in. I believe the only Arab country with a Trump property is Dubai, a Muslim nation. I cannot imagine why people would be surprised that Trump did not build a luxury hotel in Iraq or Syria during a civil war. So what do these seven countries have in common, oh wait, we have bombed them all or fomented civil war and that was under Obama. If we can bomb a country, refusing to let them send people here is certainly less offensive.
People are free to have an opinion on the validity of the ban; but, the media's hypocrisy and outright deceit in reporting the facts is disgusting. I thought they were worried about fake news, no wait, I know they have been printing fake news regularly since the consolidation of the media under Bill Clinton.
UPDATE:
I just can't get enough of misleading headlines that turn out to be untrue.
MSN - Washington Post - Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor. Read the article, the judge did NOT ban "deportations" as a whole. In fact he did not BAN deportations at all, he merely issued an order to delay the deportations of people who had left for this country from the seven banned countries at Dulles airport. These people had been flying here legally and the rule was instituted after they left. Here is a line from further down the article, "Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. “Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country,” she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question."
Why did the Washington Post lie, er, I mean misstate the facts or misrepresent the facts or just fail to be truthful? We have a corporate media, owned by six multinational corporations that controls 90% of the media. They represent corporate interests. The media is now more about selling ideas than products, they are into propaganda. It is not government propaganda, it is corporate propaganda.
One of the biggest media giants is Disney. They own ABC and many other media groups. They even bought out George Lucas and now own Star Wars. This is a company that had American tech people train their Indian replacements. Disney has a big stake in bringing in foreign tech people and paying them less than the Americans they replaced. By the way, that is supposed to be against the law.
I am constantly writing about the media, the purpose is to show you what to look for and not always about what they are discussing. Learn how the media manipulates the message and you can understand how to find the grains of truth in what anyone writes, even me.
UPDATE 2:
Seth J. Frantzman - Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you. The article goes over how the Obama administration was responsible for choosing the seven nations involved in the ban in 2015.
The truth is that the ban is legal whether you agree with it or not. There are seven countries which we are not allowing people in from, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. In fact, we have prohibited visitors from Iran before under Jimmy Carter during the 1980s Iran hostage crisis. We have a history of prohibiting people coming here from other countries and case law supporting it. What is particularly ironic is that President Obama, as he was leaving the White House, passed a rule that said we would no longer accept people from Cuba automatically if they reached America by boat. That didn't get a lot of discussion except in Florida.
The Washington Post - Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions. This is another piece of propaganda. It implies that Trump only banned people from countries where he does not do business; but, in fact, there are a lot of countries where he does not do business, like Russia. He has no businesses in Russia and never has. Trump does have a golf course in Scotland, I guess he could have barred people from the United Kingdom from coming here. People from Lebanon can still come and that is a Muslim country that he doesn't do business in. I believe the only Arab country with a Trump property is Dubai, a Muslim nation. I cannot imagine why people would be surprised that Trump did not build a luxury hotel in Iraq or Syria during a civil war. So what do these seven countries have in common, oh wait, we have bombed them all or fomented civil war and that was under Obama. If we can bomb a country, refusing to let them send people here is certainly less offensive.
People are free to have an opinion on the validity of the ban; but, the media's hypocrisy and outright deceit in reporting the facts is disgusting. I thought they were worried about fake news, no wait, I know they have been printing fake news regularly since the consolidation of the media under Bill Clinton.
UPDATE:
I just can't get enough of misleading headlines that turn out to be untrue.
MSN - Washington Post - Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor. Read the article, the judge did NOT ban "deportations" as a whole. In fact he did not BAN deportations at all, he merely issued an order to delay the deportations of people who had left for this country from the seven banned countries at Dulles airport. These people had been flying here legally and the rule was instituted after they left. Here is a line from further down the article, "Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. “Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country,” she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question."
Why did the Washington Post lie, er, I mean misstate the facts or misrepresent the facts or just fail to be truthful? We have a corporate media, owned by six multinational corporations that controls 90% of the media. They represent corporate interests. The media is now more about selling ideas than products, they are into propaganda. It is not government propaganda, it is corporate propaganda.
One of the biggest media giants is Disney. They own ABC and many other media groups. They even bought out George Lucas and now own Star Wars. This is a company that had American tech people train their Indian replacements. Disney has a big stake in bringing in foreign tech people and paying them less than the Americans they replaced. By the way, that is supposed to be against the law.
I am constantly writing about the media, the purpose is to show you what to look for and not always about what they are discussing. Learn how the media manipulates the message and you can understand how to find the grains of truth in what anyone writes, even me.
UPDATE 2:
Seth J. Frantzman - Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you. The article goes over how the Obama administration was responsible for choosing the seven nations involved in the ban in 2015.
Lets Honestly Discuss Immigration
President Trump has instituted a ban on immigrants from certain countries for 90 days while the issue of vetting (approving) them is discussed and a new criteria is established. The media basically calls for open borders while Trump calls for limited immigration. What is the approach we should take?
The first question is simple, should we allow unrestricted movement between countries? I think most would say no. Should we allow criminals from other countries to come here? I think most would say no; but, we have before. We allowed unvetted people from Cuba to come here, think the movie "Scarface".
Let me ask the question another way. Should we allow any immigration? Well, many immigrants come here on educational visas to attend college. Should we allow that? Should we allow immigration from countries that don't allow Americans to immigrate into their nations? Should it be reciprocal?
Working class people want to ban the poor from other countries coming here because it lowers wages and they take jobs that Americans will do that do not require an education. Tech companies want immigration by tech workers from India and China in order to lower wages in those industries. Is that good for Americans? Many Christians want immigration from Muslim dominated countries for their Christians who they see as persecuted. Which persecutions matter, what about allowing in gays from countries where they are persecuted?
America and Australia are nations of immigrants. Australia was a nation of convicts, should they now be a nation that allows convicts from other countries in? I have heard and read many times that Trump wants to ban 1.3 billion Muslims from coming here, should we allow 1.3 billion people to come here. Do we need to increase our population that much?
Lets get back to the simple questions, how many people should be allowed to come here a year? The problem is not really who should be allowed to move here, the question is how many. Should we concern ourselves with the impact on society of immigration? Cultural society? These are all valid questions; but, I don't have the answers and from what I can tell neither does anybody else.
I disagree with Trump very strongly about Mexican immigration. I agree that we have the right as a nation to determine who comes here, the same as any other nation; but, the vast majority of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, are a net positive on the country. The truth is that Mexican immigrants fit in quite well with the existing Mexican populations and they are willing to turn in criminals.
This post is not about the answers, it is about the questions. You cannot vet a person's soul, it is not for man to do. You can however limit numbers, that is achievable. We currently have around 330 million people in the United States, we could afford to take in 500,000 people a year without seriously challenging our society. The same cannot be said for Scandinavian countries which only have a couple of million people living there to begin with. If we don't address the question of how many we can never honestly address the question of who.
The first question is simple, should we allow unrestricted movement between countries? I think most would say no. Should we allow criminals from other countries to come here? I think most would say no; but, we have before. We allowed unvetted people from Cuba to come here, think the movie "Scarface".
Let me ask the question another way. Should we allow any immigration? Well, many immigrants come here on educational visas to attend college. Should we allow that? Should we allow immigration from countries that don't allow Americans to immigrate into their nations? Should it be reciprocal?
Working class people want to ban the poor from other countries coming here because it lowers wages and they take jobs that Americans will do that do not require an education. Tech companies want immigration by tech workers from India and China in order to lower wages in those industries. Is that good for Americans? Many Christians want immigration from Muslim dominated countries for their Christians who they see as persecuted. Which persecutions matter, what about allowing in gays from countries where they are persecuted?
America and Australia are nations of immigrants. Australia was a nation of convicts, should they now be a nation that allows convicts from other countries in? I have heard and read many times that Trump wants to ban 1.3 billion Muslims from coming here, should we allow 1.3 billion people to come here. Do we need to increase our population that much?
Lets get back to the simple questions, how many people should be allowed to come here a year? The problem is not really who should be allowed to move here, the question is how many. Should we concern ourselves with the impact on society of immigration? Cultural society? These are all valid questions; but, I don't have the answers and from what I can tell neither does anybody else.
I disagree with Trump very strongly about Mexican immigration. I agree that we have the right as a nation to determine who comes here, the same as any other nation; but, the vast majority of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, are a net positive on the country. The truth is that Mexican immigrants fit in quite well with the existing Mexican populations and they are willing to turn in criminals.
This post is not about the answers, it is about the questions. You cannot vet a person's soul, it is not for man to do. You can however limit numbers, that is achievable. We currently have around 330 million people in the United States, we could afford to take in 500,000 people a year without seriously challenging our society. The same cannot be said for Scandinavian countries which only have a couple of million people living there to begin with. If we don't address the question of how many we can never honestly address the question of who.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Just Catching Up On Some News
New American - EU Boss: Citizens Should Not Get to Vote on Important Issues. The establishment hates democracy. It is always that way.
Huffington Post - Uber Unveils ‘Movement’ Tool To Help City Planners Better Analyze Traffic Patterns. Yes, they want taxpayers to pay for infrastructure to support self driving vehicles and kill over 3 million jobs.
MSN - Racist CEO Called Out After Controversial Tweet. Here is a quote from the article, "The Founder of Time Share CMO Melinda Byerley was recently under fire for calling rural America a “shithole full of stupid people.” The Midwest is the new peons and peasants in the mind of the establishment and the wealthy.
MSN - CNBC - Facebook's Zuckerberg sues hundreds of Hawaiians to force property sales to him. He has a problem with peasants, even native ones.
Express - Human-pig HYBRID? Scientists hoping to create part man, part pig organs. Nothing new, just fewer and fewer regulations and oversite of this technology.
Huffington Post - Uber Unveils ‘Movement’ Tool To Help City Planners Better Analyze Traffic Patterns. Yes, they want taxpayers to pay for infrastructure to support self driving vehicles and kill over 3 million jobs.
MSN - Racist CEO Called Out After Controversial Tweet. Here is a quote from the article, "The Founder of Time Share CMO Melinda Byerley was recently under fire for calling rural America a “shithole full of stupid people.” The Midwest is the new peons and peasants in the mind of the establishment and the wealthy.
MSN - CNBC - Facebook's Zuckerberg sues hundreds of Hawaiians to force property sales to him. He has a problem with peasants, even native ones.
Express - Human-pig HYBRID? Scientists hoping to create part man, part pig organs. Nothing new, just fewer and fewer regulations and oversite of this technology.
Friday, January 20, 2017
President Donald J Trump, the 45th President.
It is now official, Donald J Trump is the 45th President of the United States. You may like him or hate him but he is now the President and I will refer to him as such, same as I referred to Obama as President Obama. So what does his election mean for this blog? Well, it means that I will question his action same as I question other politicians and criticize when appropriate.
Here is what scares me, that nobody will listen when honest criticism or Trump is given because the corporate media will twist everything he does as negative. You are going to find it hard to read or hear objective analysis of anything he does. Beyond media bias against him, there is something deeper at stake. Globalism versus nationalism.
The heads of the world's economy are meeting in Davos and they are discussing Trump. They are not discussing how they believe he is racist, misogynistic or homophobic. In fact, they know he is none of those things or simply don't care. What they are discussing is the effect of Brexit and the Trump election getting in the way of international law (mainly through treaties) being the main form of law for all nations.
To understand what Trump plans and looking beyond the candidate's hyperbole, lets look at his actual inauguration speech for his priorities.
CNBC - Read President Trump's full, blistering inaugural speech, attacking Washington, promising 'America first'.
He talks about returning this country to the people and away from the forces that were controlling Washington. That is called populism or if you will democracy, majority rule.
He then talks about how the establishment has been successful; but, not the people and that the people have not shared in the increase in wealth of this nation. The statistics will prove this out as in the last 8 years all the gains have gone to the 1% and the vast majority of those gains to the .1%.
He then talks about how this nation is here to serve the people and not just the few. He outlines the priorities of the nation as education, safety and jobs. I want you to understand this is not a Republican speech. His priorities are not those of the Republican party since the Bushes and not even the Democrats priorities since the Clintons.
He now gets into how we have given away our industry to foreign nations and states that it is the nations job to put America first in it's priorities. His next initiative is to rebuild America infrastructure. He then talks about foreign relations and says we will cease trying to force our beliefs on others; but, will work with others. That is not going to please arms manufacturers.
Here is what he did not discuss. He did not discuss restricting abortion. He did not discuss getting rid of gay marriage. He did not discuss ANY race as being our enemy. He did not discuss ANY nation as being our enemy.
Here is the reality. Trump has never been very vocal on social issues like abortion, gays or race. Funny that those are the only issues the media pressed him on. From day one his focus has been on nationalism and the middle and working class.
Here is why I would have preferred Sanders. Sanders would have basically agreed with all that Trump said and added in putting more regulations on the banks and Wall Street and breaking up monopolies. The reason I disliked Hillary is simple, she didn't support any of those things or what Sanders would have added. I consider the Clintons no better than the Bushes. Do you know what else President Trump didn't spend much if anytime on, Obamacare.
From this day forward the question is how should he be judged? I will evaluate him on his ability to bring manufacturing back to the United States, his ability to stay out of war and his ability to protect our borders. Not because those our my first three priorities; but, because those are the priorities he was elected on. If he meets those I will say he was the first one in decades to actually worked on the promises he made. If I find that he in fact enacts socially restrictive laws on gays, minorities or women then I will say he was horrible and attack him anytime I see him do such things; but, I don't believe he will. If he fixes a system where all the benefits only go to the wealthy then I will say he was a great President. How will you judge him? These are the things I will write about in the future along with continuing themes or spirituality, technology and economic trickery.
Let us all hope, and for those of us who are spiritual let us all pray, that he is a good President. Because he is now our President whether you like it or not. I personally refuse to swear on a bible, even in court. I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, only a nation. I pray for this nation. I pray for the people to be loving to each other and to those of other nations.
Here is what scares me, that nobody will listen when honest criticism or Trump is given because the corporate media will twist everything he does as negative. You are going to find it hard to read or hear objective analysis of anything he does. Beyond media bias against him, there is something deeper at stake. Globalism versus nationalism.
The heads of the world's economy are meeting in Davos and they are discussing Trump. They are not discussing how they believe he is racist, misogynistic or homophobic. In fact, they know he is none of those things or simply don't care. What they are discussing is the effect of Brexit and the Trump election getting in the way of international law (mainly through treaties) being the main form of law for all nations.
To understand what Trump plans and looking beyond the candidate's hyperbole, lets look at his actual inauguration speech for his priorities.
CNBC - Read President Trump's full, blistering inaugural speech, attacking Washington, promising 'America first'.
He talks about returning this country to the people and away from the forces that were controlling Washington. That is called populism or if you will democracy, majority rule.
He then talks about how the establishment has been successful; but, not the people and that the people have not shared in the increase in wealth of this nation. The statistics will prove this out as in the last 8 years all the gains have gone to the 1% and the vast majority of those gains to the .1%.
He then talks about how this nation is here to serve the people and not just the few. He outlines the priorities of the nation as education, safety and jobs. I want you to understand this is not a Republican speech. His priorities are not those of the Republican party since the Bushes and not even the Democrats priorities since the Clintons.
He now gets into how we have given away our industry to foreign nations and states that it is the nations job to put America first in it's priorities. His next initiative is to rebuild America infrastructure. He then talks about foreign relations and says we will cease trying to force our beliefs on others; but, will work with others. That is not going to please arms manufacturers.
Here is what he did not discuss. He did not discuss restricting abortion. He did not discuss getting rid of gay marriage. He did not discuss ANY race as being our enemy. He did not discuss ANY nation as being our enemy.
Here is the reality. Trump has never been very vocal on social issues like abortion, gays or race. Funny that those are the only issues the media pressed him on. From day one his focus has been on nationalism and the middle and working class.
Here is why I would have preferred Sanders. Sanders would have basically agreed with all that Trump said and added in putting more regulations on the banks and Wall Street and breaking up monopolies. The reason I disliked Hillary is simple, she didn't support any of those things or what Sanders would have added. I consider the Clintons no better than the Bushes. Do you know what else President Trump didn't spend much if anytime on, Obamacare.
From this day forward the question is how should he be judged? I will evaluate him on his ability to bring manufacturing back to the United States, his ability to stay out of war and his ability to protect our borders. Not because those our my first three priorities; but, because those are the priorities he was elected on. If he meets those I will say he was the first one in decades to actually worked on the promises he made. If I find that he in fact enacts socially restrictive laws on gays, minorities or women then I will say he was horrible and attack him anytime I see him do such things; but, I don't believe he will. If he fixes a system where all the benefits only go to the wealthy then I will say he was a great President. How will you judge him? These are the things I will write about in the future along with continuing themes or spirituality, technology and economic trickery.
Let us all hope, and for those of us who are spiritual let us all pray, that he is a good President. Because he is now our President whether you like it or not. I personally refuse to swear on a bible, even in court. I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, only a nation. I pray for this nation. I pray for the people to be loving to each other and to those of other nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)