John Kerry and JEW HATERS AND ANTI-SEMITES, GET READY TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN

WHO’S OCCUPYING 

Who? 

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." Genesis 15:18-21 (KJV)

by Geoffrey GriderAugust 17, 2016

THE TINY, LITTLE FRACTION OF ISRAEL PROPER THAT THE JEWS HAVE AT THE CURRENT MOMENT PALES IN COMPARISON WITH HOW MUCH GOD SAYS THEY REALLY HAVE.

“For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.” Genesis 13:15 (KJV)

In our day, much is made of the current conflict between Israel and the mythical Palestinians and the seemingly endless battle over who is entitled to how much of the land. People talk about the ownership of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the ever-popular canard called the Two State Solution. But all of these are straw men that obscure the real issue. Not only does all the land of Israel belong to the Jewish people, but way more than the current allotment belongs to them as well.

JEW HATERS AND ANTI-SEMITES, GET READY TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN

“In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” Genesis 15:18-21 (KJV)

For those of you who are not geographical scholars, here is the original land grant God gave to Abraham in bullet points:

• The upper-right portion of Egypt
• All of modern-day Israel
• All of Lebanon
• All of of Syria
• A piece of Turkey
• Half of Iraq
• The northern half of Jordan
• A little slice of Saudi Arabia

Shall we pause while we let that thought sink in for a moment or two? Because that’s how much land rightfully belongs to the Jewish people. If you think of it like a triangle, you go approximately 1,000 miles across the bottom, going from left in Egypt all the way right to Kuwait, up 500 miles to the top in Turkey on the one side, and 500 miles down to the bottom on the other side. You end up where you started in Egypt. That is one massive land grant.

The tiny, little fraction of Israel proper that the Jews have at the current moment pales in comparison with how much God says they really have. They day is coming when they will finally receive the full amount. This will take place during the Millennial Reign of Jesus the Messiah that happens right after the Battle of Armageddon.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4 (KJV)

And speaking of the Battle of Armageddon, the prophet Joel says that one of the main things that sets God off is when the Antichrist and his minions set about to “part the land” which God says belongs to Him.

“For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.” Joel 3:1,2 (KJV)

So when you hear people talking about the Two State Solution, and how they are going to divide Israel and give it to the Palestinians, they are playing with Holy Fire and that fire is getting ready to fall.

How much of Israel belongs to the Jews? All of it, and then some. God’s land grant to Abraham is in perpetuity, and will not only last through the Millennial Reign, it will last throughout all eternity as well.

Am Yisrael Chai.

For Visual Learners: Immigration in Gumballs

Allowing more immigrants into the USA  barely makes a dent and does not get to the root of the misery.  Since hunger is a great motivator for various things illegal, I was thinking that  generous donations; & increased food production with accessibility (teach a man to fish ...) where the desperate masses live would help immensely.  Regarding donations: hubby reminded me of a basic problem in our 3rd world country and in many others:  greed/theft. Many hands got to the till.  As youngsters we were occasionally direct recipients of the US' generosity. I was grateful, but knew that the quantity was a  trickle by the time it got to my sack. Government workers, politicians, dock workers, teachers, nuns, et al, also had their cut of the bounty.  

[God] Give us help from trouble: 

for vain is the help of man.- Psalm 60

Hanukkah and Christmas are celebrated on the same date in 2016

Hanukkah and Christmas are celebrated on the same date this year.

Jesus Celebrated Hanukkah

The Lord Jesus observed the celebration of Hanukkah in the Temple during the winter of AD 29 (?) (Jn 10:22–39). Just prior to this account in John 10, the Apostle John gives two “illustrations” (10:6) of Jesus as the Good Shepherd (10:1–5 and 10:7–10) and records Jesus’ interpretation of these parables (10:11–18).

The Jewish reader would immediately pick up the messianic connotation of this discourse. The Davidic Messiah would be a Shepherd (Ezek 34).

As Jesus walked thorough Solomon’s porch on the east side of the Temple enclosure, some Jews approached Him and asked Him point-blank, “Are you the Messiah?” (10:24). Jesus had to be careful how He answered that question. During the festival, throngs of Jews, caught up in the nationalistic fever, were visiting Jerusalem. The word “Messiah” might spark off riots because of its heavy nationalistic and political overtones.

Roman intelligence, headquartered in the Antonia’s Fortress to the northwest of the Temple, was aware of a popular song entitled “A Psalm of Solomon, with Song, to the King.” In this song, composed during the mid-first century BC by a Pharisee, the Messiah was acknowledged as King and a Davidic ruler that would reign forever. He describes how the latter Hasmonean rulers led the people away from Torah, and how the Romans under the leadership of Pompey punished the people in 63 BC. The Pharisee prays that the Lord will raise up a king, the Son of David, to rule over Israel. In so doing, this king would “destroy the unrighteous rulers,” “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles,” “drive out the sinners,” “smash the arrogance of sinners,” and “destroy the unlawful nations”! Their king, the Lord Messiah, would do all this! (Psalm of Solomon 17).

If Jesus had answered the question “yes,” the Roman authorities would have arrested Him on the spot for insurrection. Jesus does, however, answer the question in the affirmative, but not directly. When He answers, He is careful not to use the contemporary term and understanding. After pointing out the security that a believer in the Lord Jesus has because of faith in Him, He says, “I and My Father are one!” (10:30). That statement had heavy religious overtones for the festival which they were presently celebrating. Those gathered on the Temple Mount recalled the events nearly 200 years before on the very mount where Antiochus IV, a mere man, proclaimed himself to be god. Jesus, God manifest in human flesh, made the same claim—but His claim was true. The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because, in their thinking, He was a man who made Himself out to be God (10:31–33). Jesus declared that He was the fulfillment of Hanukkah by saying the Father “sanctified” the Son of God and sent Him into the world (10:34–36). The Father was in Him and He in the Father (10:38). If the Greek word “sanctified” were translated into Hebrew, it would be “dedication” or Hanukkah!

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body (2:19–21).

A wicked and corrupt priesthood had defiled Herod’s Temple. The sinless Lord Jesus was “sanctified” by His death, burial and resurrection and is the New Temple.

The Apostle John selected “signs” (miracles) and events when he penned his gospel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to convey two purposes (20:30, 31). The first was to present the deity of the Lord Jesus. John skillfully selects the Hanukkah event because of the festival impact on the crowd. In contrast to the arrogant and blasphemous statement by Antiochus IV, Jesus truly is God manifest in human flesh. The second purpose was to challenge people to put their trust (believe) in the Lord Jesus Christ as the One who died for their sins and rose again from the dead. When they trust Him, God gives them the gift of eternal life, forgiveness of sins and a home in Heaven. There seems to be a marked contrast between the response of the Jews on the Temple Mount (10:37–39) and those “beyond the Jordan” who believed on Him (10:40–42). What is your response? Have you trusted the One who is the fulfillment of Hanukkah?

Happy Hanukkah!

-- W.P. 

What is the Meaning of Om Telolet Om

Thousands of comments, most of foreign origin, on Mr Trump's instagram  post are written thus. I felt alarmed. It sounded rude (as if referring to a toilet) and/or malicious. This is what came up in answer to my translate request.  

"Om Telolet Om "

--- > What does Om Telolet Om mean

In Defense of the Electoral College

... Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. 

It's a stabilizing force for our democracy, even if you didn't like the results of last month's election.

By Allen Guelzo and James Hulme 

About the authors 

Protesters demonstrate against President-elect Donald Trump outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Nov. 13. (Mark Makela/Getty Images)

There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the electoral college. And when a presidential election hands the palm to a candidate who comes in second in the popular vote but first in the electoral college tally, something deep in our democratic viscera balks and asks why the electoral college shouldn’t be dumped as a useless relic of 18th century white, gentry privilege.

Actually, there have been only five occasions when a closely divided popular vote and the electoral vote have failed to point in the same direction. No matter. After last week’s results, we’re hearing a litany of complaints: the electoral college is undemocratic, the electoral college is unnecessary, the electoral college was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push it down the memory hole.

All of which is strange because the electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism. The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided. The great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that “if we are to establish a national Government,” the president should be chosen by a direct, national vote of the people. But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy. “An independence of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.” Sherman was not trying to undermine the popular will, but to keep it from being distorted by a president who mistook popular election as a mandate for dictatorship.

Quarrels like this flared all through the convention, until, at almost the last minute, James Madison “took out a Pen and Paper, and sketched out a mode of Electing the President” by a “college” of “Electors … chosen by those of the people in each State, who shall have the Qualifications requisite.”

The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation. It prescribes in precise detail how “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”; how these electors “shall vote by Ballot” for a president and vice president; how they “shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate” the results of their balloting; how a tie vote must be resolved; what schedule the balloting should follow; and on and on.

Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Some historians have branded the electoral college this way because each state’s electoral votes are based on that “whole Number of Senators and Representatives” from each State, and in 1787 the number of those representatives was calculated on the basis of the infamous 3/5ths clause. But the electoral college merely reflected the numbers, not any bias about slavery (and in any case, the 3/5ths clause was not quite as proslavery a compromise as it seems, since Southern slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 5/5ths for determining representation in Congress, and had to settle for a whittled-down fraction). As much as the abolitionists before the Civil War liked to talk about the “proslavery Constitution,” this was more of a rhetorical posture than a serious historical argument. And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery.

If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.

Yet, even on those terms, it is hard for Americans to escape the uncomfortable sense that, by inserting an extra layer of “electors” between the people and the president, the electoral college is something less than democratic. But even if we are a democratic nation, that is not all we are. The Constitution also makes us a federal union, and the electoral college is pre-eminently both the symbol and a practical implementation of that federalism.

The states of the union existed before the Constitution, and in a practical sense, existed long before the revolution. Nothing guaranteed that, in 1776, the states would all act together, and nothing that guaranteed that after the Revolution they might not go their separate and quarrelsome ways, much like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century. The genius of the Constitutional Convention was its ability to entice the American states into a “more perfect union.” But it was still a union of states, and we probably wouldn’t have had a constitution or a country at all unless the route we took was federalism.

The electoral college was an integral part of that federal plan. It made a place for the states as well as the people in electing the president by giving them a say at different points in a federal process and preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Abolishing the electoral college now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and further along, no sense even in having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college ought to go the distance, and do away with the entire federal system and perhaps even retire the Constitution, since the federalism it was designed to embody would have disappeared.

None of that, ironically, is liable to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of the government. But more important, the electoral college actually keeps presidential elections from going undemocratically awry because it makes unlikely the possibility that third-party candidates will garner enough votes to make it onto the electoral scoreboard.

Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.

The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate. It may appear inefficient. But the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing “the blessings of liberty.” The electoral college is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.

Link to Nov 15th article here

Your Choice: Be Ridiculously Likeable or Darn Irritating

Too many people succumb to the mistaken belief that being likable comes from natural, unteachable traits that belong only to a lucky few — the good looking, the fiercely social, and the incredibly talented. It’s easy to fall prey to this misconception.

When I speak to smaller audiences, I often ask them to describe the most likable people they have ever worked with. People inevitably ignore innate characteristics (intelligence, extraversion, attractiveness, and so on) and instead focus on qualities that are completely under people’s control, such as approachability, humility, and positivity.

These qualities, and others like them, describe people who are skilled in emotional intelligence (EQ). TalentSmart research data from more than a million people shows that people who possess these skills aren’t just highly likable, they outperform those who don’t by a large margin. Ninety percent of top performers have high EQs, people with high EQs make $29,000 more annually than people with low EQs, and a single-point increase in your emotional intelligence adds $1,300 to your salary. I could go on and on.

Being likable is under your control, and it’s a matter of emotional intelligence. Unlike innate, fixed characteristics, such as your intelligence (IQ), EQ is a flexible skill that you can improve with effort.

To help you improve your EQ, I did some digging to uncover the key behaviors that emotionally intelligent people engage in that make them so likable.

1. They are genuine. Being genuine and honest is essential to being likable. No one likes a fake. People gravitate toward those who are genuine because they know they can trust them. It is difficult to like someone when you don’t know who they really are and how they really feel.

Likable people know who they are. They are confident enough to be comfortable in their own skin. By concentrating on what drives you and makes you happy as an individual, you become a much more interesting person than if you attempt to win people over by making choices that you think will make them like you.

2. They ask thoughtful questions. The biggest mistake people make when it comes to listening is they’re so focused on what they’re going to say next or how what the other person is saying is going to affect them that they fail to hear what’s being said. The words come through loud and clear, but the meaning is lost. A simple way to avoid this is to ask a lot of questions. People like to know you’re listening, and something as simple as a clarification question shows that not only are you listening, you also care about what they’re saying. You’ll be surprised how much respect and appreciation you gain just by asking questions.

3. They don’t pass judgment. If you want to be likable you must be open-minded. Being open-minded makes you approachable and interesting to others. No one wants to have a conversation with someone who has already formed an opinion and is not willing to listen.

Having an open mind is crucial in the workplace where approachability means access to new ideas and help. To eliminate preconceived notions and judgment, you need to see the world through other people’s eyes. This doesn’t require you believe what they believe or condone their behavior, it simply means you quit passing judgment long enough to truly understand what makes them tick. Only then can you let them be who they are.

4. They don’t seek attention. People are averse to those who are desperate for attention. You don’t need to develop a big, extroverted personality to be likable. Simply being friendly and considerate is all you need to win people over. When you speak in a friendly, confident, and concise manner, you will notice that people are much more attentive and persuadable than if you try to show them you’re important. People catch on to your attitude quickly and are more attracted to the right attitude than what—or how many people—you know.

When you’re being given attention, such as when you’re being recognized for an accomplishment, shift the focus to all the people who worked hard to help you get there. This may sound cliché, but if it’s genuine, the fact that you pay attention to others and appreciate their help will show that you’re appreciative and humble—two adjectives that are closely tied to likability.

5. They are consistent. Few things make you more unlikable than when you’re all over the place. When people approach you, they like to know whom they’re dealing with and what sort of response they can expect. To be consistent you must be reliable, and you must ensure that even when your mood goes up and down it doesn’t affect how you treat other people.

6. They use positive body language. Becoming cognizant of your gestures, expressions, and tone of voice (and making certain they’re positive) will draw people to you like ants to a picnic. Using an enthusiastic tone, uncrossing your arms, maintaining eye contact, and leaning towards the person who’s speaking are all forms of positive body language that high-EQ people use to draw others in. Positive body language can make all the difference in a conversation.

It’s true that how you say something can be more important than what you say.

7. They leave a strong first impression. Research shows most people decide whether or not they like you within the first seven seconds of meeting you. They then spend the rest of the conversation internally justifying their initial reaction. This may sound terrifying, but by knowing this you can take advantage of it to make huge gains in your likability. First impressions are tied intimately to positive body language. Strong posture, a firm handshake, smiling, and opening your shoulders to the person you are talking to will help ensure that your first impression is a good one.

8. They greet people by name. Your name is an essential part of your identity, and it feels terrific when people use it. Likable people make certain they use others’ names every time they see them. You shouldn’t use someone’s name only when you greet him. Research shows that people feel validated when the person they’re speaking with refers to them by name during a conversation.

If you’re great with faces but have trouble with names, have some fun with it and make remembering people’s names a brain exercise. When you meet someone, don’t be afraid to ask her name a second time if you forget it right after you hear it. You’ll need to keep her name handy if you’re going to remember it the next time you see her.

9. They smile. People naturally (and unconsciously) mirror the body language of the person they’re talking to. If you want people to like you, smile at them during a conversation and they will unconsciously return the favor and feel good as a result.

10. They know who to touch (and they touch them). When you touch someone during a conversation, you release oxytocin in their brain, a neurotransmitter that makes their brain associate you with trust and a slew of other positive feelings. A simple touch on the shoulder, a hug, or a friendly handshake is all it takes to release oxytocin. Of course, you have to touch the right person in the right way to release oxytocin, as unwanted or inappropriate touching has the opposite effect. Just remember, relationships are built not just from words, but also from general feelings about each other. Touching someone appropriately is a great way to show you care.

11. They balance passion and fun. People gravitate toward those who are passionate. That said, it’s easy for passionate people to come across as too serious or uninterested because they tend to get absorbed in their work. Likable people balance their passion with the ability to have fun. At work they are serious, yet friendly. They still get things done because they are socially effective in short amounts of time and they capitalize on valuable social moments. They minimize small talk and gossip and instead focus on having meaningful interactions with their coworkers. They remember what you said to them yesterday or last week, which shows that you’re just as important to them as their work.

Bringing It All Together

Likable people are invaluable and unique. They network with ease, promote harmony in the workplace, bring out the best in everyone around them, and generally seem to have the most fun. Add these skills to your repertoire and watch your likability soar!

Please share your thoughts in the comments section, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

Follow Dr. Travis Bradberry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/talentsmarteq


First impressions: likeable lady pictured at top; 
the spoilt "child" below elicits a shudder from me, eeeek!

*************************************************************

Kellogg's: I am on the lookout for subs

In summary:  As long as you sell what my family consumes, uses, needs, wants, or enjoys, I have no qualms about purchasing your product. I refuse to feel  any guilt. I will leave it up to God to judge YOU (as He will judge ME) in what you do with my hard-earned money. However, if you blatantly and very publicly despise what I cherish, censor Conservatives; and I come to find out what you DO spend money on, then my ignorance is no longer bliss. It's time to say: Good Riddance ... Adios ... Farewell ... Au Revoir ... GoodBye... Ciao... Hasta La Vista ... get-out-of-here ... NO-thank-you, baby!

PS:  As if I weren't busy enough already.  Now, I'll have to devote time to finding replacements for the products below, especially our faves:  Pop-Tarts and Rice Krispies
😞

Some of Kelloggs' products: 

• Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes®
• Kellogg’s® Nutri-Grain®
• Pop-Tarts®
• Rice Krispies®
• Cheez-It
• Kashi
• Eggo®
• Frosted Mini-Wheats®
• Cocoa Krispies
• Morningstar Farms
• Famous Amos
• Kellogg’s Corn Flakes®
• Kellogg’s Honey Smacks® cereal
• Corn Pops®
• Mother’s Cookies
• Keebler Company
• Smart Start®
• Froot Loops™
• Kellogg’s Raisin Bran®
• Low Fat Granola
• Fruit Flavored Snacks
• Apple Jacks®
• Cracklin’ Oat Bran®
• Mueslix®
• Smart Start®
• Smorz
• Kellogg’s Raisin Bran®
• Krave
• Crispix®
• All-Bran®
• Apple Jacks®
• Crunchmania

A few articles/Links 

AdWeek: Kellogg's Damaged on Social Media

Kellogg Co. declares war on 45,000,000 Conservatives

W.K. Kellogg Foundation and George Soros

W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Far-Left Agenda

Kellogg Cereal Company and Racism

via breitbart

Twisted Logic is Why We Lost the Election: Written by a Gay Democrat

I'm a Democrat but Clinton staffer Jennifer Palmieri's twisted logic is exactly why we lost

By Bryan Dean Wright

 Published December 08, 2016

 FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print

FILE -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H.  (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

(bold text below by yours truly)

In an opinion article published this week, the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s campaign – Jennifer Palmieri – highlighted a small electoral victory that ironically captured the reason for my party’s ultimate defeat. “As I like to note, Clinton received more votes for president than any white man in history,” she crowed.

Got it. White men bad, women good.

In Palmieri’s political world, she believes that we can cruise to electoral dominance if we build a coalition of voters based on identity politics. In other words, if Democrats can get a particular slice of Americans to the polls – women, Jews, ethnic minorities, gay men and lesbians  – we will win.

The idea for this dates back most famously to 2004 when political experts John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority.” They convinced my party that hard data – demographic, geographic, economic, and political data – forecasted the dawn of a new progressive era.

They argued that there was a massive wave of Democratic voters in the country’s urban areas just waiting to support the party, and would do so for generations to come.

In short, we couldn’t lose. We just needed to better organize these various categories of people and inspire them to show up on Election Day.

Unfortunately for my fellow Democrats – and the country – these political experts made a series of bad assumptions that has proven disastrous.

First, they assumed that each category of people was largely homogenous. For instance, people like Palmieri would make the case that all gay men are basically the same.  

Next, the experts came up with policy solutions and related messaging to cater to a category’s specific needs. Again, gay men would likely respond to increased funding for HIV/AIDS research, so that’s what was pushed in gay-friendly media outlets.

With those two pieces in the bag, the actual candidate running for office was important but not terribly so, provided that she or he stuck to the script. And so that was our approach taken in 2016; Clinton was anointed as our nominee. Voters didn’t need to like her.

Pre-election polls seemed to support this strategy. The liberal Huffington Post put her chances of winning at 98 percent. My friends in the Democratic National Committee started jockeying for positions at the White House last summer.

And then, on November 9, America woke up to President-elect Donald Trump.

As a shell-shocked campaign and party struggled for answers – coming up with a litany of excuses – they missed the obvious: successful campaigns are built on candidates first, policies second, and coalitions of voters last. We had it completely backwards.  

I will offer up myself as an example. By all measures in Palmieri’s playbook, I should have pulled the lever for Hillary Clinton. I’m a Democrat and voted for President Obama twice. I’ve got a college education and, for years, I lived in big cities. I support renewable energy instead of foreign oil. I’m also gay and have faced discrimination throughout my life.

Slam dunk for Team Clinton? Not so fast.

I was – and remain – appalled at her vote in Iraq that sent 4,491 servicemen and women to their deaths.

Equally egregious, she bragged about killing Libya’s dictator despite him no longer being a threat to our country. The result of that fiasco? Dead soldiers and Ambassador in Benghazi, a new safe haven for the Islamic State, and a refugee crisis that threatens Europe’s stability to this day.

In sum, she pushed for wars without reason; she lacked the judgment to be commander in chief.

To the horror of my party, it turns out that I think critically. I do not follow the party line. Moreover, the Clinton campaign profoundly misunderstood my identity. I am an American first, a family man second, and a Democrat third. My sexual orientation is deeply important but it does not dictate how I vote.

After wrestling with what to do on Election Day, I decided on Gary Johnson; I couldn’t stomach Clinton and didn’t trust Trump. In fact, I still don’t. But the American people chose differently. Whether I like it or not, Donald Trump will be the president of the United States in just over a month.

It is now my solemn duty to follow the example I learned at the Central Intelligence Agency: salute my flag and commander in chief irrespective of my party affiliation, all while staying true to those Democratic values that I hold dear.

I will not whine or protest. I will not demand a recount. Instead, I will encourage people to support President Trump as their conscience allows, and oppose him respectfully and fairly where they cannot. We owe him the chance to succeed. That’s how adults behave in a democracy.

To Palmieri and Democrats who think like her, I urge our party to reconsider our embrace of identity politics. Most Americans simply do not care that Secretary Clinton won more votes than any other white man. It’s an offensive and intellectually lazy argument to make.

We will not be falsely divided into a nation of neat categories. If you cannot accept that, then please go away. And take your fellow ideologues with you.

If, however, you can accept this new direction, we can once again make our case to the American people – white, black, and brown; gay and straight; Christian and Muslim; rural and urban – that we are a party worthy of their vote.

The country deserves a faithful opposition, and that requires a credible voice to hold Trump accountable. Unless we ditch identity politics and stop whining, we will not be taken seriously. Instead, we will be stuck at the edge of an electoral abyss. 

Bryan Dean Wright is a former CIA ops officer and member of the Democratic Party. He contributes on issues of politics, national security, and the economy. Follow him on Twitter @BryanDeanWright.

---- >> LINK