Archives for category: Election Criteria

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on http://gadflyblog.com/ effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher

Advertisements

The Gad Fly ver. 1.2.1

The Philosopher

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

7/20/2016

Copyright 2016

Definition of Gad Fly

  • A fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or bot-fly.
  • An annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The Gad Fly of the Greek Democracy[i]

  • Plato refers to Socrates as the “gad fly” of the state (as the gad fly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians).

The Gad Fly of the Christian Church[ii]

A New Paradigm in Christian Thinkingis the gad fly of the Christian Church.  Christian Churches do not accept criticism, ever. The price of criticism in the Christian Church is excommunication.  Christian sees themselves as “birds of a feather” and a critical bird is not of their nest.  They must protect the income and salaries of the professional Christians, the minds of their youth and the minds of all of their members from the gad flies of the Christian Church. Professional Christians must preach to the choir, instructing them on the religion that they have chosen to put their faith.  The cost of not preaching to the choir is that the choir will vote with their feet and donations, resulting in a loss of income to the church and the professional Christians who probably have children – if Protestant – that they need to get through college and a mortgage to pay off.   If the professional Christians are Catholic, they will not meet with the approval of the hierarchy of the church and will be excommunicated.

Max Planck, the German nuclear physicist of the early twentieth century, stated, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.[iii]

The same statement can be made of religion.  Acceptance of a new viewpoint of the existing data on religion can only take place when a younger generation becomes comfortable with these new views and those who are adamantly opposed to these new views die off.

Because of this self-protection of the minds of the youths, the church is destined to disappear for failure to keep up with our knowledge of the universe and the light it has shined on our knowledge and purpose of the visit to planet Earth of the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) two thousand years ago, and taught how the Homo sapiens who have evolved over the past thousands of centuries can get their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met on this planet Earth and how to live in peace with each other and other nations.

An interesting side note is that Paleoanthropologist has found no link to the evolution of the Homo sapiens skull to that of the evolved Ancient Man, leaving open the creation of the Homo species by the “Creator of the Universe”.  Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different, nor is there any evidence of a transitional development from the skull of Ancient Man to the skull (Brain) of the Homo Species. [iv]

The advances in our knowledge of the universe and the life creation process in the last one hundred years, mainly due to the Hubble Telescope and advances in life science, have put the Christian Church in a position where they need to update their theology from religious to pragmatic (cause and effect, science) or face extinction.  The church is clearly in a positon of “grow or die” and the church cannot possibly grow with the determination to maintain their existing course, a course established and handed down through the generations and centuries by people that did not understand the meaning, instructions from the RoCoU and implications of the events that had taken place in the very beginning of “The Way” or the Christian Church.  These events took place in a very religious society and that society, for the most part, saw and recorded these events through a religious lens (perspective).

Case Study I

The RoCoU that visited planet Earth two thousand years ago taught the audience that had gathered around Him how to get along with other people on a one-on-one basis and how nations could live in peace with one another on a nation-to-nation basis.[v]

  • For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [vi] From the accepted Christian perspective, their judgments will be judged by a higher power at the end of the life of planet Earth. They do not see their judging others as something that has immediate consequences.  From the pragmatic perspective, the effect of judging others – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation – will have immediate consequences.  All Homo sapiens on planet Earth are of equal authority; one does not have dominion over another. And as one Homo sapien judges another, so in turn are they judged by those they are judging in real time by the same measure they are using to judge!This holds true for one nation to judge another nation. As one nation judges another, so is that nation judged, by the measure they use to judge, by the nation they are judging.  As in the case where the USA is judging ISIS with “air strikes,” the USA is being judged by ISIS attacking soft target (civilian targets, airplanes, restaurants, public places, etc.) with bombing and assault weapons.  The USA has judged ISIS as “barbaric” and ISIS, in turn, has judged the USA as “barbaric”.  This ISIS War has made it impossible to tell the Barbarians from the Barbarians.

Wars of our past have been mislabeled.  We must remember that the President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.  The orders given by the President must be followed by the USA military forces.  The President does not issue illegal orders.  If the President  orders it, it is a legal order and must be obeyed by those in subornation to the Commander-in-Chief.  One can argue that they do not have to follow an illegal order, but they will probably be sent to the brig while the Supreme Court reviews their case. They will be removed from and replaced from duty and someone else will carry out the Commander-in-Chief’s order.

Therefore the Civil War as we know it was not our civil war – it was  Lincoln’s War.  The USA involvement in WWII was FDR’s and Truman’s War.  Harry Truman was President when the Korean War began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.  The Vietnam War was JFK’s initiative and LBJ’s Bombing War; Nixon pulled USA troops out of Vietnam. The Serbia vs. Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO was Clinton’s war.  The Persian Gulf War I with Iraq was G.H.W. Bush’s War.  The Iraq War was G.W. Bush’s War and the ISIS-ISIL War is Obama’s War.

As a professional troubleshooter for over forty years, I can equivalently state that, “A problem must be accurately described before action is taken to try and solve the problem; if not, a bigger problem will be the result.”  By placing the proper labels on our past wars, we should gain some insight as to the right problem to solve.

The Right Problem to Solve

  • Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” [vii]

The term “workable compromise” was not coined until the twentieth century. Is it any wonder that our ancestors did not understand the meaning of the above instruction from the RoCoU during his visit to planet Earth two thousand years ago?  A workable Compromise is a solution to conflicts that work for all participants in the disagreement.  The first step in search of a workable compromise is to ask the conflicting subject, “What do you want?”  If one does not understand what the conflicting parties want, how can a resolution ever be found that works for the principle parties?

  • Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.[viii]

Here we have the workable compromise on a much larger scale.  In the case of USA vs. ISIS, the question was never asked, “What do you want?”  If we trace back the steps of the previous administrations, we should be able to predict what ISIS-ISIL wants.  The Sunni Muslims were in power in Iraq prior to G.W. Bush’s administration.  G.W. Bush’s War left the Sunni dispossessed from their homeland by the puppet Shiite Muslim administration installed by Bush. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, was involved in its own civil war; The Sunni Muslims, now still armed with their weapons from the now defunct Iraq Red Army, seized the opportunity and developed their base of operation in Syria.  This new ISIL then made pronouncement on video, in a very barbaric way, for the USA to “Stay out of our fight.”  The Obama administration judged ISIL as “terrorists” and initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL as they threatened our allies in power in Iraq.

As described above in Case Study I, judging a nation as terrorist will result in the judging nation to be judged as terrorist by the judged nation.   As the USA conducted air strikes against “hard targets” (military targets) in an attempt to minimize collateral damage (civilian deaths), ISIS-ISIL, in retaliation, began bombing and assaulting soft targets (Civilian Targets).

Judging and the lack of ability to negotiate a workable compromise by the Obama administration has, and will continue to, cost the western civilization much cost in damage, dislocation of refugees and lives of civilians.  It is apparent that even a routine change in the administration by a newly elected administration will not end this conflict with ISIS-ISIL. A resignation or impeachment of the Chief Executive seems the proper road to pursue.  A newly elected administration would be in a position of trying to apologize for the actions of the previous administrations, and that never happens.

The Lens Used for the Viewing of the Facts

The lens one views the facts, events or evidence through determines the conclusions that the viewer will hold as the correct interpretation of the facts, events or evidence. The classic scenario is this: Two men who are walking in the woods come upon an immaculate garden, complete with trimmed hedges, flower garden arrangements, etc.   One man states, “There must be a caretaker for this place.” The other man states, “What a wonderful work of nature.”   The events that took place during the visit of the RoCoU two thousand years ago can be looked at through a religious lens or a pragmatic lens.

There are two and maybe three writers that were able to record the events, of the visit to Earth by the RoCoU and the events that took place, without looking though there religious lens.  Mark, who wrote the book of Mark in the Book of Books, the Bible, was a young man on the perimeter of the core group who became the Apostles of the RoCoU. He found himself in Rome where much persecution was taking place of the “Christians” in Rome.  He took it upon himself to record for the purpose of history the events that had taken place during his life.  He was an eyewitness to some of the events and received reports from those who were part of the core group of the RoCoU.  The style of writing for an historian is to answer the questions, “who, what, where and when.”   Luke, who wrote the books of Luke (Luke I) and Acts of the Apostles (Luke II), was contracted to record the events that had and were taking place in this time period. [ix]  Luke wrote under the guidelines of a journalist, answering “who, what, where and when.”  Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that took place, he interviewed others who were eyewitnesses of events and he was an embedded journalist with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.  Matthew was a tax collector and a Jew who made an argument to Jews of the authentication of the RoCoU to the Jewish religion.  He sometimes included the “why” in his writings, as did John in the book of John.  This would make their writing styles, “who, what, where, when and why” a little more difficult to sort out the facts from their interpretation of the facts and events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU.  The Apostle Paul was highly educated in Jewish religion and history.  He viewed our relationship with the RoCoU through the lens of Jewish religion and history.  A close examination of the writing of Paul will disclose that his view of the RoCoU’s visit to planet Earth was religious and the RoCoU’s view of his visit to earth was pragmatic and the next step in the evolution of the Homo species on planet Earth.

 The Gad Fly of the Democracy of the USA

The present day gad fly of democracy in the USA is The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired.[x]  The Greeks invented democracy from scratch and it worked well for them for about 170 years.  The Greeks were on the peak of their Golden Age when they got tired of hearing their gad fly, Socrates, who was a critic of their society, in particular of the shortcomings and corruption in this democracy.  Socrates was one of the founders of western philosophy.  The Greek Senate charged Socrates with “corrupting the minds of the youth,” and they sentenced Socrates to death.  The death of Socrates was the beginning of the downfall of Greece, for they had lost their “guidepost.”

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, like Socrates has been excommunicated from his position at a national laboratory by management that took offense to his proposals that threated their power structure.  His teaching credentials were canceled in a local church for “corrupting the minds of the youth” and not teaching the church’s official view on the subject. He was excommunicated from a church where he was a member in good standing for twenty years for publishing “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking” [xi] and corrupting the minds of their youth and any other person in their church with science and philosophy.  Thank God for civil laws that protects our citizens from physical harm.

Our President has not chosen to listen to this gad fly, when he suggested that a workable compromise be initiated to resolve the conflict of space, control and authority in Iraq between the three different sects of Muslims. This was proposed by the Vice President, and now the reining authority in Syria has been added to the mix; he chose to put together a coalition of nations to wipe ISIS-ISIL from planet Earth.  ISIS-ISIL has retaliated with attacks against this coalition of nations and the USA hitting soft targets.  We should expect this activity to continue. The best outcome, using the best military forces on the planet,  for a military victory, will be guerilla warfare with the soft targets continuing to be hit by these guerilla fighters.  The only solution to the ISIS-ISIL conflict is a workable compromise – a permanent home for the displaced Sunni Muslims from their Iraq home.

Lessons from History

In 480 B.C. the Persians were set upon wiping the Greeks off the Earth or enslaving them.  The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  The Persians were under autocratic the rule of Xerxes; the Greeks were under democratic rule (one for all and all for one).   The Persians overran the Greek Spartans (trained warriors) at the pass of Thermopylae [xii] and sacked Athens, which had been evacuated by the Greeks.

The Persians had large war ships (similar to that of the USA navy, bigger than their opponents).  The Greeks built small maneuverable war ships with a torpedo like Ram on the bow of the ship (A trireme).  The Greeks lured the Persian navy in to the Aegean Sea where there were many islands presenting a maneuverable issue for the Persians.  With their mobility (like ISIS-ISIL), the Greeks ran circles around the larger Persian ships and rammed the Persian ships with their torpedo like Rams at the front of their ships and sank the Persian Fleet. [xiii]

Beware USA your large arsenal of weapons is being out maneuvered by an adversary who is focused on mobility.

The USA Transition from a Republic to a Democracy

The USA was formed as a republic and has been in a long transition to a democracy in small steps. This change has come about by allowing more of the population to vote in elections and it changed the way our President was elected.  In the beginning, only land owners could vote in the elections.  These were the people who had an invested interest in the profitability of the nation, much like that of stockholders voting in a corporation. [xiv]  The vote has slowly been extended, for various reasons, to other segments of our society who do not have an investment or knowledge of producing a profitable nation (women, teens, those on government assistance).  We certainly have improved on the lifestyles of our citizens, as have the Greeks, but our national debt is rising above our ability to pay the interest, which could eventually result in foreclosure on our property (nation) by our creditors (like the two bailouts of the Greeks by the EU in recent history).

The Life Span of a Democracy

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 170 years, as established by the Greeks.  In the Greek democracy, leaders were chosen by a lottery, thus minimizing payoffs and corruption in the government.  Serving as a leader was considered a duty of citizenship.  Ballots could be cast to remove a government leader from office and they would be exiled for ten years from their society. In the Greek democracy, only about 20 percent of the population could vote. [xv]   The Greeks now have more people on the government payroll than people paying taxes to support the government. Is this direction the USA wants to continue to pursue?

The Code of Conduct to Live Long in this Land

There is a “code of conduct” that was intended to provide for the continued success of a nation living long in the land that had been giving to them.  Unfortunately, these were given to a very religious people and they did not understand the economic implications of these Ten Codes of Conduct.  Unfortunately, these Ten Codes of Conduct are still seen as religious by almost our entire society, religious and secular alike.  When one sets aside their religious lens, the pragmatic lens shows that the economics of these Ten Codes of Conduct can be realized.  The original Codes of Conduct were given in an ancient language; therefore, the proper perspective is to look at them through the eyes of a parent giving instruction to their children so that they might live long in the land the parent was giving them to raise their generations.

  1. You will not listen to anyone but your father for guidance.
  2. You will not form addictions that will prevent you from making your own decisions.
  3. You will not use my name as an authority to cause trouble or discomfort for any other person on this planet Earth.
  4. You will take a day off, after every six days of work, and remember who gave you this land and enjoy your time with family and friends, and you will allow your employees time off to enjoy their family and friends, and you will not mow your lawn on this day and interrupt the peace of your neighbors.
  5. Remember what your mother and father taught you, and hand down those teaching to your children and grandchildren, that you might live long in this land I have given you.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not seek an intimate relationship with your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not scheme to gain possession of your neighbor’s property.
  11. You will not build a big mansion type house in your neighbor’s back yard.
  12. You shall keep the walk-ways, of your communities, free of “F oxtails” that injure our pets. [xvi]

QED

 

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[ii] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[iii] Max Plank, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html/

[iv] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD, http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp/

[v] Jesus on judging, negotiating

[vi] Matthew 7:2, The Bible

[vii] Matthew 5:25, The Bible

[viii] Luke 14:31-32, The Bible

[ix] Luke 1:1-4, The Bible

[x] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.worpress.com/

[xi] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[xii] http://www.ancient.eu/thermopylae/

[xiii] National Geographic The Greeks DVD, 2016, http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm/

[xiv] https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/voting/  TBC

[xv] PBS, “The Greeks”, 2016

[xvi] http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/foxtail-grass-and-your-dog/

Boycott the Upcoming Presidential Election?  Ver. 1.0.3

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/boycott/

(Rev.) 2/2/2016

Copyright 2016

We have a Presidential election coming up in November of 2016.  In that election, we will be asked to vote for a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA, which is the most powerful military force on the planet.  Congress is forcing us to vote for this new Commander in Chief because it has not acted to reassign the duties of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA to a standing committee of ”White Haired Gentlemen” acting on consensus.   I state “White Haired Gentlemen” because white hair has been recognized for centuries as a sign of wisdom.  In fact, politicians, lawyers and judges of old used to wear white wigs to look like they had wisdom. Men of Wisdom are “Men who can foresee the consequences of their actions” and are what we need as our Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.

If Congress will not act, (and my Congressman refuses to introduce a bill creating a standing committee of “White Haired Gentlemen” (over sixty) to serve as Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA) I will vote for whatever gentleman is on the ballot and has white hair!  If there is not a gentleman on the ballot for President (Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA), I will write in the name of my dog Buddy for President, and I would encourage all citizens who are sick and tired and FED -UP with the USA military being commanded by an amateur politician to do the same.  You can use your own dog’s name or my dog’s name; just let Congress know we are not fooling around and demand action to separate the President’s duties and the duties of the Commander in Chief!

 

Lead from Power or Lead by Negotiating Ver. 1.0.1

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired
https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/Power-Negotiating/
9/22/2015

The laws of Physics and Politics

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” This is attributed to Winston Churchill, but originally to George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”i But perhaps Churchill’s best remark on the subject was this: “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.” ii

Newton’s third law of motion states that, “When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.”iii Jack’s third law of politics states that, “For every use of power there will be an equal and opposite use of power”. iv

The Laws of Birth Order and the Only Child

The recent release of the documentary on pbs.org on the USA Civil War by Ken Burns illustrated some very interested similarities in the leadership (President) during this time, of Civil War, in the 19th century, and the leadership (President) of our current time, in this 21st century involved with a conflict with ISIS.

Aside from both of them being tall skinny lawyers, neither had in their family of origin a sibling with whom they needed to negotiate a workable compromise. This seems to be a skill lacking in their respective skill packages. They both dealt with the situation at hand with the use of power, which was met with and equal and opposite use of power. Since they had no siblings to compete with, they got what they wanted uncontested and brought this style of getting what they wanted to the White House with them. Being the only offspring left in the family, or raised as an only offspring, they received a full load of confidence from their family and a “Can Do” spirit. They both knew they were right even if they were not. v

The Workable Compromise vs Power

The USA Civil War could have been avoided by negotiating a workable compromise with the dissenting states. The slave issue was a political football to put an international bent on the conflict to keep the English and French from supporting the Southern States. The nucleus of ISIS (Sunni Muslims) was dispossessed of their homeland by the USA puppet regime in Iraq (Shiite Muslims). A window of opportunity to negotiate a homeland for the disposed Sunni Muslims existed; instead, a use of power by the present administration was taken in an attempt to form a coalition to wipe ISIS from this Earth. This choice was met by an equal and opposite use of force by ISIS. This situation with ISIS could have been resolved through the use of a workable compromise. It seems that neither the leadership during the USA Civil war or the present administration was concerned with the human cost of getting what they wanted.

A New Election is Upon Us

The choice seems to be clear: Do we want to replace the present administration with a leader who is prone on solving issues with power, or do we want to replace the present administration with someone who has developed the skill of negotiating workable compromises. We are going to elect them to the post of Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces – the most powerful on the planet. The temptation to use power to solve our national and world crises will be tempting for this new President and pressure to use power from the Military-Industrial Complex as described by President Eisenhower. vi.

Birth order and the New President

We have historically elected several firstborn (in their families of origin) to the office of president: J. Adams, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Grant, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, L. B. Johnson, Carter, and G.W. Bush. We have elected several firstborn males: Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, Van Buren, Fillmore, Buchanan, Arthur and Wilson. We have elected a couple functional oldest males: G Washington, J.F. Kennedy. We have elected several functional only children: Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Hoover, F. D. Roosevelt, Ford, Clinton and Obama. The middle born is a natural negotiator.vii We have elected these middleborns to the presidency: Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, Cleveland, Harrison, B. Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Eisenhower and G H.W. Bush. The lastborn bring their special skill package to the office of president; we have elected these lastborns to this office: W. H. Harrison, A. Johnson, Hayes, Garfield and Reagan. viii

What personality and skill package to we want to move us in a positive direction and resolve conflict with negotiating skills rather than power? This skill package will depend mostly on the skills they learned in their family of origin. The natural negotiators are the middle born children, especially those with close older and younger same sex siblings, fewer than five years difference in ages. More than five years difference in ages would result in a functional firstborn, which is not a carbon copy of a firstborn as they were raised with more experienced parents. Who are the options for a good negotiator for the presidency? D. Trump is a middle born but also a functional firstborn, but has he developed negotiating skills? Carly Fiorina is a middle born who seems to have developed negotiating skills. Jeb Bush is a middle born with enough distance from his older brother to be a functional firstborn, but does he have a track record of negotiating workable compromises as the Governor of Florida? H. Clinton is a firstborn, but has she developed negotiating skills as the Secretary of State? Chris Christie is a firstborn and former prosecutor, but is he a negotiator or power seeker? Jim Gilmore, birth order unknown, is a former governor; what is his track record – power or negotiator? John Kasich, birth order unknown, is a governor; what is his track record – power or negotiator? Bobby Jindal, birth order unknown, is a governor; what is his track record – power or negotiator? Lindsey Graham, birth order unknown, is a hawk on foreign affairs and a probable user of power. George Pataki, birth order unknown, is a governor; what is his track record – power or negotiator? Rick Santorum, birth order unknown, is a former senator; what is his track record – power or negotiator? Mike Huckabee, birth order unknown, is a former governor and ordained preacher, and could be a liability in dealing with ISIS which is a Muslim movement. What is his track record – power or negotiator? Ben Carson is the younger of two brothers, which puts him as a last born with special circumstances; he was raised by his mother as an equal firstborn. He would be a mix of a natural firstborn leader and lastborn innovator. What would be his style in solving national problems? Would he use power or negotiate? Marco Rubio’s rhetoric is that of a firstborn; as a state politician, he should have developed some skill in negotiating workable compromises. Is he prone to use power or negotiations to solve national problems? Rand Paul has the demeanor and skills of a firstborn and an experienced politician, but has he learned the skill of negotiating workable compromises or does he prefer power and getting what he wants? As for Ted Cruz, God seems to give the loudest voices to those least likely to put it to good use. His birth order is unknown, but he does not come across as a firstborn. He looks to be hawkist and prone to use of power vs negotiating. Does he have a track record that could predict his future use of power or negotiating? Joe Biden’s demeanor indicates he is the younger of two brothers, as he seems to be very social, which is a characteristic of lastborns. This characteristic could prove useful in international affairs. This, along with his position as a senior citizen, should help him garner respect in the world’s view. He seems more prone to negotiating than the use of power. How does he fit in with the use of power to solve international problems by his president? Lawrence Lessig has that firstborn look about him and seems more concerned with national structure than international affairs; he does not look like a hawk and has no demonstrable preference to the use of power or negotiations. Jim Webb has the firstborn look but looks to seek alternatives to military action. Lincoln Chafee has that firstborn natural leadership look with much experience in the political arena and looks to use other than military means to accomplish USA goals. He does not have much of a fan base. Martin O’Malley, birth order unknown, is a former governor and mayor, so he should have a track record of the use of force or the use of negotiations to solve political issues. Bernie Sanders has that firstborn demeanor a natural leader and with both House and Senate experience, he should have developed the skill of negotiating workable compromises. What is his track record? Does he get what he wants or does he negotiate a compromise? Elizabeth Warren has that firstborn drive from Oklahoma to Harvard Law School to Senator. She is a complete unknown as to her skill in negotiating workable compromises and at this point is not in the running for president. ix

Our Choice of President

The choice is clear. Do we want a hawk or a dove? Do we want the use of power or the use of negotiating workable compromises? More information is clearly needed about these candidates. Can past performance indicate future performance? Can birth order give us a heads up on future performance and the use of power or negotiating?

QED


i https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/blog/churchill-quote-history/
ii Ibid, House of Commons, 2 May 1935, after the Stresa Conference, in which Britain, France and Italy agreed—futilely—to maintain the independence of Austria/
iii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion/
iv https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/Power-Negotiating/
v Dr. Kevin Leman, “the First Born Advantage”, Revell, 2008, p69
vi https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/military-industrial-complex/
vii http://drleman.com/
viii http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/15457991558/which-presidents-were-the-oldest-child-the/
ix http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/2016-election/384828/

We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It starts with ‘W’ and that Stands for Women? Ver. 1.0.1

    The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/women

    8/9/2015

The First Presidential Debate:

    We just had our first real Presidential debate. I believe there were 10 men on the stage each with their own podium. The debate moderator was a female news reporter from a major news outlet. The front runner in the polls was center stage and the only non-politician on the stage. I did not watch the debate as I’m sure many Americans did not watch the debate. If the debate was about candidates voicing their opinions on the important issues that our country faces, then unless one actively watched the debate, we know nothing about the views of the candidates on any issue, as the news media insisted on making how we speak and regard women as the principle issue in this Presidential campaign.

      From the news reports, apparently the female debate moderator posed a question to the front runner, the non-politician who is a little rough around the edges, something like President Harry Truman or President Theodore Roosevelt. She was evidently taking questions from the general population and putting them before the candidates. The question she posed to the front runner was about remarks he in the past had made about women, such as about their weight, their looks, and probably their intelligence. This Debate Moderator obviously never heard her mother teach her that “People who live in class houses should not throw rocks”. The front runner was greatly taken back by this question that had absolutely nothing to do with national issues and took the question as an ad hominem question designed to disqualify him for the office of President based on his attitude towards women. The front runner responded to this female debate moderator with some ad hominem statements of his own, designed to prove her incompetence of being an impartial debate moderator. The front runner is now being accused of bringing earthy and inappropriate language into a Presidential debate. I believe one of the derogatory comments the front runner was accused of making to women is that they were FAT.

    Fat is a Good Thing:

We have had, thanks to advances in agricultural technology, a feast environment in which to live. The media has portrayed women as slender – with the exception of “Mike and Molly” – and as runway models and even slender model television news reporters. All this hype has led us Americans to think that women should all be like these role models the media has displayed.

    The population of Homo sapiens is increasing on this planet and agricultural land is decreasing to accommodate the increased population and, of course, keep our unemployment down and our economy up with this new construction. It should not take a seer to see a famine coming. Women are created to hold more fat than men. Men were created to have more muscle than women. When times of famines were a natural part of life, women were better suited to survive
    the famine than men because they had stored up more fat than the men. A 20th century example was the German siege on Stalingrad. It was the women who survived this siege because of their fat content. Therefore calling a woman FAT is to give her a compliment; she is getting ready for the next famine and these runway models and model news reporters will be the first to succumb to the famine.

Bad Language not fit for President:

    Other candidates have now argued that the front runner’s language skills are inappropriate for the office of President and that he has offended 53% of the voting citizens and their party could never win the election against the other party’s front runner, who is also a female.

      Much Discussion Ahead:

    These events of recent activity have so many issues involved with them; it may not be possible to address them all in anything less than several volumes of written works. This writer will attempt, at least, to scratch the surface of the national issues involved in these discussions and charges.

Topics that Need Discussion:

     The role of women in national politics
     The voting rights of women in national politics
     An elitist society, that lends itself to promoting the educated and the educated from our elite colleges
     The dynamics of men and women serving together
     The focus of our nation on the equal rights of women in our society
     The basic difference of men and women
     The difference of how women vote for a President and how men vote for a President
     How men and women think, act and make decisions
     The priorities of men and women
     The functions of men and women in our nation
     The different styles of leadership of men and women
     The extreme: a matriarchal controlled nation

      The Role of Women in our Nation</ul>

      There are basic instincts involved with men and women. Men have a natural propensity to protect women. Historically, wars often took the lives of many men. Women are the only ones who have the ability to reproduce and replace the missing generation of men with newborn boys and raise them into manhood. Women are the future of our country; without women our country has no future. For this reason we protect our women and keep them out of harm’s way.

    A friend of mine recently brought forward information concerning Israel’s experience with women on the front lines of a combat situation during their six-day war in the mid-1960s. He said that many of the men were killed trying to protect the women on the front line of this war. In a small group discussion in a church, two of the male class leaders were adamant about protecting women and had judged the front runner of the debate as acting wrongly towards a woman.

      The front runner claims that if we focus on our attitudes towards women, we will never get anywhere in solving our real national problems. Most women and most men seem adamant that women need to be treated respectfully and certainly not be offended. This writer finds many uses for the statement made by Sam Houston, the Texas Ranger that defeated Santa Anna and gave us Texas. He said, “There is no honor in waging war against a woman.” This statement was no doubt directed to his wife who had filed for divorce, but seems to be applicable to many situations. If we, as a nation, put our focus on how we think, act and talk about women, our adversaries could well take advantage of this situation and overrun us or we could become so ineffective in solving our nation’s issues that we end up “Shooting ourselves in the foot.”

    If other candidates for the Chief Executive of our country think that we need to solicit the votes of the women in our nation, then in effect we are putting women in control of our government. This leads to two choices of focus. 1) We seek the women’s vote and address the issues that the women of our country want to address and ensure that they get the respect they deserve. 2) We address the issues that need to be addressed instead of trying to socially engineer our candidates for the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces to the way that we think they should be groomed.

      A Parallel to Bad Language Inappropriate for President:

        There is an interesting parallel that this writer thinks should be presented to this situation of men’s manners and language skills. This parallel lies in the biography of Mr. John Newton. John Newton was the only son of a sea captain in Liverpool, England, which was a working class community. John was not treated very kindly by the other boys in his community. This was probably the result of a clash in the social order, noticeable to others because of John’s greater inheritance of innate knowledge from his sea captain father. John’s mother instilled in John the Gospel message until he was six years old, when she died of tuberculosis. John was exceptional in his ability to write fluently at the age of three, and memorized long text his mother gave to study. At the age of eight, he was sent off to boarding school. At age 10, he finished his formal education and went to sea with his sea captain father. By this time, John exhibited much behavior in being tough. He was mischievous, vulgar and blasphemous (degrading God), and in some countries, this is a crime punishable by death.

      Mr. Newton became involved in the slave trade, as was a common and accepted practice in this time period of history. He landed a position as first mate on a slave ship whose captain was a friend of John’s father. On their return to England, after delivering their slaves to the West Indies and America, in a route crossing the North Atlantic Ocean, the ship experienced a strong hurricane force storm that put the ship in danger of sinking. In an effort to save the ship and its crew, John Newton came to his knees and asked God for his grace. The situation changed and the ship limped to land for repairs with all the crew safe.

    Mr. Newton, with his attention turned back to the Gospel message that his mother had taught him, began a long self-study of God’s Grace. He landed a government position in the service of collecting duties from the incoming ships into Liverpool. This position afforded him and his wife a comfortable living in this working class community. John’s religious studies led him to interfacing with the new Methodist, Baptist and independent churches of England. The congregations of these churches were two social steps below his in-laws and his wife. The only church that would keep the peace in his family was the Church of England. Mr. Newton applied for ordination into the Church of England several times over about a five-year period, being rejected at every attempt. The Church of England was an elitist society and required its priests to have a degree from Cambridge or Oxford, and John’s formal education ended at the age of 10! John was self-taught in the study of God’s Grace. It was not until a wealthy landowner with political power in the Church of England, Lord Dartmouth, took an interest in Mr. Newton as a potential religious leader that John Newton was ordained into the Church of England and given a Parish in Olney, a working class community.

      John Newton’s reputation as one of the world’s great preachers flourished in his position of curate in this Olney working class Parish. He began writing hymns to supplement his sermons. For his sermon of January 1, 1773, celebrating a new year and a new beginning, he wrote the song that would become “Amazing Grace”. This was published by Mr. Newton in 1779 in a Hymnal the “Olney Hymns,” with the uninspiring title of “Faith’s Review and Expectations,” and it was #41 in the Olney Hymnal. He had collaborated on this hymnal with William Cowper, who became known as one of England’s great poets, and this song remained in obscurity for 60 years. The song that John had written for the 1773 New Year became known as “Amazing Grace.” England ignored this song; it first appeared in writing, at least the last two verses in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in 1852. It ironically was being sung by the decedents of the slaves that John Newton had brought to America when he was a captain of a slave ship. It had been handed down by oral tradition and was first published in William Walker’s book “The Southern Harmony” in 1835. The last verse, which begins “When we’ve been there ten thousand years,” and had been around orally for half a century in Afro-American worship, was added after the first three verses by Edwin Othello Excell in 1910 in “Coronation Hymns,” and is the accepted 20th century form of “Amazing Grace”. Aretha Franklin took “Amazing Grace” from Gospel Music to popular music by recording it in 1947. It shifted into political consciousness of Black America when she teamed up with Martin Luther King in the 1960s and put “Amazing Grace” on its way to becoming our official National Spiritual Anthem. Judy Collins took “Amazing Grace” beyond the church walls in 1970 as the final track on “Whales and Nightingales.” Many recordings of “Amazing Grace” were recorded onward after 1970. The bagpipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards created the use of “Amazing Grace” as a melancholy lament appropriate for sorrowful occasions, and its use at funerals grew widely as when Judy Collins sang it at the funeral of her son in 1992 and it was sung as part of the memorial mass for John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999. “Amazing Grace” came to be used frequently at joyful church services, weddings, baptisms, celebrations of anniversaries, and on important public occasions ranging from the opening of baseball games to ceremonies of national mourning, such as the loss of the astronauts on the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, and the 3,000 deaths at Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and led by President Barrack Obama at the memorial service of those killed in a church who were attending a Bible Study group in 2015. In light of its recent history and usage, “Amazing Grace” has been called the Spiritual National Anthem of America. This is a description that can be applied even more widely on an international canvas, for the hymn soars above most boundaries as a simple celebration of the experience of grace. It is sung not only by Christians but by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people of no particular faith.

    John Newton was influential in the abolishment of slavery in Great Britain and died the same year that England abolished slavery in Great Britain.i

      Who do We want for President?

    What if we compare the life of John Newton, and all that he did for mankind, to the life of the front runner in these Presidential debates? Are we to stand firm and condemn his crude language as inappropriate for the office of President of the USA? Certainly John Newton’s vulgarity and blasphemous words are a greater sin than speaking harshly to a female, news media reporter and debate moderator who deserved what she got for bringing to the debate this sexist “red herring.” Has the USA, like the Church of England, become an elitist society, where one must have a degree from one our prestigious colleges like Harvard Law School to become President of the USA? Is this the result of soliciting the women’s vote? Do women chose their President on different criteria than men chose their President? Are men really from Mars and women from Venus? Germany had a democratic government and the women of Germany overwhelmingly supported Adolf Hitler, for he promised to give them what they wanted. He promoted himself as the savior of Germany and he won the hearts of the women of Germany. Is that who we want for a President – someone who will promise our women what they want to hear in order to solicit their vote and win the election? Or do we want a President that speaks frankly and out front of the issues this country needs to address and how to address these issues? Will the front runner offend certain voting blocs and risk losing the election because he did not promise these voting blocs what they wanted?

The Election System the Founding Fathers Wanted:

    Our Founding Fathers set up the President to be elected by the representative of the states. They did this to isolate the President from public opinion, which would allow our President to do what he thought was best for our country. Our President is no longer isolated from public opinion and therefore must promise the various voting blocs what they want in order to get elected. Once elected, the President can, for the most part, do what he thinks is best for the country, at least in his last and final term of office. If he needs to get reelected, then the President is still greatly subject to public opinion.

      The News Media in Control of our Government:

    The Founding Fathers had set up the election system to somewhat isolate Senators from public opinion, giving them six year terms and counting on the short memories of the voters so they could do what they thought was best for the country. The Founding Fathers gave Congressmen only a two-year term in office so that they would be sensitive to their constituents and represent public opinion. We now have an election system of government where the Chief Executive is subject and partially controlled by public opinion. And who is it that makes the public opinion known? Of course, it is the news media. Therefore, in effect, it is the news media that is in control of our government.

Was the news media upset with the front runner’s words to their representative as the debate moderator and did not the men of the news media come to her rescue and ban the front runner from participating in future debates? Yes, the men came to protect their female counterparts; this is the natural propensity of men to take care of the women.

    How does these actions Affect Voter Rights?

      The female debate moderator was lucky that she was not asking her sexist questions of me. How dare she bring sexism into a Presidential debate, this is a “Red Herring”. If this is a representative of the women in this country, we may have to revoke their right to vote so that we can address the really important issues this country faces and not these “Red Herrings” that a female debate moderator did not have the sense to hold back in the first place. She is lucky that I am not her boss. If I were her boss, I would have handed her a broom and a bowl cleaning brush and sent her to sweep the floors and clean the latrines.

    QED

      i Jonathan Aitken, “John Newton” “From Disgrace to Amazing Grace” Crossway, 2007