V.3

thus, the order of most blame for the ethical and moral decay of the Republican Party, as i see it: FOX News Republican Voters Money corrupted election system Republican GOP, House & Senate Social networks and internet bubbles The Lyin' King Weak Democratic Party FOX poisoned the sensibilities of Republican voters, politicians and judges. Those judges allowed money to corrupt elections and elect corrupt congresspeople. Internet bubbles accelerated the dumbing-down. The Lyin' King thrived. But if it wasn't him, it would be some other damaged extremist because the Dems play it too safe & cozy with donors to nominate their own change-agent. They won't take on the corrupted system they successfully navigated to secure their own seats in office.

the Republican Party decay over 30 years, as i remember it: Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and women were making strides in society. Rush Limbaugh gave white male listeners a bold, racist rant to listen to during their daily traffic grind to work. FOX News took those divisive sound BITES and added 24 hour video -- in a bright, colorful studio with handsome, articulate men in suits and news-model women in short skirts to ogle while their fears were manipulated to keep them tuning in and buying from corporate sponsors. The G.W.Bush campaign leveraged Republican officials in Florida and conservative judges on the Supreme Court to stop the recount of election 2000 (I recall a continued WP recount indicated Gore won). The Gore campaign and DNC gracefully conceded without further investigation. It was the beginning of the Dems ongoing, "when they go low, we go high" approach. Despite the 9/11 terrorist being Saudi Arabians, Dems did not have the courage to oppose Bush's Afghan War. And despite outed lies of "weapons of mass destruction" they went along with his "shock & awe" Iraq War. It led to W's re-election. Americans were so hungry for change and integrity that they elected a Black man named Barrack Hussein Obama for 2 terms. But Obama had the White-Right seething, despite him presiding moderately. Bernie Sanders momentum as a change-candidate, was handicapped by the DNC in favor of Washington insider, Hillary Clinton. (4 years later, Bernie would again "feel the Bern" when Dem leaders circled the wagon around a faltering Joe Biden to prevent Sanders from locking up the Primary). Before Obama left office he let the Republican leader block his Supreme Court nominee, and kept quiet about Russian election interference, assuming Hillary had the election in the bag. A bag loaded with her opponent's scandals -- which were not fully exploited (see 4. "going high"). Despite GOP Senators showing signs they might turn on the scandalous, would-be Lyin' King, Dems passed early on impeachment talk, with leader Pelosi declaring it was "off the table" when they took back Congress. So began the Dems "let him fall on his own sword" campaign. On CNN her response to the Dems low approval rating, Pelosi replied, "at least our approval is higher than the Republicans." The "just be better than them" strategy is still alive today. Republican Senators learned that their voters would, indeed, stick with their Prez-a-King even if he "shot someone on 5th avenue" so they also stuck with him through 2 impeachments, an insurrection, and about a hundred other scandals that would have doomed any Dem politician (see Al Franken). By the time Obama's Dept of Justice realized the Lyin' King wouldn't fall on his own sword his criminal prosecution and conviction was too late. Despite serious election irregularities, no Democrat in office dares speak of 2024 "election rigging."

WHY DO REPUBLICANS WORK SO HARD TO REPRESS VOTING? https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E67f9VwGo/

originally, the first Republican Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- was progressive, but their positions changed. Only a few decades ago, the Party still stood for something Americans could identify with -- fiscal conservatism, traditional family and Christian values, law & order, and service to country while still preserving individual freedoms. Today's Republican Party has made a mockery of all those things. my father voted for Nixon, so as a kid, I was on board with that. One of my earliest and clearest political memories was his Watergate scandal -- you know, when Republican voters and Congress still cared about maintaining an ethical posture. Nixon was forced to step down by his own Party. who's to blame for their new look? I'll tell you how i'd rank the culprits. I'm interested in your rankings...

The "ear shot" might be the 11th option because it did make enough noise to help Kamala's opponent. And you might say Biden would be hindrance #12. Though he didn't leave Kamala with much time for damage control, other countries do, successfully, run short elections. And though The Lyin' King had "huge" donors, it's not like Kamala didn't have more than enough of our money to work with. Many of the 10 factors could have turned the election by themselves. Some worked together to form a perfect storm. The combo of his LIES, and her NOT AGGRESSIVELY confronting them was the game changer. For example, when he'd blame her and Biden for inflation, instead of saying inflation was the byproduct of corporate greed after his bungling of the pandemic, she avoided the issue. That made her look guilty and slippery. in order of importance, this is how i'd prioritize her reasons for losing: her opponent cheated. Possibly with the help of Musk. too vague and un-aggressive campaign considering that her opponent had to be the most flawed and corrupt candidate in history. Musk, JFK JR., Rogen cemented her opponent's image as the "change" candidate. Even if change might take the form of demolition. too little, middle, same. Doing too little and playing the middle regarding issues like Gaza and income inequality. She gave the public smiles and optimism without giving us a reason to believe she's not just delivering the same old political rhetoric. - 10. Though bias was a factor, i just can't believe America won't elect a woman. And Obama did prove a person of color was electable. I also believe that the economy and immigration struck chords with some people, as usual, who are 😴🤪🤑🤬. And anti-liberal alarms played a part as they always do, but "woke" is nothing new, and no reason for independents to vote for a lunatic.

my attempt to define who i am and we are, spiritually, can be read in my blog entry.

How to participate in our free services? Register as a Newbl (newBluePlanet) member in 1 minute. No personal data required. Once your email is validated you become a Newbl Newbie with limited privileges. After you submit your first comment/post in any forum (but NOT live CHAT) you'll be upgraded to a Newbl CITIZEN. (Tip: Simply post a couple of lines to introduce yourself) How to participate in the Liberal Hearts Club? A Newbl CITIZEN must add their club profile. Follow the single or friend links to the right sub-category. ADD your profile. After 24 hours, you can view other profiles and Private Message someone you want to communicate with. *there's a place here for being silly and fun too. And conservative -- as long as you're serious about honest communication.

I wrote and recorded this song as a tie-in to the 2024 campaign slogan "We're Never Going Back" Needless to say, it NEVER caught on. And we went BACK. Waaay BACK! NEVER GO BACK i am a rock on a hill, looking over this place you know my name, you all know my face you know some words that have meaning the years can't erase we gotta look back before we lose our way we gotta give back, get back to a United State we once shared a dream, we once shared a home i'm wondering how-in-the-hell did we get so alone once it was one for all, and it was all for one we gotta give back, get back before it's all undone to get back to clear skies -- the light in your eyes to get back the best life -- that money can't buy when the minority rules, when our democracy dies to get back up to rise there's a house on a hill looking over this place where they don't know my name, they don't know my face but there is strength in my numbers, they'll hear what i say cause i'll never hold back, never hold back, never hold back and i'll never turn back, never turn back, never turn back and we'll never go back (push, pull) LOOK BACK at what our founders intended and GET BACK to those principles. GIVE BACK and sacrifice for the common good. NEVER GO BACK to repression, injustice or inequality based on gender, race, sexuality or religion. PUSH forward and PULL up those who need help.

btw, i believe men created gods in their image, not the opposite. but how ironic for those who believe there is an almighty, judgemental God/Allah/etc.. to hear these inquiries on their judgement day: Allah: "you blew-up yourself and a hundred others because you thought i'd "hook you up with 13 virgins?"" God: "you did WHAT for the collection and control of fossilized dinosaur bones (oil) and shiny rocks (gold, diamonds, etc.)?" "you killed your brother over a piece of dirt in the Middle East, in my name?" "you abused and exploited the creatures I created simply because you like the taste of their flesh -- and milk -- when you could've had a V8?"

Even if you believe homosexuality is "unnatural" it does not translate to "unethical" or immoral. What is common in nature is not the basis for evaluating human morality. For example, it is most natural for animals to fight or kill each other over food, territory, or mating rights and for males to spread their seed with wild abandon. But those behaviors are not ethical for human's in a civilized society.

QUESTION: IS HOMOSEXUALITY "UNNATURAL?" Homosexuality is not uncommon in nature. Though there are cases of asexual reproduction, HETERO-sexual behavior is simply nature's tool for species re-population. Regardless, there is nothing more natural than the tactile exchange of affection between any two people regardless of what kind of parts they're equipped with.

though the DNC faced big donor pressure to move closer to the GOP corporate philosophy in modern years, it was the Democrats who gave us the 40 hour workweek, minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, social security insurance, medicare, etc.. this is some older info that needs current data added: and this: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Crq61eB5B/

the historical path mankind forged after Jesus (AD), in his name, is paved in: wars, crusades, inquisitions, bombings, arranged marriages, polygamy, child abuse -- including castration, human sacrifice, burning of witches, the suppression of women and gays, etc.. and i would add:

Over the centuries, Christian crusaders have probably used these alleged Jesus quotes to justify murder: Speaking for himself, Paul gave Christian slave owners these words from the New Testament to keep slaves in line: and these words to keep women in line: In Revelations, John writes in the New Testament that only 144,000 people will get into heaven, and none will have "defiled themselves with women". So much for the Old Testament allegation that homosexuality is an "abomination". Apparently, they are the only ones who will serve in God's heaven! Humor aside, both the old and new testament have been quoted to justify discrimination against Gays. But, according to the Bible, a woman couldn't teach at church. Her place is kneeling before the alter of man, and praying behind the curtain of his confessional for sins going back to that first bite you took of the apple ;-) thankfully, though, it was men like me, outside of the control that the Church has on our society, who cleared enough of a path through the mysticism of the Bible to give women the right to vote. there's more to do, and it will take more wide-eyed progressive leaders, and less blind "followers"

it is true that Christianity spread so successfully because the populist themes offered the people a better, more hopeful choice than continuing to live under dictatorships. The core of the Christian concept is indeed wonderful. But it should be separated from the garbage. Sure, there are reasons for the old testament's "marry your rapist" quote, but there are weak explanations for all of society's ills. I'm sure the Romans had their reasons for wanting to throw Christians to the lions. I just believe it is the responsibility of any person or organization who promotes the bible to clearly and strongly condemn references that can inspire harm to others, by some who might naively take the bible as "gospel truth". i believe the New Testament's "Revelation" by John is the clearest example of the problem. Preparing for "the rapture" as it relates to the fight over "the holy land" and the "end of all times" is at the root of the hate, wars and killing in the Middle East, which, in turn, plays a significant role in U.S. politics. The Truth About The Revelation Most Bible scholars and theologians agree that someone identifying himself as John wrote the "Revealing" 60-80 years after Jesus's death. They are unsure if it was the apostle John The Baptist because he would have been nearly 100 years old and the Greek writing style was different. Under great stress after being exiled to a small island by the Romans it is believed he envisioned Jesus coming back in his lifetime to enact vengeance on his Roman persecutors. To avoid being executed as a heretic John coded his written attacks against Rome. For example, the sign of the beast, 666, translates to the emperor Nero in Hebrew numerology. The Rapture event (ascension of the believers preceding the Apocalypse) was not even written by John, but was later translated into the story 1800 years later based on an interpretation of earlier passages in the Bible and the vision of some woman (?).

further study indicates: Few people were literate back then, so stories were told word of mouth. The New Testament content was first written by Paul, mostly while under suppression in political prison, about 25 years after the death of JC (I assume the delay in writing was to avoid being accused of heresy and face the same fate as Jesus). Some of the content was 2nd hand info written by followers of Paul and was subject to their slant/point of view. Matthew and Luke borrowed from Paul's material. To be passed on, all of the writings had to be hand copied over the years by the few people who could write, and was subject to their own slant/point of view Church leaders revised the bible over the centuries. The ascension of Jesus provided an inspirational ending, despite conflicting versions in the gospels. Without it, Christianity might very well have died on the cross along with the body of Christ. Jesus, tortured and dying on the cross, asking God "why have you forsaken me?" is a real downer. It is not befitting the "son of God". It is a story of a mere mortal man brutalized by the Romans. But his physical body rising to heaven, instead of just his spirit, added a dramatic special effect and gave the Church something to work with. If, ultimately, God wanted people to believe in him he could have appeared before them like he appeared before Moses. He wouldn't need to have a mortal man do magic tricks like turning water to wine, then allow him to be tortured, then raise the bloody carcass to heaven, then have a handful of other men recall the tale, as best they can, 25 to 75 years later. And rationalizing that Jesus "died for our sins" like a sacrificial lamb may be one of the most absurd concepts in the history of religion, or in the history of rationalizations for that matter. It all sounds like a cruel game that god is playing? Give man a logical, reasoning, questioning mind, then ask him to abandon logic and reason, and not question the word of other flawed men?