Wounded Warrior Project - SCAM OR NOT?

News reported this week by CBS News and the New York Times claims the Wounded Warrior Project is spending large amounts of money on advertising, lavish parties, and executive salaries, but it is not spending much money to help veterans.

The scandal was supposedly uncovered by an investigation conducted by Charity Navigator, the nation's largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities. Charity Navigator gathers its information from the Federal Tax Reports filed by the charities. According to Charity Navigator, the Wounded Warrior Project spends less than 60 percent of its total expenses on the programs and services it delivers to veterans.  I think it is important to note that Charity Navigator does not INVESTIGATE any charity organization. It only makes reports from the tax forms that the charity organizations submit to the Federal Government.

Thomas Mangan of the Rochester Independent Examiner claims Donald Trump skipped the last Republican Debate on Fox to attend a Wounded Warrior fund raising project. That is not true so it makes me question if the reports on the Wounded Warrior project are all true. Wounded Warrior did not receive any funds from the Trump veteran fund raisers. He claimed it was a “Wounded Warrior Fund Raising Project” that is not true. It was a Donald Trump veteran’s fund raiser. He claims Trump knew about the scandal and went ahead and supported the Wounded Warrior fund raiser, again untrue. Trump refused to share the money with Wounded Warrior because of the scandal. Trump stated before and after the fund raiser he would not be donating any funds to Wounded Warrior until the scandal was cleared up.

Army Staff Sgt. Erick Millette worked with the Wounded Warrior Project for two years before he quit because of his disillusionment with the way the Wounded Warrior Project spends the money that people donated to the charity. Millette told CBS News, “Their mission is to honor and empower wounded warriors, but what the public doesn’t see is how they spend their money.” Millette said that the Wounded Warrior Project is little more than a scam to bring in money to spend on extravagant and luxurious parties, as well as other non-veteran-related expenses such as the salaries for the charities employees” – (organizations need employees and employees need to be paid) . Millette told CBS, “Donors don’t want you to have a $2,500 bar tab. Donors don’t want you to fly every staff member once a year to some five-star resort and whoop it up and call it team building.” If what Millette says is true he is correct donors, including me, do not want donated funds wasted. But, Millette would not be the first disgruntled employee that exaggerated truths or lied about a previous employee.

Wounded Warrior was criticized for spending money to sue other charity organizations for using their name in fund raisers and advertising. I cannot fault them for that. If I was on the board of any charity organization I would want to protect the name of the charity I was involved with. I would not want the public donating money to another charity thinking they were donating to the organization I represented. Dishonest charities often play off the names of well-known organizations in order to confuse donors.

Kids Wish Network, Children's Wish Foundation International and Wishing Well Foundation all of the names sound like the original, Make-A-Wish Foundation, which does not hire professional telemarketers. Make-a-Wish officials say they spend many, many hour’s yearly fielding complaints from people who were solicited by sound-alike charities.

If Wounded Warrior has gone bad since 2009 they unfortunately would not be the first. CBS and Times claim Wounded Warrior only spent 60% of the funds collected on direct aid. Take a look at other charities that most of us at some time or another have contributed to and there are many more worse than these:

Kids Wish Network – collected $137.9 - spent on direct aid $115.9 million - 2.5%

Cancer Fund of America - $86.8 million - $75.4 million - 1.0%

Children's Wish Foundation International - $92.7 million - $61.2 million - 10.6%

Firefighters Charitable Foundation - $62.8 million - $53.8 million - 7.4%

Intl. Union of Police Association, AFL-CIO - $66.6 million - $50.4 million - 0.5%

Breast Cancer Relief Foundation - $63.9 million - $44.8 million - 2.2%

American Association of State Troopers - $48.1 million - $38.6 million - 8.9%

National Veterans Service Fund - $70.2 million - $36.9 million - 7.8%

Children's Cancer Fund of America - $43.7 million - $34.4 million - 4.6%

Committee for Missing Children - $26.6 million - $23.5 million - 0.8%

Association for Firefighters and Paramedics - $24.0 million - $21.4 million - 3.1%  

United States Deputy Sheriffs' Association - $25.6 million - $17.9 million - 0.8%   

National Cancer Coalition - $42.1 million - $16.4 million - 1.3%

American Foundation For Disabled Children - $15.8 million - $13.4 million - 0.6%

Heart Support of America -$31.4 million - $12.9 million - 3.1%

Police Protective Fund - $37.7 million - $12.2 million - 0.7%

 Veterans Assistance Foundation - $12.4 million - $11.1 million - 10.4%

Children's Charity Fund - $14.0 million - $10.3 million - 2.4%

The Veterans Fund - $12.6 million - $10.2 million - 2.5%

Wishing Well Foundation USA - $12.6 million - $10.1 million - 4.3%

Children's Leukemia Research Association - $9.8 million - $6.8 million - 11.1%

The 50 worst charities in America devote less than 4 percent of donations raised to direct cash aid. Some charities give even less. Over a decade, one diabetes charity raised nearly $14 million and gave about $10,000 to patients. Six spent nothing at all on direct cash aid. Several watchdog organizations say charities should spend no more than 35 percent of the money they raise on fundraising expenses, but that amount does not include salaries paid to employees. If they are correct I guess we have to decide is 5% for WWP salaries acceptable.

It does not make sense to me that a charity with major corporate sponsors such as U-Haul, Bank of America, Raytheon, NFL, Heinz and many others would allow the WWP to use their name and fund their events if they were in fact a scam. It is even more puzzling to me that Bill O’Reilly of FOX would not know if WWP was a fraud. Bill O’Reilly is a big supporter of WWP and generally appears to be very careful to protect his personal name.

The Better Business Bureau rates WWP as meeting their standards and has only had 3 complaints in the past 36 months and all three complaints have been answered by WWP in a manner that satisfied The Better Business Bureau. WWP meets all 20 BBB standards for charity accountability.

Brian Kolfage - A Wounded Warrior - an Air Force veteran and a triple amputee who was wounded in Iraq said he found it appalling to read the horrible things that the Wounded Warrior Project is being accused of and that he did not believe the accusations.

Another thing that concerns me is that a vast majority of the accusation against WWP comes from people who refuse to speak on the record and claim they are afraid of the power that Wounded Warrior Project has. This sounds a bit melodramatic to me.

One disgruntle veteran who would not give his name said, “Everything they do is a dog-and-pony show, and I haven’t talked to one (NOT ONE has been help by WWP) of my fellow veterans that were injured… actually getting any help from the Wounded Warrior Project. I’m not just talking about financial assistance; I'm talking about help, period”.  

The disgruntle veteran claimed all he got from WWP was a backpack maybe he did not know The Wounded Warrior Project was founded in 2002 by John Melia and his friends and family. Melia himself was severely wounded while serving in Somalia in 1992. Until March of 2005, WWP operated as a part of the United Spinal Association and is referred to as "United Spinal Associations Wounded Warrior Project."

Its first project was delivering backpacks containing personal supplies to the bedside of wounded warriors. The backpacks include "essential care and comfort items such as clothing, toiletries, calling card and playing cards, etc. all designed to make their hospital stay more comfortable." Melia remembered when he first arrived at the hospital after his injuries he arrived with none of these types of items. WWP started with just six friends packing backpacks to provide items to wounded services warriors at Walter Reed Medical Center and continues the practice to stay in touch with their roots. I would also think that most of the veterans in the hospital appreciated the backpacks and I also think these backpacks and items cost WWP money.

 I know some would object to WWP’s 2014 IRS report which stated $473,015 or   0.19% (less than 1%) of donations was paid to Steven Nardizzi Executive Director. I do not. I have worked in non-profit organizations and I know the importance of having someone at the top that is an expert in fund raising and managing non-profit organizations.  There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the public arena about what it really costs to run an effective nonprofit.

Charity Navigator one of the most respected watchdogs of non-profit organizations gave them the most 4 stars for “Accountability and Transparency”.  I stated earlier that 35% spent on fund raisings was acceptable and WWP spent 34% in 2014 on fundraising.  Charity Navigator gave it three out of four stars overall.

A 2013 independent investigation by the Tampa Bay Times and the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that the charity spent 58 percent of donations directly on veterans’ programs. That year, the figure WWP self-reported was 73 percent. Tampa Bay Times admitted they did not count literature handed out to veterans as direct aid and WWP did. I would consider literature that advises veterans of various aid programs that is available to them, how to write a resume, information on medicines and therapy is charity.

A lot of the veterans that complained are now affiliated with other veteran charity organizations. How much of their criticism is merely jealousy of WWP success and merely fear that WWP was eating up their donor dollars. Believe me when I say there is tremendous jealousy and competition among charity organizations – I know after 46 years in the industry.

At this time I do not believe The Wounded Warrior Project is a scam, nor an ill-meaning charity. Even its fiercest detractors admit that WWP has the right motives, even if they believe WWP can be a lot more effective. We can all do better!  I admit WWP Wounded Warrior Project has room for improvement.

I will not stop supporting WWP at this time. I will wait until it is proven to me that it is not a worthwhile organization. If and when it is proven I will chalk it up to another attempt at doing good gone bad – GREED! 

Should we give up our culture/tradition to appease Muslims?

Some politically correct politicians in Italy made a decision to cover up nude statues from Roman antiquity during a visit by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. Some of Italy’s political leaders were willing to ignore their national identity in order not to offend Rouhani, Iran and the Muslim world.  Many of the citizens of Italy are rightly upset. They also hid the wine! Once again a non-Islamic government gave in to Islam. This is not the first time Italy has done this. During an official Saudi Arabia visit to Italy they covered up all the nude modern art.

The statues, in a corridor leading to a grand hall in Rome’s renowned Capitoline Museums, were covered in tall white boxes ahead of a news conference that Mr. Rouhani held on Monday with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. Rouhani and Renzi say they did not ask for it to be done. The director of the museum says Prime Minister Renzi did request they be covered so as not to offend Rouhani. Some media reports suggested the Iranian delegation had asked Italian officials to hide the statues to avoid Mr. Rouhani any potential embarrassment in Iran.  Maybe they should have held the news conference at McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken – no pork and no nude statues.

One Italian newspaper reported that in the grand hall at the Capitoline where the two leaders spoke, the lectern was moved to the side — not the front — of an equestrian statue of the emperor Marcus Aurelius to avoid having images of the horse’s genitals appear in news photographs.

One of the statues was the “Capitoline Venus,” a Roman copy of a legendary fourth century B.C. work by Praxiteles; some of the other sculptures were of ancient Greek and Roman gods, dressed minimally, if at all. I understand an austere Islamic government that promotes chastity and piety was visiting a country with a largely secular culture that has a reputation for embracing life’s pleasures, but I believe St. Ambrose said in 387 A.D., “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”

On May 13, 2015 a group of Islamic youth bullied, threaten and insulted a Catholic group in Northern Italy. The young Muslim’s were immigrants, not citizens of Italy, and they certainly did not care if Catholics were offended when they interrupted a Catholic procession in honor of the Virgin Mary. No charges were ever filed against the young men. It seems Obama and Prime Minister Renzi is more concerned about not offending Muslims than they are the citizens of their own countries.

Mr. Rouhani, 67, comes from a religious family, but he has a Ph.D. in law from Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland, and is not known as a religious hard-liner. Iran’s politics are extremely complex and religious matters are carefully policed by the theocratic regime that exercises ultimate power in Tehran. The supreme leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Public depictions of nudity are forbidden in Iran, but Mr. Rouhani was not in Iran he was in Rome, Italy. I do not know about you, but it frightens me that some world leaders expect their citizens to adopt Islamic customs, traditions and beliefs while ignoring our own in order not to upset Muslims.

It seems obvious to me some Italian political leaders put economic interests (18 billion dollars in new contracts) ahead of cultural legacy, just as Obama put his presidential legacy ahead of the safety of the American people when he negotiated his secret deal with Iran.

The covered statues were icons of classicism and models of humanism and are the foundation of European and Mediterranean culture and civilization. To cover them in order to satisfy Iran and not offend the Iranian citizens they offended their own Italian citizens. I think they offended most of the world tourist that went to Rome to see the statues and just happen to have made the mistake of traveling to Rome when Mr. Rouhani was there.  

Thank God Pope Francis did not cover the crucifixes when he greeted Rouhani at the Vatican.  I am not ashamed of Western culture. I do not want to bow to Iran’s demand or any other countries demands. If I went to Iran I would follow theirs laws, culture and traditions as long as I did not have to deny my Christian faith. I expect the Iranians not to demand or request I ignore the laws, culture and traditions of my own country when they are guest in my country. Respect for others cultures should not mean denying our own.

The French experienced some awkwardness in hosting Mr. Rouhani. In November, during a visit by the Iranian president and Iranian government officials when they refused to attend an official luncheon at the Élysée Palace, reportedly after the Iranians learned wine was to be served to the guest that requested it. Wine with meals is expected in France. The French officials refused to give in to Iran’s demand and served wine.

Italy’s Prime Ministers accommodation to the Iranians should be as embarrassing to the Italians as it was to Americans when Obama bowed to the Saudi King when he first took office. It seems Obama and other world leaders are more concerned over offending Muslims than they are in protecting their own citizens from a repeat of 9/11 or any other attack that these murderous thugs are planning. And yes they are still planning attacks against our country and other countries.

I do not believe what the Prime Minister of Italy did was for accommodation purposes I believe it was an act of submission! It makes no difference if you face reality and utter the politically incorrect words “radical Islamic Muslims” or not the fact is on 9/11 those who killed and destroyed were Muslims and killed in the name of Islam. Yet, the fact that the killers were Muslim and killed in the name of Islam is not only at the center of why we were attacked, but it is the ONLY explanation for the reason we were attacked.

It has become so ingrained in world leaders psyche to not offend Muslims that we cannot mention anything bad about radical Islamic Muslims even if it is true. They are now using it as a weapon against us so called infidels. The fear of offending radical Islamic Muslims has given the terrorists who killed so many in terrorist attacks a victory over our people, our country and the non-Islamic nations of the world. The fear of offending Muslims has in some respects almost crippled our country and as a result has given terrorism a victory over us and our nation.

I will never condone the burning of the Koran, damaging mosque, discriminating against all Muslims or denying them their Constitutional rights.  But, I do not believe our Founders ever intended for the Constitution to be used as a weapon of the politically correct. Those Constitutional rights were never intended to be used as a weapon to condone wrong.

We are so concerned about offending Muslims that we will not call the Islamic radicals who killed on 9/11 “radical Islamic Muslims”, we will cover valuable and beautiful art work that is nude or partially nude, we will not serve wine at meals and we will forgo our own culture and traditions all for the sake of not offending Muslims, but they do not care how much they offend Christianity, Judaism or other religions.  We will either defend our people and our nation against radical Islamic terrorist or we will bend over and let them do whatever they want to us and one day we will live in constant FEAR!  We cannot allow fear of being attack to allow wrong to take over the world.

Fear and intimidation is the tool of terrorism and whether it is done with planes, guns or words or demanding accommodation it has the same affect. It forces those who kowtow to that fear and intimidation into submission and allows the perpetrators of terror to have their way no matter what the consequences are.

Americans know the difference between the Muslim radicals and the moderates. We know the difference between those who follow Islam as a religion and those who use it as a weapon to kill. We do not need to be reminded on a daily basis on how to be tolerant of Muslims. We do not need to be reminded daily that there are Muslims who live in the United States as good citizens and do not follow the ideas of the radicals. We as a nation do not need to bend over and ,”tolerate,” Muslims to the point that we are afraid to even mention the word Muslim or the religion of Islam without fear of offending someone or being accused of being racist.

We are told by Obama that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslim. WHAT ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE FAMILIES AND AMERICANS WHO STILL REMEMBER 9/11 and that in 2014 there were 2999 radical Muslim Islamic attacks in 55 countries, in which 32262 people were killed and 27522 injured?

Cruz should have the majority of evangelical votes - but he doesn't - why?

Donald Trump is a mainline Protestant who hardly goes to church. Ben Carson’s 15 minutes of fame is over. Marco Rubio’s faith journey has taken him from Catholicism to Mormonism to evangelicalism and back to Catholicism. If Rubio has as difficult time making political decisions as he has making religious decisions I question his loyalty to any principle.

Cruz is supposed to be the real deal. A true evangelical Christian, loyal to the U.S. Constitution, Southern Baptist, a preacher’s kid and yet he has not sewed up the evangelical vote – why? He announced his candidacy at Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, but Jerry Falwell’s son who is head of Liberty University supports Trump – why? No one has a better record in Congress on the social issues that “Old style” conservatives embrace, but he still does not have the evangelical vote in the basket – why?

Trump all but matches Cruz for evangelical support in Iowa. Trump’s refusal to participate in the FOX debate may change that. Cruz is going to twist the truth and out and out lie to use Trump’s refusal against him. I noticed since Trump announced he would not participate in the debate Sean Hannity who has had his head up Trumps backside has pulled it out and stuck it up Cruz’s backside. That may hurt Trump in Iowa.

Could it be that evangelicals know Cruz is a hypocrite? Southern Baptist teaches tithing ten percent of your gross income to the church is essential to your faith and according to public records Cruz contributes LESS than ONE percent. He claims to be against Wall Street, yet his wife is an executive of one of the largest Wall Street firms and even borrowed one million dollars from Wall Street banks to help finance his campaign. There’s got to be something more that’s made a lot of evangelicals wary of throwing their support to Cruz, and I think I know what it is. Evangelicals hate hypocrites.

In the last Republican presidential debate, Cruz gave his testimony, and (as he notes) he gives it all the time. But the conversion story he tells is his father’s, not his own. Cruz was born in a Christian home and has always been a Christian and was raised in the church.

I have not decided to support Trump because to be honest I do not like his fight with Megyn Kelly and FOX, Carly Fiorina (face), and Marco Rubio (sweat) or his more serious attacks on Mexican immigrants (accusing the many of what the few do), his character assault on Ben Carson, comparing him to a child molester who has pathological problems and, most recently his apparent mocking of the disability of a New York Times journalist. It bothers me he does not apologize for his remarks. I do not like his extra-large ego and pettiness, but I am convinced he can do more to help the economy and foreign affairs than any of the other candidates – he would be a strong leader. 

The warnings in Proverbs are strong: “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20). “A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back” (Proverbs 29:11). I really think this applies to anyone, but especially to anyone who wants to be President of the United States.

Do you think white evangelicals are recalling an earlier election and are looking more for a candidate that is better for the country, rather than better for the church? The year of the evangelical was the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter. President Carter brought millions of evangelicals into the political process — on behalf of the Democratic ticket. The list of white evangelicals who supported Carter that year reads like a who’s who of the religious right, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. That fall, Carter won nearly half the evangelical vote. No Democrat has even come close to that in the decades since. Few people today would deny Carter was the worse U.S. President in our lifetime. I personally think Obama took that title from Carter.

I think the Rev. James Linzey, a retired Army chaplain and vocal leader among some conservative Evangelicals, sums up his support for Donald Trump and it applies to me and many evangelicals, “Because he tells it like it is, and he exudes honesty and transparency, and he’s the kind of person who is not going to deceive us. Evangelicals are tired of being deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

I do not think any of the political pundits or media elitist’s or Republican establishment realized how deep the voter’s frustration with the GOP really was. The Republican Party has failed to take care of even one major issue that concerns conservatives and evangelicals over the past many years.

I am not impressed with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council endorsement of Cruz. He has for a long time urged Christian conservatives to pick a consensus presidential candidate early in the nomination process, but remember he early on endorsed the nominations of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. I do think Cruz will gain strength among evangelicals and the only one in the end that will share in those votes is Rubio, but I believe Tony Perkins is wrong again and Cruz is not the candidate to beat a Democrat candidate.

Polls and early primaries mean NOTHING!

What if the polls and early voting mean little to nothing? What if the Republican primaries turn out to be Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Bush and Christi in that order?  What if the Democrat primaries turn out to be Hillary, Sanders and O’Malley in that order? Probably the Democrat primary would not be that much of a surprise, but a lot of political pundits and media are going to be wrong if Rubio get the Republican nomination. 

According to polls, Donald Trump is leading the pack on the Republican side. He has 36 percent of the vote in the latest poll, and he's followed by Ted Cruz at around 19 percent and Marco Rubio at around 12 percent. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is leading with 48 points over Bernie Sanders' 41 points.

In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney was leading in the polls at this point in the election. In 2008, when we had the last Democratic competition, Clinton was leading over Barack Obama in early January.

I do not have much confidence in polls. How well informed are the people that are being polled?  How many people are willing to talk to a stranger about how they are going to vote? I suspect a lot of times the candidate’s name they give the pollster is the last name they heard on television they do not want to appear stupid so they pull a name out of the air. How many that are polled will actually vote?

This election will be more difficult to call than previous ones because I think voters are tired of the “us” vs “them”. The “us” are ordinary citizens and the “them” are political pundits and media elites who hold the “us” in contempt. I believe the political pundits and media elites see the American people as incapable of reason and stupid.

I have said in earlier post that I thought Marco Rubio at 43 was too young to be president, but I could be wrong. Rubio’s sound bites: “We cannot go back to the leaders and ideas of the past”; “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back”; “You see, we Americans are proud of our history, but our country has always been about the future. And before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America”; “We can’t be going back to the leaders and ideas of the past”; “We must change the decisions we are making by changing the people who are making them.” This may be what first time voters and millenniums want to hear. His youth may be a factor in helping him win.

I think far too much is being made of the Iowa caucus. Iowa is of little significance to the overall 2016 election. The state has just 3 million of the U.S.’s nearly 319 million residents, so it doesn’t have many votes in the Electoral College that will eventually elect a president from the parties’ nominees. The state makes up only about 1 percent of delegates who will later choose the nominees. The Republican Party has 2,472 delegates nationally; a candidate needs 1,236 to win the nomination. Iowa only has 30 Republican delegates, or 1.2 percent of the U.S. delegates. The media is what makes the Iowa caucus important. The media hype that follows the Iowa caucus can determine which candidates will drop out of the race. The media hype of the Iowa winners also determines future financial support other candidates will get. Another factor that dilutes Iowa’s importance is they allow their delegates to split their vote at the National Convention. They do not have to cast all their votes for one candidate.

Iowa has not been very successful in selecting the right Republican nominee in the past. They supported Rick Santorum in 2012. In 2008 they favored Mike Huckabee. In 1988 they favored Robert Dole. In 1980 they favored Pat Robertson. They supported Mitt Romney over the eventual nominee John McCain. They were successful in 2000 and 1996.

Three reasons the Iowa caucus is usually wrong when it comes to the candidates for the general election are Iowa is predominantly white, strongly religious and their caucus system is complex.

If you cannot rely on the early caucus and primaries or the polls what can you count on? It is simply too early to decide who will be the candidates in the general election or who will win the late primaries. Primary voters and caucus voters generally do not make up their minds until a few days before the event. In the general election voters often do not make up their minds until the last thirty days. Polls are nothing more than tools used by the media to hype their broadcast and mean nothing. Polls can be manipulated depending on how the questions are asks and the cross section of voters contacted. Keep in mind if pollsters use landline telephones that eliminate a lot of young people and if they use the Internet most young people are not going to reply to an Internet poll. Landline and Internet usually get results from older voters. If a candidate like Rubio should be successful in getting out the first time and millennium voters in the general elections the polls could be worthless. We will have a better idea who will be the candidates for the Republican and Democrats in mid-March.

I would like to see the United States do the same thing the Philippines do when it comes to campaign periods. In the U.S. campaigns last two years or more. That is entirely too long. In the Philippines there are campaign laws which limit the campaign period to about six months. No campaigning, no ads except during that open window. Candidates will be disqualified if they campaign early. By the time the actual general election comes around most Americans have grown tired of the process and some are so turned off they just stay home.

I do not think the Trump/FOX debacle will hurt Trump. Republican politicians now know they can challenge FOX and they will. In the past Republicans felt as if they had no other media to go to. Not all the people at FOX support Ms. Kelly. Brit Hume is one who has spoken to others about not supporting her and being upset she had Michael Moore on her show to defend her against Trump. Murdock the owner of FOX has been watching Roger Ailes closely since last summer. He is concerned about Ailes health and having a replacement for him. FOX generates one billion dollars in profit yearly for Murdock. There is a split over the Kelly/Trump issue at FOX and some are upset that Mr. Ailes has allow Kelly to be the spokesperson for FOX.

Do not let the media and political pundits manipulate you with polls.  I have had friends tell me I would have voted for “X”, but I voted for “Y” because the polls showed he or she was going to win and I did not want to waste my vote.

By November Hillary may have criminal charges brought against her, Bernie may be in a retirement home (I am 75 an can say that), Trump may be having mouth surgery to remove his foot, Jeb may have found a miracle vitamin and the world may know what a sneak and snake Cruz is. 

Grow a full beard and become holy, wise and loved by Muslims.

A senior bishop in the Church of England believes the vicars, or parish priests, should grow full beards as a way of reaching out to the fast-growing Muslim community. What will he want next? I guess Christian women should begin to wear the Hijab and men wear the Kufis. I live in the Philippines where the Muslim community is prominent in the malls and streets. I respect what they wear if that is what they want to wear to tell the world they are followers of Islam. I do not expect them to wear a crucifix simply because the Philippine people are predominantly Catholic.  

The senior bishop thinks we Christians should make ourselves as appealing to Muslims as possible – political correctness really gone amuck. He claims the beards will make their Christian ministers appear to be more holy to the Muslims. I am not interested in my bishops and priest appearing to be holy I am interested in them trying to BE holy.

He said, “In Islam beards are viewed as an adornment and Muslim men are encouraged to wear them to honor the Prophet Mohammed.” That is all the more reason for me not to want to wear Islam garb or grow a full beard. I honor and serve Jesus Christ not the Prophet Mohammed.

He also claims a scripture in Leviticus bans a man from shaving. I believe Leviticus is Old Testament (old covenant) and Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament (new covenant). I find it strange that he would pick one scripture in Leviticus that supports his personal belief about reaching out to Muslims and ignore all the other laws of Leviticus.

 The Rev Adam Atkinson, Vicar of St Peter’s church in Bethnal Green one of the first to start wearing a full beard has said the reason he did so was he saw it as an alternative to getting a tattoo. That sounds real holy to me! He also said he had since been struck by how often it helped him forge new links with teenage boys who might not normally want to talk to a vicar.

Sometimes it is hilarious how church leaders use scripture. One of the scriptures they use for growing full beards is St Paul saying, ‘I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some’, 1 Corinthians 9:19. If this is isolated from the rest of Scripture one can assume that Paul was willing to do anything to reach the lost, including adopting their lifestyle and compromise his ethics, moral and beliefs. This is a doctrine that is popularized among the evangelism crowd today. If we use this logic then one cannot reach a drug addict unless we become one and we cannot reach a drunk unless we drink alcohol. Paul did not mean that.

 Paul taught that believers are to “abstain from any appearance of evil”, 1 Thess. 5:22. Paul would not have done anything contrary to Christ and His ways in his own life and ministry. Remember he rebuked Peter for his compromise of the gospel to the Jewish brethren. Paul was simply saying when speaking to a religious Jew he would use the law to speak to them and when speaking to a gentile he would use his conscience and culture to speak to them.

Remember I wrote earlier what is next. Reverend Atkinson said, “A Muslim friend said to him, ‘I will lend you a hat (kufis) and you can join me on Friday [prayers]. It was done in a jokey way but I felt it was quite affirming.”

The other vicar, the Reverend Rogers of All Hallows Bow, said: “One guy approached me about a year and a half ago and said ‘I can respect you because you have got a full beard’. If wearing a full beard made the man respect him then the man must be very shallow. Charles Manson a mass murder wore a full beard. He went on to say the full beard shows wisdom and he added: “I like the idea of being the ‘wild’ priest rather than the gentleman priest.

The Senior Vicar said, “David Beckham is the nearest we have to a popular secular saint, and his flirtation with various styles of beards has stimulated countless imitators.” David Beckham also gets a lot of attention by modeling underwear so I guess priests and vicars should start running around in their underwear. David Beckham is no saint to me.

Growing a beard in Islam is not dictated in the Holy Koran. It's a tradition. It is not a commandment of the Prophet Mohammed it was a suggestion. The prayers of those who shave off their beard are heard just as those with full beards.

Wearing a cross does not make you a Christian and having a full beard does not make you holy or a Muslim. Keep in mind the Hutterites, prevalent in the Canadian Parries and the Amish, prevalent in the Northeastern USA are Trinitarian Christians and have always worn full beards. Orthodox Christian priests and Orthodox Jews wear full beards. I think the fact that Orthodox Jews who wear full beards are hated by radical Muslims proves that having a full beard means little to Muslims/Christian relationships.  

I thought the timing of the beard comments by the Vicar in England was appropriate. His suggestion came two days after the earliest Christian community in Iraq was wiped out by radical Muslims and at a time when militant Islam is harassing, persecuting and murdering Christians – beard or no beard – across three continents. 

Euthanasia - a pagan word to most, but not me!

There was a time when I would not have considered or approved of euthanasia in any form. If it had been put to a vote I would have definitely voted against it. I like millions around the world had a closed mind to the idea. I could support my decision with ethical and religious reasons. I think my greatest fear was if the practice was allowed it would be abused and to a certain extent I still fear that. I am still against anyone other than the sufferer making the decision to end their life.  

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to end  extreme suffering that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the majority of countries euthanasia or assisted suicide is against the law.

There are two main classifications of euthanasia:

Voluntary euthanasia - is euthanasia conducted with consent. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA).

Involuntary euthanasia - euthanasia is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia - this is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld.

Active euthanasia - lethal substances or forces are used to end the patient's life.

Active euthanasia is a much more controversial subject than passive euthanasia. Individuals are torn by religious, moral, ethical and compassionate arguments surrounding the issue.

I think that two factors should be considered when contemplating euthanasia: (1) is the illness or disease non-curable and (2) the extreme suffering involved cannot be relieved by other means.

In many other countries a patient can refuse treatment that is recommended by a doctor or some other health care professional, as long as they have been properly informed and are of sound mind. I think this decision should only be made by the person suffering.

Doctors regardless of the law are forced with making decisions concerning death all the time and they take into consideration what is in the best interests of the patient. Doctors consider what is in the patient's best interests based on: (1) What the patient wanted when he/she was competent, (2) The patient's general state of health and (3) The patient's spiritual and religious welfare.

Doctors and families have to decide the best option for a patient who is declared clinically brain dead and if they should switch off the life-support machines; equipment without which the patient will die. The doctor in charge will talk to the patient's family. However, the final decision is the doctor's, and strict criteria must be met. Is that not a form of euthanasia which we have come to accept?

I have stood with families when a decision had to be made to remove life support machines and I know how difficult it is. It is especially difficult when the decision is made based on suffering and not being brain dead. I would have to advise them what our church teaches about the matter and then I would go against the churches decision and tell them after seeking help from the Holy Spirit through prayer they would have to make a decision based on what they thought their loved one would want. 

I watched as a young man suffered for weeks and the doctors were telling the family he was only alive because of the life support machines. The mother finally requested the machines be taken off and the doctor refused. This was in a Catholic hospital. I ask the doctor if his faith in God allowed him to believe God could perform miracles and he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if he thought if the life support systems were removed and God wanted the young man to continue to live he would and he again he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if that is all true why then are you afraid to remove the life support system. He removed the life support and the young man passed away within ten minutes.

Do you remember the Karen Ann Quinlan case? She was hospitalized and eventually lapsed into a vegetative state. Several months later, while being kept alive on a ventilator, her parents asked the hospital to discontinue active care, so that she could be allowed to die. The hospital refused, there were many legal battles, and a court eventually ruled in her parent's favor. Quinlan was removed from the mechanical ventilation in 1976, but she went on living in a persistent vegetative state until 1985, when she died of pneumonia. The development of advance health directives (living wills) occurred as a result of her case. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed.

I watched and prayed while my brother suffered with cancer in 2004. I will never forget him looking up at me and saying, “Bubba, please do not pray that God keeps me alive any longer I am hurting too bad. I am ready to go.” I took his hand and told him, “Raymond, I stopped praying that days ago and have been asking God to take you as soon as possible.” He grasps my hand tighter, his wife leaned over and kissed him and he smiled and died.

The English medical word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek word eu meaning "good", and the Greek word thanatos meaning "death".  Euthanasia is mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath. The original oath states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." Even so, the ancient Greeks and Romans were not strong advocates of preserving life at any cost and were tolerant of suicide when no relief could be offered to the dying.

Suicide was a criminal act from the 1300s until the middle of the last century; this included assisting others to end their lives. Thomas More (1478-1535) - An English lawyer, scholar, author and statesman; also recognized as a saint within the Catholic Church, once envisioned a utopian community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain. Since the early 1800s euthanasia has been a topic of debates and activism in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australasia.

An anti-euthanasia law was passed in the state of New York in 1828. It is the first known anti-euthanasia law in the USA. In following years many other states followed with similar laws. Several advocates, including doctors promoted euthanasia after the American Civil War. At the beginning of the 1900s support for euthanasia leveled off in the USA, and then rose up again during the 1930s. In 1935 euthanasia societies emerged in England and in 1938 in the USA. Doctor assisted suicide became legalized in Switzerland in 1937, as long as the doctor ending the patient's life had nothing to gain. During the 1960s advocacy for a right-to-die approach to euthanasia grew.

I now believe the patient should be given the option to make their own choice. Only the patient is really aware of what it is like to experience persistent, unstoppable suffering; even with pain relievers. Those who have not experienced it cannot fully appreciate what effect it has on ones quality of life. Apart from physical pain, overcoming the emotional pain of losing independence is an additional factor that only the patient comprehends fully. Every individual should be given the ability to die with dignity. It is more humane to allow a person with persistent suffering to be allowed to choose to end that suffering. If a loved pet has persistent suffering we put it down. It is seen as an act of kindness. Why should this kindness be denied to humans? Why should a patient be forced to experience a slow death?

Several religions see euthanasia as a form of murder and morally unacceptable. Some see voluntary euthanasia as a form of suicide, which goes against the teachings of many religions. They claim Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. Does religion have the right to force their beliefs on everyone?

Some claim there is a risk patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically pressured into consenting. They may feel that the burden - financially, emotionally, mentally on their family is overwhelming. My father wanted to die and for eleven days he begged that he not be kept alive because of the cost and he did not want to leave my mother financially insecure – that is a valid argument in my opinion and should have been his right, but at the time I opposed.

According to the 1980 declaration from the Vatican, Jura et Bona, "euthanasia", or "mercy killing" is defined as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated." Some in the Catholic Church say to eliminate all suffering sounds very nice, but it is very unrealistic and also very pagan. They say suffering has value and I agree some types of suffering does, but I question the point in physical suffering when no end in sight. Some in the Catholic Church claim suffering provides us with an occasion to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion - to me that sounds very nice, but may be unrealistic if you are the one suffering.

One priest ask if I Remembered the song, "He Ain't Heavy; He's My Brother". He said, “Advocates of euthanasia do not see the ill this way, but only as a burden. God forgive them.” I am not talking about someone else taking my life. I am talking about me having the right to make a choice if I want to continue to suffer and be a prison to pain and poor health. It is easy to quote grandiose religious and philosophical principles if you are not the one suffering. He claims I have become ungodly and I claim I have just become realistic. He claims all life is worth living, but has he lived in constant pain and unable to leave the house or hospital? He even ask me this stupid question, “If your car breaks down do you throw it away or have it repaired?” I have my car repaired and when it reaches the point that it can no longer be repaired I junk it – euthanasia. I also do not view a human as a “thing” so I think his example is totally asinine.

The Catholic Church is even against “Living Wills” - Catholics must follow the moral teachings of the Church in these matters and should consult a priest in specific cases. But by all means avoid "Living Wills."  I have a “Living Will” I do not want a stranger making that decision for me and I do not want to put that burden on a friend or family member. My “Living Will” states they can try to resuscitate me without using any machines to do so.

No, I do not believe in abortion because the baby does not have the right to choose to live or die, but I now believe in Euthanasia giving the person suffering the right to make the choice to die. Please do not try and tell me there is no difference because taking a life is all the same. I beg to differ with you and I respect your belief.

The reason this subject came to my mind is because yesterday I picked up my Bible and it opened to Psalm 88. The author is unknown, but most likely someone ill and suffering. He pleads with God to hear his prayers. He says he is near death; he is living, but like the dead; he feels like he is drowning; he feels like he is trapped in a prison of bad health; he feels God is not hearing his prayer; he is isolated from his friends and he pleads for a miracle. Psalm 88 sums up how I feel.

I will continue to suffer as long as God gives me the strength to do so, but when the time comes that I can no longer bear the suffering I will choose to end it. I see no glory in suffering for the sake of suffering when you are nearing the end and can no longer contribute to society. This is not a decision I made lightly. I believe if God wants me to live I will live without life support or medication. In fact I believe putting all my faith in God speaks more of my faith than to fight to stay alive by artificial means.  I do not want anyone who has not walked in my shoes to tell me what I should or should not do. I do not judge them and do not want them to judge me – please let God be God and do the judging. 

The National Review stands for outdated conservatism.

The National Review taking on Donald Trump should help Trump if you are tired of politics as usual. It is the men that wrote the article in National Review that has given us the Republican Party we have today. If you like the Repub/Demo Party presently in Washington you will like the article and listen to their advice. If you are tired of politics as usual and Republican politicians too weak to stand up to a Democrat President you will rebel against the article and support Trump.

The article in National Review is an attempt to end a Donald Trump run for the White House once and for all. The National Review has decided that Trump is not conservative enough and believes the Republican voters will once again fall in step with them as we have in the past.

Publications like National Review, run by elite "conservatives" have given us "No Child Left Behind," Medicare Part D, huge deficits to woo select voters, "Romneycare", John McCain, Barry Goldwater and the list goes on and on. This elite conservative group should take some credit for giving us Obama.

William F. Buckley, who founded National Review, used the magazine to publish a series of essays by conservative intellectuals who helped foster the Reagan Revolution and since Reagan it has been on the decline. Let us not forget it was the Tea Party that gave new life to the Republican Party not the elitist at National Review. What have the elitist at National Review done for the middle class?

If it was not for the elitist that wrote the article for National Review there would be no need for a Donald Trump in 2016. They created the need for Donald Trump. They contributed to the bad legislation that keeps Trump high in the polls. They created a need for change in the Republican Party. They are the reason Republican voters are mad as hell! These are the same people who thought Donald Trump’s campaign was a joke. They are so out of touch with Americans they did not even see his being in first or second place as possible. They aren't credible in their criticism of Trump because they never saw it coming and they still do not get it.

For too long the Republican Party has been run by the country club crowd and it is time we return the Republican Party to the Blue Collar middle class crowd. At least Donald Trump has relationships with his employees from the janitors to the Vice Presidents. The elitist that have taken over the Republican Party only come in contact with the middle class when they need their swimming pool repaired. Donald Trump has worked with iron workers, electricians, carpenters, service personnel, union workers on a regular basis. He understands the importance of the working class.

The elitist in the Republican Party have not fixed the border problems, the illegal immigration problem, the deficit problem, the education problem, the health care problem, the lack of jobs problem, the veteran’s problems, etc. Why would we listen to what they think or say now? They must think the people that really make up the Republican Party (the voters) are fools.

They have failed us, not Donald Trump! They are more concerned with their brand of conservatism which is good for the elite, but not good for the middle class. There is a reason that politicians in Mexico tried for generations to stop the growth of their middle class. The elitist in Mexico knew a strong middle class would take power and control away from them. The elitist in the Republican Party do not want to lose power.

It is time we had less thinkers and more doers at the head of the Republican Party. Donald Trump is a thinker and doer.

The National Review and other elitist Republicans have found themselves losing its hold on the Republican Party. They realize if Trump or a Trump like politicians take control of the Republican Party they will no longer hold its elitist seat at the Republican Party table and there certainly is no place for them in the Democrat Party.

Trump is not the first person National Review has tried to destroy. They presently have several lawsuits filed against them and if they should lose those cases it would probably be the end of National Review. Should we take the advice of elitist journalist that have run a company for over 50 years and made no profit? They have lost over 50 million dollars.

I am glad the Republican Party “disinvited" National Review from participating in an upcoming debate. It is a first. During the past 50 years the elitist at National Review have had too much power over the Republican Party and we got what we have today.

During the dark period in American history when segregation and integration was a political issue it was National Review and William F. Buckley that supported segregation and said white men were superior to blacks. He even stated if blacks were the majority then the white minority white should still rule. He suggested maybe blacks should not be allowed to vote.  He claimed the white race was the advanced race. Is that the type of conservatism we want in 2016? They were definitely wrong then and they are wrong now.

If what you have been doing hasn’t worked only a fool continues to do it the same way. Obama’s promise for change was campaign trash, but America needs change and without it we are going to be another Greece.

I cannot honestly say that I will vote for Trump at this time, but every day it seems to me it is better to gamble on Donald Trump than what we’ve got! When the extreme left and the extreme right come out against Trump he only looks better to me. 

Gambling/lottery is not a sin - your attitude towards them can make them a sin.

NFL conference championship games are Sunday (Jan. 24) and millions of Americans are poised to bet money, a new survey finds most have no moral issue with sports gambling.

An evangelical polling group found 64 percent of U.S adults said sports gambling are not morally wrong, 31 percent disagreed and 5 percent were unsure. Only 40 percent agreed “sports betting should be legalized throughout the country.

Gambling should be a State issue not a Federal issue and should be decided by a vote of the people. I am not for Internet betting because it allows those living in a state where the majority of the people oppose legalized gambling to gamble. If you do not agree with the majority of voters in your state and gambling is that important to you then you should move.

The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling. The Bible does warn us to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture also encourages us to stay away from attempts to “get rich quick” (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10).  

Gambling is a difficult issue to discuss because if it is done in moderation and only on occasion it is not necessarily evil. Gambling is nothing more than entertainment for many people. We spend money on all types of entertainment sports events, movies, expensive meals, vacations, holidays, purchasing items we do not need, etc. What some see as a waste of money others do not. Anytime you spend money that you do not have to spare on anything you do not need is a waste of money and I personally see it as a sin.

There are people who are addicted to gambling as there are people addicted to drugs and alcohol. Is it our responsibility to try and make it difficult for them to satisfy their addiction – I think not. If a person is addicted to something they will find a way to satisfy their addiction regardless of what we do. A cure for any addiction only comes when the person who is addicted wants to stop and seeks help.

I had a friend that was addicted to alcohol. I would have dinner parties and holiday parties and if he was in attendance I would not serve any alcoholic beverage. I was confronted by other friends and ask why they all should do without wine or cocktail simply because he had a problem. I thought and prayed about it and then approached my friend with the problem and explained the situation and told him I would be serving wine and cocktails in the future and if he felt it was best he not attend I would understand. He laughed and told me he had no problem with my decision and confessed he kept a bottle in his car and would take a drink before and after leaving one of my dinners. My not serving alcohol did not help him in the least.

The Bible does not explicitly mention gambling, but it does mention events of “luck” or “chance.” As an example, casting lots is used in Leviticus to choose between the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat. Joshua cast lots to determine the allotment of land to the various tribes. Nehemiah cast lots to determine who would live inside the walls of Jerusalem. The apostles cast lots to determine the replacement for Judas. Casting lots is a form of gambling.

I do not deny that lottery participants are usually those who can least afford to be spending money on lottery tickets. The allure of “getting rich quick” is a temptation for those who are desperate. Those that are desperate are usually desperate because they do not know how to manage their finances regardless if they gamble or purchase lottery tickets or not. Society had a lot of desperate citizens before the lottery and gambling became legal in some states.

Laws have never stopped prostitution or addictions. They only have made the vices go undercover. When they go undercover the government has absolutely no control of them. Illegal lottery brought down President Estrada in the Philippines. Lottery is now legal in the Philippines, illegal lottery continues, but does not present the same problems it once did.

I have heard that the money the government collects from lottery does not go to fund the causes it is supposed to. I am sure that is happening, but that has nothing to do with the lottery and everything to do with the politicians we elect.

I have heard the argument over and over to justify not having the lottery that lottery winners have less in a few years after winning the lottery than they had before winning. Whose fault is that? How can you blame the fact that they are irresponsible on the lottery?

I have heard fellow minister use scriptures to judge those who play the lottery or gamble. One scripture they use is Proverbs 13:11, “Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.” How can gambling or playing the lottery be classified as dishonest money if it is done legally and won fair and square? I have even heard it said God does not want money donated to the church that is drug money or money stolen in a bank robbery and God does not want money that was “stolen” from the poor in the temptation for riches. That honestly sounds stupid to me – lottery money is not money STOLEN from the poor. I think the poor have a choice if they want to play the lottery or gamble. If we passed a law that you must show prove of income to gamble or play the lottery then the liberals would be screaming discrimination.

These are other arguments that I have heard protestant ministers use to oppose gambling or the lottery - First Timothy 6:10, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Hebrew 13:5 “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’” Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Do we assume that if someone eats an expensive meal in the finest restaurant they are putting money before God? If we do there certainly are a lot of ministers putting money before God. Using scripture improperly to support your personal agenda is what has made Christianity look foolish to some.

One minister calls the lottery and gambling a sin because he says it causes materialism, greed, discontent, reliance on chance vs. reliance on God's providence, exploitation, laziness vs. working, thwarting of charity, seeking to gain from the loss of others – REALLY! If that is true and it is probably true in some cases then I think his time would be better spent on teaching his followers the sin of materialism, greed, discontent, reliance on chance, exploitation, laziness, charity and taking advantage of other rather than focusing on trying to make gambling and lottery illegal.

He also says the lottery and gambling produces addiction, poverty, crime, dishonesty, family strife and divorce, escape into alcoholism and exploitation of the poor. It could contribute to all of those problems. I question if poverty, crime, dishonesty, family strife, divorce, alcoholism and exploitation of the poor would end if gambling and lottery was made illegal. What happen when the Federal government ban alcohol? What happen when prostitution was made illegal? Cocaine and heroin are illegal has it solved the problem or slowed the problem?

Moral issues are corrected in the home, in the schools, in the churches, by friends and not by government – never has and never will.

If Hollywood is against Trump he must be a good candidate.

 Prominent actors, writers and thinkers joined a "Stop Hate Dump Trump" campaign to denounce the billionaire Republican presidential frontrunner, saying he is a threat to the United States.

Harry Belafonte, Kerry Washington, Jane Fonda, Jonathan Demme, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Danny Glover, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore and Lily Tomlin are among those lending their support to the drive to prevent Donald Trump from getting into the White House. Prominent thinkers I question that! The persons I have underlined have always been anti-American. The fact that these people, with their anti-American views, are against Donald Trump makes him more attractive to me. They have all lived well because of capitalism. 

I do not know of anyone that has been more of a threat to the U.S. and U.S. military personnel than JANE FONDA. I was in Vietnam when Jane Fonda paraded around in Hanoi with our enemy. She gave her support to the very people that were killing American military personnel. She did it openly and was never charged with a crime.

‘THINKERS’ – I do not need them to think for me. I do not know of any thought Jane Fonda has ever had that lines up with my thoughts. I listen to her apology on Oprah Winfrey for going to North Vietnam and I did not buy it.  Jane Fonda said, “I made one unforgivable mistake when I was in North Vietnam, and I will go to my grave with this. I don’t know if I was set up or not,” she said. “I was an adult. I take responsibility for my actions. I was laughing and clapping and there were pictures taken.” She was “laughing and clapping” while Americans were dying; she was “laughing and clapping” while Americans were rotting away in POW camps; she was “laughing and clapping” with her new pals who she knew were torturing American soldiers.

She did not make ‘one’ mistake she made many mistakes! She went behind enemy lines to give our enemy support, she spoke on North Vietnam radio calling American military personnel in Vietnam baby killers, she gave messages that the POW’s slipped to her to the commanders of North Vietnam military before she left Hanoi, she straddle a North Vietnam weapon that had been used to shoot down U.S. aircraft and laughed while posing on it.

The POW’s that slipped Jane Fonda notes thought she would help them, but instead she betrayed them. Two of the men were killed and the others were beaten after Jane Fonda left. She is responsible for their beatings and deaths! Her apology was a business decision.  

This incident received little press coverage, but both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a joint statement condemning the U.S. Navy over the launch of its newest warship, the USS Jane Fonda. The ship’s name, which was kept under wraps until right before the launch, was revealed at a star-studded event presided over by Ms. Fonda. Prior to the launching of the USS Jane Fonda she made this statement, “I dedicate this ship to the brave men who fought and died in Vietnam.” How dare her!  This is just one more example of how sick our corrupt government has become and how the Obama administration goes out of its way to insult our military personnel. I would have declined the honor if I had been Jane Fonda – Jane Fonda does not think like me!

Something like this could not have been done without the authorization of Obama, who has ignored Navy tradition before by naming ships after other civilians, such as civil rights activist Cesar Chavez and Medgar Evers. Obama’s personal agenda is being played out prior to the end of his term.

For those of you who only know Fonda from her movies, her background speaks for itself. She received an Oscar for her portrayal of a military wife in Homecoming. In one scene she achieved a very real climax while receiving oral sex from her lover while her husband was deployed in Viet Nam. She just had to get one more dig in on Vietnam veterans.   

A film that did not make any money, Introduction to the Enemy (1974) is a film made by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden to introduce Americans to our sweet, compassionate, kind North Vietnam enemy. It tells how resilient and industrious the North Vietnam people were and how they took the French and U.S. planes they shot down and made homes and bicycles out of them.

Between her anti-American radio broadcasts from North Vietnam and appearing at anti-Iraq War rallies, Fonda demonstrated against Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. This is someone who once said, “I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become Communists.”

‘THINKER’ – Harry Belafonte is another one that does not think like me. I would not have gone to Venezuela and met with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, but Belafonte did and while there he praised the anti-American, anti-human rights Chavez regime, saying, "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world and the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution."  He also said to Chavez, "We Americans respect you, we admire you."

Belafonte has been criticized many times for referring to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as President Bush’s, "house slaves." I do not always agree with Colin Powell, but he has dedicated his life to the service of the United States. He also served as a much-needed role model for the black community in an age when men of his integrity have become rare. Harry Belafonte has proven to be a hypocrite in his criticism of American foreign policy while the socialist policies and leaders he has embraced have led to countless deaths of their own citizens in Africa and other Third World countries.

Harry Belafonte’s anti-American views are extreme and repugnant. He has praised Castro and Chavez, blamed the United States for the terrorist attacks that took place on 9/11 and denounced America as a villain in world affairs. No, Mr. Belafonte does not think like me. He thinks more like Jane Fonda and that is why they can join forces against Trump.

Michael Moore -made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the highly fictional Fahrenheit 9/11, a “documentary” that alleged close links between the Bush clan and Osama bin Laden’s family.  Recently he said that private wealth is a “national resource” that belongs to all the people and called for jailing the rich.  Then he called bin Laden’s death an “execution.”  For a man who made a fortune exploiting 9/11, denouncing wealth, and the action against the al-Qaeda leader, is beyond disingenuous. Michael Moore does not think like me.

Danny Glover -  Lethal Weapon star Danny Glover was a campus radical as a student at San Francisco State University and has been an advocate for left-wing causes ever since.  He was friends with Hugo Chavez, is a union rabble-rouser and said the Bush administration was composed of “liars and murderers.”  After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Glover was quick to blame the tragedy on global warming. Danny Glover is a supporter of Edward Snowden and has attempted to negotiate for his asylum in various countries even after Snowden’s own father said his son should return to the U.S. and face his punishment. I do not think Danny Glover’s thoughts represent my thoughts.

Rosie O’Donnell – I think Ms. O’Donnell is incapable of thinking. She just opens her mouth and garbage comes out. She says whatever she thinks will anger the most people. Talent does not keep her in the public eye, because she has none, so she resorts to controversy.

These great thinkers claim they are offering Americans a chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump's campaign gains momentum even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric. Trump has said some very politically incorrect things, but no one has been more divisive and hateful than the very ones that organized ‘Dump Trump’.

They say they believe Trump is a grave threat to democracy, freedom, human rights, equality and the welfare of our country and all our people. I have never heard of Trump meeting and supporting our enemies as the organizer of ‘Dump Trump’ has. I have never heard of Donald Trump giving his support to communist tyrants. I have never heard of Donald Trump saying if we understood communism better we would all pray to God that we would one day be a communist nation.  These so called great thinkers have always been on the opposite site of the U.S. in Vietnam, Middle East, Venezuela, Cuba and Africa. They have contributed nothing to the United States or to its people except left wing and anti-American rhetoric. If the United States is as bad as they claim it is why don't they move to a communist country?  

No, these pseudo political pundits (actors/actress/comedians/directors) do not think for me or speak for me.  

Levinson was a spy not a hostage.

The family of the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007, has acknowledged he was working as a "spy" for a rogue CIA operation and accused the CIA, FBI and the Obama administration of "betraying" him by not doing enough to gain his release. I would think that anyone working as a “spy” for any country would understand the risk. Levinson was an FBI Agent specializing in organized crime in the U.S. before his retirement and it is said he was a skilled and meticulous FBI agent.  

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am not a fan of Obama, but I have mixed emotions about the Robert Levinson hostage (spy) case and do not know how much Obama could have done or could do to secure Levinson’s release – if he is still alive. I think it is utter nonsense for some to claim Obama is not interested in the case because Levinson is Jewish.

It was originally reported Levinson was looking into a cigarette smuggling ring for a client of the security consultancy business he had run since leaving the FBI ten years earlier.

Iran denies any involvement in the hostage taking of Levinson and it has been rumored he was being held in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Washington having no evidence of who is holding Levinson, where he is or who holds the key to negotiating his release has not been able to make progress on the case.

The first photographs and video emerged of former FBI-agent Robert Levinson in late 2010. In the video he looked thin, but said he had been treated well by his captors and was badly in need of medicine for his diabetes.  He appealed to the United States government to “answer the requests of the group” holding him. There has since been no evidence that he is still alive.

David McGee, a family lawyer and spokesperson for the Levinson family said, “The CIA and the FBI betrayed Levinson as it tried to hide the fact that he had a long-term relationship with the CIA, spying on Iran's nuclear program and on the terror group Hezbollah in the rogue operation.” Isn’t that normal procedure and you are told that before you take such an assignment. I was in Intelligence Service during the Vietnam conflict and we knew if we were captured in Laos the U.S. Government would deny any knowledge of our being there. You volunteer for those types of assignments you are not forced to take them.

American intelligence officials suspect the Iranian government, specifically its intelligence services, is behind the production of the 2010 images released by the Levinson family as well as a "proof of life" video. Ray Takeyh, a former State Department senior advisor on Iran, told ABC News he believes the Iranian leadership knows where Levinson is.

Dawud Salahuddin an American fugitive was the last person to see missing secret CIA operative Robert Levinson alive in Iran, but he has denied being involved in his mysterious disappearance. Dawud Salahuddin is a suspect in connection with a 1980 murder. Salahuddin fled the United States after the shooting in Maryland of an Iranian exile and he later confessed to the killing and justified the killing by claiming it was a 'jihad’ killing. He also met with Mr. Levinson's family in Iran and claimed to have met with the missing man, but denied knowing anything about his disappearance. I cannot help but believe the meeting between Levinson and Salahuddin has something to do with Levinson's disappearance. It is difficult for me to trust anything Salahuddin would say.  

The CIA paid Levinson's family $2.5 million to pre-empt a revealing lawsuit, and the agency rewrote its rules restricting how analysts can work with outsiders. I do not know if the truth will ever be known by the public and I don’t know if it should be known by the public. The truth could endanger the lives of others. It was obviously worth $2.5 million dollars to keep the facts from coming out. 

Behind closed doors, three veteran analysts were forced out of the agency and seven others were disciplined. The CIA claimed they did not know that Jablonski, one of the three veteran analysts forced out, was paying Levinson to do work for the CIA which was a violation of CIA rules. She should have notified her boss that she had put him on the payroll and they claim she did not.  I would think those forced out and disciplines were simply scapegoats.

Some in the U.S. government believe he is dead. But in the absence of evidence either way, the government holds out hope that he is alive and the FBI says it remains committed to bringing him home.

I believe he is dead and Iran cannot shed any light on the case without admitting to their involvement. What would be the purpose for Iran to continue to hold him now since the truth is known he was a “spy”. How long do you think a person in bad health, as Levinson claimed he was in 2010 live? He has diabetes, was in need of his medication, he has probably has had no lab work or monitoring of his sugar and been eating the wrong food. I am a diabetic and I know what happens when I do not take my insulin at the right time, watch my sugar intake and eat snacks and meals as I am supposed to.

I have a problem calling Mr. Levinson a hostage. He was a spy for the United States and according to international law Iran had every right to arrest him, imprison him and even execute him. My definition of a hostage is a person taken against their will and held for no legal reason. Regardless of the reason a person volunteers for a government top secret job be it the adrenalin rush, money or patriotism you commit to taking the risk of being caught. You understand for national security reasons your government may not admit you work for them. I feel sorry for the Levinson family, but I do not blame Obama or agencies of the U.S. government.