Giveaway 2

The title of this post is funny, since we haven’t discussed Giveaway 1 yet. I’ll save that for another day, though it’s no less important — in any way — than this one. It’s just that this one is fresher in my head, and I’m more likely to remember it well.

Already *not dating* at this point.

It began a few years ago, when Sawyer and Vincent became friends. Then they began to want to be more than friends. Trudi and I could see it coming. Then — as I told about 200-250 people last Saturday — Vincent came to ask if he and Sawyer could “go out.”

“First,” I told him, “Sawyer is an adult and doesn’t need my permission.” Of course, while technically true, it wasn’t practically true, although he didn’t really know that. It was obvious he was *not* enjoying the conversation, and would much rather have been talking to practically anyone else on the planet. “So, why did you come and ask me if you could go out?”

“Because I told my friends I wanted to ask Sawyer out and they said I better come ask you first.” Accurate.

They got engaged on the same day as Summer’s baby shower. Busy day.

This awkward conversation led to Sawyer inviting Vincent over for dinner on the following Monday night, and every Monday night thereafter for the last few years. They eventually *did* get to “go out” once or twice.

Leading to Giveaway 2. The wedding this past Saturday of Sawyer Layne McDaniel and Vincent Robert Miller. I got to play the part of Father of the Bride, walking my youngest daughter down the aisle to “give her away”, as the tradition goes, and also the part of Officiant, presiding over the wedding ceremony.

Many pieces of the ceremony were similar to the ceremony in Giveaway 1. It was held outside, during autumn, at “the Bridge” — a portion of our church property where there are some trees, an open flat place, and a picturesque bridge over a nearby creek.

The engagement lasted over 14 months and had been full of preparation for this day. In fact, part of our 35th anniversary vacation to the mountains had been spent in thrift stores, looking for the perfect amber glass and other items which would eventually become part of the celebration. (Perhaps one day I’ll do a post about that trip.)

Our home became a storehouse for glassware, pieces of furniture, vegetation, rugs, and who-knows-what-all that appeared both at the outside ceremony venue and the inside reception venue (our church auditorium/gym).

Thursday was moving day, as we began the process of transferring the accumulated wedding ware to the church. We also had to bring in round tables to the auditorium (which had been cleared of the 280 chairs the previous evening) along with assorted tables. The movement of many heavy objects (rugs, tables, chairs, cornhole boards, boxes of glassware and silver platters, and pieces of oak tree stumps to be used in decoration) was, in a word, tiring.

Friday was more decorating and setup. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out the setup for the outside venue. In the end, I overthought what was a very simple matter of staking out the center aisle, then marking where each row would begin.

We tried to get our Christmas picture done after the rehearsal and before the rehearsal dinner. Instead, it ended up being a rehearsal for the picture we would take the next day.

At 5pm Friday the bridal party, along with parents and musicians, gathered for the rehearsal. Notably absent was my dad, who would begin the ceremony the next day. We had decided he would not be needed for the rehearsal in order to save the expense of a night in a hotel. (Our house was full. Along with Sawyer, Shae was home for the wedding, and one of Sawyer’s bridesmaids, Erica, was spending the night on a cot in the recently de-weddinged front room.) If this were the Amazing Race, this is the point where you would hear the weird jangly music that signals a racer may have made a poor choice.

The rehearsal, 86º heat, was brief. (Cue more jangly music) Then we went inside for the delicious rehearsal dinner, provided by Mark and Stacey, parents of the groom. Catered from Moe’s and Olive Garden, it was a feast!

When the dinner was over, Vincent and Sawyer distributed gifts to everyone, including parents. Sawyer wrote two notes to me, along with a Twix bar and an engraved Apple watch band.

After dinner we returned home, where I took one final shot at finishing my ceremony script. I had been contemplating it for months, since the time they decided they wanted me to do it.

Actually, I had thought about it since the moment they were engaged, but they had been unsure for a long time whether or not they wanted me to be the Officiant or just to be the Father of the Bride.

However, it was only in the last couple of weeks that I tried to put everything down on paper. There were many rewrites, the last of which took place that evening. I sent one final copy of dad’s part of the ceremony to him via email. Later, we would talk on the phone, so I could explain what I sent to him. Jangly music.

Wedding Day began early. I left the house before 6 to run to Dunkin Donuts for a dozen, then to Walmart to purchase coffee to brew. Then it was back to the house to pick up the girls and take them to the church’s music room, where they would spend the rest of the day getting ready.

I made coffee, set up the bridesmaids with donuts, juice, bagels, and water, then left to print out my notes.

Once back home, I relaxed and spent time going over my notes.

The sisters, ready for the big event

About 11 it was time to set everyone up for lunch. Trudi had made subs and chicken pasta salad, which needed to be transported to the church. Once that was done, it was time for me to go home, shower, and get dressed for a wedding.

At about 1pm Trudi and I went to the church for our session with the photographer. This would be the Parents’ First Look at the Bride in her wedding dress. Mom and Dad were there when we arrived. Their Grandparents’ First Look was just before our session.

I think this was while we were waiting to get our “First Look” at the bride.

Of course, when it was our turn, we were delighted to see the young woman who used to be our little girl — and still is — in her bridal finery. As always, her smile was the most beautiful piece of her regalia.

Afterwards, we went back home. Dad and I discussed the ceremony (I know the jangly music is getting old, but, it’s what happened) and then I told them both about how the ceremony was going to end and how I was going to lead everyone there.

Trudi and I returned to the church for the final time for photos with the bridal party. After that, I had to turn on the video wall for the reception, then setup a camera outside to capture video of the ceremony. [SPOILER: the camera failed.]

It was hot. I’m guessing about 86º once again, but with a very slight breeze and the random cloud. The area had been largely defoliated a month early by Hurricane Ian (THAT has to be a post at some point), but there was still just a touch of shadow on the bride’s side of the aisle.

Both inside and outside venues looked lovely. I took one last look at the outside, then scampered inside at about ten minutes before four. I had one additional job for Wedding Day: chauffeur.

The plan was this: the groomsmen and groom would transport themselves to the other side of the bridge, except for Sammy, who would be ready to escort Trudi down the aisle; the grandparents and parents, along with the ring bearer, would be picked up by two vehicles at the front of the church and driven out to the venue; the bridesmaids would be waiting at the rear of the church, where I would pick up the first three, then four others, along with the flower girl, would be picked up by the first two vehicles; the drivers of those vehicles would have time to park while I went back and retrieved the Maid of Honor and the Bride.

Once everyone was in place, the grandparents would go down the aisle and find their seat, followed by the parents. Instead of sitting, though, Dad was to continue to the front, where he would begin the ceremony. When Trudi was seated, Dad was to introduce himself, welcome everyone, and remind them to silence their phones. The processional would then officially begin.

That was the plan.

The first hint that things might slightly go off the rails came when I saw the ring bearer being hustled to the rear of the church, towards the bridesmaids. Happily, we were able to correct that and put him back where he belonged.

I went to my car and got it started so it would cool down, then went inside to fetch some bridesmaids. I had Lillie, Erica, and Natalie, who got in and we started to the front. When we got to the front doors, the parents and grandparents cars weren’t quite ready, so we waited for them to load up and leave. It was somewhere between the back and the front that Lillie remembered that she hadn’t changed into her wedding shoes. Oh boy.

Everyone was deposited at the venue entrance and all three vehicles went back for their second group. When Bekah, maid of honor, and Sawyer came out, I quickly told them that Lillie needed her shoes, which were *somewhere* in their prep room. Bekah ran back and and brought out two pairs of shoes, while the lovely Bride got in the car.

As I came around the front of the church, I could see the grandparents already entering the aisle! A little early. At the same time, my nephew was texting me. He couldn’t get the camera to turn on. Meanwhile, Lillie is trying to get her shoes changed, and I’m trying to put the car in the right position.

And then there was silence.

As I peeked into the venue, past the row of greenery which was serving as a wall, I could see Dad standing at the front, with the groomsmen right behind him. Well, they weren’t supposed to be behind him until after he finished talking about cell phones. But he wasn’t talking about cell phones or anything else for that matter.

Then the processional music began. Tammy Cruse, who had worked like a dog to coordinate the rehearsal, wedding, and reception, had been trying to signal Dad to start talking, but he didn’t.

I began gesturing for Dad to start, so he did. But then, he didn’t stop. So I began gesturing *very* wildly for him to stop.

Their vows

It got better from there. Dad stopped, making a joke that he was told to start, then he was told to stop, so he guessed he would wait until everyone came in to do any more.

And I walked my baby girl down the aisle.

She’s with V on their honeymoon to San Francisco right now.

Mr. and Mrs. Zion.

Yep, that’s how the wedding ended, with a bit of a mic drop as I introduced them to the crowd, not as Mr. and Mrs. Miller — as most expected — or as Mr. and Mrs. McDaniel — as my other son-in-law guessed, or even as Mr. and Mrs. McMiller or some other tortured combination of names was suggested.

They can explain it on their blog — if they ever have one — but I’m proud of them for the choice they made.

Anyway, that’s most of what I remember about Giveaway 2. There were a lot of people, and the reception was grand. Then there was a lot of cleanup and I’ve spent the last few days trying to recover.

This patch was inside my coat pocket as I walked her down the aisle

And if there are any single, Jesus-loving, secure-and-humble young men in their 30’s who wouldn’t mind living in New York, look me up. You could be part of Giveaway 3. 😁

QuoteStream ThoughtStream

Runs, Hits, Errors

Actually, this is just about the errors in this blog.

Currently, as of this post, many of the posts which were linking to audio or video no longer appear correctly. That’s what happens when the functionality of things change, or links move. I expect that to continue on into the future, though I will attempt to go back and re-link what can be re-linked.

It’s also interesting to look back and see posts which reveal how much we don’t know at the time.

And then there are just the errors I’ve noticed. I’ve already corrected one in which I mistook a picture which included my brother-in-law, Terry, as a picture of…me! (Weird.)

The latest error was yesterday’s post – which has already been fixed – which put the time of Sammy and Victoria’s engagement in 2014, rather than 2013.

According to the British site, The Phrase Finder, it was British poet, Alexander Pope, who wrote in 1711:

Ah ne’er so dire a Thirst of Glory boast,

Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost!

Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join;

To err is Humane; to Forgive, Divine.

An Essay on Criticism, Part II

While the last line is what we remember, I rather like the third line, too.


Blog Van Winkle

As I mentioned in the last post, it’s been four years since I posted here, but it’s actually been EIGHT years since I’ve posted anything of a personal nature. (The last diary-type real post was this one, about my trip to the World Series with Sammy.)

While the blog’s been sleeping, just a few things have happened. It’s amazing how much can happen in only 8 years.

I won’t try to catch up with everything in one post.

Sammy & Victoria get engaged

But let’s go back to Sammy’s birthday, May 20, 2013. (Yes, this is even further back, to a point that the blog was still active. I don’t know why this wasn’t on the blog.) As part of his gift opening at our house, he had a gift for Victoria.

Apparently, I haven’t mentioned Victoria Muchmore on the blog before. Sammy and Victoria had been dating for awhile by the time of his birthday, and he was determined that it was time to move the relationship forward. Victoria, her mom, dad, and sister were all present when she received hers.

We couldn’t have been happier for Sammy, or more grateful that he was able to marry such a wonderful, Godly and wise woman as Victoria.

The ceremony didn’t place for over a year, on September 6, 2014.

On the big day

We are proud of them both, as they have gone into ministry, moved to Ohio, returned to Florida, been foster parents to many children, and eventually – after a very long process – adopted our first granddaughter, Piper Briann.


When Piper came along, Trudi and I gained new titles…Pops and Nan.

It has been very educational to see what Sam and Victoria have gone through in fostering, and what so many kids go through as they are put in the position to be fostered.

Currently their house is full of girls. In addition to Piper, there are Jade, Genesis, and Rose.

Well, that’s the beginning of catching up. Much more to go. 🙂


(Tap,tap…) Is this thing on?

Apparently, I have a blog.

Yes, I knew that. I did not, however, realize how much I blogged back in the day. There are a lot of posts on this thing. However, none since 2018. Weird.

And a little sad, because as I went back through every post since the beginning, I discovered that I have a diary. I’ve always admired Trudi for keeping a diary and recording many important moments of our lives. I didn’t think I had one and for the most part, I don’t…except for the years at the beginning of this blog.

So, it’s time to begin again.

Not a flattering photo at all, but it’s a real-time capture of me as I write this post. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Politicians and preachers

The Pew Research Group recently published a poll about Trust, Facts, and Democracy. (April 26, 2018) CNN published an editorial about the poll entitled, “1 poll number that should be a wake-up call for politicians“. The number they referred to was “3%”. This was the number of respondents who said they had a “Great Deal” of confidence in elected officials to act in the best interest of the public.

That question also revealed that 75% said they either had “not too much” or absolutely no confidence in their elected officials.

A few things…

CNN made the jump from “elected officials” to “politicians”. Those are not the same things. Granted, usually they are. But sometimes people get elected  specifically because they are *not* a politician. Politician has been a dirty word in America for a long time.

How long? I have no idea. You can do *that* research. I just know that Jimmy Carter was elected to the presidency in 1976 in large part because he was an “outsider”, which many people interpreted as “not a politician.” That was dumb, because he was very much a politician, having begun — as far as I can tell — as a school board member, then a member of the Georgia Senate, then governor of Georgia.  His father had even been a member of Georgia politics.

The point is, there has long been a feeling that we should “get rid of the politicians that run the country.”

Well. That led to Donald Trump. Love him, hate him, or ignore him (Is that even possible?) pretty much everyone agrees — Donald Trump is no politician.

But wait a minute. What *is* a politician? The dictionary says a politician is someone who is skilled and experienced in governing or in conducting the business of governing.

But is that what most people think of when they use that word? Mostly our politicians, those that run the business of government, are most skilled at being “politically correct.” That is, they don’t say things that are too far from the mindset of their constituency. They act and behave in ways of which most of society approves.

Is Donald Trump a politician? By definition, yes. He is running the business of the government. You can argue whether or not he’s running it well, but he is part of the business by virtue of office — even if he’s left the virtue out of it. The last part is why those who dislike him feel they way they do — he’s not politically correct. His lack of political correctness is a big reason why his supporters support him.

Anyway, back to the poll and the thing that caught CNN’s eye — the low trust in elected officials.

However, what caught my eye was this: although only 3% of people had a great deal of trust in elected officials, business leaders were only greatly trusted by 5% and the news media only gained 8%. Overall, no leadership group received a great deal of trust from over 40% of the people. The most trusted leaders? The military. Even military leaders received a great deal of trust from 39% of the people. (Another 41% gave them a “fair amount” of trust, which puts them in the solid trust of 80%.)

The scary part for me is that only 9% have a great deal of trust in one other group: religious leaders. That’s only 6% better than elected officials. And a full 50% say they have little or no trust in religious leaders. Contrast that against the 79% of people who solidly trust scientists.

It’s no wonder that people will believe the wild speculations of science, but tune out those who preach eternal truths from the Bible.


The DNC platform: a commentary. Summation.

Simply because I hate not to finish things, I’m counting this as my finish.

This began as an honest attempt to examine the Democratic Party Platform, to discover for myself the things with which I agreed, disagreed, and why. I fully expected to be surprised with how much I would agree, not because I am a Democrat, but because I’ve always believed the old line that “there is much more that unites us than divides us.”

Though I have not finished the commentary, I have read the entire document. I was wrong. There is much more that divides us than unites us. What both Democrats and Republicans and every other party usually agree on is they want the United States to be prosperous and fabulous. There is sharp disagreement on how to get there.

While I don’t agree with the Republican strategy of hiring Donald Trump, I don’t agree with the Democratic strategy of becoming a socialist nation, either. The Democratic solutions in many instances are dumb, and in some instances are morally repulsive.

But don’t take my word for it. (Please.) Read it for yourself.


Just too much fun to watch


The DNC platform: a commentary. Part 4b.

The Democratic Party Platform, was approved July, 2016. This is Part 4b of my page-by-page commentary, attempting to clarify the things with which I agree and the things with which I disagree. Each part covers one of the thirteen major sections of the DNC’s statement. However, after writing for several pages, I discovered that this section is especially long. So I have split this up into parts 4a and 4b. (Read Part 4a here.)

The process of writing these posts has been slow. On one hand, I wish this had been much quicker. I’m only 4/13 of the way in, and well over a year has passed since this platform was originally published.

On the other hand, the time between each post has given me opportunities to pause and reflect on what has been written and what will be written. Hopefully this will produce a more thoughtfully written whole. There is a tension between the commitment of thoughts to paper and the solidification of those thoughts to a point that you are unwilling for them to bend or change over time.  I continue to feel that tension.

Part 4b begins on page 18. 

Investing in Rural America

“Democrats will increase funding to support the next generation of farmers and ranchers…encourage programs…expand local food markets and regional food systems…promote clean energy leadership.”

Going back to their theme of The State as Savior, the DNC promises to save the local farmer by pouring more money into programs, while burdening the same farmers with costly regulations. Perhaps the farmers will plant unicorn orchards.

“The Democratic Party supports stronger agricultural worker protections including regulation of work hours, elimination of child labor, ensuring adequate housing for migrant workers, and sanitary facilities in the field.”

While the intentions to protect migrant workers are laudable, I wonder if one unintended consequence would be to make it illegal for the children of farmers to be able to help on the farm. And what about the farmer? Would there be a regulation of hours he/she can work?

Ending Poverty and Investing in Communities Left Behind

“We reaffirm our commitment to eliminate poverty.”

That would be good. However, their commitment isn’t as strong as their commitment to continuing the policies exacerbating poverty in the first place. Left unsaid in this statement is the reaffirmation of the DNC’s commitment to eliminate wealth as well.

“The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program should be expanded…The Child Tax Credit (CTC) should be expanded…”

I’m pretty much always in favor of tax cuts and tax credits. (But what gets cut to offset this?)

[page 19]

Building Strong Cities and Metro Areas

“We will dramatically increase federal infrastructure funding for our cities—making significant new investments in roads and bridges, public transit, drinking and wastewater systems, broadband, schools, and more.”

Three words that always deserve skepticism when put together — “dramatically”, “increase”, “funding”.

I have no problem with most of the list of targets mentioned. Roads, bridges, public transit, drinking and wastewater systems…all are items that I believe should be high on the government’s to-do list. Unfortunately, these items often to take a backseat to other, less-necessary and less-deserving items. (See the next section for examples.)

But every dramatic increase in funding must be met by either a corresponding dramatic increase in income or a corresponding dramatic decrease in spending somewhere else.

In addition, the target list mentions schools (something with which the State has shown increasing incompetence) and the ever-dangerous “more”.

“Democrats also will revitalize communities being dragged down by physical decay by building on programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and the Hardest Hit Fund.”

This is another example of the State getting into areas which should be left to private companies. Why is the State determined to be a real estate broker? This is the State’s Fixer Upper plan. We’ll buy ’em, then sell ’em back to poor people.

Once again, it’s not the intent I have a problem with. “Revitalizing communities” is a good thing. But it’s really not the State’s place to do this.

Just looking at some of the data from the State’s own website, you can see the inefficiencies at work. So much of the money that is put into these programs is spent to cover “administrative costs.” That’s the cost of putting it into the hands of the State. That same money is kept out of the hands of small businesses and entrepreneurs who all have more incentive to keep costs low and sell for fair prices.

This is also an example of one of the biggest dangers of State-run assistance programs. These programs were both established by President Obama in 2010 as a response to the housing crash in the late 2000’s. These were to be, supposedly, temporary programs to assist those in desperate need. But, of course, temporary means temporary just until we can make it permanent. Having addressed the “hardest hit”, Democrats want to continue to build on the foundation of free-money they began.

It’s not free. It’s coming out of my pocket, and yours, too.

“We will support entrepreneurship and small business growth in cities…”

The promise is that this will happen through State-sponsored training and tax credits (good) and State lending (not so good).

Promoting Arts and Culture

“Democrats are proud of our support for arts funding and education.”

I agree that arts and culture are important. However, it is not the State’s place to fund it. The private sector is more than capable of supporting whatever art or culture it demands. In fact, if the State is to fund the arts, there is no reason not to fund religion. (Now that I think about it, I’d be very much in favor of a separation of arts and state.)

Honoring Indigenous Tribal Nations

“We have a profound moral and legal responsibility to the Indian tribes…”

Do we?

It’s problematic, isn’t it? On the one hand, we want to grant dignity and respect the heritage and rights of those that originally owned this land. Dignity and respect for all people should be basic for every human.

On the other hand, why do Indian tribes deserve special treatment? The land might have belonged to them in the past, but it doesn’t now.

What’s the right thing to do? If the land belongs to the Indians, it seems like the right thing is evident. Give it all back. We should all leave and go back to England or Europe or wherever we came from.

That’s obviously not going to happen. So we try to placate our wounded consciences by “honoring” Indians and Indian nations and giving them “reservations” and land to call their own.

Or perhaps we don’t owe them anything. Were the Indian tribes the first ones here, or did they misplace some other people? Yes, where they were living was taken by others…but does that mean we owe them, even now, for what was lost hundreds of years ago? Is it up to us to keep their culture alive and protected? If so, why? Does the State also have the responsibility  to maintain the culture of my family for hundreds of years in the future?

It’s interesting to note that this is one of the longest sections, beginning on page 19, but continuing all the way to…

[page 21]

Fighting for the People of Puerto Rico

“[W]e are committed to addressing the extraordinary challenges faced by our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico…”

I don’t understand the whole concept of territories as it relates to the United States of America. I wrote that sentence, then I felt dumb for writing it, so I did some research — very little, in fact — which ended in me taking a 3+ month break from writing this post.

Puerto Rico. You’re such a trouble-maker.

Just kidding. Anyway, I don’t know much more about this issue now than I did before. So I asked my friend, Gary, who is of Puerto Rican descent, what he thought. He said…

“The Puerto Rican economy is in huge trouble. Unemployment is high and a lot of people are living on government aid. This is, unfortunately, a perfect example of the Democratic Party’s attempt to gain more votes by finding a population segment that they can bribe by offering free stuff. My family, all Puerto Rican’s, are hard working, educated people who feel that adults should earn their way, just as Scripture teaches us. Most of my family members are conservative Republicans…hmmm.”

Honoring the People of the Territories

“We also recognize and honor…”

This is very similar to the section on Puerto Rico. I’m curious why we should “fight” for Puerto Rico and “honor” the territories. Just choosing different words so it doesn’t sound redundant, or is there real meaning there?

Woot! Finally done with section four!




Andy’s dad?


The DNC platform: a commentary. Part 4a.

The Democratic Party Platform, was approved July, 2016. This is Part 4a of my page-by-page commentary, attempting to clarify the things with which I agree and the things with which I disagree. (Read Part 3 here.) Each part covers one of the thirteen major sections of the DNC’s statement. However, after writing for several pages, I discovered that this section is especially long. So I have split this up into parts 4a and 4b.

If you’ve read my previous commentaries, you know that I am no expert in…well, pretty much anything. There are policies with which I am unfamiliar. There are nuances and specifics that go beyond what I know. There are many counter-arguments that possibly exist to every opinion I post.

That’s okay. I offer these commentaries as my simple opinion, designed to expose my thinking on these topics. Hopefully, they help you, the reader, to clarify what you think about these topics as well. That’s part of what good conversation does. It helps both parties clarify their thinking, even when they don’t agree.

On to Part 4a. It begins on page 13.


This section title brings us back to the platform’s theme, as stated in the Preamble.

Ending Systemic Racism

“Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.”

Good. Though the Democrats were the leaders of racism in the 1950’s and ’60’s, they have turned it around since then. Racism is stupid.

Closing the Racial Wealth Gap

“The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans.”

This is probably partially true. To the extent that it is true, the policies should be changed. There should be no constraint on anyone based on their ethnicity.

Reforming our Criminal Justice System

“Something is profoundly wrong when almost a quarter of the world’s prison population is in the United States, even though our country has less than five percent of the world’s population.”

IF “something is profoundly wrong”, then WHERE is it profoundly wrong? It might be wrong in the U.S., or it might be wrong in the rest of the world. Do we have more criminals or more law and order? Or both? Does the rest of the world care so little about crime, or not have the necessary law enforcement? This is more fun with numbers without actual numbers. It also skips over the first question: is inequity inherently unfair and wrong? Just because the United States has more people incarcerated, is that wrong? Just because the United States has a larger percentage of the world’s wealth, is that wrong? I don’t have those answers.

[page 14]

“We will reform mandatory minimum sentences and close private prisons and detention centers.”

Why? What’s the goal? If the goal is to reduce the number of people incarcerated, then this will be effective in the short-term. If the real goal is to deter and punish those committing criminal acts, this won’t do it.

“We will rebuild the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”

Yes. I also agree with the next few sentences on better police training, body cameras, and weapons limitations.

“We will end racial profiling that targets individuals solely on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin…”

I agree with the strict wording here, as long as everyone understands that race, religion, ethnicity, and national origin must be part of the overall profiling. To exclude these factors is foolish and dangerous.

I also agree with the rest of the paragraph.

“Instead of investing in more jails and incarceration, we need to invest more in jobs and education…”

That would be nice. Unfortunately, there are too many people who don’t want to play by the rules, and unless the rules are enforced, jobs and education and the ability to invest in them aren’t available to people who do follow the rules. Jails are full of people who had opportunities for jobs and education and chose to break the law instead.

“We will remove barriers to help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society by “banning the box,’…”

A spectacularly bad idea. As an employer, I want to know if a potential employee is a convicted felon. It’s something we can discuss. What I would like to see is this: if an employer knowingly hires a convicted felon, and that employee than commits a crime resulting in harm to life or property, then the employer should be protected from litigation, unless the employee was acting on behalf of the employer. (That protection might already exist. I haven’t researched this enough to know.) The employer should still have the right to know who they are hiring, and be able to refuse employment to anyone who represents potential harm to their business.

“The “war on drugs’ has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use.”

More fun with numbers without numbers. I don’t have the data here, so I won’t comment one way or the other.

“Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1′ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.”

Interesting how in this one area, Democrats want federal law to yield to the wishes of state laws.

I am against the legalization of marijuana.

“We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana…”

Keep this in mind on other social issues. Remarkably inconsistent, yet consistently wrong. It’s like they can’t think of a good reason to make marijuana legal, so they throw out the word “democracy” and that’s supposed to make it all-American. Baseball, apple pie, and and a bong. Dumb.

[page 14]

“We will abolish the death penalty, which has proven to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment.”

This is a very difficult issue, possibly the most difficult. Is it cruel? Are there acts for which a person forfeits their right to life? Perhaps. I come down right in the middle on this one. Abolish it? Possibly. Keep it? Maybe. Forced to choose, I would probably do away with it, but I would do so only with great caution and empathy for the victims of those who otherwise receive it.

Fixing our Broken Immigration System

“The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits…”

I do. Do you really, Democratic Party? Let’s see…

“More than 11 million people are living in the shadows, without proper documentation.”

“Without proper documentation.” They’re legally in the country, but don’t have the papers to prove it, or they’re illegally in the country?

I come to your house. I knock on your door. You answer, and I ask to come in. You say, sure, but there are some conditions. First, you place a time limit on how long I can stay. You tell me I must be a productive member of the household and I am assigned some chores. There are certain places I am not allowed to go in the house, and there are certain privileges I am not granted. Otherwise, I have access for a limited time.

This country is our house. Those from other countries are our guests. We should treat them kindly and be generous. If they want to become members of the family, there is a path to do so. However, there are restrictions and limits, and when those restrictions are ignored and the limits violated, the consequences are known. They are not pleasant for either side, but they are part of the bargain entered when the guests were first welcomed.

If the State is failing in their agreement and blocking the legal path for guests to remain, then they need to get their act together and not punish the innocent.

If the guests are attempting to get around the agreement by hiding in a closet or claiming that it would be unfair and too hard to remove all their things and family they have brought into the house, then they need to be removed.

That’s not my opinion, that is the law as it now stands. That is what it means to say legal immigration and illegal immigration.

“Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country.”

Democrats want to change what it means to be legal or illegal. Meanwhile, they paint anyone who disagrees with them as un-American and against liberty and immigration as a whole.

I don’t know where I stand on this. I’m open to changing the current laws and making immigration more open. However, I resent the implication that upholding what was previously agreed to, and what is now the definition of “legal” is racist or cruel. The continued push to redefine the word “legal” so that anything we can get away with is “legal” is dangerous. Redefining words in order to make them mean what you want them to mean is the way of tyrants and evil people and liars, all the way back to Satan in the Garden of Eden.

[page 16]

Guaranteeing Civil Rights

“Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Discrimination is “the unjust treatment of someone”. Obviously, unjust treatment of anyone is wrong. It’s pretty much the definition of wrong. Justice equals what is right. Injustice equals what is wrong. But so far, in saying this, you haven’t really said anything. It’s like saying water is wet. Sure it is…what’s your point?

The difficulty is in the definition of “unjust”. Are limits unjust? Are restrictions unjust?

Let’s take an extreme example of what is unjust. Taking someone’s life. Killing someone because…well, just because…that would be unjust. It would not be right. It would be wrong.

Killing someone just because they are European. Killing someone just because they are blond. Killing someone just because they are Mormon. Killing someone just because they are heterosexual. Killing someone just because they think they’re a tree.

In that extreme example, it is easy to see that killing someone “just because” is unjust.

But there are plenty of other “just becauses” that aren’t as easy to call unjust. One that has been a hot-button issue for awhile is marriage. We’ll talk about that one soon.

For now, I’ll just say that I agree with some of this statement on discrimination, but not nearly all of it. Keep reading to find out why.

“We need to promote civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our political discourse.”

 Yes. Civility begins when you recognize that a difference of opinion is not bigotry, that thinking differently is not intolerance, that disagreement is not to be feared or demonized.

“It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

This sentence is much too broad to be defensible. Unacceptable to target? There should be programs to help those with disabilities. Those programs must be targeted towards them. There should be programs for children. Those programs must be targeted towards them. It is desirable to target, depending on what you’re targeting.

Unacceptable to defame? Yeah. It’s illegal, so it should also be unacceptable.

Unacceptable to exclude? Much like targeting, exclusion is desirable in some instances. Now that I am older, I would like to be excluded from military service. Children should be excluded from marriage.

“While freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional principle, we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence.”

Unfortunately, there is no freedom of expression that can exclude “hate speech”.

“We condemn Donald Trump’s…”

They could have stopped right there. We get it.

[Page 17]

Guaranteeing Women’s Rights

“We are committed to ensuring full equality for women.”

I agree with this sentence and the two which follow.

“After 240 years, we will finally enshrine the rights of women in the Constitution by passing the Equal Rights Amendment.”

This is a misleading non-sequitur. In case, like me, you’ve never actually read the proposed amendment, here is the full text…

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

Supposedly, this will “enshrine the rights of women.” The problem is that it doesn’t mention women.  It only mentions sex. Back in 1923, when the amendment was first proposed, sex only meant men and women.

Unfortunately, the LGBT agenda has messed this up, and now this amendment would provide for privileges to those that have chosen to forfeit them.

In addition, there are questions of alimony, child support, women in combat, and other issues where the ability to protect women simply because they are women could possibly be taken away.

 I support rights for women. I’m just not sure this amendment will do what the supporters promise, and I am afraid it might allow for things that would actually subjugate and harm women.

The bottom line for me on this: My daughters deserve every advantage their brother receives. They should not be paid less than male counterparts.

Guaranteeing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights

Every human being should be treated with dignity. Every human being is a creation of God, made in His image, for His purposes, with an eternal destiny. The right to be treated humanely belongs to everyone.

However, those who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender have chosen to throw away rights and privileges they would otherwise enjoy. One of these privileges is marriage. Marriage does not belong solely to the State, therefore it cannot be given away by the State.

Gender is not determined by preference or “self-identification”. Neither is the ability to produce sperm or ovulate. It is amazing that so many people who profess to live scientifically ignore the most basic scientific fact.

I continue to pray for friends who have been misled and confused by a culture that promotes what is abhorrent to God. In so doing, they refuse the opportunity to realize the greatest satisfaction and fulfillment a human being can know. Only in right relationship with our Creator, who created us in His image, male and female, can we come to full realization of our true value.

Guaranteeing Rights for People with Disabilities

“No one should face discrimination based on disability status.”

True. In what has become a painful pattern, those without true disabilities have claimed these rights as their own, because of dishonesty and other bad motives. Nevertheless, the truly disabled should be helped.

Respecting Faith and Service

“Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.”

That is all they have to say about faith and religion. I believe this shows the importance they place on faith and religion in daily life, that is, virtually none at all.

This section continues, and I will continue my commentary on it in the next post.


The DNC platform: an interlude

We interrupt your irregularly scheduled commentary for this explanatory interlude.

It’s not only because I want to explain. It’s also because this next part is taking longer than I anticipated. (The next part concerns the central theme of the DNC platform.)

The reason it is taking longer to comment on the next section is also one of the reasons I’m writing this commentary in the first place. This commentary isn’t so much about what the Democratic position is, but what my position is. My prejudice going into this project was that my position and the Democratic position were not the same. However, my prejudice was also that my position and the Republican/Trump position were not the same.

So far, that is true.

But, as in most relationships, even the most disagreeable ones, there are elements of agreement. Too many people base their agreement/disagreement on a label, whether that label is Republican, Democrat, Progressive, Tea Party, etc.

I am not willing to do that. If you are reading my commentary, please remember that disagreeing with Democratic statements doesn’t make me a Republican. Agreeing with Democratic statements doesn’t make me a Democrat.

Will I eventually review the Republican platform in the same way? I doubt it, for a couple of reasons. First, I think my statements on the DNC platform will give you enough of an idea of what I really believe. More importantly, the Republican platform seems to be a moot point. President Trump seems to have his own agenda, and I’m not even sure if he knows what it is. He was the Republican nominee, and many Republicans claim him, but he’s not following the Republican platform as much as he is creating it.



The DNC platform: a commentary. Part 3.

The Democratic Party Platform, was approved July, 2016. This is Part 3 of my page-by-page commentary, attempting to clarify the things with which I agree and the things with which I disagree. (Read Part 2 here.) Each part covers one of the thirteen major sections of the DNC’s statement. Part 3 begins near the bottom of page 9 of the document and is titled…


“Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy.”

I would agree that being extremely poor is a bad thing. The central disagreement is, “How did they get there and why do they remain there?” The Democrats would have you believe that the Top One Percent put them there and are keeping them there.

In asking, “How did they get there?”, I am not saying that if they got there of their own volition then they should stay there. This is not about assigning blame. It’s about fixing the problem and keeping others from going there as well.

I agree that for many in the lowest levels of poverty, they are there because they were born into it, and they now find it difficult to get out.

That’s where the second part of the question comes in — why do they remain? Is it because the deck is stacked against them and the Top One Percent hold all the cards?

Achieving economic success isn’t easy. It never has been. It never will be. Get-rich-quick schemes are the surest way to get-poor-quick.

I field requests for benevolence assistance on a regular basis. In my experience, “poor” isn’t what it used to be.

“..the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined…”

This is called “fun with numbers”. What does it mean? It means the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans are doing well. It means the bottom 90 percent of Americans don’t have as much as those in the top ten percent. That is ALL it means. There is a top and there is a bottom. Any other meaning you try to attach to those words is questionable, at best.

[page 10]

Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial System

“To restore economic fairness, Democrats will fight against the greed and recklessness of Wall Street.”

Uh huh. Then what? Perhaps a fight against the pride of Hollywood?

The premise of Wall Street is greed. The only way to keep investors from making bad, risky, and reckless investments is to stop investment altogether.

Remember, this all flows from thinking that there is economic unfairness at present. There is economic difference. There is economic disparity. There is economic variation. There is a gap between the rich and the poor. Is that really unfair? Is it unfair if one person makes the right decisions, provides goods and services that are requested, then reaps the economic benefits, while another person make bad decisions, fails on their promises, and reaps the economic losses associated with their actions? Is that really unfair?

But, yes, when laws are broken or laws are created that favor the rich over the poor, that is unfair. Those issues are the ones to tackle. Lest you think I am completely for the bad actors on Wall Street, read on…

“Wall Street cannot be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial instruments and making huge profits, all the while thinking that taxpayers will be there to bail them out again.”

This paragraph is worded to drive emotion, not logic, so let’s take this bit by bit. There are four things the writers say that Wall Street cannot do. Wall Street cannot…

>> “Be an island unto itself.” No kidding. Nor does it want to be. It’s impossible to interact with the world if you’re off by yourself.

>> “Gamble trillions in risky financial instruments.” It can. It does.

>> “Make huge profits.” It can. It does. But only by gambling trillions in risky financial instruments. More risk means more potential profit.

>> “[It can’t do those other things] while thinking that taxpayers will be there to bail them out again.” It can. That’s the problem the Democrats are addressing. Wall Street was bailed out before. Actually, specific investment firms were bailed out. This wasn’t “Wall Street” and every investor doing business in one of the stock exchanges or mutual funds or one of the many other investment avenues available who were poorly performing. It was a few bad actors. They were bailed out. They should not have been bailed out.

“We must make Wall Street work for the job-creating, productive economy—including by making loans more affordable for small- and medium-sized businesses.”

No. I’m not for usury. I’m not for high rates of interest. I’m for reasonable rates. Loaning money is a risk, and the rate of loans must be commensurate with the risk. We should not make it that much easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to go deeper into debt. We should not make it that much easier to borrow money that they will not be able to repay. However, if the higher rates of interest are simply because of government regulations without any relationship to the real risk of the loan, then I am very much in favor of removing the State restrictions and allowing businesses to move according to the free market.

“We must hold both individuals and corporations accountable when they break the law. Democrats believe that no bank can be too big to fail and no executive too powerful to jail.”

Yes. The rest of this paragraph gets a big thumbs-up. It doesn’t take creating a thousand new laws and regulations for businesses to wade through. (Please, no.) We must simply enforce the laws that make sense and allow failure and success to happen.

“We will also vigorously implement, enforce, and build on President Obama’s landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law…”

I don’t know what the Dodd-Frank law says. If, like me, you don’t know what it says either, shut up. Don’t be one of those idiots that opposes it simply because President Obama was for it, or that supports it for the same reason.

“We will also continue to protect consumers and defend the CFPB from Republican attacks.”

Likewise, I know little of the CFPB. I had to search to figure out that the acronym stands for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency founded under 6 years ago that already has amassed over 1600 employees running under a $605.9 million budget!

Wow. That should be some pretty good protection.

“Democrats condemn predatory payday lending, and will protect consumers by defending the CFPB and implementing strong new regulations.”

Does predatory payday lending happen to the tune of $605.9 million annually? Are Democrats interested more in protecting consumers or defending their $605.9 million agency? And why must Democrats insist on new regulations? How cost-effective are more regulations actually going to be?

“We support a financial transactions tax on Wall Street…”

Nope. This is proposed as a way to slow down trading. It would be successful. The problem is not high-frequency trading, the problem is unsuccessful high-frequency trading that is then supported through government bailouts. Though that is strongly stated, there might be other ramifications of high-frequency trading of which I’m not aware. I still am against taxing in general, though I understand that this is like a sin-tax for investment bankers.

“Democrats will not hesitate to…downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary…”

Does that include the Federal Reserve?

I have some reservations about this.

“Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits…”

Gamble. Invest. Tomāto. Tomäto.

“Democrats support a variety of ways to stop this from happening, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall as well as breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions”

“Where’d we put our Glass-Steagall? Anybody seen it? Dust that thing off and set it here. Yeah, that looks good.”

Killing something so it doesn’t fail seems odd. That’s what “breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions really means, right?

“We believe that personnel is policy.”

That’s a nice phrase. I hope to remember use that in a non-political way.

“We will crack down on the revolving door between the private sector— particularly Wall Street—and the federal government.”

Again, I dislike the demonizing of “Wall Street”, but I think the general caution towards limiting conflicts-of-interest is a good one. Having people in a position to make policy that promotes their own self-interests over the interest of the citizenry is not good, whether it’s a President or any other State employee.

[Page 11]

“We will protect and defend the Federal Reserve’s independence to carry out the dual mandate assigned to it by Congress—for both full employment and low inflation—against threats from new legislation.”

Mmm. The Federal Reserve is not independent, nor will it ever be.

“At a time when many of the largest banks have shunned communities across America…”

I did not know this. Is it true? Of course, if they get too big and access too many communities, won’t Democrats be tempted to break them up?

“Democrats believe that we need to give Americans affordable banking options, including by empowering the United States Postal Service to facilitate the delivery of basic banking services.”

Let me see if I’ve got this straight…you want the USPS, an institution that is losing money and delivering my mail to my neighbor on a regular basis, to be in charge of my banking? Um…no, thanks.

Promoting Competition by Stopping Corporate Concentration

“Democrats will take steps to stop corporate concentration in any industry where it is unfairly limiting competition.”

Corporate concentration is a new way to say “monopoly” or a different way to say “synergy”. All in all, I’m in favor of what the Democrats are saying here. Let’s start with the cable/internet companies…can we have some competition there, please?

Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

“We believe the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes.”

I agree that everyone must share in supporting our country. The cost of infrastructure, the common defense, and other items which benefit wealthy Americans and large corporations must be shared by those same people and companies.

However, investment and job creation usually come from the excess income that people and corporations have, not their base. If the excess is taken away from them through taxes, in order to pay for State programs, then those same wealthy Americans and large corporations will not be investing and creating. In the end, we all suffer because of it.

“Democrats will claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, and crack down on inversions and other methods companies use to dodge their tax responsibilities.”

There’s that phrase again — “claw back tax breaks”. It’s interesting how much they seem to like that phrase. I do not.

If the tax breaks and inversions and “other methods” favor particular companies or the oil and gas companies as a whole over other industries, then they need to be changed.

“We will make sure that our tax code rewards businesses that make investments and provide good-paying jobs here in the United States, not businesses that walk out on America.”

If this means adding taxes to businesses that trade and manufacture globally, then I do not agree.

“We will end deferrals so that American corporations pay United States taxes immediately on foreign profits and can no longer escape paying their fair share of U.S. taxes by stashing profits abroad.”

Here’s what would happen: businesses would have to weigh the cost of being taxed both here and in foreign countries where they do business, or they would have to cease doing business globally, forgoing the profits realized from that business, or they would cease doing business in America and instead do business in the other 95% of the world.

Corporations wouldn’t be able to escape paying “their fair share”…but they could escape altogether.

This is bad policy.

“We will ensure those at the top contribute to our country’s future by establishing a multimillionaire surtax to ensure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.”

People react to this like we’re talking about Prince John and Robin Hood. Democrats insist that rich people are crooks and build their wealth by treating poor people badly; therefore, it’s okay if we treat rich people badly. Neither is okay. It’s not okay to slap rich people around simply because they have been successful.

“Democrats believe that no one should be able avoid paying their fair share by hiding money abroad…”

I agree with this entire paragraph and the one that follows (except for the assertions made about President Trump and Republicans…I don’t know if those assertions are true or not.)

Promoting Trade That is Fair and Benefits American Workers

“We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies that support jobs in America.”

An obvious truth. What is much less obvious is the path to better trade policies. I’m pretty sure that I agree with the rest of the statements regarding trade on this page.

The first three major sections of the DNC platform have drawn more criticism than praise from me.

Next: Bring Americans Together and Remove Barriers to Opportunities


The sum of all fears

This is less than optimal, right?


The DNC platform: a commentary. Part 2.

The Democratic Party Platform, was approved July, 2016. This is Part 2 of my page-by-page commentary, attempting to clarify the things with which I agree and the things with which I disagree.

In Part 1, I covered the Preamble and first major section of the platform. There are thirteen major section. This post covers the second, which is much shorter than the first.


[Page 7]

The prologue to this section is very good. It is inspiring and noble.

Building 21st Century Infrastructure

“If we are serious about reversing the decline of the middle class, we need major federal investments to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure…”

I agree. One of the main parts of our infrastructure mentioned in the opening, the Interstate Highway System, points to the difficulty of infrastructure. It is difficult and expensive to put in place, and it remains difficult and expensive to maintain. People tend to be motivated to sacrifice when it comes to building, but they also tend to relax after that and become much less motivated to maintain. That is what has happened in many places. The focus has turned from what was built and has been given to many other items. Tax money that was meant for infrastructure has been redirected to other projects which, as important as they might be, take away from what the money was meant to do. Providing infrastructure is one of the legitimate uses of taxed income.

“Democrats will also create an independent, national infrastructure bank…”

I don’t know what a national infrastructure bank is or what the possible up/downsides of it are.

Fostering a Manufacturing Renaissance

“Democrats believe one of the best ways to innovate, prosper, and create good-paying jobs is to make more in America…”

True. There are some good things in this paragraph. I’m going to point out the not-so-good.

“We must…claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas…”

That’s a creative way of saying we’re going to tax companies more if they have manufacturing outside of the country. Making it more expensive to manufacture elsewhere only makes goods more expensive here; it doesn’t  help the middle class.

“Democrats will defend the Export-Import Bank…”

Something else about which I know nothing.

[page 8]

Creating Good-Paying Clean Energy Jobs


Pursuing Our Innovation Agenda: Science, Research, Education, and Technology

The first four paragraphs are largely non-specific. There’s nothing to disagree with there.

“Democrats support a free and open internet at home and abroad, and will oppose any effort by Republicans to roll back the historic net neutrality rules that the Federal Communications Commission enacted last year.”

This sentence actually says two very different things. I understand the intent of the net neutrality rules, which are commendable. However, those rules do not produce a “free and open internet”. They do the opposite. They create an internet controlled and managed by the State.

“We will protect the intellectual property rights of artists, creators, and inventors at home and abroad.”


[Page 9]

“We will strengthen support for NASA and work in partnership with the international scientific community to launch new missions to space.”

Not everything NASA does is worthwhile, but I’m still in favor of the general purpose and would rather err on the side of aggressiveness over caution in this area.

Supporting America’s Small Businesses

“The Democratic Party will make it easier to start and grow a small business in America…”

That’s good. So many other things in the Democratic agenda point to this not being the case, but I’m will to suspend my disbelief. The rest of this paragraph is non-specific and aspirational.

Creating Jobs for America’s Young People

“Democrats will make investments to spur the creation of millions of jobs for our young people.”

Does the phrase “Democrats will make” mean that they will all be contributing to some fund or contributing in addition to their regular tithes and offerings, or do they really mean they will be taking more money from citizens to fund State-run programs?

I’m all for the first one. Not so much for the second option.

“Democrats will provide direct federal funding for a range of local programs that will put young people to work and create new career opportunities.”

Well, there’s the answer. So, no, I’m not in favor. More jobs for young people are needed, but State-created employment is never the answer in the long run.

End of the section major section.

You might ask, why now? Why didn’t I write all this back in 2016, before the election?

Um…I was stuck in a meeting I couldn’t get out of and the electricity went out in the building and we were trapped on the 18th floor and the telephone system blew, too. Amazingly enough.

Regardless of the delay, the Democratic positions on most things have not changed and many of the disagreements happening today are a result of what they believe vs. what is believed by their opponents.

So, now I’m writing.

Next: “Fight for Economic Fairness and Against Inequality”

LinkStream VideoStream

Gareth Edwards should have an action figure

Watch to see why.