Manny Pacquiao you have demonstrated what bigots and hypocrites some Christians are.

Once again Manny Pacquiao has demonstrated how a lack of education can keep a man in ignorance. Manny you need to watch National Geographics and not cartoons on television. If you did you would know that other species besides man have same sex partners. Manny, Christians pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar,so pay your debt to the people of the Philippines - TAXES! I would never say anything negative about your ability to fight in the ring, but unfortunately that does not qualify you to represent the people in Congress, Senate or as President. The message I think you send to the young people of the Philippines is education does not matter or is not important.'I will be President with a third grade education'.

You may say you're sorry in an attempt not to lose endorsements and votes, but what comes from a man's mouths speaks for his heart. You my friend are a bigot and are misguided in your theology.

 Manny Pacquiao - compared same-sex couples to animals. “It’s common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex?" YES, Manny I have! "Animals are better because they can distinguish male from female,” Manny, read something besides a boxing magazine. "If men mate with men and women mate with women they are worse than animals.” Is that another one of your direct quotes from the bible - show me where it says that homosexuals are worse than animals. It also says women and men do not have sex outside of marriage - you know what I mean.

I think your time would be better spent not making disingenuous apologies and seek forgiveness from God.

Manny you said, "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally
married, only if they are in love with each other.(Manny in case you did not know marriage in biblical time had nothing to do with love, marriages were arranged.) It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old." Manny, did God say it was okay to have sex with others after you went to the altar of matrimony. I have always thought Sodom and Gomorrah was about rape and incest, but I am sure you know more about the bible than I do.

I wrote a blog a few weeks back on should we make idols of celebrities - Manny has demonstrated why we should not!

Questions for Pope Francis

Pope Francis I love you, but who are you to judge the convictions of Donald Trump's heart when it come to his being a follower of Christ or not. I wish I could ask you if it is Christian for men of the cloth to rape children. Is it Christian for the leaders of my church, the church I have devoted my life to, to cover up those sins? Is it Christian for Bishops to live in mansions while people starve around the world? Is it Christian for priest to take personal money from the collections and you know they do? If we are going to judge we need to judge our own before we start judging others.

I opposed the war in Iraq at the time - Did Donald Trump?

Donald Trump is being attack by Republican politician’s for saying he opposed the war in Iraq and thinks it was a mistake.  I know this is probably shocking to many Republicans and some Democrats, but there were Republican voters back then who possessed the foresight to know that the Iraq War was going to be something we would regret for many years to come. We stood on street corners in front of Federal Buildings around the country carrying signs protesting our participation in the Iraq conflict. Those who opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning took no end of abuse for taking that position.  We were booed, threatened and had cigarettes flicked at us by fine upstanding people passing by who believed the lies being told them by politicians. We were often resented by other protesters because we were older, conservative and Republican – we were not one of them.  

It was not difficult for us to figure out that Iraq was about to become our next Iran. We understood that it was a religious dispute among Muslims that had gone on for generations and no outsider was going to fix it or end it. We felt sorry for the weaker Muslims, but were thankful the conflict had not been brought to our shores and knew if we interfered it would cost American lives and accomplish nothing. Saddam Hussein, just as the Shaw of Iran, had not caused us problems the problems in Iraq were internal problems and between Muslims. 

Rightly or wrongly some of us believed the reason for America’s involvement was oil. If that was the reason then China should thank us for getting involved because they benefit from the oil not us. I always believed some politicians feared a return of oil shortages as experienced during the Carter years and the oil corporation’s feared lost profits and assets in Iraq. The oil industry's political donations may have influenced politicians to make bad decisions. 

I agree President Bush was close to gaining a better Iraq, but he or anyone else would have solved the problems within Iraq and outside of Iraq among Muslims. If we would not have gone in to Iraq then Obama would not have had any American troops to bring home. I also agree that Obama made a terrible mistake in withdrawing our troops after we were engaged in the internal conflicts of Iraq. It did not take a Middle East expert to know that Iran would attempt to fill the vacuum when we were gone.

John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all said at one time or another they would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that they would not have withdrawn our troops after we were there as Obama did. Rand Paul said the same thing, but that's no surprise. Jeb Bush has even made statements that the Iraq war was not a good idea. Do you remember the Kelly question to Jeb Bush “… if you knew then what you know now would you have invaded Iraq” – it took five days for Bush to come up with a final answer? Trumps mistake in stating he opposed the Iraq war was he made it a personal attack on President “W” Bush to upset Jeb Bush. That would have worked if Trump was running as a Democrat, but he claims to be running as a conservative (progressive) Republican.

 With everything that has happened over the last dozen years, including events of just the last year, it's very hard to say that the invasion was a good idea. Iraq has loomed large over every aspect of US politics and foreign policy for more than a decade.

Republican politicians had moved the debate to the 'surge', where they had a much better argument to make. The ‘surge’ created an opening for a political solution, which never ended up happening and I personally never believed would.

 In the 2008 presidential race, the Iraq 'debate' was largely fought over who was right about the surge. Donald Trump has in 2016 brought the debate back into a territory that the Republican establishment does not want to go – should we have invaded in the first place. 

Public opinion has turned decisively against the Iraq war. But political fights recently have largely been fought over ISIS, whether there should have been a full pull-out from Iraq, chaos in Syria, Libya and Yemen and more. Most American I think would agree we have to stop ISIS and other terrorist groups, but Republican politicians and Democrat politicians, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who supported the invasion of Iraq, would like to leave the question if we should have invaded in the first place in the closet never to be revisited again – Donald Trump has opened that closet door.

Would we have the ISIS problem we have today if we had not invaded Iraq – I guess we will never know? The invasion certainly destabilized the Middle East even further. Today we are in such a hellish situation in the Middle East that it is hard to defend the original invasion.  Did the invasion speed up the terror coming to our shores?

I am sorry it is not the ‘hawks’ in Washington that deserve any credit for Iraq it is those politicians who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset. Iraq is a reality and we now must try to make the best of it and unfortunately that probably means leaving troops in the Middle East for many, many years to come – perhaps forever. It means increasing our military presences which means modernizing and increasing our military. It means it is going to be even more difficult to lower our National Debt. But, most of all we must consider Americans may have died and suffered for nothing.

Yes, some Republican voters were arguing at the time against invading Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. imminent enough to justify an invasion. Some Republicans and I was one of them were publicly shouting themselves hoarse, pointing out at the time that, at the very least, there were serious questions about whether Iraq really posed the threat the Bush administration and other politicians claimed it did.

Jeb Bush said, "…the focus needs to be on the future." We should always focus on the future, but we should never forget the past. I do not think we should let the present moment pass without acknowledging that those who were most focused on the future during the run-up to the war in Iraq were the ones working to stop it from happening.  

In closing, I would like to give credit where credit is due Vice President Al Gore and Illinois State Senator Obama and twenty-one other Democrats like Teddy Kennedy opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and publicly stated they did at the time – all politicians that I would have never voted for.  Bernie Sanders an Independent who was in the House at the time was against the invasion. I only know of one Republican who spoke out loud and clear against the invasion and it was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who is now a Democrat. I have no recollection of Donald Trump saying anything whatsoever in public about invading Iraq before the war began, although I am not sure I even knew who Donald Trump was at that time.

It was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading Democrat members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration supported the invasion of Iraq. There is enough blame to go around in both parties.

The United States does not need Bernie Sanders.

I think Hillary will have to start attacking Sanders for his 1980 era. He was a representative for the Socialist Party which at the time had ties to the Communist Party. He was actually part of the revolutionary Socialist Party. He was tied to a guy name Pulley. They called for solidarity with Iran and Cuba. They wanted President Carter to turn over the Shah of Iran to the mullahs. They both called for eliminating all U.S. Military operations and the C.I.A. They also wanted the rail, oil and automobile industries nationalized. They supported Ortega.  You would like the fact they wanted people to work a 30 hour week and be paid for 40 hours. Sanders said in the 80’s the U.S. was a dying society and the sooner it died the better the world would be. Sanders has proposed raising payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes to help cover all the stuff he wants to give away. I think he may have mellowed since the 80’s, but I am surprised since Hillary is losing to him they are not using the 80’s against him. Of course the young voter would not remember those things and probably would not care. 

I am really surprised the Republican candidates are not going after him harder.  If they think he will be easier to beat than Clinton I think they are wrong. People love the myth of getting something for nothing.

Regardless of what you may have thought of the Shah of Iran he supported the interest of Americans for over thirty years and our relationships in the Middle East were certainly better than they are today. If you do not like the present government medical care you really will not like Bernie Sanders medical care. If the government cannot run V.A. Hospitals how do you expect them to run all the hospitals in the United States? If you work or have friends or relatives working in the oil, rail, automobile industries how well do you think they will do with the government taking control of them? Are you really pleased with Obama's secret Iran deal - Bernie is! If you are upset with the present National Debt how happy will you be with Bernie adding 19 trillion more to it to pay for all his freebies. I don't know about you, but I do not want increased taxes and that is how Bernie will pay for his birth to grave guarantees. 

==The Democrat elitists in the party decided they definitely did not need Bernie Sanders. Even though what they did to keep him out was dishonest it was probably the smartest move they have made in nearly eight years.

Appointing Supreme Court Justices has become critical to political parties!

I will be surprised if the conspiracy stories do not begin soon over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. There were some very important cases about to be ruled on, cases that have tremendous political ramifications.

Among these is Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a landmark case regarding the mandatory collection of union dues and their use for political purposes. The ruling could have meant the death of collective bargaining and the political might of America’s unions.

The Democrat Party has depended on the union votes for decades to keep them in power. Since Reagan the union’s power has slowly eroded and if employees were not forced to pay union dues their political power would have most likely ended. Without political power to threaten politicians with their block votes and large campaign donations politicians would no longer have a reason to rule in favor of union bosses even when the politicians know their decisions are not in the best interest of the country as a whole.  

After oral arguments in the case in January, The Washington Post indicated the court’s conservative majority, including Scalia, were leaning to rule against the union’s ability to collect mandatory dues. But, with Scalia’s passing and the news that the Republican led Senate will likely not confirm an Obama nominee means such cases could end up with a 4 to 4 decisions. Lacking a majority, the lower court’s rulings would stand in favor of the unions.

Had the Supreme Court ruled that union dues could not be used for political purposes, it would have dealt a major blow to one of the Democrat Party’s most powerful assets.

Another key case is U.S. vs. Texas, in which opponents challenged the legality of the president’s executive orders dealing with illegal immigrants. Signs are now strong that it will be decided at the lower court level and the Supreme Court will not deal with it.

Supreme Court justices take a vote on a case immediately after oral argument, cases that have already been argued, even if no opinion has been written yet, the Chief Justice has an obligation to include Justice Scalia's vote in those cases. In other cases where no vote has yet been taken, we may get tied votes which means the lower court decisions will stand. That means that a number of controversial issues will have to be brought back to the court in new cases when there are nine justices.

Not all legal experts agree with the view Chief Justice Roberts could issue a decision using Scalia’s vote.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, blasted comments by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader that the Senate would try to block President Obama from nominating a new justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ms. Warren said, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

That is not what Ms. Warren and other Democrats were saying in 2008 and 2004 when they were afraid that George Bush would appoint a new Supreme Court Justice prior to elections. The Democrats in 2008 and 2004 like the Republicans in 2016 threaten to block a new nominee for the Supreme Court.

In the 1840’s and 1860 the Supreme Court went two years without nine Justices. That is certainly not an ideal situation, but the Supreme Court operated during those periods and would do the same today regardless of what Harry Reid says about the Court cannot go one year without nine Justices.

There was a time when the Supreme Court exercised its role as final decider on important public issues, modestly, on a non-partisan, non-ideological basis and only when necessary to protect the Constitution from clear excesses committed by the political branches. In my opinion those days are long gone there is no denying the Supreme Court has become just another arena for playing out the same partisan and ideological warfare that dominates the other branches. This is why political parties and politicians fight so hard to have their president make these appointments.

The current size of the court, nine justices, is not established in the Constitution. It has varied over U.S. history from five to ten.  The changes in the size of the court were almost always done for partisan/political/ideological reasons. Constitutionally, the number of justices could be changed again. F.D.R. is the last president to try to change the number on the court, but he failed to do so.

Republicans and Democrats have been obstructionist, mean-spirited and unfair when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices. Be careful of what you believe coming from the mouth of politicians from either political parties during this time of replacing Justice Scalia and be careful of the conspiracy stories that will likely begin over Scalia’s death – no autopsy, no heart failure, death due to natural causes, enjoying a hunting trip and vacation the day before he died will only feed them.  

Know When to Hold Them, Know When to Fold Them - Kenney Rogers

You are not a failure until you refuse to try again. I have only met two people in my lifetime who I consider to be failures.  They both had things in common: Early in life they experienced failure and regardless of the opportunities presented to them they refused to try again; they had spouses that were enablers; they refused to acknowledge their part in their failure, they were good at blaming others and both were waiting on God to turn things around.

I have always contributed my success to God and not giving up, but that does not mean there were not times when I got out. I have invested time, money and energy in some losers, but I always was willing to cut my losses and get out. I did hang in until I could sell for a small profit. What might not be good for you may be great for someone else. In all but one case the people that purchased the businesses I sold were successful and happy with the purchase.  Unfortunately, too many people do not even consider getting out as an option. They will hang in until they lose it all. I always had an exit strategy in case I needed it.

Hard work can be enjoyable if you are enjoying what you are doing, but when the enjoyment is gone it is time to get out. Thinking about your capital, time and energy invested may cloud your thinking. It is often hard to give up on the dream of what you thought you could achieve.

 It is a common misconception that winners never quit, but the truth is it can take a considerable amount of strength and courage to quit the things that are not right for you. The most successful people in the world are often the ones that have let go of something in order to pursue a bigger dream and achieve greater happiness. Winners never quit when they know they are on the right path, but when quitting is the right thing to do, quitting and refocusing your energies can lead to a happier and healthier lifestyle.

Before you judge too harshly a person that quits or fails and tries again think about how your success in life compares to the following men who failed and started over many times: Henry Ford - Ford failed five times before he founded the successful Ford Motor Company; R. H. Macy - Macy failed seven times before finally hitting big with his store in New York City; F. W. Woolworth - Woolworth was not allowed to wait on customer in a dry good store because his first employer thought he was not smart enough, but went on to found the most successful general merchandise store in the world; Soichiro Honda - Honda was turned down by Toyota Motor Corporation because they thought he was not a good engineer and he decided to make motor scooters in his home; Bill Gates - Gates dropped out of Harvard and his first business venture failed; Harland David Sanders - Sanders had his famous secret chicken recipe rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant finally accepted it; Walt Disney - Disney was fired from his first newspaper job because they said he lacked imagination; Thomas Edison – Edison was fired from two jobs and made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Oprah Winfrey, Harry S. Truman all experienced failures and had to start over.

If you are unhappy, have lost your passion or you are hurting yourself or others it is time to quit and try again. Continuing doing what is making you unhappy is only robbing you of a better future. We only live once and have no time to waste on anything other than what contribute to our happiness and success.

Stop thinking starting over is a waste of time. There is a lesson to be learned in everything and it is often the lessons learned in failures that can bring us one step closer to finding what really does make us happy and successful.  Failure and defeat are often life’s greatest teachers.

Fear of failure can keep us from achieving great things. Great success often depends on great risk, and failure is simply a common byproduct. To achieve your personal best you can’t fear failure. To achieve any worthy goal, we must take risks which leaves us open to the possibility of failure. Decide whether or not the goal is worth the risks involved. If it is, stop worrying and give it a try.

It is important that we remember failure can only lead to success if we learn from our failures, accept responsibility for our failures, and do not repeat past mistake while expecting a different result.

Success requires a plan, drive, patience, integrity, passion, self-confidence, hard work, self-reliance and prayer.

Rubio is the real winner in Iowa.

I am not happy that Senator Cruz pulled ahead in the Iowa Caucus, but there is one bright side to it. A Trump win would have made it more difficult for a mainstream candidate, like Marco Rubio, to mount a comeback later in the season. I would not be surprised to see the Republican establishment get behind Cruz, even though they do not prefer him to be the next President. I think they would prefer Cruz over Trump. They may now take another look at Rubio.

 Momentum is generally overrated in primary politics, but a back-to-back win in Iowa and New Hampshire would have given Trump a chance to run the table through Super Tuesday, on March 1, especially with the establishment backed candidates so divided. It would have certainly told the establishment Trump is not just going to disappear. The party’s establishment is not well positioned to stop Trump if he fares well in the early states primaries.

If the Republican field doesn’t narrow quickly following New Hampshire there will be a real chance that Trump will build a wide delegate lead over a split field on Super Tuesday. I think the establishment is the winner coming out of Iowa because it has bought them more time. If the field of mainstream candidates narrows following New Hampshire someone acceptable to “extreme conservative” and moderate Republican voters, like a Rubio, might weaken Cruz and Trump.

Trump must begin to be cautious with his mouth and come up with sound policies because some of the extreme right wing conservatives that have been supporting Trump because they thought Cruz could not beat Trump could now go back to Cruz following Iowa. People like Trump’s slogan “Making America Great Again!” but, now that we are getting into the primaries we want to know HOW he is going to do that.

Believe it or not there are some of us Republicans that think the extreme right wing of the party is what has caused the Republican downfall. There are moderates in the Republican Party that want and will support a more moderate candidate. We blame the right wing conservatives for the racial divide within the party, for the perception that Republicans do not care for poor, orphans and widows, we blame them for not standing strong against Obama’s socialistic programs, for allowing the Democrats to make the 1 percenters look like demons and for being critical of Obamacare, but not producing a better model. Those are the reasons Trump is attractive to moderate Republicans. 

Just a note: The most segregated places in the United States is the church's. Right wing Republican Christians should pay particular attention to that fact because it does affect how people view the Republican Party and the evangelical vote.

Trump still has large vulnerabilities. I think the establishment would prefer a more moderate mainstream candidate, like Rubio. Rubio needs to show he can be a viable alternative in the primaries. A mainstream candidate would also be able to count on considerable support from many of the party’s better educated voters, especially in the West. Trump hasn’t yet faced a serious paid media campaign and it remains unclear whether he can maintain such a large share of the vote in the face of sustained attacks on his past statements. If Jeb Bush drops out and his supporters money starts to flow to Rubio it could be a game changer.

Things have been going well for Trump over the last few weeks. The mainstream candidates remain deadlocked in New Hampshire. The party hasn’t rallied against him, and there are even signs it might be more open to him than many have assumed. If he could only have come in first in Iowa it would have put him in a very strong position heading into a primary season against a divided Republican field.

On the other hand the lost in Iowa to Cruz and Rubio coming in a strong third may rattle Trump’s cage and make him realize he cannot win by slandering everyone that questions or opposes him.  Trump’s main problem is his ego and Iowa may be what he needed to knock some air out of his ego.

Trump needs to stop his tweet madness, stop his Ted Cruz birther crap and show us some substance. We may not like him personally, but some of us still believe he can get the United States back on track. Over the years some of my best employees were people I did not personally like, but they could do the job I needed done and I supported them. People should not vote for personalities they should vote for who they think will be best for the country as a whole. I do not plan on having Trump over for dinner or paling around with him. I am not looking for a friend I am looking for someone with strong executive abilities. I am also not looking for a personal counselor or pastor either. 

Socialism/Communism or Capitalism

I wonder how many of the 68% of Americans polled who said they would not object to a socialist president know that communism is an extreme form of socialism. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "Communism", but the two philosophies have some differences. Communism is a political/economic system and Socialism is an economic system. Obama has attempted to transform the United States into a Socialist/Capitalist country with heavy emphasis on Socialism.

Communism claims to deliver free-access to consumption articles through advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. Socialism claims to deliver access to consumption articles through redistribution of profits among the workforce (Obama).

Communism believes the government should own all means of production and land and everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally. Socialism believes large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the profits must be return to society as a whole. Socialism attempts to control the economy through social control.

Karl Marx and Lenin supported both Communism and Socialism.

Communism the government owns the economy and in Socialism the government controls the economy. Socialist actually believe Capitalism can be a stepping stone to Socialism and can work if the government has control instead of the wealthy.  

Communism abolishes religion and Socialism encourages secularism.

Communism and Socialism both desire to control immigration.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was designed to be a socialist economic system, but it did not work.

Socialism and Communism does not necessarily reward on one’s natural ability or ambition. They believe all should be rewarded equally (If you have worked in a Union shop as I have you know your co-worker could be lazy and make the same amount of money as you – a product of Socialism).

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. He is constantly speaking of free healthcare and free education. Socialism offers free healthcare and education (that are not actually free) because they are funded by taxation. Perhaps that is why Bernie Sanders is proposing tax increases of at least 13.6 trillion dollars on the wealthy and middle class.

The following countries have some form of Communism – China (Communist/Capitalist), North Korea (Communist), Laos (Communist/Socialist/Capitalist), Cuba (Communist) and Vietnam (Communist/Socialist/Capitalist). These are not government that I would not particularly want to live under.

Denmark (highest taxes in the world) and is a Constitutional Monarchy – Socialist.

Some of the most Socialist countries in the world today are: China (starvation), Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden (national debt has gotten so high the government has been forced to take more control of the economy), Norway, Ireland and Belgium (welfare programs have become a burden and a major contributor to their debt).  Not all these countries claim to have a Socialist Government, but they do have Socialistic programs the same would be true today of the United States. It is also important to note where Socialism appears to be working they are countries with smaller populations compared to the United States. There is probably not a true Socialist country in the world today. If there was the people would have to own, manage and divide industry profits.

Capitalism itself is not bad, nor is all capitalist bad. Capitalism is good. People confuse capitalism with corporate America and do not consider the alternative socialism for what it is, fake. The poor in America would be the super-rich in most places in the world. If you think capitalism is wrong, live in a post-communist country for a few years. Most people who make a lot of money give a lot to charity – there are exceptions. Look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates give away a lot of their money.

People fill their heart with resentment towards capitalist because they feel when someone wins someone else must lose. I have found generally when someone wins someone else wins. Corporation profits create more jobs. A capitalist is creative and risk taker and wants to add value to society. Corporate warriors (workforce) are more about a paycheck and bonus, two different things. Nothing is wrong with either for each needs the other.

Next time you ask the question is capitalism good or bad consider Capitalism like we have in America and the Socialism that Poland or Russian had during Communism. I think you will see that capitalism is not all that bad.

Capitalism allows you to express yourself and gives you the freedom to choose. It does not promise to make everyone equal, but rather lets you decide what you want to do with your life. Self-expression does not sound too bad to me. Capitalism allows you to set up a yoga school or write a book, open of a variety of small businesses or work for a corporation.

People should be careful what they wish for and especially who and what they VOTE for! If you want to find out how socialism can destroy a country read up on Venezuela.