WHY I'M RUNNING. GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE MOLLY KELLY.

Hi David,

My name is Molly Kelly, and I’m running to be the next governor of New Hampshire.

My team and I put together a short video to share about why I’m running – and why I’m refusing to accept any corporate PAC money. I hope you’ll take a moment to watch:

Click here to watch our new video and learn about how our campaign is fighting for the progress New Hampshire deserves.

I’ll be reaching out soon to learn more about you and your priorities for the future, but first, I want to share a bit about why I’m running:

I believe it’s time to invest in our future generation of leaders. Strong public school funding and well-paying jobs mean young people can fulfill their potential right here in the Granite State.

I want a New Hampshire where all people have a chance to succeed, not just a few.

I believe in the power of grassroots supporters...which is why I’m refusing corporate PAC money. I’m accountable to you – that’s it.

Again, I hope you’ll take just a moment to watch this video and learn more about our grassroots campaign for New Hampshire’s future:

As a former state senator, I can’t wait to stand alongside you for New Hampshire’s schools, families and economy. Thanks for being part of this team,

Molly Kelly

ETHICS AND MORALITY. MORAL COWARDICE- WHEN YOU SACRIFICE YOUR PRINCIPLES, SO NOT TO OFFEND. PT 2.

A major part of the work that goes into publishing this site, is keeping up with current news and events.

However, it also means confronting and understanding opposing viewpoints, not only of those I have never met, but also friends and family.  What I have found to be most interesting is the reluctance of some to voice an opinion, if they are aware of those with a dissenting point of view being present.

I understand that many people will go out of their way to avoid confrontation.  The desire to be liked and accepted is so strong in some individuals, that they will try to find a way to make everyone happy. This includes being a passive witness and listener, even when someone is ridiculing and disrespecting an opinion or belief they hold dear.  Even more disturbing, this can extend to the point of ignoring inaccurate or wrong information being transmitted to others, by an individual who clearly does not understand the facts of a given situation.

I have often found this to be true of a person promoting an idea that supports a certain worldview that cannot stand up to close scrutiny.  They bend or distort information in a way that fits neatly with their conception of reality, even if it violates the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking.

Now the point of confronting such irrational and clearly invalid lines of reasoning, is not to attempt to change the mind of the offending individual.  Usually, this would be a pointless exercise, for they have already exhibited a capacity to ignore anything that would conflict with their viewpoint.  As we have seen, especially when we examine certain decisions made by Juries in Criminal Trials, that some people lack the ability or willingness to make decisions in a rational manner.

Look for PT 3.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS 2015 STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH; A CHALLENGE TO THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL OPPOSITION. PT 2.

''DO YOU REMEMBER...BLASTS FROM THE PAST. ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS 2015 SOTUS. PT 1.'' has generated enough reader interest, to the point of reprinting previous sections of PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS SOTUS. THE FOLLOWING WAS TAKEN FROM THE 2015 SPEECH.

More of President Obamas 1/20/2015 State Of The Union Speech, Emphasizing content that comes near the end.

"If we're going to have arguments, let's have arguments – but let's make them debates worthy of this body, and worthy of this country."

Translation-  "We are the Leaders of the Most Powerful and Influential Country on Earth.  If there are Disagreements that lead to Arguments, we should Act with the Intellect and Decorum that is Expected of World Leaders.  To do Less, is a Betrayal of the People and the Country we have Chosen to Serve."

After the Previous Statements about Improving the Nasty, Cruel and Often Pointless Nature of Political Discourse that seems to Permeate the Hallowed Halls of Congress, the President Moves on, Touching on Topics that still cause a Great Deal of Controversy:

"... that every woman should have access to the health care she needs."

"...but surely we can all see something of ourselves in the striving young student, and agree that no one benefits when a hardworking mom is taken from her child, and that it's possible to shape a law that upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."

"...surely we can agree that the right to vote is sacred; that it's being denied to too many; and that, on this 50 anniversary of the great march from Selma to Montgomery and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to make voting easier for every single American."

Obviously, These are Meant to Express the Presidents Belief on how WE SHOULD APPROACH THE DIVISIVE ISSUES OF UNIVERSAL MEDICAL CARE, IMMIGRATION LAW, AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

While there is nothing in the Above that would cause us Pause, for the President is just Reiterating his Beliefs and Goals regarding these Issues, at no TIME DOES HE ATTACK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, TEA PARTY, OR ANY OTHER GROUP THAT MAY DISAGREE WITH HIS POSITION ON THESE SUBJECTS.  HE REFUSES TO TAKE OPPOSING VIEWS PERSONALLY, NOT PUTTING HIS OWN FEELINGS AHEAD OF ANYTHING ELSE.

THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF "DEBATES WORTHY OF THIS BODY, AND WORTHY OF THIS COUNTRY."

ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 2.

Unfortunately, throughout Human History, Many Religions and Faiths have exported Their Religious Beliefs and Practices at the point of a Sword.  Adapt or Die.

Sometimes it is Different Denominations or Sects within the Same RELIGION, supposedly Worshiping the same GOD, who have engaged in Fights to the Death.

Yet, there are cases of Empires and Nations showing Tolerance to the Belief Systems of People who Inhabit recently acquired Territory or Land.

What causes One form of Government to behave in a manner that Persecutes, and another to show Understanding and Acceptance?

I think it may lie with THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, OR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH THAT IS ESPOUSED BY THOSE IN POWER OR AUTHORITY, THAT WILL GIVE US AN INDICATION OF HOW OPPOSITION RELIGIOUS GROUPS WILL BE TREATED.

To Clarify, consider the following Two examples.

Government # 1 is Ceded Land that was Formerly controlled by an opposing Nation.  This Government is now responsible for Administering and Enforcing Economic, Social and Legal Programs that are part of its Infrastructure, into the Newly Acquired Territory.

There is a Problem;  The Dominant Religion in this Area, by number of Adherents, is Relatively Small compared to other Faiths within Government #1's Borders.

However, the New Government has a Policy that Recognizes the Following:  THAT LAWS GOVERNING MORAL BEHAVIOR AND RELIGIOUS FAITH, ONLY ADDRESS ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE STABILITY OR PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PRESENT FORM OF AUTHORITY. This may include such Concepts as CIVIL RIGHTS, TAXATION, CRIMINAL ACTS etc.

THIS GIVES US THE FOLLOWING:  RELIGIOUS FAITH AND WORSHIP ARE MORALLY NEUTRAL CONCEPTS LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION, AND ARE NOT TO BE SANCTIONED OR PUNISHED UNLESS THEY INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE.

LOOK FOR THE SECOND EXAMPLE, ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, IN PART 3.