Is Trump Correct — Putin a “Stronger” Leader than Obama?


Poor Democrats.  They hang on to every word spoken by Donald Trump hoping to catch something they can exploit.  A recent episode involved Trump saying they Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in Russia than Barack Obama has been in the United States.  Trump also said that he doesn’t like the Russian form of government.1  Nevertheless, the Democrats are ignoring that last comment and staunchly maintain that Putin was being complimented by Trump as they rush to defend the “savior” of our nation.2

But we’ll go along with the Democrats, disregard the important qualifier and stick to analyzing the “stronger” part.

Yes,  Putin  Does  Get  His  Way

When it comes to national leaders, “strong” implies getting what you want.  Putin has pushed his weight around by withholding important natural gas to several countries.3  He has also acquired the Crimea unjustly and is taking advantage of Obama’s unwillingness to enforce the infamous “red line in the sand” in Syria by doing whatever he feels like.4

Score one for Trump.

….  But  So  Did  Obama  with  “Obamacare”

So, has Obama been denied at home? Sadly, very rarely.

He was able to have “Obamacare” approved by Congress even though its chief proponents admittedly didn’t know much about it.5  This legislation controls the health industry which is 1/6 of our entire economy!6  That qualifies as a major impact.  Sorry, one point against Trump.

Oh, by the way, since Obama got his way on this one, insurance companies are losing money and pulling out of many states.7  Premiums  are skyrocketing even though the President said they would decrease.  Many are losing their doctors and even insurance coverage — something the President promised would not happen.8

Obama has been very strong in this issue… The trouble is, it has also made our nation weaker with regard to insurance and health care. Hmm, looks like being a strong leader can be very detrimental.

Pushed  Common  Core  with  Misleading  Origins  and  Purpose

With his administration’s support, Common Core has made intrusions into many states education under the guise of being “developed by the teachers and the states” when it wasn’t.9  It also claims to raise education standards when it’s really a disguised opportunity for social engineering.10

Yes, Obama has a strong administration whose apparent goal is for a less informed electorate which means a more impressionable and vulnerable citizenry.

We have been warned about this.

“Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.” –Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.”11

Sure, Obama is stronger, but it makes our future weaker. Trump missed this one, too, but we don’t gain from it.

Then  There’s  the  Benghazi  Lie  Many  Believed

The President, along with Hillary Clinton’s cooperation, made enough people believe the lie that  Benghazi was a result of a video.  This helped to protect his thinning lead in the 2012 election by covering up his faulty assertion that he was defeating terrorism.  Yes, a very strong-willed leader who makes it more dangerous for U.S. citizens abroad.  This is a good thing, Democrats?

Federal  Debt  Driven  to  Perilous  Heights

Obama called George W. Bush unpatriotic for the $4.3 trillion increase in the federal debt during his two terms — yet Obama has pushed the debt $9 trillion12 and his adoring supporters say he’s doing a fine job as President.  Obama’s not just strong, he’s stiff-arming our entire country into insolvency!

Other  Examples  of  Obaminations

We can skip the disgraceful fact that Obama likes to deny that there are: problems with the Veterans Administration, examples of unethical behavior toward conservatives by the IRS, racist motivations in the agenda of Black Lives Matter, etc. etc. which prove that Trump was wrong.

Obama is a strong leader who is taking our nation to even new lows.

Hillary’s  Stiff-Arming  is  Legendary,  Too

We should not despair.  If elected, Hillary Clinton will continue the same “strong leader” philosophy.  She has a long track record to prove this. Highlights include stiff-arming those women who accused her President husband of improprieties to the background.13

She was instrumental in securing the 2012 election for her political rival Obama via the Benghazi travesty.

Approximately 55% of her non-governmental visitors to the State Department were Clinton foundation contributors.14  That’s knowing how to take care of personal business with national impact.

Of course, her crowning achievement is the maneuvering she and husband Bill pulled off to make FBI Director James Comey petrified of indicting her.  And we can’t forget Hillary Clinton’s influence  with Attorney General Loretta Young who arbitrarily decided not to follow the advice of three FBI groups to investigate her further.  Obama and Ms. Clinton are seriously strong.

Putin  Doesn’t  Have  the  Patent  on  Strong-Armed  Leadership… Unfortunately

It’s now obvious that “strong” does not always mean “good” just as “change” doesn’t always mean “improvement.”

Vladimir Putin and his Soviet ancestors (excluding the respectable Mikhail Gorbachev) might actually consider it a compliment being associated with those two.



1 – “Mike Pence defends Donald Trump comments on Vladimir Putin: ‘inarguable’,” by Tal Kopan,, 9/9/2016.

2 – “In the pre-recorded program that was broadcast Sunday night on BET, Foxx urges the audience to ‘first of all, give an honor to God — and our Lord and savior, Barack Obama!’”
“The audience responds with cheers as Foxx shouts the president’s name again and urges them to ‘stand up.’  From “Jamie Foxx takes heat for calling Obama ‘our Lord and Savior’” by Isaac Brekken,, 11/27/2012.

3 – “Concern about a European energy crisis stems from the disputebetween Russia and Ukraine over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This prompted Moscow to halt gas supplies to Ukraine in June and talks to settle the dispute have since broken down…”

“Reports claim Russian gas deliveries to Poland dropped by 45 per cent on Wednesday, the third day of decreases.”

“Russia has this week, by threatening to reduce exports to the EU, to prevent ‘reverse flows’ to Ukraine, meaning Ukraine may be forced to siphon off gas flowing through the country to European destinations. Against this backdrop, analysts fear Russia could halt all supplies to and through the Ukraine as in 2006 and 2009…”

“Finland is the next most at-risk because it gets all of its gas from Russia and has no other supply options, while Poland, Turkey and Bulgaria are the next most exposed, according to a new report from Cologne University’s Institute of Energy Economics.”

From “Fear over Russian gas switch-off sees EU states stockpile supplies,” by Tom Bawden,, 9/11/2014.

4 – “Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Tuesday said President Obama damaged U.S. credibility, when he decided not to take military action against Syrian leader Bashar Assad, despite drawing a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons.”

From “Panetta: Obama’s ‘red line’ on Syria damaged US credibility,” by Justin Sink,, 10/7/2014.

5 – “Pelosi adds: ‘But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.’”
From “Texas GOP says Speaker Nancy Pelosi said people will know contents of terrible health-care plan after it passes,” by W. Gardner Selby,, 3/15/2010.

6 – “The increase will bump up the health share of the economy from 17.5 percent in 2014…”
From “Health Care Expenditures Heading Toward 20 Percent of Economy,” by Caitlin Owens,, 7/13/2016.

7 – “On Monday evening, Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, announced it is pulling out of the Obamacare insurance exchanges in 11 of the 15 states it currently operates.  According to Business Insider, Aetna ‘determined that the nearly $300 million in pretax loss it was sustaining on an annual basis was not worth the business.’ Which is an understatement, to put it mildly.”

“Two other top-five insurers already announced plans to pull out of Obamacare earlier this year.  In July, Humana said that next year it ‘will only offer individual plans in 156 counties in 11 states, down from 1,351 counties across 19 states this year.’  And the CEO of the nation’s largest insurer, United Healthcare, announced in April ‘we will remain in only a handful of states.’  United Healthcare had previously said that it lost $475 million last year on its policies in the Obamacare exchanges.”  From “After $300 Million Loss, Another Major Insurer Pulls Out Of Obamacare,” by Mark Hemingway,, 8/16/2016.

8 – “’If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,’ President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.”

“But the promise was impossible to keep.”
“So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.”
From “Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’,” by Angie Drobnic Holan,, 12/12/2013.

9 – “Common Core claims that “The federal government was NOT involved in the development of the standards.”  Technically, yes, but that’s a half-truth to be discussed later in this section. Nevertheless, the CCSS also did not come from the states as implied.

According to Diane Ravitch, former assistant U.S. secretary of education under presidents George H. W. Bush and Clinton:

“They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of Common Core.  Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.”

 From “Common Core: Slingshot to Progress or Spider Web? Part 2 of 5 [Creation of the Standards and Comparison with those of the States],”  by Tony Rubio and posted by the Ohio Conservative Review,, 3/17/2015.

10 – “Finally, the gravity of the CCSS movement is described by an Arizona teacher (Brad McQueen, 5th grade) who was asked by his state’s board of education to participate in CCSS review in Chicago of the ELA standards. It’s what could be called a modern day version of “thought-crime” — a mere thirty years after Orwell’s book.

“‘My turning point came when in answer to questions I had about a student writing sample, my Common Core handler blurted out, “We don’t ever care what the kids’ opinions are. If they write what they think or put forth their opinion then they will fail the test.””

“‘I have always taught my students to think for themselves. They are to study multiple views on a given topic, then take their own position and support it with evidence. “That is the old way of writing, “my Common Core handler sighed. “We want students to repeat the opinions of the ‘experts’ that we expose them to on the test. This is the ‘new’ way of writing with the Common Core.’”

“‘I discovered later that this was not just some irritated, rogue Common Core handler, rather this was a philosophy I heard repeated again and again. I pointed out that this was not the way that teachers teach in the classroom. She retorted that, “We expect that when the test comes out the teachers in the classroom will imitate the skills emphasized on the test (teach to the test) and employ this new way of writing and thinking.’”This was a complete kick in the stomach moment for me.’”

“The Left’s agenda is coming through loud and clear.”

From “Common Core: Slingshot to Progress or Spider Web? Part 4 of 5 [The probability of a national curriculum and a not-so-hidden agenda],” by Tony Rubio, posted 3/21/2015 on the Ohio Conservative Review,


12 –

13 – “’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women,” by Amy Chozick,, 1/20/2016.

14 – “Hillary camp launches desperate ‘cherry-picking’ defense after her calendars reveal Clinton Foundation donors got face-time when she was secretary of state, “ by David Martosko,, 8/24/2016.


Arizona’s S.B. 1062 Aims at Restoring Diminishing Freedom of Religion, An Inalienable Right

It’s strange how it’s OK to trash an inalienable right in order to legitimize a politicized cause which is contrary to that right.  It’s also strange how much support there is for the 67-year old distortion of our nation’s philosophy of “separation of church and state” which disregards its original intent explained by Thomas Jefferson 212 years ago.   In both cases, the wisdom of the original exceeds that of the “enlightened.” 

Arizona’s S.B. 1062 recognizes that freedom of religion is a legitimate right for everyone, not just for religious institutions.  This bill’s also restores some of the true meaning of “separation of church and state” which is being forgotten rapidly. 

That people might misuse religious belief as a shield to behave uncharitably is not an invalidation of the inalienable right.  Misdeeds can also be addressed with legislation, but the inalienable right cannot be suspended until all misuses are dealt with.  It would be like shutting down newspapers, radio, television and the internet until all means of criminal use were identified and controlled.     

 Original  “Separation  of  Church  and  State”  vs.  Supreme  Court’s  Misdirection

The Danbury Baptist Association wrote President Jefferson early in his first term expressing their concern that their minority status within the state would lead to laws being written which would be unfair to them.  On January 1, 1802, he attempted to calm their fears when he wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” 

 The logic of his response was clearly understood until it was side-swiped by our Supreme Court in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education with:  “The First Amendment has created a wall between church and state.  That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” 

Since then, laws and policies have been affected.  We have gone from our government merely not establishing an official religion or showing favoritism to one or more, to a climate where the state is viewed as superior to the church whenever an apparent conflict arises. 

 What  S.B. 1062  Protects

The bill is not a new legislative creation for allowing unfair treatment of people under the guise of religious belief.  It would amend existing sections of Arizona’s revised statutes regarding the “free exercise of religion.”1 

 It clarifies the state’s definition of “religious exercise” as follows (additions in capitals, deletions with lines through):

 “’Exercise of religion’ means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF

9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner

10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is

11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”1

It removes an unnecessary requirement that a government must be a party such a proceeding. 

”D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this

18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial

19 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF



S.B. 1062 also corrects the originally restrictive language as to whose religious beliefs are to be protected.

“5. ‘Person’ includes a religious assembly or institution ANY



S.B. 1062  Does  Not  Invite  Mistreatment

An article in yesterday’s Arizona Republic stated that “Contrary to the voices that oppose protecting religious freedom for all Arizonans, Senate Bill 1062 and House Bill 2153, which were approved last week, will not allow people to do ‘whatever they want’ in the name of religion” because the states may balance their interests against sincerely held religious beliefs. For example, the state can still outlaw murder even if someone claimed that his religious beliefs allowed for it.

1062’s  Critical  Definition  and  Beliefs  Cannot be  Separated  from  Actions

Our nation’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was signed into law by President Clinton and became effective on November 16, 1993.3  It applies only to the federal government.  States may enact their own version. 

However, “Arizona’s RFRA, as it currently stands, does not contain the necessary specificity regarding who can use RFRA for protection if the government discriminates against them because of their religious faith.”3 

The authors go on to caution about the hazards of legal ambiguity by citing the well-known case involving a New Mexico photographer who refused to photograph two homosexual women’s “commitment ceremony,” not because of inherent bigotry toward the women, but because it would be her endorsement of something contrary to her beliefs about marriage.  The two women found another photographer to accommodate them, but they sued the first photographer anyway and won. 

As the authors noted, the crucial point was that:

“the ambiguity in New Mexico’s RFRA, like Arizona’s current one, allowed the New Mexico Supreme Court to hand down a strained interpretation that actually distinguished between Elaine as a photographer and Elaine as a small-business owner.”2

A person’s inherent beliefs and actions are inseparable, unless one wishes to be hypocritical a la Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, et al.
Outcry  Against  S.B. 1062  Tries  to  Divert  Attention  from  the  Real  Issues had a clip from Channel 12 News airing views on the bill, including these: 

Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce expressed the concern that S.B. 1062 was “bad for business” and is “not good for the state’s image.”  The effects on business can go both ways as Arizona State Senator Al Melvin of Tucson reminded.  If this bill were to be vetoed, “what if people of faith stop moving to Arizona?”2    

Unfortunately, Mr. Hamer could be correct if the 1960s philosophy that moral standards are subjective and unimportant prevails.  As far as the “state’s image” is concerned, he’s not taking into account the manywho respect the strength of courage to do what is right.

The clip had a quote from George Takei, actor and “gay” rights activist.  He said that he, his “husband,” and others would boycott Arizona if this bill is signed into law.  He voiced his outrage: “The law is breathtaking in its scope. It gives bigotry against us gays and lesbians a powerful and unprecedented weapon,” said Takei. “But your mean-spirited representatives and senators know this.”  However, Arizona state representative John Kavanagh (R-8th District) exposes such exaggerations with:  “If that same gay couple came in for a passport photo, there is not a substantial burden upon your religion and you could not use this law to do that.”2        

There was a sign chiding supporters of S.B. 1062 to “love thy neighbor”2 – a classic “motherhood” statement which no one would dare question on the surface.  However, if they were well-formed, they would know that “hating the sin, but loving the sinner” also means not enabling him in this life.

Reasons  for  Gov.  Brewer  to  Sign  Arizona  S.B. 1062  into  Law

1)   This bill clearly states what many laws, including the HHS mandate (Obamacare), fail to recognize:  that the INDIVIDUAL is endowed with the (inalienable) right of freedom of religion and that includes being able live one’s life outside of the church building in accordance with those beliefs.

2)  The “separation of church and state” was never intended to be what it is viewed today.  This Arizona law only reaffirms what our founding fathers understood that freedom of religion is not something that can be granted by or taken away by the government. 

As Daniel L. Dreisbach reminds us: “the expansive concept of ‘separation’ was distinct from the institutional concept of ‘non-establishment.’”  In addition, he wrote, “the very nature of a wall further reconceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion, unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government.”

3)  Freedom of religion cannot be curtailed just because some may abuse it.  And just because the President decided to leave the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unprotected, the states retain the right to preserve marriage and other concepts not recognized by the federal government.

4)  In earlier times of our nation, defending the practice of religion would not have been necessary because citizens understood their place with regard to Natural Law and to a Higher Authority.  After five decades of relativistic humanism, what should be obvious must be reaffirmed.

John Kavanagh put it concisely, “If you were trying to sue or prosecute a Roman Catholic priest who wouldn’t officiate a gay marriage, this law would protect (him).”2

5)   Ultimately, “This bill is about protecting people who want to freely live out their faith in business and the government can’t coerce them to violate their conscience as a condition of being in business.”
(Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom)2 

If these reasons are considered to be archaic, then religious persecution is the next logical step.


1 – from

2 – “SB 1062 opponents are putting Arizona at risk,” by Joseph La Rue and Kerri Kupec, Arizona Republic, 2/24/2014

– Wikipedia

4 – “The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy and Discourse,” Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil. (Oxford University) and J.D. (University of Virginia), is a Professor of Justice, Law, and Society at American University in Washington, D.C, The Heritage