If our nation has chosen what we admire then the only answer is to humble ourselves

If it's true that a nation can suffer the consequences for the things that we as a whole have done, we are getting what we deserve. Too many people I know feel they have not even "the lesser of two evils" as a choice for President, but no choice. And to be honest in other political positions as well. But WE DID CHOOSE, and we chose these. (Some may say they voted for someone else in the primary... then divided we fall.)

Let me say also that it is not just in the Presidential race that we have a lack of great choices, but it seems to be exaggerated there. We need to ask ourselves overall what have our votes (or the choice to not vote) brought us?

How true is this? "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked person rules, people groan"Proverbs 29:2

In our Presidential candidates we chose pridefulness. We chose those who have had both great success and great failure (though the truth is a willingness to take chances and fail often comes along with anyone who has achieved much - still a President is not the place to be taking too many chances.) We chose people with lack of facial control - and negotiations and leading a nation requires that every thought that passes through one's mind does not show up in a laugh or a smirk. We have people who shirk responsibility. We have people whose staff or supporters keep getting in trouble, being fired, or leaving of their own accord.And when I just did a spellcheck on the word pridefullness because of a red line under it, the option it gave me was 'spitefulness,' and yes, we chose that too.


And if you disagree that you chose these qualities or people, then...if we have not gotten what we have chosen, then we have gotten what we have allowed.

IF you are still saying that YOU did not choose this, others did, then oddly you are part of the problem. The solution takes accepting the situation as it is and problem solving, deciding what to do about it, what to do differently now and next time. And we can only change what we feel we have some power over!


It is not just at the voter's booth ALONE that we are responsible. We must take the blame for our own actions, and yes, also for our nation's action as a very large group of individuals.  It is made up of a lot of "ME's". What have my (our) actions created in our families, in our communities? What have my (our) actions allowed to go on around us? Are we guilty of pride, deceitfulness, greed, putting our own needs above others needs, disrespecting others with our word and the looks we give, the way we roll our eyes. We often are very lenient on others guilty of the same sins as our own. And then we get what we get...in our own lives, and in our nation.

And if all else fails, we need to pray! As I write that I think that perhaps therein lies the problem - at least mine - we wait to pray until all else fails, and we have created a complete mess. 

So is there any hope? 


Only by humbling ourselves. Only by turning form the things we already know in our hearts are wrong, With humility and asking forgiveness we can obtain from God a goodness and mercy that we do not deserve but receive anyway out of love.


So late in the game, all we can count on is a MIRACLE - and I say that in full sincerity.  Maybe the miracle will be that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, but that, of course, is not likely. Yet the concept of miracles does not imply 'likelihood', it implies 'impossible without supernatural intervention'. But still, the miracle we may have to count on is to be surprised that God is able to work in our nation for our individual and national good through, or in spite of, whoever WE (yes we) vote in as 45th President of the United States.


"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14 

Who are "my people"? The verse implies God's people. but we are 'one nation under God" who have received favor for a long time. A perfect country? of course not, we are made up of people...but a humble nation chooses, and deserves, better than a prideful people!

Be Blessed My Purposeful People, Heather J. Kirk
 
Wearable Art - Heather J Kirk's VIDA Collection: http://shopvida.com/collections/heather-j-kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk http://heather-kirk.pixels.com and http://AEC.pixels.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html

Get a $20 credit when you order from the Munchery for the first time.
Fresh ingredients. Big variety. Pre-measured and ready to prepare, then eat.
www.munchery.com/invite/C6CCYG97

#choice #Clinton #donald #Hillary #humble #humility #miracle #politics #poll #president #responsibility #poll #trump #vote #pray #prayer #hope #bible #2chronicles7:14 #God #nation #miracle #pride #choose #election

A surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"

I couldn't think of another word for 'viable,' for what I wanted to say. And although I have been recently unhappy with Google search results that now seem to favor ads and 'reviews' by anyman, a surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"

I will choose one to comment on here because it too surprised me by going more in depth into the difficulties of overcoming a two- party system, where that system comes from, and interesting psychological studies. Finally, the writer found sound changes a-brewing!

The source is Newsweek on-line:  Why Third-Party Candidates Are Doomed—At Least This Year
By Emily Cadei On 6/1/16 at 12:31 PM  (http://www.newsweek.com/third-party-candidate-2016-465342)

I know, the title doesn't exactly ooze with optimism...nor does it have my word 'viable'. And it's long, but worth finishing, as there is more and more information, instead of more and more repetition (another pet peeve of mine as of late).

One item that is an aside, but surprised me is that Democrats tend to be more urban and Republicans more rural. I guess the bias I have is where I personally come from rather than where the parties as a whole come from, but it is interesting in the context that the stances of the parties, over the long term, have 'switched' several times. The most obvious, and seemingly forgotten, that it was the Republican Party that fought for the abolition of slavery, and the Democratic Governor Wallace of Alabama who set the fire hoses and dogs on Martin Luther King and his partners in non-violence was a Democrat. And now many people of color consider it the Democratic party that speaks for and represents them. With surprising voting choices of both parties in these primaries, perhaps some kind of change is in the not so distant future.

Let me throw out another aside from PBS's American Experience - George Wallace both started out and ended as a "Liberal" embracing integration, but saw it wouldn't win during the Civil Rights era. An opportunist? A Flip flopper? Who knows,but in a history I NEVER heard about, he apologized to African Americans - after an assassination attempt and partial paralysis - and got much of their vote. WOW!   People and Events: George Wallace  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande05.html

Back to the original article commentary by yours truly. Much of voter behavior decision making is tied to a combination of WINNING and SELF - ESTEEM and not what is best for the country overall. They never use the term 'voting your conscience,' possibly because, so the research goes, it rarely happens because psychologically, and especially in more polarized environments - like now - there is a fear of throwing votes away. How 'sad' that my own conscience repeatedly has tossed away votes, apparently in a psychologically aberrant manner with no regard for my own esteem, LOL!

The following paragraphs all the way near the end stood out as really saying something new and indicate and exciting movement! first a process is described that could get us at least not 'afraid' to throw away a vote, and instead vote more with what we believe, or at the very least against what makes us uncomfortable (or cringe). I confess to not being a huge consumer of news, but the following does not seem to be out there and known. In fact even in ths article it is way at the end. Yet, promising for the future.

"There are changes afoot to break down some of these barriers at the state and local level. Cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota; San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley California, now select some local officials via  what’s known as “rank choice voting,” where each voter ranks their top three choices for an office, and if no candidate win a majority of first choice votes on the first ballot, then the number of second and possibly third choices are added in, until someone reaches a majority. That eliminates the concern about “wasting” a vote on an independent candidate, because if they lose in the first round, your votes goes to your second choice pick."

What is nice is that it is not just a 'concept" but being tried in a few places, though not enough to make a difference in 2016.

 "This November, Maine will vote on a ballot initiative that would implement rank choice voting statewide. California, meanwhile, has begun using a nonpartisan voting system for state and congressional contests, in which the top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party, compete in the general election. Other states, like Louisiana, hold run-off elections for state office if no candidate wins a majority in the first round."

The ultimate conclusion is probably true, but not to my liking (do I confess to much...this constant vote thower-wayer?).  "“I think that the dam will break at a certain point,” says Ritchie. “I don’t think it will do it this year.”

Even if the change does not come about this year, perhaps the unhappiness with the results of the current two-party powerhouse, or the surprising power of the supposed outliers (Sanders and Trump), will be exactly what is needed to make the change happen in the future.

The HUGE question seems to be WHO for a third party candidate. Here is my choice, and although she has said she would never run, Condoleezza Rice fits, NoTrump, Bush Money (I know, not necessarily a good thing to be tied to his Presidency and policies), strong foreign policy experience, Conservative Republican with Female and African American as leaven in the bread of hope. How can we convince her to give up that darn “NEVER”.  (A quick Google search says I am not alone in this hope!)

P.S. A resource that goes more into detail on the specifics of trying to create another valid candidate outside of the two party system, even given the green and Libertarian parties existence.

Sorry, Conservatives, It’s Likely Too Late for a Viable Third-Party Candidate. Here's why.
By Carl Zeitz,March 17, 2016 from Politico Magazine www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-donald-trump-third-party-213743  

And for a FASCINATING (yet complex) out of the box thinking sayin it IS possible, let's look to The Federalist, though this article is a little older and may no longer be as valid,These Numbers Say A Third Party Can Win The Presidency by Josiah Peterson  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/these-numbers-say-a-third-party-can-win-the-presidency/

Heather J. Kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk www.heather-kirk.artistwebsites.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html

We know your vote counts - make sure it's logical too!

We know your vote counts - make sure it's logical too!

Political ad writers COUNT ON YOU TO NOT THINK FOR YOURSELF and to not know how your own government works. Here is my rant of the week - not against, or for, any candidate, but about putting on our thinking caps - and knowing what we are talking about before we speak!

An ad against Vernon Parker says he told Tea Partiers he wants to get rid of the Department of Education (yes, he did say this), and therefore Arizona will lose $800 million dollars in educational funding. This is NOT A LOGICAL CONLUSION!

The DOE basically says 'teach what we tell you to, or we won't give you federal money for education. We don't care if you want to teach to the needs of your students and your geographical area. No local control of curriculum allowed." (My own words.)

But if there is no DOE, the DOE can't take away our funding for not doing what the DOE says we have to do. (See how that works...)  So the claim is ILLOGICAL.

Later (not in the ad), it appears that to cover up for this lack of logic, the ad writers say there will be no Pell Grants for college without the DOE. Who says there will be no college grants without a DOE? Not Vernon Parker. In the video quoted, he says that the DOE educational rules have resulted in kids who can't read at a third grade level and don't know history - - responding to charts and a presentation obviously made before he started speaking, about poor test scores, something very few will disagree with.

Clearly the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, creators of the ad, did not learn critical thinking in school either.

Here's a link to a Press Release (not news, but Public Relations), accusations related to the quote, and oddly the entire video of Vernon Parker's speech, which does not support the accusation. I guess they are counting on you to not actually listening. http://azdem.org/news/releases/Vernon_Parker_Cuts_Education_AZ_CD9/

 Heather J. Kirk

Colbert's Call to be Christian

My brother posted the following quote from Stephen Colbert on his Facebook page that quickly garnered a bunch of 'Like's.

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
- Stephen Colbert

Since Colbert is both a comedian and a political pundit, we have to assume that he is exaggerating something (that we as a nation don't give to the poor - look up the numbers, we do) and making a dig at someone (no surprise that his target is the Republican Party).

But let's just step away from all of that, and instead of choosing to point our fingers at the other guy (the other political party, our leaders, the government,, the rich, the poor, the whoever) and realize he has a profound point to be made when it comes to each and every individual.

A Christian nation must include Christian individuals. Each person reading Colbert's quote should ask themselves, "Am I personally giving? Do I care about the poor?" If the answer is, "I'd like to, but I just can't right now..." then we have forgotten the "unconditional" part of God's love, and our own call to be generous.

In spite of what some televangelists would have you believe, Jesus and the disciples were not rich. And they gave - if not of their money (though some did, like Matthew, the former tax collector), then of their time, talents and love.

Let's forget for a moment to point our fingers at the rich, and imply only they should pay their "fair share", what about you? (And yes, I have to ask myself the same.) Are you giving your "fair share" when it comes to helping the needy?

I know that the word 'command' is a dirty word in a democracy, but if the commandment is to love - what's there not to 'Like'!

Heather J. Kirk, Photographer, Author, Graphic Designer."We..." an e-book at: photographicartistry.citymax.com/BooksFind her art at: Artist Websitesand HeatherJKirk.com