DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES GO TO WASTE. PART 1.

The SUPREME COURT RULINGS DURING THIS PAST WEEK ARE EVIDENCE THAT LOGIC, REASON, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE ARE TERMS AND CONCEPTS THAT CAN COME TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH A COMMON GOAL.

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THE DECISIONS TO AFFIRM THE LEGAL STANDING OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,  ALONG WITH THE RULING THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT DENY SAME-SEX COUPLES THE RIGHT TO LEGALLY MARRY, ARE PROOF OF THIS.

Of Course,  Some of those who Opposed Such JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE CRYING FOUL, AND WILL DO ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO OPPOSE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE DECISIONS INTO THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND PUBLIC POLICY.

HOWEVER, THEIR ARGUMENTS AND TACTICS HAVE NOT CHANGED. EQUALITY, RIGHTS, AND JUSTICE ARE TERMS MANY DELIBERATELY USE INCORRECTLY, TO SUPPORT AN IRRATIONAL POINT OF VIEW THAT DOES NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.

BUT THEY ARE NOT THE REAL DANGER.  THE  SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUAL WHO CARES NOTHING FOR OTHERS, ALONG WITH THE RELIGIOUS ZEALOT WHO BELIEVES GOD IS THEIR PERSONAL PIPELINE, ARE WITH US NOW AS IN THE PAST.  THEY CAN BE DEFEATED, AND WILL BECOME LESS AND LESS OF A FACTOR, AS LONG AS THOSE WHO ARE CELEBRATING TODAYS VICTORIES REMEMBER THE ETHICAL JUDGMENTS, AND MORAL ABSOLUTES THEY SUPPORTED TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.

BLAST FROM THE PAST. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH: INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION:  AS THE U.S. CONTINUES TO GRAPPLE WITH DONALD TRUMPS "POLICIES,"  I THOUGHT A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE WOULD SHOW US HOW THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM.

QUICK HITTERS.

POST #16.  NOT AIRING PRESIDENT OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH.

I WONDER WHY?
(First Published on 11/21/2014.)

What a Proud moment for CBS, NBC, ABC AND FOX.  Deciding not to give the President 10-15 minutes Air Time to explain his Decision regarding Immigration. After all, no one really cares, right?

I mean, how important is it to hear what the President has to say on the Issue, before passing Judgment?  It's not like opponents will pick and choose certain areas of the Text to Criticize, and take them out of context.

That has never been done before.

It wouldn't be something like a Public Service to have the President of this Great Nation, Speaking Live and Direct to its Citizens on an Issue of Historic Importance?

Opponents will never use a snub like this, to claim that there is some kind of CONSPIRACY BY THE PRESIDENT, to avoid speaking to a National Audience. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT HE ASKED FOR THE TIME, AND WAS TURNED DOWN. THEY SAY HE REALLY DIDN'T WANT IT.  SO, IF THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY HONEST, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR ANY TIME AT ALL.

OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT MAKING HIS CASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS SOMETHING HE NEVER WANTED TO DO.  THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THIS REASONING,  ASKING FOR FACE TIME WITH THE CITIZENS OF THE U.S., WAS A WAY NOT TO GET IT.

(Yes, there are those who are pushing this incredibly Convoluted Nonsense, to let the NETWORKS OFF THE HOOK.)

But we know this often happened to past Presidents , being turned down for requested time to address the Nation.

Now where is that Classic Piece of Mindless Drivel that says there is a Liberal Bias in the Media?

OH, IT WAS EXEMPLIFIED LAST NIGHT.

Good thing Corporate America is around to protect us, from anything we might hear the President say. 

Date-  11/21/2014.

RECIPE FOR A FASCIST PRESIDENCY: HATE, IGNORANCE, DECEIT, AND A BOGUS ELECTION.

How many Times have you seen or heard a Politician reiterate support for a Particular Side of an Issue, but later shift, alter, or completely change the reason for continuing that support? Do we find that such a change causes an immediate uproar among the Politicians Supporters, who shift Their Allegiance Elsewhere?

To a Minor Degree that does occur, but on the whole, the vast majority remain loyal to the Candidate, just switching one explanation for another.

This seems to indicate a Certain Mindset that most POLITICIANS, VOTERS, AND THE NEWS MEDIA REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE DUE TO THE SHORT AND LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS:

THAT MANY AMERICANS ARE LOOKING FOR AN "EXCUSE" TO JUSTIFY THE OPINIONS THEY HAVE ON CERTAIN ISSUES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE ON PARTICULAR ISSUES ARE NOT THE RESULT OF INTELLECTUAL REFLECTION, LOOKING AT ALL SIDES OF AN ISSUE WITH AN OPEN MIND, BUT WITH PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS BASED ON IRRATIONAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH ARE BUILT UPON UNWARRANTED, FALSE, AND MISLEADING PREMISES AND DATA.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

THIS IS THE REASONING THAT GIVES US POLITICIANS LIKE DONALD TRUMP, AND IS ONE OF THE TWO MAIN REASONS THAT HE NOW OCCUPIES THE WHITE HOUSE;                                                                       

1) THE RIGGING/ALTERING OF FINAL VOTE TOTALS IN CERTAIN STATES TO GIVE HIM AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE VICTORY. 

2) GIVING EVERY HATE GROUP ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS TO JUSTIFY THEIR VIEWPOINTS. THESE WERE USED WHEN INTERACTING WITH THE MEDIA, OR ANSWERING QUESTIONS POSED BY POLITICAL OPPONENTS.  

AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, THESE "EXPLANATIONS" WORK IF YOUR OPPONENTS, OR THOSE WHO COVER AND REPORT THE NEWS, LACK THE COURAGE, DISCIPLINE, OR WHEREWITHAL TO CHALLENGE THE OFTEN BOGUS, FALSE, OR INACCURATE CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE TO PROMOTE AN AGENDA OF HATE...

...AND IT SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE AN ELECTION, NOT AFTER...                                                                           

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHY DO POLITICIANS LIE? PT 2.

To Examine this Topic More Clearly, we must first settle on a Few Definitions to separate the DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NON- TRUTHFUL COMMUNICATION THAT ARE USED IN LANGUAGE AND SPEECH.

1)  LIE-  THE SIMPLEST OF ALL.  A LIE IS A DELIBERATE AND CONSCIOUS ACTION, WRITTEN OR SPOKEN, TO RELAY INFORMATION TO OTHERS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL KNOWS IS NOT TRUE.

                

2)  DECEPTION-  CAN BE DESCRIBED AS AVOIDING, IGNORING, OR REJECTING PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING A SUBJECT UNDER DEBATE THAT MAY NOT SUPPORT THE DESIRED CONCLUSION.  IT IS NOT OFFERING UNTRUTHFUL INFORMATION, BUT IGNORING MATERIAL THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PRESELECTED OUTCOME. 

HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES:

A)  DECEPTION BY OMISSION-  CHOOSING TO USE ONLY THOSE STATISTICS AND FACTUAL DATA THAT SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION, AND DELIBERATELY IGNORING ANY THAT CONTRADICTS THAT CONCLUSION.

B)  DECEPTION BY BLIND ACCEPTANCE-  THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION TO SUPPORT A FACTUAL CLAIM, THAT HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED PROPERLY TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY.

C)  DECEPTION OF A SINGLE OUTCOME-  THE CLAIM THAT BY ACTING, BEHAVING, OR MAKING CERTAIN CHOICES CAN ONLY LEAD TO ONE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION, WHEN IN FACT THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

D)  DECEPTION OF ALL THEORIES ARE THE SAME. - THE ASSERTION THAT IF WE CANNOT PROVE SOMETHING TO BE FACTUAL, THAN ALL THEORIES OFFERING A SOLUTION ARE OF EQUAL INTELLECTUAL VALUE.