Skip to content

The Political View Verses the Moral View

The Political View Verses the Moral View

Let’s face the facts. On the political side we do have opposing factions who insist they follow God. Some insist they hear God and are following God’s commands. Others insist they are guided by moral convictions established by religious beliefs. And of course we have a vast majority of Americans who believe we need a President, and of course a government guided by God. The vast majority of Americans believe we need a government who is going to make the right decisions, and somehow make the United States a country that looks after the interest of its people, treats everyone fairly, taxes fairly, has a strong defense, helps other countries, and is wise enough so other countries do not take advantage of our generosity. Is that asking for too much?

When we mix religion with politics in an election year, we know there will be reactions. This is nothing new. John Kennedy addressed that question when he ran for President.

https://youtu.be/mBNlS8Zg1WA

John Kennedy discussed some rather valid points. Religion is personal. Each candidate has the same right to worship as they choose. Candidates have the same rights as every US citizen. John Kennedy went on to point out, if one religion is persecuted by the media or special interest groups, which religion will they persecute tomorrow? One of the best points John Kennedy pointed out is to vote for a President based on their personal convictions, not based on their religion. But that takes research. My dad taught us how to research a politician. Back in the 1960’s we had politicians to look up to and use as a measuring stick to compare others. Bill Proxmire was one of those rare politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire

Proxmire was one of those rare one of a kind politicians with ethics nearly beyond belief. Proxmire lived and mingled among the people he represented. He won elections by a landslide. His biggest campaign expense was to pay for stamps to send campaign contributions back to people. Proxmire was a rare breed in Washington always pointing out wasteful spending. Not just millions of dollar on huge projects, but instances where just a few thousand dollars was wasted. Proxmire was a guy who told it like it was and didn’t back down from anyone. Today Proxmire would be labeled a whistle blower. The people in Wisconsin considered Senator Proxmire a man doing the job he was sent to Washington to do. I grew up in Wisconsin being rather naive thinking we always had a group of politicians like Proxmire in Washington battling another group of crooked politicians from elsewhere in this country. But I was wrong. Proxmire was a rare breed. One of a kind.

We can take a look at what the 2020 political scene has to offer. A strong contender for the White House was an open communist, or socialist based on the particular policy. Communists are typically anti-religion, which suggest threats to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Historically socialists restrict religions to state approved religions. The fact a number of US voters approved of socialism and communism during primary elections should be a real concern for all American voters. Bernie Sanders was brought up Jewish parents, but his interest in Hitler and the Nazi government he installed and how he was elected is not only strange, bazaar, but alarming. Since we should be learning from the words and advice of former Presidents, I cannot see how so many voters missed the messages about the religious persecution past Presidents had to face. We’ve gone through three Presidents who have sent troops overseas to protect people from religious persecution. It is rather shocking for so many voters to look at those sacrifices as unnecessary. Warnings repeated by those last three Presidents included the fact, “it may be one group today. Will it be you tomorrow?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://berniesanders.com/

John Kennedy had his facts straight when he told voters to judge a candidate by their moral convictions. How are we supposed to determine a person’s conviction? Is it by the promises they make? We have seen too many lies from politicians to accept promises. We should be smarter than that. How do those promises align with their life style? Using Sanders as an example, we see a politician telling the public, “rich people will pay for your essentials.” Does that include his millions? Sanders also teaches us another important fact. We need to check out the facts and figures they discuss and post on their websites. Sanders proposed 11 trillion dollars worth of programs. A figure equal to the combined income of every taxpayer in 2018. A figure and fact the media was either too lazy to investigate, or knew about and wanted to hide from the public.

Joe Biden is a little tough to gauge on convictions. He is a Roman Catholic and practices his faith. https://kfax.com/articles/blogs/religion-today-blog/things-christians-should-know-about-the-faith-of-joe-biden

Joe Biden lost members of his family over the years and faced more than many of us will in a lifetime. As with most candidates, his voting record varies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

The fact Biden goes against religious convictions on some issues raises a red flag with some voters, but to other voters it tells them Biden is a man who thinks on his own and makes his own decisions.

The socialist factor with Biden should raise some red flags and call for caution. Joe Biden called his installation of a Democracy in Ukraine his greatest accomplishment. Biden actually experimented with a democratic-socialist government in Ukraine that was over thrown in 2014. Investigations into his son’s business activity in Ukraine are now on hold until after US elections. Time will tell what those investigations reveal.

Another key figure in the political arena today with a strong religious conviction is Nancy Pelosi. Based on the fact she refers to herself as the most powerful woman in America, and at times, the world, urges us to look at her moral convictions. We have to consult a number of sources when we look into Pelosi’s life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

https://atlanticmidwest.org/posts/how-nancy-pelosis-baltimore-catholic-roots-shaped-her

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/11/113-congress-relig-affil.pdf

Pelosi, who had been walking away from the podium, exploded. She pointed a finger at Rosen and said, “I don’t hate anybody. I was raised in a Catholic house. We don’t hate anybody.”

Then she added, “And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article238369468.html

When we compare basic Catholic values to Pelosi’s political views and career, we see two completely distant worlds. The focus being on Catholic views dealing with homosexuality, marriage, and abortion. Pelosi has chosen to cast away religious views on those subjects and take on, for lack of a better term, a completely radical view. To some this shift in moral conviction indicates a strength in a woman. One reporter compared that strength to a motherly figure. Although that reporter did no agree with Pelosi’s political views, he did appreciate her fierceness. The individual voter has to decide between that fierce attitude and her talk about moral convictions, religious guides, and actually performance. Do opposite poles indicate an imbalance in moral convictions, or an attitude that attracts votes.

Pelosi never liked President Trump and has had no problem making that fact public. “Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States,” Pelosi said on the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. “Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.” She said that she is urging her Republican friends to “take back your party.” In response to the proposal that Trump uses social media better than other politicians, Pelosi blamed ratings-hungry media outlets for amplifying his visibility.

“Social media has democratized elections even further,” she added. “People hear things that may or may not be true, but nonetheless, the democratization of communication is good for a democracy.” https://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11679242/nancy-pelosi-trump-guarantee-kara-swisher-podcast

Pelosi may be the best of the best when it comes to a politician, saying one thing, doing another, accusing a person of something, then taking that crime to a whole new level. On one hand she condemns Trump for using social media, blames the press, then turns around and takes social media and fake news to a whole new level to accomplish her goals. If nothing else, an examination of Pelosi’s life and morals shows a deep conviction of double standards. Perfectly acceptable to herself, but an unforgivable sin and the high crime of treason when used by anyone else. To understand Pelosi’s mindset and motivation, we have to look at her modern day concept of a democracy.

We can scan the internet, study 30 articles on the definition of a democracy and walk away with 30 conflicting concepts. This is a ploy used during the French Revolution when the conquering class executed the ruling aristocrats, installed a new government, and made reason their god.

https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

The main point to learn from that revolution of reason is, the French rewrote their dictionary turning the definitions of a number of words upside down. A new form of political control was born. When people believe right is wrong, and evil used for the good of the people is acceptable, those people of course become confused with no where to turn for answers but their leaders. The moral convictions of people as a whole is destroyed. With no real moral compass to follow, the people put their trust in leaders who in essence have free reign to constantly contradict themselves while leaving the impression their questionable actions are somehow, someday, going to benefit the people they represent. Which is basically the definition of a democracy.

The French revolution set up the acceptance of an anarchy to achieve the perfect society. The belief that good will eventually spring from the bowels of total darkness was a political tool this world has learned to live with, accept, and sad to say, believe in. The world has learned to accept political figures whose actions never seem to reflect their words and promises. Voters all over the world have learned to sit, wait, and hope someday something good has to happen. And voters all over the world have learned to accept the fact, nothing will ever change. No matter what we do, we are at the mercy of the people we elected. And they are not who they say they are.

Today we can take the two terms, liberal and conservative. Both have lost their meaning because they are applied and misapplied at will. The two political parties in the US use the terms liberal and conservative at will to serve their purpose at the time. No one really knows what each of those words mean. People apply their own definitions and like politicians, often flip flop the definitions of those two words to suit the circumstances of the moment.

Democracy is a word that has been misapplied, reapplied, and for all intents and purposes, redefined in conflicting manners to confuse the average voter. Voters all over the world have accepted the fact politicians apply one meaning to a democracy, then apply a completely different definition when they formulate and vote on policies and laws. Politicians tell people a democracy defines freedom. Then they apply laws, restrictions, taxes, and policies to restrict and control basic freedoms. Within their private chambers a democracy takes on a completely different definition. Behind closed doors a democracy is a form of government where elected officials rule the voters. We see that belief rear its ugly head in the new, emergency stay at home laws and orders. For all intents and purposes, the world is under martial law. In the eyes of politicians, no one is able to protect themselves. Politicians actually believe they are the only people on earth able to examine the situation and make a decision. Governments on all levels treat people like children unable to protect themselves, or make a rational decision. Then politicians pass laws and set restrictions to protect the general public from the minority of people unable to follow directions, protect themselves, have any rational thought, and have no respect for others. In essence, politicians today are showing the world how easy it is for them to abuse their power and justify their abuse of power by actually thinking it will somehow turn out for the good of all people. Politicians have blurred the definition of a democracy by shifting it to a totalitarian government. Mixing the two for what they believe is the greater good of the people. To further their control, politicians have convinced themselves, the public does not understand. They convince themselves they need to seize total control because they are the only people alive who understand the situation, and they are the knight in shinning armor placed on the throne to save the kingdom. Today we can see what to expect when a democracy is defined as, the decision of those in control is final and punishment must be inflicted to get the point across. Today we see what a democracy is when unquestioned control is necessary to guarantee a safe and secure society.

The sum it up in my own terms, the modern definition of a democracy is when people are elected to determine the direction of society as a whole. The people are directed by those they elect. In traditional terms, a republic is when elected officials are still bound to the will of the people. In a republic, after elections, decisions and policies are still shaped by the people.

John Kennedy offered a unique vision of a republic. Faced with one major issue, segregation and the prejudice it comes with, Kennedy, the youngest President ever elected, was faced with a daunting task. Knowing prejudice and segregation sprang from the evolutionary theories conjured up in the late 1850’s President Kennedy knew he had to reeducate a vast number of Americans who used the evolutionary theories to fuel segregation. It may have been Kennedy’s religious background that fueled his desire to overcome the social issues his administration faced. Knowing evolution was a theory, Kennedy looked at how man made theories and concepts shaped opinions. Some called evolution a science. Although evolution did not fit the definition of science. Evolution could not be proven. There was no evidence, nor was there any way to conduct any scientific tests. So evolution was never anything more than an opinion. An opinion people used to justify segregation and a host of crimes against humanity and establish a double standard of freedom in America. Kennedy had no choice but to follow his convictions and the only solution to those issues. To dispel any belief in man made theories and rely on cold, hard facts. Education and science were the only weapons Kennedy had to fight with.

In a way, everything was in place for Kennedy to spark a new, progressive scientific revolution everyone could benefit from. Kennedy was a WWII war veteran. He was surrounded by a political atmosphere of WWII veterans who took the battles against inequality to the home front. Opposition was high, but a few footholds were gained. During and after WWII blacks as well as Asians, and other nationalities were still looked down upon. The main excuse was evolution. Many whites believed they were a superior race. Sure the US just defeated Hitler and his dreams to create a pure Aryan race to rule the world. But that mentality was still alive and thriving in the US. Another double standard of thinking widely accepted by you guessed it, those who benefited the most. Somehow Kennedy had to change the mindset of the average American white person. Education and science were the keys.

Equal education was the first step. Whites implemented separate but equal education out of fear and ignorance. Ignorance because evolution told them blacks will never advance as far as whites. Fear because one black man could disprove the entire evolutionary theory.

John Kennedy was in the right spot at the right time. He had to first get the American people to focus on science. An idea is a theory until proven. Then it becomes a fact. John Kennedy put all of his eggs in one basket by announcing a plan to send a man to the moon. At that time, a man on the moon was a concept, an unproven theory. Kennedy had infant computers and a host of scientists to work with. Rockets were in their early stages and to create and launch a rocket of the size required was at that time, basically unproven. A few satellites later and that stage was set. In the 1960’s a trip to the moon was on a rather fast pace. They also had to deal with the theory of weightlessness in space. Another theory science needed to prove. One after another science showed the world exactly how to prove a theory. Science fed into the equal rights movement as if God had a hand in taking the minimum and turning it into a world changing event.

On the political front President Kennedy had a vision of the perfect republic. A government founded on the idea of educated voters. To achieve that goal, the American public had to accept President Kennedy’s concept of continuing education and the concept that every living being has something to contribute. President Kennedy summed up his moral convictions in a few words.

Only an educated and informed people will be a free people. John F. Kennedy’s Remarks in Nashville at the 90th Anniversary Convocation of Vanderbilt University (18 May 1963).

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

https://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm

Almost 40 years later people are still speculating on who shot President Kennedy. We may never ever know who was behind President Kennedy’s assassination, but we do know why he was assassinated. The concept of a total republic not lead by elected officials, but an educated and motivated society struck fear in the hearts of every crooked politician waiting for things to get back to their idea of normal so they could get back to making money the old fashion way – steal it.

President Kennedy used the moon trip to define science, establish the difference between fact and theory and give evolution a black eye. With that accomplished, his administration turned its attention on the two concepts of freedom closest to his heart. The reeducation of America was kindled. From the hearts and minds of educated Americans a new government structure was on the horizon. A government where every elected official not only depends on but thrives on input and ideas from the people who pay their salaries.

Based on the fact those concepts cost President Kennedy his life, we can see how far politicians will go to protect their interests. Interests that are threatened by well educated voters. I often wonder how John Kennedy’s concepts, ideals, and moral conviction would be accepted today. President Kennedy was lucky. He was President in a day and age of professional journalism was expected and demanded by the general public. Quite the opposite of today.

Update May 9th 2020

May 8th marked the 75th anniversary of VE day. Today most people have no idea what VE day is. VE stands for Victory in Europe and marked the end of WWII in Europe. President Trump held a few ceremonies to commemorate the day. They were not covered by any US media. A few European newspapers covered the event. But nothing in America. It is as if WWII never happened. Has fakes news infected the US media that badly? Has socialism gotten such a grip on the US that it is no longer politically correct to celebrate a day that draws attention to the fact the US fought a war against socialism. To socialism ignorance in bliss. A republic relies on education to survive.

Monday, February 19th, will be celebrated as Presidents’ Day. One of the recurring themes of most presidents of the United States is the absolute necessity of making sure our people are educated. They have varied opinions on how that is to be accomplished, but most have seemed to agree that a free society can only survive as a republic if the people maintain a program of general education. Can we not hear our first three presidents say this? “A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” – George Washington “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people…. They have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge — I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” – John Adams

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/educate-and-inform-the-whole-mass-of-the-people

Parts of Europe have banned VE-DAY celebrations. America forgot VE-Day and Europe banned it. Has it become political incorrect to celebrate the end of a war when socialism got their asses kicked?

Today we can clearly see which politicians really believe they were elected to carry out the will of the people and which think they were elected to rule over people. View a few of Pelosi’s videos and you can tell her idea of the perfect government is an ant colony. There is one queen, guard ants, and worker ants. Today many consider an ant colony as the perfect example of a democracy.

Imagine what this country would be like today if President Kennedy was able to follow his mission in life, to create a country with well educated voters having their voices heard between elections. We still have that system. It is called town hall meetings. Elected officials travel from town to town to hear what people think. I’ve been going to those for years. I have see the attitudes of politicians change over the years. I also noticed something else. It is rare to see a young person in those meetings. And if you do see a young person, their questions and comments are normally along a socialist lines. And always based on some less than reputable website. That was not the vision President Kennedy had.

Kennedy’s narrow election victory and small working margin in Congress left him cautious. He was reluctant to lose southern support for legislation on many fronts by pushing too hard on civil rights legislation. Instead, he appointed unprecedented numbers of African Americans to high-level positions in the administration and strengthened the Civil Rights Commission. He spoke out in favor of school desegregation, praised a number of cities for integrating their schools, and put Vice President Lyndon Johnson in charge of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/civil-rights-movement

On May 25, 1961, Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress to announce his decision to go to the moon. He backed up this decision with remarkable financial commitments. In the immediate aftermath of his speech, NASA’s budget was increased by 89 percent, and by another 101 percent the following year. To carry out Apollo, NASA became the large engineering organization centered on developing capabilities for human space flight that it is today. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/john-f-kennedy-and-nasa

https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html

Scholarships — Eligibility

S. 539 — Public Law 87-153, approved August 17, 1961

Permits legally classified American nationals to qualify and receive financial assistance under the Fulbright Act for advanced education abroad.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/legislative-summary/education

The Kennedys decided to submit civil rights legislation to Congress, and they began a series of meetings with congressional leaders to see what might have a chance of passing. After Birmingham, Jack realized that the “terrible problem” was “going to get worse and worse and had to be dealt with.”

Jack was also undoubtedly responding to a harsh public attack by Martin Luther King, who said that Kennedy had been as ineffective in civil rights as Eisenhower. Above all, King declared, the president should start talking about integration in moral terms, showing him capable of rising above politics.

Jack announced that he would soon be submitting far-reaching legislation to Congress that would integrate public accommodations, hasten school desegregation, and add protection for the right to vote.

Appeals were made to the Golden Rule. “In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children be treated.”

https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/John_F__Kennedy_Education.htm

Americans have regarded education as the keystone of the American democratic

experience. Indeed, federal involvement in education pre-dates the Constitution. It was

explicitly encouraged by the Congress of the Confederation in the Survey Ordinance of

1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5269&context=open_access_etds

In a Special Message to the Congress on Education, delivered on February 6, 1962, Kennedy laid out his argument that education in this country is the right—the necessity—and the responsibility—of all.

https://www.thoughtco.com/jfk-education-legacy-4140694

June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave a televised address to the American people and announced that he would be sending a civil rights bill to Congress. His bill would become the most-far reaching act of legislation supporting racial equality in American history. Beginning in the 1950s, African Americans had been engaged in peaceful demonstrations to protest segregation and discrimination, but had encountered violence and resistance. The turmoil through the South prompted the president to take action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation in public accommodations including hotels, restaurants, theaters, and stores, and made employment discrimination illegal. President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill on July 2, 1964. This exhibit summarizes some of the historical events that influenced the passage of this legislation. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

Kennedy focused in three major areas, education, the space program, and civil rights. This seems like a rather odd combination of interests. Although a man would not step food on the moon until 1969, we have to ask the question, did President Kennedy use the space program to advance civil rights?

We know the theory of evolution was looked upon as fact by those who needed an excuse to execute wide spread prejudice over the land. It was the only argument they had to stand on. On paper slavery had been abolished for nearly 100 years. https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment

Strange as it may seem a man named Charles Darwin published his book on evolution only a few tears before Congress passed a law abolishing slavery. Darwin’s book gave slave owners what they needed, an excuse to act as masters over one section of mankind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Although nothing is specifically written on the subject, did President Kennedy have a plan to use the space program and the science behind it to teach America the difference between a theory and fact. When we look at what it took to send a man to the moon and safely return him, we can see how science had to prove one theory after another. Calculations to launch a rocket and capsule of that size was a theory until proven. Gravity on the moon was a theory until proven. There was no way to get the amount of fuel needed to leave earth’s atmosphere onto the moon. Scientists had to rely on theories to calculate the moon’s gravity and the amount of fuel required to lift off from the moon and propel that capsule back to earth. The trip to and from the moon was based on theories science had to prove as fact. Was President Kennedy planning on using the space program to show mankind the difference between theories and facts? It was going to take a miracle to change minds on civil rights. For a hundred years mankind had been using the theory of evolution as a crutch to limp trough their excuses for segregation. Although President Kennedy was the youngest President in the US, he had visions few people possessed. Sad to say, his visions were what killed him. What would have life been like of President Kennedy was able to achieve his dreams?