Trump Suing Accusers; I Doubt It!

He claims they lie, never happened!  He claims.

He claims that the Clinton campaign put these women up to it.  He claims.

He probably also assumes that the women are stupid and foolish.

Who would be foolish or stupid enough to go on public record with a bald face lie of the kind Trump accuses them of making?

And think of how hard it would be for Hillary’s campaign (or any presidential campaign for that matter) to actually orchestrate eleven women to agree to commit themselves to lie in its behalf, a lie of this magnitude. 

No, these women are not lying.  They’d be risking too much, have too much to lose if they were in fact lying.  No one could plan or orchestrate this kind of thing.  And I’m sure that these women knew they’d be accused of lying and be threatened with Trump law suits, before they dared to share their stories about Trump.  In short, their stories ring true—especially in light of Trumps own words during his so-called “locker room” talk.

So, why does Trump so boldly declare that he’s going to sue these women?  Because of his qualifier—“after the election”!  That’s why.

After the election, he is free to change his mind and make excuses for not following through on his law suits.  If he wins the election (which I doubt), he could say he has no time or need to follow through on the threat.  Or, if he loses, he could say that he is focusing on other things: such as challenging the electoral results perhaps. 

Point is, I believe that he knows that the women speak truth and therefore knows that he’d lose the case.  Thus, I don’t think he really wants to seek real justice by taking these women to court—seeking real justice would turn out badly for him.

However, he could be betting on his financial advantage.  Taking these women to court could drain their finances.  Trump has plenty of money and attorney-power to spend.  In short, he could litigate these women to financial ruin without ever actually winning his case or proving that these women have actually lied.  Rich bullies use this strategy all the time: “Attack by litigating your opponent to death.”  Remember, it takes money, and lots of it, to properly defend yourself in a court of law.  Then, when he has drained all their resources by various litigating strategies of postponement and extension, etc., and the women finally give up their defense for lack of funds, he could declare himself the winner!

Or, he could just choose not to sue AFTER the election.  Because his intent is to make a symbolic and impactful statement BEFORE the election, vis-à-vis, to say: “Look!  I am so innocent that I am willing to sue these women!”  The effect he wants on his listeners by making this declaration is for his listeners to conclude: “Well, of course he must be innocent, because if he were NOT innocent, he wouldn’t be willing to sue these women, would he?”  And if and when his audience draws that kind of conclusion, based on that kind of reasoning, he’s pretty much accomplished what he wanted to and needed to accomplish BEFORE the election.

Of course, you may draw your own conclusion.  As for me, I believe that the women speak truth and very much disbelieve Trump, despite his bold declaration of intending to bring a law suit against them (AFTER the election).  In this case, timing is significant.

“God Bless America!” One Has to Wonder

I heard on the news that this year’s presidential race is causing a lot of stress and anxiety among voters—on both sides.  Not surprising, is it?

Hilary haters on one side, Trump attackers on the other, we are being bombarded with tedious, tiresome attacks and counter attacks.  Whose going to win?

Voters are worried even fearful, dreading the possibility that “the other side” may win this election.

So, to those of you who are my fellow Christians, I ask you this: what do we mean when we invoke God’s blessing upon the United States, by saying, “God bless America”?  And exactly why do we assume that God should, would, or will bless America?

And why do we invoke this blessing of America as if WE are the only “Christian” nation worthy of God’s blessing?

According to an article in The Telegraph, “The number of Christians in Communist china is growing so steadily that it [sic] by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America.”  Thus, by that standard, shouldn’t the new Christian mantra become, “God bless China”?  (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html.)

So what is God’s perspective on the matter?  Psalms 33 gives us a glimpse.

Firstly, God is a God of righteousness and justice and expects as much from peoples of any and every nation: “For the word of the Lord is upright and all His work is done in faithfulness.  He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord” (vv. 4-5).

Secondly, God calls all people/nations of the world to stand in awe of him: “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him (v. 8).”  God is to be honored, revered and respected as the holy, just, and righteous God that he is, by every nation.

Thirdly, God providentially oversees the destiny of ALL nations: “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.  The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations (vv. 10-11).”  God favors no nation above any other nation; but for number four below….

Fourthly, only one group of people on earth has ever specifically been regarded by God as His Chosen People: “Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he has chosen as his heritage (v. 12).”  In the context of Psalm 33, “his [God’s] heritage” is none other than the Kingdom of Israel whose everlasting King is the Son of David, heir to the everlasting throne of King David of ancient Israel.

Fifthly, as to all other nations on earth, they are to seek God’s blessing by trusting in his sovereignty over them, and NOT in their own power and strength: “The Lord looks down from heaven; he sees all humankind (v. 13).”  “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.  The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.  Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine (vv. 16-19).”

In conclusion, it is NOT a political victory that is required in order to bring peace, prosperity, and a prospective future to America.  Nor is it in the strengthening of our military might or in the enlargement of our police force—as if becoming a Police State is the answer to our wanting of peace and order.

No, the answer is this: “Our soul waits for the Lord; he is our help and our shield.  Our heart is glad in him, because we trust in his holy name.  Let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us, even as we hope in you (vv. 20-22).”

In short, we can NOT possibly win over a people by means of political power-struggles and political manipulation, by force and control.  All we can and should do is invite hearts to believe in and trust in a Sovereign and Holy God who is also loving and compassionate, a God of mercy and grace who seeks to heal the hurting and to redeem the outcast, the lost, the rejected, and those who are oppressed and hard-pressed by the cruelties of the world.  For peace will come in no other way than the Way of Christ.

Trump/Clinton: Lesser of Two Evils?

Okay, so Trump fessed up, owned what he said, and apologized.  A little locker room banter, therefore supposedly no big deal.  In defense of his character he says: “Those of you who know me, know that that does not reflect who I really am.”

Really?!!  Sorry Trump, but as I see it, that historic audio file reveals exactly who you are.  It was an unguarded moment when you were talking freely and being yourself.  You were engaged in genuine behind-the-scenes “locker-room banter” (as you, Trump, described it yourself).  Thus, it shows exactly who you are.

So, it must be asked: Does Trump really have the better character than Hillary?  How is Trump any more trustworthy or worthy of respect than Hillary?  Furthermore, if anyone says that Trump has changed since that audio incident, where’s the evidence of such a change?

So what is this presidential election really about?  What does it come down to?  Is it a matter of choosing the better of two evils?   If so, what are the “evils”?  That is, what evils does Hilary represent versus those that Trump represents?  In short, which candidate represents the lesser evil?

Consider this, which candidate has made it a life priority to greedily grab after money?  And which candidate has been most acutely self-serving with respect to the wielding of power and personal influence?  And which candidate displays a tremendous amount of arrogance, pride, and strident ego in their posturing?  And finally, which of the two candidates is most rude, crude, and domineeringly flippant when it comes to defending scandalizing events respecting the treatment of women?  Should that person really become the next president of the United States of America?

But my guess is that Trump supporters will say that the above paragraph exactly describes Hilary and Clinton supporters will say that the above paragraph exactly describes Donald.  When it comes to politics we seem to see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, believe what we want to believe, and justify and defend accordingly.

Is Hilary really the devil with hatred in her heart?  Really?!  Who or what does Hilary truly hate?

Is Donald really the big hearted, generous, considerate, and respectful guy that deserves to be supported by Main Street middle class Americans, as well as African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, American Muslims, and Women in general?  Really?!  Who or what does Donald truly love?

Questions about Trump's Money

Money, how one earns it, spends and saves it, including how one owes and pays debts off, it matters.

A shrewd business man may find ways to pay pennies on the dollar for his debt.  That may make him a shrewd man, and most will even call that smart; but it doesn’t mean that the financial deal was or is above social reproach or moral scrutiny.

Some things may be quite legal but very questionable when it comes to moral and ethical accountability.  So for example, many smart and intelligent lawyers will work the law to get their clients legally off the hook, financial or otherwise—but that is not the same thing as keeping one’s moral and ethical integrity in tact.

Thus, considering our tax codes, when the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful, the rich and powerful will use all their resources to hire tax accountants, tax lawyers, and bookkeepers to take advantage of the system to their benefit (object: to pay no taxes or as little taxes as possible)—without any consideration to the higher ideal of a moral, social, and ethical obligation to paying their fair share of taxes toward sustaining their community’s infrastructure, for example.

Hence, if Donald Trump managed to avoid paying taxes for the last 18 years or so (as a New York Times report by James Stewart indicates), it is not because Trump is necessarily a financial genius.

Rather it is because (1) our financial system favors the wealthy.  (2) Trump has the financial resources to hire the right people for the job—like specialized tax accountants and tax lawyers—to work the system for all its worth in his favor.  And (3) Donald Trump is shrewd enough to do exactly that.

Note: there is no doubt that Donald Trump hires professionals to do his taxes for him.  All Donald Trump has to do is provide the necessary personal paperwork & business bookkeeping & accounting information that is required for his tax professionals to do their job.  He then simply instructs his staff of tax professionals to find as many tax breaks and tax loopholes as can possibly be found to take advantage of.

That approach, my friends, does not make Donald Trump a financial genius.  For every wealthy business man or woman does exactly the same kind of thing at every tax season.  It goes without saying.  It’s a no brainer.

So, if Donald Trump is such a financial genius.  If Donald Trump is such a successful business man on the par with, let’s say, a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a Mark Zuckerberg or a Michael Bloomberg, why then has he NOT released his tax returns for public scrutiny?

My guess is as good as yours, and it’s really pretty simple: Trump is probably not all that much of a financial genius to begin with.  Trump is afraid to release his tax returns to the public eye.  He more than likely realizes that if his tax returns became public, he would have a lot of questions to answer.  In short, Trumps so-called business acuity may not stand up very well under public scrutiny.  Keeping his tax returns secret protects him.  He is obviously fearful of exposing his actual financial reality.  And Donald Trump certainly does not like negative exposure.  Nor does he respect “reality checks.”  It’s that simple.

The Yahoo Email Hack & Self-Driving Cars

What do these have in common?

They both depend on computer electronics.  Ergo: if yahoo can be hacked (as any other computer program system), so can a self-driving computerized automobile.

Hence, I am wary of this rush toward buying into self-driving vehicles.

It seems to me that it should give a person great pause when considering the idea of handing over the control of one’s vehicle to a computer.

Driving involves too many unforeseeable scenarios, has too many unpredictable variables, and is therefore too fluid a thing for allowing a computer to take over the driver’s seat of a car.  (Note, there is already an officially recorded death as a result of putting too much faith in a self-driving vehicle.  And the car was a Tesla, a highly respectable company when it comes to newly-developing vehicle technology.)

“Can’t stop progress,” you say.  Quite right!  I understand, point taken.

But what is progress?  Is all technology good, just because it is technological?

Looking back at the last hundred and fifty years or so of our history—let’s say from the mid 1850’s to the beginning of this present century—considering all our mechanical and technological development, has it ALL been good for us?  I believe that an honest answer would be NO; it has not always been good for us. 

Is it possible that we place too much faith in science and place too much trust in technological development?

I must quickly defend myself: I am NOT anti-science nor am I against technological development as such.  Believe me.  (Here I imitate Donald Trump’s phrasing after he makes an assertion about himself: Believe me!)

Nevertheless, as one who respects and embraces scientific knowledge and advancement, I DO question our apparent blind faith in science and technology.  I think that we are all too eager and ready to buy into just about any and every technological development that comes down the pike—with an “apply now and ask questions later” approach to incorporating the latest gadget and thingamajig into our lives.

We need to take a hard look at what we have done and continue to do to Mother Nature: air and water pollution, global warming, the threatening and actual extinction of various animal species, and so-on—all as a result of our placing too much blind faith in our technological development.  It’s as if we believe that science and the advancement of technology is the supreme answer to everything we do on this planet, EVERYTHING!

It is not.

We should slow down a bit and ask some serious questions.  As a starter, we should not only be questioning how modern technology is being used, we should also be asking how our modern technological gadgets are being made: for example, what limited geological resources are being dug up and exploited in order to make our beloved gadgets?  That’s a good and fair question to ask, don’t you think?

And, exactly how might the exploitation of these particular resources possibly be causing long term damage to the earth’s ability to sustain life?  Is that not also a fair question to ask?  And shouldn’t such questions be answered BEFORE we invest in and delight in our various inventions?

But money drives everything.  And, science and technology is first and foremost about big business!  And, big business has little patience for cautionary, slow moving advancement when it comes to its investments.

Business investors care little as to whether or not new technological innovations are good for humanity in the long term.  They only care about the immediate affect on the bottom line.  Does it bring in dividends?  Is it a cash cow?  As to long term negative effects on humanity and the environment—they’ll let future scientists worry about that!  And so it goes.

And so, I make the following observations.

1. To our detriment, we all too often fail to consider the long term negative effects of our latest and greatest technological innovations.
2. It seems that the more dependent we become on our modern technology, the actual less free we really are.
3. Our growing dependencies on modern technological gadgets seem to have actually made us more vulnerable to unpredictable catastrophes, not less so.
4. Modern innovations and gadgets seem to rely heavily on unrenewable limited global resources, which is foreboding for future societies.
5. Though we are well aware of the positive effects of modern technology upon human interpersonal relationships, we remain quite ignorant with respect to its negative effects upon us.  For example, we are barely ready to admit that various aspects of modern technology can be addictive, let alone have an understanding as to why this may be so.

Thus, we should ask: Are we in the driver’s seat, with regard to modern technological gadgetry and advancement, or is it driving us?

As for me, I want to remain in the driver’s seat.

The Presidential Campaign and Nonsense Medical Records

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit trivial, even silly?

As a voter, I really don’t care much about what a doctor may say about the present health condition of either candidate.

Their willingness to run and endure the demands of a presidential campaign, is itself evidence that they must be in fairly good health.  It is quite obvious that running for the highest office in the nation requires a lot of stamina, calls for much energy, and is quite demanding of one’s body, mind, and spirit.  So whoever runs for president knows that good health is a necessity.

I do have to wonder: When is Hilary going to learn to simply be upfront and straightforward about these kinds of things?

Yet, I understand why Hilary avoided candid transparency about having pneumonia in the first place.  She knew that Trump would trump it up.  Still, it was a sorry decision on her part for exactly that reason.  Had she been upfront about having pneumonia from the get go, and had Trump pounced on this fact, using it as a political weapon against her, it might have served to demonstrate Trump’s smallness and pettiness, pouncing on such a trivial even silly little matter.

Who doesn’t get sick?  Who hasn’t had “walking pneumonia”?  Who doesn’t need rest after dealing with long hours of stretched out working days and long traveling/working nights, especially as is required in a presidential campaign?

Thus, the whole thing was made more of, than it should have been.

It is the result of campaigns being more about vilifying and demonizing one’s opponent than about issues, platforms, and visional substance.

I trust that both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are in good health.  I see with my own eyes that they are both healthy enough to endure a presidential campaign and beyond.

I therefore don’t want to hear talk about either Hilary’s or Donald’s health records.  It’s not news.  It tells me nothing I can’t already see for myself, nor does it expose anything I feel that I need to know.

And so, for me, the state of their health is a non-issue.  If they’re healthy enough to run for president, they’re healthy enough to BE president; its as simple as that.  Getting ill or contracting sicknesses along the way, is just that.  It is not horrifying breaking news.  They’re human like the rest of us and so they’ll get sick just like anybody else.  It’s only normal.
It’s as simple as that.

Stretching Out the Clinton Email Scandal for All Its Worth

Are you a professional?  Might you be a doctor, lawyer, psychologist, professor, or…?  If so, you are well aware of professional requirements regarding confidentiality when talking to clients and or other colleagues with or about clients.

You are also aware of the fluidity of social and professional conversations at times.  You might, for example, professionally discuss a client’s condition with a colleague of yours while at a dinner party; having a professional/confidential discussion in a nonprofessional/casual social setting.  Yet, because of that social event and professional connection, you gain insight and go back to your office professionally better equipped to deal with your client.  Talking about your client with a colleague during a dinner party, is that wrong, bad, or unethical?   NO.

Reverse that.  You are in your professional setting, at the office, in the lab, or in the conference room of the institution for whom you work, and you have a casual/social conversation with a colleague or friend/acquaintance with whom you engage in pleasant personal social chatter.  Is that wrong, unethical, a bad thing to do, because you’re “at work”?  I don’t think so.

Lines of communication between two parties, especially professionals, are often fluid and sometimes blur the sharp lines between professional/confidential and personal/confidential.  Life is that way.  Relationships are like that.  Few things are cut and dry, this or that, black or white, in normal everyday interaction—it’s the messiness of life’s drama playing itself out in our everyday lives.

Hence, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, as is always the case, the two extreme reactive positions to the email scandal are exactly that—extreme and reactive!

On the one hand, Hillary haters will never let it go.  They paint the worst possible picture, saying things like she was not only foolish, but dangerous and criminal in her actions regarding the use of a private email server and the deleting of her emails, and so-on and so-forth.  Hillary supporters, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with what she did, saying that it’s par for the course; she’s totally innocent.

As usual, the reality is somewhere in between.  She wasn’t necessarily criminal-acting in her behavior nor was she necessarily dangerously damaging to national security; but neither was she being smart; it was indeed a foolish and unwise decision on her part.  All humans do stupid things from time to time and make poor choices while performing their professional duties at times—not necessarily due to evil and corrupt motives.  And that’s perhaps the real perspective that should be given to this scandal.

But, of course, Hilary detractors won’t accept such a normal, boring but balanced perspective like that.  They want blood.  So, what should have been a minor story has become a story that continues to feed into itself—more emails released bringing more details for review, resulting in more story generating headlines to sell the news.  And yet, there’s no real substantial new news in any of it.  It’s a whirlwind of busy talk couched in a hurricane of accusations in an attempt at character assassination. 

It’s ridiculous, laughable, and sad that this kind of thing has become our American political process.  Apparently we can’t seem to put things in a balanced perspective.  We seem to continually buy into hyperbole and believe the extremes.

And so, it is said: “Hilary should be put in jail!”  Really?!  If we were to scrutinize every politician in Washington the way Hilary Clinton has been scrutinized, I’m sure that 95% or more of our politicians should be put in jail—if measured by the same standard.

My point is this: We voters have created an extremely polarized political arena that ignores reality checks and it’s the main reason why we also have a congress that gets little to nothing of significance done anymore.  All we are allowed to hear or talk about are the extremes: So, now it’s all about Trump lovers/ Hilary haters versus Hilary adorers and Trump thrashers.  And, depending on which side you’re on, one may very well be Satan’s evil agent, while the other may be God’s greatest gift on earth.

When it comes to American politics, we leave reality behind and enter the Twilight Zone.