Jeb Bush Suspends

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush was in the race for some time. One of the first to announce his candidacy for President of the United States, and despite having spent about $44,000,000 on his campaign, he suspended his efforts last night after not faring as well as he’d like and need to in the South Carolina primary yesterday.

The stellar ‘cast’ or lineup of Republican field of candidates has thinned from 17 or 18 to 5. There were so many candidates early on and Jeb stayed in the race after others departed; Jeb Bush doesn’t fight for name recognition like others do!

Below, are photos of the remaining 5 GOP candidates and today, a short ‘blurb about Dr. Carson:

GOP candidates copy1

Ben Carson is humble, soft spoken and intelligent; a retired pediatric neurosurgeon (Emeritus) who has many common sense solutions to problems facing everyday Americans- which have escaped us for years.

He has the power of his convictions and the power of his faith, but but he never proselytizes. However, his humility should never be confused with weakness. Dr. Carson speaks from the head, which is strongly guided by his heart, faith and intellect.

Soft-spoken, and a political outsider, Dr. Carson rose to national prominence when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast some years ago. His candid criticisms of Barack Obama were tolerated (?) only in part, because he was a minister.

Dr. Carson is one of the political outsiders in this ‘race.’ He and Donald Trump shared this honor with Carly Fiorina, another candidate who recently suspended her campaign in this, the year of the ‘outsider’ candidate.




So, the Iowa caucuses are this Monday, 2/1; and on 2/9 New Hampshire decides! Citizens are now waking up from a ‘long winter’s [political] nap’ and beginning to pay attention. Well, there are others who develop an interest after the conventions are over. I can’t do that; not when my candidate of choice is in the running.

Deciding what we want president is a personal choice. Yes, its very ideological; some want intelligence and aren’t easily swayed by ‘smooth-talk;’others value experience over policy. And still others like enthusiasm that comes with ‘fresh to politics’ (the Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Donald Trump of the GOP outsiders); while still others enjoy the freshness that may come with youth.

After hearing Martin O’Malley (Democrat) this morning, I really zoomed in to his likability. I know, I know, he represents the Democratic party. Am I off my rocker?  So relaxed and ‘at ease’ ON THE STUMP that I’m surprised he isn’t polling higher than he is; but then again, his competition is stiff.

That’s where I feel Carly Fiorina is, speaking to (not at) and she deftly connects WITH her audience. Carly is very capable and competent, but like Martin O’Malley she is up against some very stiff competition. Her response to that?, “Well, I’ll have to work twice as hard to get my message out;”

Election 2016 sort of personifies this. There is a terrorist threat, there remains wage stagnation, unemployment or under-employment there are concerns about candidness. The problems facing our nation are huge. Do you want your president to heal the divide-or do you want the next president to dive head on and fix the issues, first?

We all decide how important and how to prioritize what each candidate says AND does. Yet, others want to flesh out the details of the big  and justify how they think THEY’RE IMMATERIAL.

Immaterial? I heard this response on ‘Washington Journal’ this morning. “I can’t see the importance of these e-mails. I don’t know why Americans pay attention to Hillary Clinton’s e-mails instead of the wonderful platform she runs on.” AMERICA. WAKE UP?

America, am I missing something? Point out to me, the reason that I SHOULDN’T be concerned that Hillary Clinton may not see prosecution for putting ultra-sensitive information on her personal server. A Secretary of State who doesn’t see WHY some things are just so sensitive and why still other communications should NEVER see the light of day.

“The election is over, the talking is done…”

I know, I know, the election is over; and to paraphrase something I read on Facebook™  ”The election is over, the talking is done. My party lost, your party won. So let us be friends, let arguments pass. I’ll hug my elephant, you kiss your  a****!  Most people are trying to do the ‘lets be friends’ part; not the ‘you kiss you  a****’ part. There are a few folks who still feel that it is their duty to convince the ‘other’ guy that he was so wrong to vote the way he did, even though the election was nearly 2 weeks ago. Americans should stop talking about politics and affairs of state, right? Wrong.

Because all Americans know that our finances, jobs, debt and economy and anything remotely tied to these things, are headed for the proverbial terlit (and some say it is already there), it is up to Americans to decide what role the government has, if any, in solving these problems. Part of the problem was caused by too much government involvement, and part of the problem was caused by too little government involvement in operations of this country. After all, if government is PART of the problem, asking/demanding/allowing that SAME GOVERNMENT be part of the SOLUTION; seems to me a bit like allowing the government to be judge, jury and executioner at its own trial. This is hardly an impartial way to solve a problem. Don’t you think it is the role of the GOVERNED/WE THE PEOPLE to determine what the role of government is in finding a solution?

Another thing that the American people ought to be doing (and not just because I say so), is deciding if they want to return to strict interpretation of our founding documents, do they want to mold them into their lifestyle  now (after all  the documents have withstood the test of 230+ years for a reason).

The following article appears long and in some ways is a bit over-the-top for me, but when read with an open mind, there are some solid truths to it. As tempted as we may be to spend the next 4 years squabbling, let spend the next 4 years TALKING  and finding solutions so that the next generation and enjoying life.


The individual mandate of Obamacare: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

Several months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments about the Constitutionality of The Patient Protective and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as ‘Obamacare.’ What is being argued? What is the basis for the arguments on each side? How will the Supreme Court rule?

Opponents of the law say that it is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. However, opponents of the individual mandate state that the power given to Congress is the power to regulate commerce  BETWEEN the states, not INSIDE state borders.

Other challenges are:

The healthcare law with its individual mandate is in violation of contract law, because individuals are coerced into purchasing insurance; ‘you must do this-or face a penalty.’

The individual mandate cannot be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent.

Opponents also feel that the individual mandate extends the powers of the federal governments far beyond what the Founders would ever have dreamed of and point out that if this bill is declared Constitutional, there would be no limit to the power of Congress.

The video below is long, but telling, for the truly interested.

But, proponents of the law say that the individual mandate IS Constitutional because of the EXISTENCE of the Commerce Clause.

Also, they cite that on several occasions, after the signing of the Constitution, that there are several instances in which the framers or Founders of our Constitution required that insurance be purchased or provided by an employer:

On one occasion they required that a ship owner buy health insurance for its seamen. Then 8 years later, the Congress required that employers provide drugs coverage with this healthcare insurance. These separate bills were signed by George Washington and other framers. Also, it is argued that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.

So, is the bill Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

Capitalism or Socialism?

After watching this video, I thought the time might be right to start an earnest dialog about what form of government we the people want and why; You know, the people in Washington aren’t exactly doing a bang-up job representing us, so we need to represent ourselves. If representing ourselves is what is ‘coming down’ we should have an idea of what we’re representing.

After all, we can’t proceed to solve our problems, until the majority of us are on the same page as to how much or how little we want government to be involved in our lives and solving our problems. Do we want a government deeply imbedded in our lives or a government which sits on the sidelines and has minimal input, determining laws, collecting taxes and powers set forth only by the Constitution?

The choice of either way (large, controlling government vs, smaller, allowing you and me to control our destiny) will mean a change in life as we know it. I think you know where I stand from having read  this blog; but I’d really like to hear what you  have to think and why you think it. Remember, everybody’s opinion is valid-at least here!