Hillary Clinton and the eMail Controversy

FBI Director James Comey has stated that although Hillary Clinton was ‘careless’, she did not break the law. I hope someone can explain when you are a government official and you ‘carelessly’ breached top secret information, you did not break the law are not held accountable?

Carelessness (on top-secret issues) = Security Breach Violations = Indictment

                                              Anything less = Corruption

Partial Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”

“None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Hillary Emails
“I did not put secure emails on that server”

The Clintons have got to be the most corrupt set of politicians I have ever seen!

How much you want to bet that James B. Comey gets promoted to a high position in the White House if Hillary gets elected?

Presidential Candidates Views on Healthcare

Healthcare has been one of those fiery issues over which the Democrats and Republicans have remained divided, especially with regards to cost and access. The debate over what constitutes the ‘right’ healthcare regime and policies continues even today.

Affordable Care Act or Obamacare has been widely criticized by Republicans since its adoption in 2010. However, healthcare remains a major concern of both the leaders and the voters, in addition to concerns about the economy and terrorism.

The 2016 presidential candidates of both parties consider healthcare as one of the most important issues of the current era; hence, it has been a priority in their election campaigns. Each of them has highlighted the issues Americans face in the U.S. health care system and has presented proposals to address them.

This article discusses health care plans put forth by the major presidential candidates e.g. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has been supporting Obamacare in her election campaign and promises to continue the program and even expand on it. With regard to huge criticisms of the program, Clinton has recommended some changes/modifications that will reduce its cost. She also expressed that she will  increase the funding for the treatment and research of Alzheimer and Autism. Clinton is in favor of reducing the age limit for Medicare to 50 or 55 years old, if elected. She has expressed her support for ‘public option’ as well.

Permission to import drugs, access of women to reproductive healthcare, and making health insurances more affordable so that all American citizens are covered are also on Clinton’s agenda. She also vows to cut down the rising prices of prescription drugs.

According to Clinton, failure to pass healthcare reform in 1990s, when her husband Bill Clinton was promoting it has been her biggest political regret.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, contrary to Hillary Clinton, is against Obamacare and has several times proclaimed to end it, if elected.

“I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people”, said Trump in July, 2015.

“We are going to repeal Obamacare……we are going to replace Obamacare with something so much better”, he reiterated in February, 2016.

Knowing that Donald Trump has expertise in controlling project costs and being able to make successful deals (this time with the insurance companies), there is no doubt that he would be successful in creating the next generation of health care for American citizens.

Trump supports a healthcare plan that is based on the principles of free market, which would give insurance companies the ability to sell health insurances across states. Trump is willing to allow individuals, like businesses, to deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums from their tax returns. A major incentive for those of every tax bracket.

Trump is looking forward to reducing the health care expenditures by limiting health care access for illegal immigrants and taking measures to deport them. Also, he proclaims to ensure that there will be price transparency from doctors, hospitals and all other healthcare providers if he gets elected.

In addition, Obamacare tends to help the poor more than the middle class, which is fine as far as helping the poverty stricken is concerned, but many people in the middle class category have been launching complaints that their deductibles are $6000.00, over their co-pays are higher and some of their doctors are not in the plan, so the Affordable Care Act is not a balanced approach towards affordable healthcare for everyone.

The Choice is Clear

Vote for a candidate who will continue to support illegal immigration (which is also a security threat) and allow those who cheat the system to get healthcare over those legal immigrants who worked hard to get their citizenship or vote for a candidate who will create a better, balanced healthcare system that will allow all Americans the same benefits, as well as to allow them to deduct their healthcare expenses on their taxes.


Republicans vs. Democrats on Foreign Policy

The political scenario in the United States is largely dominated by two major political parties – the Republicans and the Democrats. While there are several differences between the two parties that constitute the political landscape, such as healthcare, social programs, abortion, gun control, tax policies and free trade,  it is really the foreign policy where the two are have daggers drawn against each other. Generally speaking, each of the two parties have had varying views on foreign policy, subject to the circumstances.

Republicians vs Democrats
The party divide is extensive

But when military intervention comes into play, the Republicans usually favor greater military power against those totalitarian and/or Islamic fundamental regimes that threaten the United States or other American allies. Case in point – Iran. A country that has taken our embassy staff hostage, killed over 250 Marines in Beirut, march in a yearly holiday and saying “Death to America. Death to Israel” and continue to kill American troops in the Middle East via proxy groups sympathetic to the Shiite cause. No war with Iran has materialized (yet), but based upon their adamant goal of developing nuclear weapons (something the Obama Administration does not take seriously), can result in an American attack, should a Republican candidate reach the White House. And this would be something long overdue. Obama is continuing to allow Iran to prosper. Something that was or should not have been part of the nuclear negotiations and can result in consequences in the Middle East that would not have existed before if appropriate and justified action was initially taken against them.

On the other hand, Democrats are a supporter of launching more streamlined, targeted strikes and the use of restricted military manpower. This would not work in a country like Iran and is not working now against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

When in war, this liberal ideology is completely counterproductive and allows more terrorists to exist that otherwise would have been neutralized. This results in a greater potential for those terrorists to reach our shores and murder innocent Americans.

International Concerns are of Greater Importance to the Republicans

According to most Republicans, one of the greatest issues that concern America is terrorism. A bare minimum of the conservative party thinks that it is really the economic crisis that is the real problem.

Republicans are More Worried about the Overseas Security Threats” than the Democrats

While the Democrats are more likely to state that the global climatic change is a gigantic threat to the USA, the Republicans on the contrary hold the view that ISIS, Middle East, China, Russia and Iran are a major threat to the sovereignty and wellbeing of USA. The Republicans also do not support the idea of the US entering into a nuclear deal with Iran.

Republicans are More Realistic and Perceptive Towards Global Terrorism and ISIS

In the Republican debates last year, the presidential forerunner from the Republican Party – Donald Trump reinforced the idea that had America and struck the Syrian Assad regime back in 2013 with full force, there wouldn’t be a refugee crisis in the world. However, Democrats argue had this been the case, chances are that the terrorist group ISIS would have ruled even a greater territory of Syria, making the refugee crisis even worse than it already is. If America had attacked the Syrian regime and remained there until a moderate secure government was in place (unlike President Obama’s early withdrawal from Iraq), it would have brought more peace the the region and subsequently, broke the Shiite Crescent. This would have seriously diminished Iran’s push for Middle Eastern takeover and substantially reduced their ability to attack Israel. According to most Republicans, an overwhelming military force is the best way to deal with the global terrorism.

The Republicans Oppose Syrian Refugees Entering the USA

Even before the Paris attacks, almost two-thirds of the Republicans were not in the favor of letting Syrian refugees enter America. This situation has worsened today and a rising number of Republicans are now criticizing Obama’s decision and Hillary Clinton’s promise of taking in more refugees from the Middle East, since there is no vetting process that can identify who is a terrorist and who isn’t. The logic for opposing this policy couldn’t be any more straight forward.


Conflict is a part of life and we cannot avoid it. Peaceful settlement of conflicts, whether between individuals or nations, requires more than just declarations of willingness to keep the peace. Peace begins with the individual. It begins at home, with how we live our lives, how we relate to others and how we handle conflicts.  Parents that use violent means in resolving their conflicts are teaching their children the same way.  As the child becomes a leader in school, workplace or communities, he will always resort in using violent means in settling conflicts except when told otherwise.

A violent way of resolving conflicts always brings destruction. Anger and pride are some of the contributing factors to conflict. Non-violent method of resolving any conflict achieves the best result and is the best way of resolving conflict. Having open communication with our children and partnering with community groups in order to create a solid foundation where children can feel safe is a positive step towards a non-violent environment.

Parents, communities, religious organizations and schools, need to band together and form a united front.  To share a mission to interrupt physical and structural violence by empowering our children through peace education, advocacy, and employment.

We need to develop more programs which focus on youth development and education. We need to empower children and young adults to resolve conflicts using creative and peaceful avenues.   Educators need tools to help children develop social and emotional skills for healthy decision making.  Young people today need to learn peaceful means in not so peaceful times.


Gun Control and Partisan Stubbornness

Let’s face it. We have political stubbornness on both sides. Neither side willing to give in to the other’s demands, but let’s take a closer look as to what these politicians are actually fighting about.


To respond to this, we first need to cut through the confusion of what an assault weapon is and subsequently, review the types of weapons that are available to the general public (and those that are not).

What are the Characteristics of a Fully-Automatic Weapon?

Also called a machine gun, it is a rifle that can shoot many rounds without the shooter taking his finger off the trigger. These types of weapons can shoot up to 1000 rounds per minute. The military’s M4 rifle is a fully-automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are not allowed to be sold to the American public.

What are the Characteristics of a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

Semi-automatic weapons can only fire one round, so the shooter has to pull the trigger each time he needs to fire off a shot. This slows down the number of bullets that can be fired within a specific period of time. These firearms can shoot between 45 and 60 rounds per minute. A far cry from an automatic weapon that shoots 1000 rounds per minute. The AR-15 rifle is an example of a semi-automatic weapon.

OK, So What is an Assault Weapon?

An assault weapon is actually a political term, rather than a technical term. It is used specifically by Democrats as any weapon that can fire a large number of rounds per minute. To them (and many others), 45 – 60 rounds per minute categorize the AR-15 as an assault rifle.

Ban the AR-15?

Democrats want to ban the sale of ‘assault’ weapons to the general public and in their eyes, that would include the AR-15.

This request is not unwarranted; however, it is not practical. The AR-15 shoots the same number of rounds that any semi-automatic pistol can shoot or any double-action revolver.

One difference is that rifles, such as the AR-15 are more accurate than a pistol. So the if you ban AR-15s because you are putting them under the ‘assault’ category, then you must ban all semi-automatic firearms and that would result in virtually no firearms available to be sold.

The question then becomes – if rifles are more accurate, then they still should be banned; but that will not stop terrorists from using them. When mass murderers enter a nightclub, a theater or are just standing in the street, they are not using a scope or anything else that would assist to make the rifle more accurate. They are just shooting from the hip at random, which would result more or less for the weapon to be as inaccurate as any pistol in this case, so banning a semi-automatic rifle in order to stop mass murder is not realistic.

AR-15 Rifle
AR-15 Semi-Automatic rifle is more accurate than a pistol, but not when committing mass murder at a grand scale.
Glock 34 Flickr Photo Sharing CC
Glock 34 Semi-Automatic pistol above. When someone is bent on indiscriminately firing at random, it makes no difference as far as accuracy is concerned.



Preferred Choice

The AR-15 does allow a larger magazine than a Glock 34 or other handgun. The AR-15 magazine can hold up to 30 rounds and the Glock 34 magazine is limited to 17. This is the reason why a semi-automatic rifle is preferred over the gun; therefore, if there is any demand for stricter gun control, it should be on the size of the magazines being used. This will not stop a terrorist or mass murderer though, as he will just look to the black market to get what he needs.

So putting a ban on magazine size will not make much of a dent in mass killings, as well as the NRA supporters who will fight this to the limit.

What else can be done that could put a dent in gun purchases by unscrupulous individuals?

Close the Background Check Loophole

This is something that is straight-forward and common sense. There should be no discussion about this. Those republicans that are against this legislation, as well as the NRA, who can be extremely arrogant at times, need to wake up and realize that closing the background check loopholes are necessary and there is no excuse not to do it.

Going one step further, those that are still fighting this common sense legislation will have blood on their hands the next time a person on a watch list buys a weapon though a gun show and uses it to kill innocent Americans.

Democrats Cry Over Gun Control

Stop whining over this political football and do something about it. President Obama spends too much time and energy discussing gun control and not focusing on the real threat of terrorism that is in our own backyard. Hillary Clinton is unfortunately following in his footsteps as well.

This will not do anything to halt the murders that are happening now. Aggressive action needs to be initiated immediately and this politically correct nonsense has to stop now!

Nonviolent Methods to Resolutions

With so much bullying and violence around us, we as parents must take the responsibility to teach our children nonviolent ways to resolve conflicts. We must act as an extended family within our communities and be a part of a system that teaches nonviolence in lieu of the aggressive actions we have learned on the streets. Children must be taught, as soon as they are to be able to communicate, proper ways in which to address their feelings, as well as learn appropriate social skills.

Learning patience can be ingrown if taught early regarding the skills on how to get along with others, and this will help them in succeed in school and in life. All the while, helping to create a peaceful existence. Appropriate youth programs and religious organizations is one avenue to consider. Utilizing the right community programs is a step in the right direction as far as teaching our young how to be patient and tolerant.

Adults could benefit hugely from learning to communicate what’s in their thoughts rather than yelling, threatening or using aggressive behavior against someone or using passive-aggressive sabotage (a destructive method of degrading someone else for that person’s own self-esteem). If adults are this bad at communicating anger, pain, fear and frustration, how will they teach our kids to be any different? The real possibility is to teach very young children impulse control, patience, empathy and communication.

In addition, it is imperative that tolerance for groups which are not the same as ours be demonstrated in the home at all times. If it is not, you are planting the seeds for racial hatred and that hatred could lead your child to violent behavior later in life. Notwithstanding, if he/she does not end up hurting someone else, they could hurt themselves by landing in jail or worse – a retaliatory group comes after them for revenge. If you learned intolerance in your life, don’t make the mistake and do this to your children.

Remember, like father, like son. Like mother, like daughter. We must remain perceptive to what we do when our children are around us. We need to recognize our own behavior and take a different course of action than hurting someone else. Once we do this, we will be more effective educators as well as make ourselves a better person.

Hillary or Trump? That is the Question

Well, there you have it. We are left with two choices. Hillary Clinton – a standard politician (corrupt politician at that), who is in bed with every special interest group in existence. And someone how will cow-tow to the world’s whims, making America look shameful, as this current administration has been doing.

This is a candidate who offers nothing new and provides the old typical rhetoric of many other presidential candidates, as well as someone who will accomplish nothing during her four years, if her past political history has any relevance.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump
Make the Right Choice!

Let’s compare that person to the other candidate, Donald Trump, who offers a refreshing vision for America. This is someone who bows to no one and one has no obligation to super PACs or special interest groups. A person who built a multi-billion company and knows how to deal with other nations to America’s benefit. He is a person who will improve our economy like no other president has ever done.

Who ever thought of forcing other countries to pay us for our contribution (militarily and other ways) to helping them? Why is America always taking the burden, placing our troops in harm’s way, without any compensation from the countries that we assist? If these countries, especially the oil rich nations in the Middle East pay their fair share, can you imagine the impact it will have on our economy?

Bernie Sanders’s promise of free college education is far fetched; however, with a man like Trump in office, one might wonder, as there may be no limits to how much better our economy can become.

Trump is tough, like an American president should be. Not fragile and we need a tough president in today’s world. Now some would say, ‘You are just saying that because Hillary is a woman”. No! HIllary Clinton can’t light a candle to Trump.

And for those who want Hillary just because she is a woman, I say wake up and vote for what the candidate represents and not because of a candidate’s gender or race. That is discrimination anyway you look at it, but no one calls it that, because it would be politically incorrect.

So what will it be folks? A typical candidate with nothing new to offer or a tough, economically brilliant candidate who will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!