Free College

Obviously, the ability to afford college is a great impediment to many who wish to attend college. In terms of a harsh reality, that somewhat limits the number of applications received by colleges and universities due to the lack of funds on the part of some potential students. Beyond that, there are basic minimum requirements for entrance and in almost all instances there is competition for a limited number of vacancies.
Our Democratic presidential candidate is promising free college education in "public" colleges if she is elected. The first major hurdle to that is that "public" colleges are run by and controlled by the individual states, not the federal government. Would her idea be for the federal government to simply pay the state schools or would she attempt to take over the state schools? Just as a small aside, where would the funding be obtained for either approach? No matter which approach she attempted, the states’ control of and rights to the colleges would have to be usurped. Next, since she is promising free college, who would determine which potential students could attend since there is obviously not enough room for everyone who would want the free college degree? The answer to that would have to be a federal government controlled program to make the selections. Therefore, a criterion of some sort would have to be established by the government to decide which applicants could actually go to free college – a selection process which anyone with half-sense can realize would be disastrous.
A few factoids might help those who support Hillary based upon free college. From the 2014 and’15 college graduates:
51% of those graduates, who do actually have employment, state that they are working at jobs that do not require their degrees.
83% of them did not have any job secured prior to graduation
Only 39% of them, who do have jobs, are making more than $25,000 per year.
What then would statistics reveal if everyone who wanted a college education could attend for free and the program added many, many thousands of annual graduates?
As to the astronomical student loan debt claimed by many, it seems strange that the Federal program for Direct Unsubsidized Loans places an aggregate maximum in loans at $31,000 no matter how many years of attendance. Those who choose different kinds of loans are simply making a personal decision to become indebted to whatever level gives them comfort. Sure, they can borrow enough money to buy a new car, new clothes and live in a nice apartment, but if they are smart enough to get into college, surely they recognize there will come a time for payback.
Easy conclusion. Clinton’s promise of free college is a virtual impossibility and would serve no good purpose even if it could work.

Dilemma - a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

So, the American people are about to vote for a new President. For many, the choice is simple as they have their minds made up about the person they wish to elect. For millions of others, there looms a great dilemma. Even more than issues of economy, immigration and border security, education, national defense, healthcare, abortion, new entitlements, taxes or any other subject, this particular election seems to hinge on personalities and, literally, a like or dislike for a candidate.
On the one hand there is a very experienced politician who has the ability to fend off repeated accusations of wrongdoing. From Benghazi, to emails, to her foundation, to her Wall Street speeches, to proven “pay for play” allegations, Hillary Clinton’s name is associated either unethical or illegal activities. She is, however, a female and that garners many votes on its own. She comes from the party that has mostly dominated big cities throughout the country and has given hope and promise to lower income citizens for years. Sure, they see to it that the welfare rolls are swollen, yet the folks who are recipients of “free” money, rent, and food stamps are relegated to second class or lower standards of living. The party has done nothing to help these people find real jobs, elevate their living standards and conform to the laws of the land and there exists no real hope on the horizon for them other than a possible raise in free money payments. People, in general, do not trust her yet they choose to overlook all the proven legal and ethical violations attributed to her. Primarily, they do that based upon a blind allegiance to a political party or a particular dislike for her opponent – few real issues facing the nation are given as a reason to elect her. Add to that the fact that not many people really like her and some cannot stand her, yet her party stands behind her and fully supports her.
On the other hand, her opponent seems to have lost favor for any number of reasons with millions of people. He is claimed to be boorish, in possession of an over inflated ego, a bully, a loudmouth with few filters and most of all not a politician. No real accusations of wrongdoing have been leveled at him save for some women who claim he kissed them against their wishes and in a couple cases that he touched them inappropriately, yet his detractors claim he is dishonest and a fraud. If he is a fraud in some way, then he would have to also be considered a fool for entering this race. He has an exceptional amount of money, a wonderful family and the freedom to do as he pleases with relative anonymity, so why would he place himself in the position of running for president? It cannot be for the same reason as Hillary who, by the very definition of politician, is constantly concerned with retention of office, and advancement of personal power. It must be, then, that he really does care about America and would like to see it restored to the country many of us have known – the world’s strongest superpower – and a country and its leaders who command respect from all others. Has he made mistakes-absolutely. Has he said things better left unsaid-certainly. Has he broken laws or lied to the American people-absolutely not. However, his own party members, in many cases, have either stepped aside or even condemned him and will vote for someone else. Why? Simply because they do not like him or because they are afraid a political outsider will destroy their empire. His party has had control of Congress and the Senate for years, but has accomplished hardly anything. His party is guilty of protecting the re-election of its members, based upon political correctness, no matter the cost to the American people.
It should be obvious to anyone that neither party is truly worthy of representing the citizens of this country. Both have existed for years on controversy and have exhibited complete disregard for the will of constituents and have cast votes based upon adversarial party lines. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to elect someone not infected by political ambition – someone who doesn’t need the job and hasn’t lived off government and lobbyist payouts for years. It is a shame that Donald Trump has alienated many voters based upon personality, but the reality is there are only two choices for president and voters must determine what is truly important and cast their votes on more than personal likes and dislikes
The appointment of Supreme Court justices is likely the greatest issue facing the American citizens and will determine the future of America for decades to come. During debates, Donald Trump has used the term ”constitution” repeatedly when referring to likely appointees. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has used that word only as an adjunct to her stance of appointing people in tune with today’s times and aware of the changes she claims need to be made in giving the federal government greater power. The approach to a justice appointment could not be more diametrically opposite, as expressed by the candidates, and the direction of this country, as guided and influenced by the Supreme Court, should be foremost in the minds of voters.
The dilemma comes where there are millions of people who would choose to do what their values direct, but wish to withhold their vote simply because they don’t “like” a candidate. Folks say repeatedly “I can’t vote for him because he is _____(fill in the blank)” while at the same time saying they want his party to rule this great nation and how much they wish another person had won the nomination. The fact is, millions of people determined Donald Trump is the nominee of the Republican Party and to turn from voting for him because their personal choice didn’t defeat him is rather a poor loser’s way of making a decision.
There is one chance for Americans to try to get the United States back on track in keeping with the constitution and limiting federal government control of everything. The dilemma must be overcome and people have to realize the importance of their vote in this election and determine to defeat a liberal candidate who would likely destroy our country as we know it.
Howie

Bergdahl

I'm sure folks get tired of my drivel, but this Bergdahl thing is most bothersome. I read (for hours) the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have copied here certain components. Basically it reads that if a soldier leaves his post during wartime activities he is automatically considered a deserter Simple AWOL is not an option. ( Even if he returns voluntarily, he is a deserter and must stand trial). Paperwork is to be completed and he becomes wanted and subject to arrest by most legal authorities. He is arrested and held in military custody until a Court Martial (not a Summary Court Martial) decides his guilt or innocence - there is no provision to wait and hear the deserter's story before charging him as this administration is doing. Much the same as in civilian criminal law, if several people claim to be eyewitnesses to a crime and identify the culprit, he is arrested and charged with the crime, held until bailed out (the military doesn't have that)
or until trial. The guilt must be proven at that point ( pretty easy with
multiple credible witnesses).
The law doesn't wait to hear his side of the story before arrest. PERIOD!!
Hussein and his administration have spun this mess and usurped the authority of the military in an effort to cover their idiocy. Sadder each day, the antics of this treasonous administration.

From the UCMJ:

If the intent of the absence was to "shirk important duty," such as a combat deployment, then the "intent to remain away permanently" to support a charge of desertion is not necessary. However, Such services as drill, target practice, maneuvers, and practice marches are not ordinarily "important duty." "Important duty" may include such duty as hazardous duty, duty in a combat zone, certain ship deployments, etc. Whether a duty is hazardous or a service is important depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and is a question of fact for the court-martial to decide. (My note – says goes to Court Martial as the only place for facts. Elsewhere it is stated if one leaves their post during combat, AWOL is no longer considered, it automatically rises to desertion

Hillary

Hillary is showing her true colors. She is blasting the Supreme Court decision allowing closely held (meaning privately owned) corporations to opt out of the Hussein mandate that contraceptive devices must be provided to female employees. She claims the court has gotten onto a "slippery slope". First, not all contraception is included in the ruling. The ruling is specific to four means of contraception, which can be effectively used after a pregnancy has begun and can be construed as a form of abortion. Secondly, the ruling simply affirmed a part of the Constitution upholding the freedom of religion as the owners of the company have strong feelings about abortion. The ruling did not say the female workers could not use contraception nor even that they cannot have an abortion - it simply allows the employer, acting on their religious beliefs, to avoid paying for those things.
As an allegedly responsible, highly visible woman in this country, why doesn't Hillary suggest some level of abstinence to her minions rather than loudly objecting to the lack of a law providing contraception? It would certainly seem reasonable that a woman could provide her own contraception using anything from a crossed leg procedure to purchasing her own pills out of her own pocket. To go so far as to say that the prevention of pregnancy is a necessary protection of a woman's health is an awfully long reach.
Taking a step further in the whole mess, what are the rights of a company that is required to provide contraception? Suppose the company does pay for the pills or devices and yet a female employee becomes pregnant. The employer's insurance must now pay for both the birth costs and provide a paid leave for the employee and then offer health insurance to the child until age 26. Would it be fair to argue that the employer offered the contraception with their insurance and the employee simply refused to avail herself of same and allowed herself to become pregnant? Why, then would the company's insurance be required to pay for her refusal to use that which is provided? Should there be a limit on the number of times an employee could become pregnant despite the availability of employee provided contraception? If a company can provide that an employee can be terminated for using certain drugs the employer deems harmful, could it not be reasonably argued that an employee be terminated for failing to use certain drugs provided by that employer? Talk about a "slippery slope".
If an employer has to provide insurance to cover, for example, flu shots, should the employee be required to receive that shot? What if an employee opts to forego that inoculation, gets the flu and then infects numerous other employees who miss work and cost a company a great deal of absenteeism? Is there any recourse for the company?
It is a frightful thing to think Hillary is the current front runner for the next presidential election. Hopefully, her true ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of this Nation, through her outspoken tongue wagging, will doom her chances and she can go on being a "broke" grandmother.

More on Phil Robertson of Duck Dynast

Now the fine "reverend" Jackson has weighed in on the Phil Roberstson of Duck Dynasty debacle. 'Ole Jesse says Phil's statements are more offensive than was the driver of the bus on which Rosa Parks rode. Any place to stick his inflammatory rascist nose seems to give him a pulpit from which to preach. He would claim I'm a rascist bigot because I treat both my "black" animals like dogs! (They are dogs - black and never heard of Africa). How in the world did he get the title reverend, and even more amazing is the fact he gets so much press coverage whenever he wants it. I wonder if he'll be allowed to "preach" in his son's prison? Great example of a family there.
I happen to have a mixed race granchild whom I dearly love. None of her lineage in the past century leads to anywhere close to Africa and at least five generations back on her mother's side come from Tennessee and Kentucky. Will she be called a Tentucky American? Doubtful, as there are no organizations to promote anything other than "African Americans"- with virtually no ties to the continent of Africa. (By the way, how many Africans are named Hussein like our pres?)
Somehow, some way, there has to be a WASP with the ability to speak beyond political correctness and be heard within the media and not silenced by the castigation of the organized minorities. Someone who, unlike the supposed "reverend", has actually read and believes in the Bible. Someone in whom people who believe in the future of our Nation and hope our Constitution might rule can look up to as a leader. I really would like to have a viable, reasonable organization to which I could make donations of both time and money. IMHO, there isn't one right now and that is sad.

Mixed Emotions

Another day of mixed emotions.
On the one hand, advancing age means that I might not have to survive long enough to see the country I love destroyed from within. On the other hand, given the blessing of youth I might exist long enough to participate in a revolution that surely will come about as the “government”, from the presidency to the lowest courts, strives to overturn the way of life envisioned by our forefathers and guaranteed by our Constitution.
In June of this year, the Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a discrimination complaint against a bakery shop owner. Not against a Wal-Mart nor an Exxon nor a General Motors with great visibility, this complaint was filed against a sole proprietorship and it was initiated by the beloved ACLU. The bakery shop owner had refused to supply a cake for the wedding ceremony of a “gay” couple. He offered them birthday cakes, holiday cakes or any other sort of cake, just not one for celebrating the union of homosexuals who had been married in Massachusetts. He did so on the premise his religious beliefs prohibited him from participating in something he considered contrary to the teachings of the Bible (That happens to be a book that has been around for a long time representing little or no value to judges and elected officials).
At a hearing in December, an administrative law judge ruled that, in fact, his refusal to bake a wedding cake was an act of discrimination and issued a cease and desist order. Despite the fact Colorado law does not even allow same sex marriages, the judge says the baker must comply with the wishes of someone he does not want to serve because it is discriminatory. His personal religious beliefs are to be disregarded as, obviously, of much less importance than the rights of a “gay” couple to demand a cake from his shop. It is expected that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will “certify” the judge’s order.
Wow! That CCRC is similar to the Civil Rights Commissions existing in many states and in the federal government. Those commissions have tremendous enforcement powers, in some cases without specified limitations, and are unknown to nearly all Americans. Combined with their close allies in the ACLU, the commissions have unbridled power to force upon individuals, groups, organizations and companies the beliefs of the members of those commissions irrespective of the Constitution and the true intent of the rights provided therein.

Fourth of July

4th of July
What a wonderful day it is as a holiday from work and a time for general celebration. There are more hot dogs consumed in America on this day than any other and, obviously, more fireworks exploded than on any other day. Thank goodness for a free country which can use it's own Declaration of Independence as a reason to gather family and friends for boating, swimming, eating, drinking, games, and all manner of pleasant and joyful experiences.
Just as any holiday, there is a foundation for the day and a reason the holiday exists. Most folks recognize that the 4th of July is a celebration of the independence of the United States from Britain, but few know how it came about and follow the real instruction for the celebration.
In fact, John Adams, the first Vice President and second President of these United States and one of the Founding Fathers of this Nation and a contributor to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence wrote a letter to his wife. In his letter he stated:
"It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews (means horseshoes), Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."
Wow! With a letter he set in motion the prescription for July 4th celebrations lasting well over 200 years. We Americans have followed his instructions in almost every way.
When did the Acts of Devotion to God Almighty fall by the wayside? How could a leader of government utter such words without being as ostracized as Paula Deen?
Simple. Contrary to decisions and mandates of modern day judges, courts and politicians the idea of a devotion to God was ever present within the minds of the Founders and references to God and Father are found in practically all documents having to do with the beginnings of this Nation. A Nation founded in the name of Democracy, wherein the majority rules. Yet, our courts have ruled that prayer is not allowed in schools and at games, the Pledge of Allegiance is banned, anyone can marry anyone, small children claiming to be "transgender" can use the bathrooms of the opposite sex, small groups can desecrate the burial of a fallen soldier, atheists can display their beliefs on public property and, most importantly, references to God are disallowed in public places.
Just yesterday, a newscaster lauded the fact this country was founded as a secular nation. Where and how have people come up with that idea? "In God We Trust" has appeared on U.S. money since 1864 and became, with very little opposition, the official motto of the United States under President Eisenhower. Taken out of context, correspondence from Thomas Jefferson discussing a separation of church and state has been used as misguided, and twisted grounds for claiming religious expression of the one to whom the founders gave credit and constantly prayed is unconstitutional. The constitution followed the Declaration of Independence. It did not take away anything from the declaration The Declaration contains five references to God, especially "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor".
This is a Nation founded under God and its majority should be as willing to fight for that belief as for freedom.

Life

How strange it is to speak with contemporaries (persons of the same age) and find that virtually all agree we are not nearly as old as our predecessors of the same age. Sadly, when we compare pictures, we realize we are them! Age is a cruel thing when it comes to our physical appearance and abilities. It is, however, rather kind to our temperament and our patience and our overall ability to see life for what it is. The idea of living forever is somewhat diminished by seeing the frailty of life and the potential for ending with so little a thing as a blocked artery, an accident, or a tiny tumor. These bodies we were given simply do not support the "live forever" ideals we possessed as younger persons. We become both introspective and retrospective at once. We look back at experiences and situations with almost blinded fond memories- easily erasing pains and tribulations-and recalling the good and pleasant experiences at any given point in life. Even without alzheimers or other forms of dementia we are able to recall past times shrouded in a fog blinded to the moments of discord and unpleasantries. What a welcome thing that is as compared to spending one's life consumed with bitterness and regret for things past- most often things over which we had no control. Just as feeling a certain level of joy looking at pictures from our past, we can close our eyes, remember, and once again enjoy the moments or times when life was as we hoped and imagined. We have all been,at times, within our own minds, both on top of the world and as downtrodden as anyone who ever lived. Yet, as we age, we realize that many of the things that plagued our minds were of no importance in the true scope of life. We have fretted, worried, and stressed over so many things in our lives that ultimately become trivial, that we look back and wonder how we might have dwelt on such insignificant circumstances.
We do age. We do get older just as generations before us have done and this life will end just as it has for millions of people. We are blessed with the ability to remember and what a blessed thing that is.

I Love This Country

I love this country – these United States of America. I was able to serve in both the Army and the Air Force. My time spent in those organizations was not always pleasant, but despite any adversities and ideological differences there was an underlying patriotism within me that, if necessary, I would sacrifice so much as my own life to preserve the freedoms, principles and morals so dear to the population of this Nation.
What now? How might we define any principles and morals upheld by our very own government? Sure, we can attend the churches of our choice, we can have open conversations with friends and acquaintances about our personal values, but political correctness seems to obstruct the free expression of feelings by anyone in or seeking public office. Special interest groups have so amassed themselves with their outspoken agendas that politicians are afraid to speak whatever they might truly stand for or believe.
How can a country with the foundations of this one have allowed a select few to prevent prayer in schools, invocations at ballgames and even the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school? We send young men and women into foreign countries to defend the fundamentals of democracy, yet the very country for which they battle has turned from a democratic society to one frequently governed by a court system. Yes, there are provisions for our Congress to overturn decisions made by our courts that are totally contrary to the foundation of our Nation's beliefs; however, the positions of the two parties supposedly representing the people are so polarized that they refuse to work together to accomplish anything of substance for the good of all.
It appears that a quote attributed to Joseph Stalin was prophetic in its pronouncement of collapse from within. "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within".
Just how might someone with great wisdom define "the Republic for which it stands" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance? For what do we stand? Shall we increase the amounts taken from those who are determined to educate themselves and work hard and give more to those who choose to allow the "government" to provide for them? As we are forced to remove any references to God from public places along with tributes representative of faith from public locations because they are "offensive" to a tiny minority, shall we not have to ultimately destroy our churches to pacify those same malcontents? Is it to be incumbent upon our society to give privilege to those who classify themselves as minority – whether defined as race, sexual preference, or gender? Shall we allow a federal government, whose powers are specifically limited in our constitution, to determine what freedoms we may exert and to control every facet of our lives despite the fact we have the alleged power to vote?
I truly wish and pray there would come a resounding groundswell of enthusiasm to find individuals willing to espouse their true feelings, willing to run for public office and actually able to succeed in becoming elected. Stalin's predictions can be overcome. I hope that within my lifetime the ground begins to quiver from other than a quake!