Making America Healthy

IN AMERICA, we have Medicaid, medicare, and Obama Care. Three huge government programs, all ostensibly intended to do essentially the same thing; provide health insurance for all. Evidently, Obamacare will soon either be repealed, replaced, or revised. We shall see. A lot of people like Obamacare, a lot of people depend on it, and a lot of people, even if they don't like all of it, like certain features, and this includes the president elect. If Obamacare vanishes, over twenty million Americans will need something as good or better to replace it with. Even the most bureaucratically liberal person might be tempted to ask: would it be possible to combine these three programs into one good one? Or maybe consider adding Social Security to the pile, burning the whole pile, and replacing it with a guaranteed minimum income, or whatever its called, for all Americans? That idea is being floated in some circles. Studies are being done, presumably, to determine how much money would be lost or saved, and by whom. it make take awhile to figure it all out, and to determine how much of an income could be provided without losing money. It would simplify the system, you would think. some people would be happy to provide a basic guaranteed income for everyone, but would want to keep the other programs as well, which could get expensive, unless the United States decided to stop funding its armed force, and start relying entirely on NATO, Mexico, Canada, and Japan for its protection, which might not set too well with a whole host of independent minded Americans.

Mr. Trump, Drawing the Line

FOR DONALD J.TRUMP, albeit without authority, to have summarily canceled a government contract with a large corporation is auspicious. But he'll want to start getting his facts straight. Either way, we the people do not need to be spending four billion, or anything close to that amount, on a flying oval office and vacation spa. Donald, the corporation slayer. Donald said, and this is a Quote heard by millions: "we want Boeing to make a lotta money, but not that much money." So there you have it. Donald J. Trump comes right out and says there is a limit to how much money a business should make. What is the limit? Something less than four billion, evidently. This requires a limit on how much money individuals can make, because obviously there cannot be people making more than businesses produce. Now we have to decide what that limit should be. Donald Trump, pragmatic and flexible, leaning socialistic! How much do golf courses, casinos, and luxury hotels really contribute to the economy, to society, to the world? Or should first grade teachers be the billionaires? Business and people should each earn exactly as much as they contribute to society, and would, if the general population, and the norms and values and morals it creates, made any sense at all, had anything whatsoever to do with social value, or were in the least sane. So long as our society places more value on entertainment than education and health, we'll get what we create, billionaire entertainers and impoverished teachers, caregivers, and artists. But at least we have a president elect who draws the line at four billion dollar airplanes, and that's a start.

Seeking Justice, Not Political Bias

FRIGHTENING, the number of people who said they voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court. The idea being, of course, that with Trump there will be a conservative court, and with Hillary there would have been liberal one. What horrible thinking, what a horrible attitude, and we must get rid of it. We must stop thinking about good judges in terms of whether they are liberal or conservative, and start thinking about their quality. If anything, we should be seeking out the most verifiably moderate and flexible judges, not the most ideologically biased. Like just about everything else in America, we have it backwards. There even exists, incredibly, an organization entirely devoted to the encouragement of, the advocacy of, the placement of conservative justices on the bench at every level. "Judicial Watch" should be called Judicial Conservative Advocates", and it should be mercilessly ridiculed out of existence. The idea that its better to have conservative judges is nearly as stupid as the idea that all decisions should be rendered based on what we think the framer's of the constitution intended, as written literally in the constitution. What really matters is how we interpret the constitution, not people who have been dead for two hundred years. The criteria for appointment to a judgeship, including and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the difficulty with which a nominee can be ideologically classified. the more ideologically enigmatic, the better.

Being Too shy To Try

I WAS NEVER much of a ladies' man, although I sometimes thought I wanted to be. When I was young I was shy, and the older I get, the more paranoid. Aggressive sexual behavior on the part of men is evidently increasing in America, according to surveys which might not be entirely accurate. I've always been afraid to smile, wink, wave, whistle, or touch a stranger, particularly an attractive lady, for fear of possible consequences, like a slap in the face, or a visit from the police or an attorney at law. Altogether, a rather reasonable approach. That's one reason why that recording of Donald Trump, released late in the election campaign, in which he talks about how often he has and does touch women in sexually aggressive ways, without permission, which can only be classified as sexual assault, so very totally freaks me out. Freaks me out that anybody could behave like that. Freaks me out that somebody who does behave like that would talk about it on a recording, and then brag about being so famous and important as to never experience any negative consequences from this type of behavior. What freaks me out even more is that this is quite evidently perfectly true. In fact, if anything, Donald Trump seems to be experiencing good consequences, being rewarded, for sexually molesting women, or at least saying he does. He certainly has not paid any price yet, that I know of. Guys who cat call and whistle at women, or smile, wink, blow kisses or pat asses all seem to think that there's nothing wrong with it, that they are actually being complimentary, flattering the target, and that rarely do women object to that sort but behavior, but, quite the contrary, are usually quite flattered by it. That's all nonsense, of course. Nearly all women fear and abhor being flirted with and treated in this manner, surveys clearly reveal. But you'll never convince any male sexual predator of that. They tend to see nothing wrong with a little harmless sexual aggression and molestation. They will defend their behavior without hesitation. Even the slightest trace of a positive response from a victim is enough to give encouragement for further wolfishness, further mashing, as it used to be called. Ultimately, its probably better to be shy and paranoid, and out of jail.

Cooperating, by Communicating

REGARDLESS OF HOW ONE FEELS ABOUT, say, Donald Trump, one must strive to be fair and reasonable. In this spirit, was it a good idea for Mr. Trump to engage in a telephone conversation with the president of Taiwan recently, even though no American president has done that since 1979, and to do so violates an agreement the U.S. has with China? A fair and relevant question, if ever there were one. Since Mr. trump is not yet president, it could be argued that no agreement was violated, because the phone call involved the president of Taiwan, and a private American citizen, albeit the president elect. That argument might hold a very limited amount of water. The reason for this agreement with China is that China has a "one China" policy, in which Taiwan is not an alternative China, but rather, a breakaway province which should and shall one day be reunited with the mainland. China insists that the U.S. respect and acknowledge its one china policy. The Taiwanese government and people might beg to differ, as might the United States and the rest of the world. Its all about self determination, isn't it? Abraham Lincoln didn't recognize the CSA either; maybe he should have. Trump's bombastic twitter tweet arguments that he didn't need permission from China to speak with Taiwan because China didn't get his permission before building military bases in the south Pacific or devaluing its own currency is really stupid, in the best Donald Trump fashion. What he should have said is: "international cooperation and progress requires communication.", and just leave it at that. No need to be rhetorically aggressive when plain common sense logical will do just fine. Effective communication and deal making, that should be Trump's motto, and that should be his justification for talking to people, including the Taiwanese head of state......SUPPORT CREATIVE WRITING. SEND IN A COMMENT, OR SUBMIT AN ARTICLE! THANKS!

Going Too Slow

WHEN I WAS A KID, way back in the nineteen sixties, the worst insult one kid could hurl at another was the word "queer". I knew that word as an insult long before I knew what it meant. The other curse of choice was "queer bait". I still don't know what that one means, and somehow I'm still happy, so I figure I really don't need to know. To accuse someone of being gay as an insult was perfectly natural, back in the day, since American mainstream conservative Christian society detested homosexuals. It was illegal in all fifty states to engage in homosexual behavior, punishable by time in prison. Homosexuality was also formally listed as and considered to be a mental illness. Gay people often ended up in nut houses. So, you can see why the word "queer", meaning weird or different and therefore horrible, made a good insult. Back then nobody was gay, or admitted to being gay. Nobody dared. Gay people back then were deeper in the closet than Christmas decorations in August, terrified to be honest about themselves. You can imagine why. So, you could say things have changed. You could also probably say things haven't changed fast enough, or completely, that its taken way too long, and required way too much effort and acrimony to bring even a modicum of dignity and respect for gay and lesbian human beings. It almost makes you wonder what's been holding us back, what forces have encouraged society to resist social equality, to resist change, to resist treating gays and lesbians equally, and what forces have fought for or encouraged societal change, what we have achieved, and what we still need to achieve. Never, for instance, have I ever heard a Christian minister say anything about gays and lesbians deserving equal treatment, or condemning their traditional persecution by mainstream society. Never. Not once. But I have heard many a minister either insinuate or come right out and say straight up that homosexuality is a sin, which probably does not help the cause of equal rights for all. To assert vociferously and incessantly from the pulpit that sexual orientation is not a sin, and that God doesn't care if you're gay, might be a far preferable endeavor strategically, purely from the perspective of nurturing a happy, healthy, harmonious culture and furthering the sacred cause of equal civil rights for all citizens. Right?

Obstructing the Truth

DONALD TRUMP AND HIS "PEOPLE" are trying to do everything in their power, everything humanly possible to prevent a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania, having already tried and failed to do the same in Wisconsin. They are attacking the courts with an army of attorneys and motions. Large ominous black helicopters bearing the solitary word "TRUMP" stenciled in block letters are rumored to be hovering over every county clerk's office in every county in all three states, ostensibly searching for aliens. Doesn't that fact by itself make you wonder why? Their effort has reached Biblical proportions; they are trying to prevent the recount with a savage, desperate intensity, trying any way possible, trying way too hard. What does that seem to indicate? That they want to prevent a recount very badly, and that they might have a good reason for feeling that way? The Trump campaign has been saying for months that the election is rigged, and is still making that claim, without any evidence. Its been rigged in and by the pro Hillary liberal elite mainstream media, at the polling places, all for Hillary, and it was rigged by millions of illegal aliens voting for Hillary, asserts the questionably stable Trump. Why would people who so strongly believe the election was rigged resist a recount intended to find out? Hell, why not make an election vote recount mandatory, and automatic, just to verify the results and guard against cheating? Time and expense be damned! We must have confidence in our democratic institutions and processes, and more attention to and transparency in the voting process would greatly facilitate it. Trump simultaneously accuses the election of being rigged, and tries to avoid having anyone find out if it is. Does anyone smell a rat? The reason for the recount is that a few computer science professors looked in detail at the results from Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, smelled a rat, and advised a recount. They think some computers could have been hacked. Who would object to a recount other than the people how did the hacking, if there was any? Trump's attorney at law army is making every stale argument in the book against it. Its too expensive, takes too much time. The election is over, already. Let's move on. It won't change anything. Hell, you'd think they could think of better arguments than that, for the money they're getting paid. Maybe the recount will reveal millions of illegals who voted illegally for Hillary. Let's find out, Mr. Trump!

Losing Friends Over Politics

SEVERAL MONTHS AGO i was sitting at home, minding my own business, with either one of my cats or a laptop on my lap, I forget which. Suddenly, in rings an email. Its from a high school classmate ('73 rules!) I had not heard from in awhile, and the email began with outraged expressions of anger towards Bill Clinton. Clinton had recently walked across the tarmac at a major metro airport, and chatted with Attorney general Loretta Lynch. It made the news. What unspeakable temerity! How outrageous!, barked my friend. Clinton's wife under investigation by the FBI, again, and here's big bold Bill Clinton, and what else could he be doing besides trying to influence or bribe the A.G.? Hilarious, continued my friend's email, that Clinton is so brazen, arrogant, thoughtless and stupid to do this in broad daylight in a busy public place. That was the entire email. No hi, howdy, good bye, or kiss my ass. Just anger at and contempt for Bill Clinton's bad judgment, low morality, brazen attitude, and low I.Q.. Obviously, I should have just chuckled, and deleted the email. But no. Hell no, not me. I responded by suggesting that maybe Bill Clinton is indeed not stupid enough to engage in criminal conspiracy in front of hundreds of folks carrying smart phone cameras, and that therefore maybe he wasn't doing that, but instead was just saying hello to someone he knows and saw at a busy airport. Before I typed all that I at least said hello to my friend, which was more than he did for me. I further suggested to my buddy that maybe he himself was angry at his political opposition, and looking to impugn it, any way possible. He replied, as I expected, but made no mention of my proposed theory explaining Bill Clinton's behavior, based on my brazen assumption that bill Clinton isn't an idiot. Instead, my buddy sharply excoriated me for my "faux anger" as he put it, showing off his French, and retaliated that if he is angry, I am a maniac. I thought that was a bit extreme, and I suggested that he take a pain killer. I haven't heard from him since, and I do not expect to. That exchange happened in the final frenzied weeks leading up to the election, a period of time when millions of Americans lost friends and strained relationships. This divided country may well heal, eventually, but you somehow sense that its gonna take a whole lot more than a dismissive command from a new commander in chief.

Ending Racism In America, Like Good Christians

I'VE BEEN TO CHURCH maybe several dozen times in my life, tops. Not bad for a non Christian. A few weddings, a quiet moment or two in an iconic Catholic cathedral, some Sunday morning sermons. Far as I can recall, I have never seen nor heard a single minister say anything about racism, talk about it and how evil it is, unless it was a black church on television. Maybe its just the luck of the draw. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe ministers of the gospel simply tend not to broach the topic, for fear or consequences, for fear of angering racist church members. Maybe there is a failure on the part of America's faith based community to adequately address racism in America. By "adequately address", I mean eliminate, as in wipe it out by turning it into a grave sin against God, eradicate it, and nothing less. Since historically almost everyone in America has been a self described Christian, and since over seventy percent still are, the total and complete eradication of white on black racism in America is not an unreasonable goal. If the Christians insist on it, the other twenty seven percent of the population, the non Christian population, will have no choice but to do the same. Let the evil of racism be preached from every pulpit in America! repeatedly. Racism is evil enough to prioritize at the pulpit. Racism is very real in America, even as we speak, and is currently "enjoying" an upsurge in popularity, as Trump, although perhaps unintentionally, gives inspiration to and emboldens bigots. Most of the church services I've seen I've seen on television. Again, I cannot recall having ever heard a single solitary minister even mention, let alone condemn or discuss racism in America, in particular white against black variety. As we all know, the white subjugation of the black is the overwhelming source of racism, the source of all other kinds. I have heard many a cleric preach against Muslims, gays, liberals, and democrats, but never racists. Any guesses as to the reasons for this? Are church leaders possibly reluctant to broach the topic for fear of alienating their congregants? Keep those tithes coming in. Do not risk alienating the wealthiest, most conservative portion of the church membership? Is that it? In a country which often calls itself a "Christian" country, but is demonstrably a "racist" one, it might be time to examine causal connections and the relationship of the Christian faith to the original American sin. A good serving of soul searching might be overdue, long overdue.

Trump, Still Campaigning, Just In Case

PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP, less than a month after winning the election, is back out on the campaign trail, believe it or not, making speeches and holding huge rallies for the purpose of either running for reelection in 2020, or getting a head start on the campaign against Hillary Clinton, just in case she wins the recount and forces it to two out of three or sudden death. I'm not sure what the rules are. Probably nobody is. We live in a free for all make your own rules wild wild west culture, despite or possibly because of our extremely legalistic society. It may be that if Clinton wins the recount she will win the electoral college and be elected, leaving Trump and his mob of gangsters (a gang can be a good thing) in free fall, limbo, infuriated, ready to turn the great American divide into full civil war. Can you imagine how ballistic Donald would wax in such an event? Off like a rocket. Nobody knows for sure exactly how long Trump will continue to stump, maybe the next four years. Perhaps we should hope he spends his entire term on the campaign trail, promising to do crazy things he will never do, just to keep the hungry hounds excited but at bay, while the country runs itself until the dark ages begin to abate. Some people just can't get enough politickin' and campaigning. The bright lights, the spotlight, the roaring crowd, the adrenaline, the ego. Trump exhorted his throng in Cincinnati to never forget how corrupt the media is, making himself out to be an unfortunate heroic victim, fighting valiantly against the forces of evil. What complete rot. You always sensed that despite his chaotic campaigning and speaking style, Trump is a well prepared guy, ready for anything. And, as always, Trump's hateful mob of ardent basket of deplorable supporters can't get enough chanting "lock her up!", no matter how irrelevant it becomes, or how innocent of crime Hillary Clinton is revealed to be. These people are still angry, alarmingly, but not surprisingly. If anybody should be locked up, it isn't Hillary Clinton.

Keeping Secrets At the State Department

RETIRED GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS is reportedly being considered by the Trump team for Secretary of State, and it might be a good idea. Petraeus has always seemed like the kind of intelligent, knowledgeable person who would do a complicated job well. He certainly understands the true nature of military action, its horrors and limitations, and in his various command positions at the head of international forces, Petraeus certainly has learned a thing or two about communicating diplomatically. Also, he undoubtedly has an excellent grasp of international geo-political circumstances, including political, military, and diplomatic realities. There is, however, a problem. Several years ago, while Petraeus was serving as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he was having an affair with a lady who was writing his biography, and, in the course of their association, he shared confidential, classified, government documents with her. hr resigned from the CIA, was indicted on felony charges, and mad a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to a misdemeanor, placed on two years probation, and fined one hundred thousand dollars. he has been engaging in many activities recently, including so chairing an organization which advocates for what they call reasonable, common sense gun control laws. Presumably he is no longer on probation, otherwise he probably wouldn't be eligible to become Secretary of State. Is the irony of this whole situation apparent? Consider this. Condoleezza Rice and Retired General Colin Powell, both of whom served as Secretary of State under George Bush, used private email servers in their official job capacity. Nobody seems to worry about it, then or now. Along came Hillary Clinton, who did the same thing, and half the country wants to lock her up without even the slightest bit of evidence that she did anything wrong or illegal with her private email account. The mere thought that she could have done so is enough to inspire half the country to hate her, without so much as pointing a finger at Rice or Powell. Now, along come Petraeus, another possible republican Secretary of State, who really has sold out the country and been punished for it, but, apparently, neither Trump nor anybody else cares. the moral of the story s; is you intend to become Secretary of State and use questionable judgment with regard to handling classified materials, make sure you're a republican.

Refilling the Swamp With Trump

I NEVER HAD THE FAINTEST IDEA, and still don't, what the terms "populism" and "anti establishment" mean when applied to Donald J. Trump. Ever since Trump entered the presidential campaign all those weary months ago, he has been proclaimed as an outsider, an anti establishment neo politician and leader of something called a "populist uprising", a staunch advocate of the little guy, the forgotten American worker. Really? Merely because he had never before run for or held public office? That's all it takes to be considered a crusader for the common man against the entrenched political forces of the establishment? The only requirement is to have no political experience in public office? Sounds easy. Count me in! To me populism is a political movement which begins at the very broad based bottom of the social pyramid, organizes, and works to reduce or eliminate the political control of society by the very elite at the very pointed top of the social pyramid. Populism as a political movement was strongest during the first three decades of the twentieth century in the United States. There seems to be some of it around now, and lord willing and the creek don't rise it will grow and conquer the world, but does anyone now somehow believe that populist ideas are embodied in the ideas, of all people, Trump? For modern day populism, look to Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump. The populist movement of 1920 is called the "Progressive era" because populism is progress, and progress is progressive, not conservative. Populism is usually not the religion of billionaires, for a reason. The term "anti-establishment" means working against the people, institutions, and social forces which control society, elevate the few, and oppress the many. How does Donald J. Trump have anything to do with that? Populism was so strong in the early twentieth century that this entire era in U.S. history is named for it. The great populist president, in the opinion of many, was Theodore Roosevelt, who worked to break up corporate monopolies and provide legal protection for workers. Wisconsin Senator Robert Lafollette is considered a champion and congressional leader of populism, and Eugene Debs ran for president as a socialist in 1920, while in jail, and got almost a million votes. But Trump? Anti establishment populist Trump? Trump has already appointed Wall Street billionaires to his cabinet, with more sure to follow. Everyone of his appointees is a hard core conservative traditionalist, not a protesting populist liberal crusading for change and progress. If he is draining the swamp, as he promised, he is refilling it fast. How exactly is this anti establishment populism? All his life Trump has surrounded himself with very wealthy very powerful very elite people, by design. He wants to be, and is, one of them. Now, he is filling the executive branch with them. Whatever Donald Trump is, he isn't an "anti establishment populist".

The Evolving Views of Mr. Trump

DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, a period of time which most of us might prefer to forget, Donald Trump, like all overly ardent politicians, made a large number of comments and statements of intent which even at the time seemed, shall we say, a bit poorly conceived, and now seem positively insane. Fortunately, the president elect apparently has no intention of fulfilling any of them. One by one, Trump has spent the post election period "walking them back", as we like to say, stating his intention of breaking all his promises, as we used to say. First, he quietly mentioned something to the effect that a gargantuan wall might not be necessary to keep the U.S. and Mexico separated; a simple fence might do quite well. It was good to hear that. That change of policy should save billions of dollars and a great deal of embarrassment right off the bat. Then, we were graced with a rare act of good Trump grace. After months of promising to, if elected, put Hillary Clinton in jail, Trump nobly and magnanimously, and wisely and pragmatically announced that, no, he does not want to "hurt the Clintons", they've been through enough already, the campaign was bruising, they need time to heal, and so forth, droning on and on, displaying true greatness of spirit.That, aside from the fact the incoming chief executive has absolutely no power or legal authority or standing or evidence of any kind to put anybody in jail, as any astute legal mind is well aware, which he is definitely not. Then too, it turns out that all members of the Islamic faith need not be kept from entering the country; they only need to be questioned a bit more closely, to find out what they're really up to in advance, just like we already do.Remember Donald's promise to bring back torture and to use it on captured terrorists? No, say the military experts, they can do better with a couple of beers and a pack of cigarettes. Besides, torture is illegal, a minor detail which usually fails to stop Trump from doing anything, but this time seems to be. Even more newsworthy is that to Trump man made climate change has become something other than a Chinese or liberal hoax; it is now something about which to be open minded, meaning that America's participation in the Paris climate change agreement might not, after all, be in dire jeopardy. Remember the promise to tear up and throw away the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran? Now, it turns out that might not happen either, and probably won't. A few amendments and adjustments to it might do the trick, plus, new strategies to force Iranian compliance. The fact that the United States hasn't the power to tear up the treaty unilaterally, because other countries are involved in it, has perhaps finally sunk in at Trump Tower. We must all live and learn. Seems a great deal of information is reaching all the way to the top of the tower, as Trump meets with, discusses issues with, and learns from people who know a great deal more than he, showing his pragmatic flexibility. For this process we should all be immensely grateful, and pray that it continues, and never stops.

Giving Sanctuary At Harvard

YOU CAN'T GET INTO HARVARD if you're not a good student. You gotta be smart, with good grades and a solid work ethic. That includes the athletes, which doesn't help Harvard win many football or basketball games nowadays. Approximately forty of Harvard's thousands of good students are undocumented aliens, children of parents who crossed into America many years ago looking for opportunity, and brought their brainy dreamer kids with them. Now that Obama is leaving office and is being replaced by someone who isn't exactly known for being immigrant friendly, now that Obama's executive order giving temporary amnesty for dreamer children has been challenged and put on hold by the court system, Harvard is concerned that the federal immigration authorities might suddenly show up on campus, track down the forty dreamer students, all of whom are doing well in school and are headed for a successful graduation, arrest them, carry them away in shackles, and either lock them up and throw away the key or deport them. The president of Harvard thinks that would be a shame, as do most civilized folks, and has declared his intention of running his university as a "sanctuary institution", meaning that on campus the feds will have no help from the university in tracking down the at risk students. All across America we have of course sanctuary cities, in which local police have been instructed not to use their valuable time helping the feds track down illegal aliens, but rather to focus on actual crime, of the locally committed variety. If the feds want to make the rules, which is their duty with regard to immigration policy, then let them enforce them. Cities and universities have enough work cut out for them just keeping their jurisdictions safe, without doing the federal government's job for them. That's the rationale behind the progressive minded sanctuary concept as it is practiced in municipalities and colleges across the country, and it does not seem to be going away anytime soon, despite the outraged expressions of conservative groups such as "Judicial Watch", the right wing organization whose purpose is to advocate for the placement of conservative justices on America's court benches, the destruction of Hillary Clinton, and the punishment of sanctuary cities by the American people and the American government. How noble. Trump is likely to threaten all kinds of mayhem for sanctuary institutions, including deprivation of federal funding. That probably won't have any impact on Harvard, which is rich by other means, mostly contributions from wealthy alumni.

Mixing Conservatism and Christianity in America

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF when you think about the KKK, if you ever allow yourself to? Racism? Hatred of African-Americans? Maybe throw in a few Catholics, Jews, and queers? What are the fundamental principles and beliefs of the Klan? What's their ideology? When I think of the Ku Klux Klan, I think of two things: first, pure old fashioned ultra right wing conservatism. Second, devout Christianity. Konservatism and Kristianity, and Krosses, like two peas in a pod, embodied most strongly together in the Klan. The KKK is not a bunch of bleeding heart do gooder liberals, fighting for gay rights, socialism, gender and racial equality, vegetarianism, welfare, and replacing fossil fuels. Quite the opposite. The Klan is all about tradition, not change. The Klan is about property, freedom, guns,Bibles, and crosses. Traditional American values. The freedom to compete for and own as much property as you want, unhindered by government. Guns to protect the property, crosses to justify it. welcome to the Ku Klux Klan, and the tightly interwoven world of Konservatism and Kristianity. This tight interwoven christian conservatism extends well beyond the Klan. Its strongest in the Klan, but very strong in many other places, like the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the Klan. The home of Donald Trump, the republican party, alt right, the Tea party, and home of the vociferous and ultra conservative Christian community. Sometimes it seems as if half the American people belong to it. Give me the left wing liberal Christian type like Jesse Jackson any day. Here's a clue: the Christian conservative community hates Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, and outspoken black advocates of civil rights, for a reason. The reason is, Christian conservative based racism. The Jesus, guns, and money christian conservative crowd hates liberalism and any trace of liberal progress so passionately that no matter what President Obama does or says, they hate it. In America, racism is traditional, a traditional value. They offered Ben Carson as a token candidate to hide their racism, because he is a right winger. Pretty clever. In America, racism, like Christianity, lives in traditional conservatism, and always has. This body politic, the one which elected Trump, has only its Bibles, guns, and outdated values and ideas, so, it won't be around much longer.