Donald Trump and the Republican Party


by William Phifer

The Republican Party and their “Tea Party” movement have created more chaos, civil disorder, political, religious and racial divisiveness, and a propensity for encouraging ignorance more than any other organization in the United States within the last two centuries. In recent years, “Tea Party” candidates have been successful, particularly in “red” states. This has allowed the “Tea Party” movement to gain momentum and influence, particularly during the off-year elections of 2010 and 2014.

The Republican Party has allowed the “Tea Party” movement to dictate and symbolize what the party stands for and what kind of candidate personifies the party’s stance. Moderate Republicans seem to have gone silent since the election year of 2008. Largely due to the candidacy, subsequent election and reelection of Barack Obama, they have been engaging in an all-out effort to destroy Obama and the Obama presidency using any method they deem necessary.

This strategy began soon after, then, Senator Obama announced his candidacy for president on February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. Despite what some may profess, hate and racism is at the root of their obsession. Publicly and privately, Republicans often refer to Obama as a racist, a terrorist, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, the antichrist, a black liberationist and a fraud. Despite verifiable evidence to the contrary, many Republicans continue to insist that he was born Kenya and thus ineligible for the U.S. Presidency. Some even threatened to impeach him. Notable television and radio personalities have stated that President Obama hates White people and is out to destroy America. Donald Trump, in particular, has questioned President Obama’s birth place and education credentials.

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican candidate for Vice President, was a consequence of this growing “Tea Party” movement/conservative strategy. Because of several issues during President George W. Bush’s administration, the Democrats had a significant early lead in polls to win the White House in 2008. The Democrat’s voter choices of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as candidates, made the up-coming election a potentially history-making event.   Although Clinton was the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama ultimately won enough delegates to win.  Clinton initially resisted her support of Obama and women supporters were also reluctant to give their full support to him. Many expected Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his running mate. He didn’t! (Hillary Clinton was later nominated as Secretary of State by President Obama.)

In 2008, McCain, announced the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. At that time, she was governor of Alaska. She was certainly selected to help add voters to McCain’s run for the White House by offsetting angry Hillary voters, who were less eager to support Obama. At first, there was a boost in McCain’s support. However, as time went on, some of this support began to fade. Sarah Palin’s seemingly lack of preparation for the office and little political, social and historical knowledge astounded many as the Republican choice for Vice President of The United States.

She reflected the kind of anti-Obama rhetoric and hate that the “Tea Party” supports.  Few Republicans dared to challenge her as a viable Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. After McCain’s defeat in 2008, Sarah Palin eventually resigned as governor, went on extensive paid talking tours and became a Fox News commentator. Her ‘calling card’ was her anti Obama stance on anything he did or proposed. She often added her opinion, misinformation, and rumor with her rambling speeches. However, the more she talked, the less credible she became as a spokesperson for Republican Party or as a possible future presidential candidate. Her endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016 was no surprise.

The Republican Party has embraced and supported several conservative candidates running for political office.  These same candidates probably would not have had the same kind of support during the Ronald Reagan and/or George H.W. Bush administrations. The kind of rhetoric that these recent candidates engage in would have not been acceptable in the Republican Party of the past.

Seasoned and some-what moderate Republicans are now just realizing what kind of monsters they have created in Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. (Sarah Palin would be included in this, if she were a viable candidate in 2016.) Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich are seeking the candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of The United States. But it is Donald Trump who now possesses the greatest threat. AS/of April 22, 2016, He is leading in the candidate delegate count with 844. Ted Cruz is at 543.  To win the nomination, 1,247 delegates are needed. The Republican Party encouraged him, agreed with him and sought his endorsements. Now as candidate Trump continues with his divisive and hateful campaign rhetoric, they may now realize that the Republican Party cannot win with Donald Trump nationwide. Having a divided party and another four to eight years of a Democratic presidency concerns them greatly.

The Republican party is now asking for help! The party is in chaos now. They have helped to create Donald Trump as a candidate and allowed this fraud to become a possible candidate for President of the United States. Now they have to live with their decisions! Many thoughtful moderate Republican and Independent voters may cast their votes for a Democrat in 2016 rather than voting for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

William Phifer


The First Black U.S. President

The First Black President of The United States

by William Phifer

Despite rumors and myths to the contrary, the person pictured here wsenator_john_hanson_photo_by_augustus_washington_ca__1856_cropped[1]as not the first black U.S. president! In fact, he was never a president. The John Hanson photographed picture here was an African American member of the American Colonization Society, established in 1816, which sought to relocate black Americans (slaves) to Liberia. In Liberia, he served as a senator from Grand Bassa County. The photograph was taken circa 1856. Photography was not commercially introduced and used until 1839. Senator Henson died in 1860.

This Liberian Senator and African American is often confused with an 1545_1033[2]earlier John Hanson, a white politician from Maryland who served as President of the Continental Congress during the American Revolution (1775–1783). President John Hanson died in 1783. The Continental Congress was a convention of delegates called together from the Thirteen Colonies which became the governing body of the United States during the American Revolution. Here we see a painted portrait of John Hanson. He was not the President of The United States. In addition, there have been myths and hoaxes spread, especially through the Internet, to attempt to prove that this John Hanson of Maryland was actually black and the first president of The United States.

The Revolutionary War began circa 1776, after the United States declared its ingeorge-washington[1]dependence, and ended in 1783. The United States gained its independence at wars end. The Constitution of the United States was adopted September 17, 1787, and ratified by the states in 1788. After serving as commander of the Continental Army, and president of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington became the first President of the United States (1789–1797).

It is suggested that we, and those with audiences both young and old, read and study history carefully before we spread news and believe ideas and statements because they may sound appealing and make us feel good. Like science, this would not be true history. Changes can and should be made based on proved and updated information and documentation. There are a lot of wonderful truths to be learned, but we have to do our homework first.

Barack Hussein Obama is the first African-American President of The United States. He was elected 44th U.S. President, November 4, 2008101215_obama_smile_tax_reut_6051[1].jpg. His first four-year term was January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2013. He was reelected another four years, November 6, 2012. In both elections he received more popular and electoral votes than his opponents. He will leave office January 20, 2017.

This article is designed to educate and correct a myth that some people hold. It is not placing one race or political party above or below an individual’s dignity and achievement. Your race should never stop you from learning as much as you can or achieving goals at the highest levels in our society. There will always be some obstacles and challenges. Overcoming them is a part of being a success. An African-American leader or president should deserve the respect that the office holds from all of us. He or she must serve that office with dignity, honesty, strength, fairness and a caring for all citizens.



Infants Should Never Be Baptized

by William Phifer

          To many Christians, Baptism is a binding Sacrament that cleanses believers from their originalbaptism-clip-art sin, assuring them a gateway to Heaven. How does that apply to Infants? What does an Infant believe? How have they sinned? Some Christians believe that we are born sinners, and it goes back to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. The sin is the eating of an apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite God’s warning. The original sin is far less evil than sins that are committed, even by Christians, on a daily basis. Yet, Christians see the cleansing of original sin as fundamental lifelong sacraments, starting at infancy.

Some fundamentalists may argue that the baptism of infants is not biblically supported. The Bible, in fact, does not advocate Infant baptism. It however, state that only believers, who had placed their faith in Christ, are to be baptized – as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. An Infant cannot possibly have any faith at all. The baptism ritual often include total immersion of older children and adults. The Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations sprinkle water on infants. (The water is wiped on the forehead in the sign of the cross, while reciting biblical phrases. (Matt. 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, or Acts 19:5)) Some independent churches or denominations regularly include this practice for adults.

The baptism of infants began several centuries after most of the bible was written. The Anabaptists did not believe in infant baptism. In fact, if a member were baptized as an infant, they would have to be baptized again as an adult. Anabaptists held that “Infants are not punishable for sin until they become aware of good and evil and can exercise their own free will, repent, and accept baptism.” This idea seems to be far more reasonable and appropriate.

Infant Baptism is like binding a pair of handcuffs on a child that ties them to a belief system for the rest of their lives. A belief system that they could not possibly understand. If forced to hold on to this belief system as they grow, it may help put a stopgap to cognitive thinking, inquiry and creativity. It is unreasonable for priests, rabbis, ministers or parents to predetermine what a person should believe before they have the ability to reason. It is equally unreasonable for them to determine an infant’s function in life.










Robin Williams – Although we are saddened by our untimely loss, we celebrate your life that has touched our hearts and minds and has enriched us all. We hope that part of what made you who you were has become a part of who we are. Your mind, your thoughts, your words and your sharp wit were often too fast and profound for most of us to take in  or understand. Your jokes, your stories, and your acting performances made us laugh, wonder and cry. They helped to make us forget our own troubles and think of how wonderful life truly is and how medicinal laughter can be. Our hope now is that some of what you were and what you believed in will stay with us so we may pass it on to others who will follow. We do not celebrate the ending or the method you used, but we celebrate the life, the memories and the happiness you left with us. Thank you!

William Phifer


 G81-182213THE RAINBOW

            Ancient religious beliefs often contradict what we know and understand today. Those people, who still hold on to those ancient beliefs, are out of step with modern scientific thinking. It is troublesome when those beliefs interfere with education and social and scientific progress. In many religions, it is an all-or-nothing proposition; you believe all the ancient written explanation or you are a non-believer – a sinner, subject to damnation.

Rainbows have appeared on earth many years before the story of Noah’s Ark and the flood was told and retold, written and rewritten about three thousand five hundred years ago. noahs-ark-reconstructionThere are versions of this story in many ancient religions, other than Christianity. As described in The National Center for Atmospheric Research & the UCAR Office of Programs states “. . . the traditional rainbow is sunlight spread out into its spectrum of colors and diverted to the eye of the observer by water droplets. The “bow” part of the word describes the fact that the rainbow is a group of nearly circular arcs of color all having a common center.”

Additionally, the UCAR Office states that, “Most people have never noticed that the sun is always behind you when you face a rainbow, and that the center of the circular arc of the rainbow is in the direction opposite to that of the sun.”

It is not unusual that in ancient times and during times before our modern understanding of science and natural phenomenon, that people of ancient cultures and religions ascribe a deity, a spell, or someone committing a social taboo as the cause of an as-yet-unexplained phenomenon. Most Christians and Jews are familiar with the story about Noah’s Ark, The Flood and God’s covenant to man, symbolized by a rainbow. It can be a powerful symbol for people who believe it is a message from God. However, there is more to explaining and understanding a rainbow.

When an article that starts with a question or statement that already has a scientific explanation, the author should make that answer or explanation clear. If the author does not, he or she is showing a lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to share knowledge with others.

William Phifer


January 21, 2014


The Tea Party has proven themselves consistently narrow-minded. They spend lots of money and energy focused on one issue, destroying the Obama presidency. Their resources are not used to improve the country, advocate fair and just laws and proposed balanced legislation. Many republicans and Tea Party members listen to the most bias, hateful and dishonest “news” program on the air – Fox News. Sure, other news and entertainment programs are biased, but Fox News tops them all.

 The Tea Party has succeeded in making the Republican Party seem clueless and the country more divided and weak. Forcing the shutting down the government over insubstantial and bias budget issues did nothing to force the president to weaken, but it did hurt the country and hurt many lives, included their supporters.

The Tea Party seems to be happy when the republican-controlled Congress says ‘no’ to just about anything supported by The President or the democrats, with nothing reasonable to take its place or to work together for a fair compromise. Any candidate that it supports makes many of us more inclined to support democratic candidates.

It very interesting that Tea Party members and their supporters are condemning Obama’s State of the Union speech before the president has a chance to write it or present it. Tea Party members and Republicans have done this before – every year. The hateful words that many Tea Party members and supporters use to describe and accuse this president of is disgraceful. No president in history of our nation has been treated with this amount of disrespect, not even a president who was forced to resign.

All of us need to reexamine our thoughts, our beliefs and our methods. The president, The Democratic Party, and most citizens love this country as well as many republicans claim to love. We pay taxes and participated in armed services, when needed. We all need to keep an open mind, read, listen and think about what we say and believe. We all need to educate ourselves and work together for the world, for our nation and for communities. Respect for all citizens is the key.

The support of Ted Cruz and his ideas are disturbing. He should never be a candidate for higher office. Tea Party members should ask their fathers or grandfathers about McCarthyism. It almost dragged the nation into political and social chaos. With Cruz, it can happen again. The Tea Party has a habit of endorsing irrational and unqualified candidates. Someday The Republican Party will wake up and realize the negative influence the Tea Party is having on them. We all need to learn and respect the rights and beliefs of others. We need to respect each other and work together to help improve our nation, our city and ourselves.

                                                                                           William Phifer



Dear Mr. President,

I write to you today as a concerned citizen about what will turn out to be a crucial decision you have to make. That decision may affect the integrity, safety and global influence of The United States for many years to come. Bombing Syria, even strategic bombing, where the target is military hardware or chemical weapons production centers, can be seen by others as an invasion by another nation. Do we, as a nation have the right to ‘punish’ another nation? Most civilized nations would agree that using a chemical weapon on civilians is wrong. But are we the policemen of the world? Should we do this even without full support from our allies and other influential nation? 

Your decision will also help further define who you are and the best avenues to a true global peace. I commend your helping to end the Iraqi War and setting a timetable on ending the war in Afghanistan. You were correct in your statement during the G-20 Summit, “I was elected to end wars, not start them.” You further stated, “I spent the last four-and-a-half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people.”  The lives of innocent Syrians are at stake, as well as American and any ally combatants.

As president, you have pressures on all side of the issue and your decision; Religious/Cultural Sects, The Republicans, The Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Great Britain, France, Israel, the Middle East, The United Nations and other international and national organizations. I completely understand the issue that brings you to this decision-making process. Given the complexities of diplomacy, worldly influence and politics, I know that the decision cannot be made without considering these aspects.

Mr. President, do not make your decision based on Republican or Democrat support or lack of it. Do not rely on political pressures, polls and comments made by critics in the media. No matter what decision you make, the critic will always be there. The solution should be a peaceful and diplomatic. Mr. President, peace is the way. Find it. Use it! The choice is yours! Make the right choice!

William Phifer

Gun Control


First of all, I care about ‘rights,’ more than anyone will ever know. As a Vietnam veteran, I am familiar with the use of weapons and the destruction that they can cause. Wartime is certainly a period when the use of this kind of force may be necessary. I am also very familiar with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “the right of people to keep and bear Arms.” People often cite the need for ‘protection’ in their homes. Statistically, in this country, more innocent family members are hurt or killed by guns in homes than intruders.
But I care about innocent lives that are being cut short by idiots and the guns that are easily available, especially automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles. Drug dealers, thieves, and gang members may not be able to purchase guns in certain cities, but the simple solution is going to other states, towns to cities to purchase them, sometimes at ‘gun sales shows.’ Do not give me that bull about, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Making guns less accessible to just anyone and making comprehensive back-ground checks is the least that we can do. Laws can be modified to help protect the nation’s citizens. That is what America does!
Unfortunately, what happens to a school in Newtown Connecticut recently is no longer a rare scene. If any of you were the parents of those children who were killed, I would wager that you would come up with a better response to gun control. It does not matter who owns the weapon. It does matter how available it is to anybody in a house or place of business.
Lastly, the NRA’s response to the tragedy was irresponsible, insensitive and irrational. They lobby and fund political groups leaning toward their way of thinking. What the hell do the lives of the innocent and our children have to do with politics? Why do some politicians place party affiliation and loyalty above helping to protect the innocent?


No advocate of gun control is ‘taking your guns away,’ if you are a responsible, law-abiding citizen. Nor is the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution being considered. No one is advocating taking away your right to protect yourself or your family when faced with bodily harm or death by people outside of the law. Hunting for sport or food in areas where and when it is legal will not be denied. Our ‘militia’ will not be disarmed or undermined by not having the ability to protect citizens of The United States.

The restriction of ‘assault weapons’ and the expansion of background checks is a small start that will help prevent senseless killings. Using an assault weapon or specifically, a machine gun to kill a deer makes no sense. Where is the ‘sport’ in doing this? If you have nothing to hide in the present or past, why would you be afraid of a background check? Why would you be afraid of a longer wait to obtain a license to carry and use a gun?

Discussions about gun control end when it becomes a political, demographic or racial issue. It is not and never should be! During the Clinton administration, the Brady Bill was passed and signed into law. It was called, the Handgun Violence Prevention Act. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. It was the right thing to do and it had nothing to do with party affiliation or loyalty.

William Phifer



         Based on what I was telling you about Lester Maddox, a former governor of Georgia, I cut and pasted this article just for your information. The title of the article is Controversial Former Governor Lester Maddox Dies. This is an article written by Joy Johnson in 2003. She is a writer for the Internet website, About.Com: Atlanta Georgia. The Following article was subtitled; Two Georgia Political Figures Die within Same Week because former Atlanta mayor, Maynard Jackson was the other political who died the same week. This part of the article focuses on Lester Maddox:
   “Many Atlantans would like to forget that there ever was a governor of Georgia like Lester Maddox, and the fact that he was born right here in the city of Atlanta. While his segregationist views were always a source of controversy, he was too much of a character to simply forget. The man rode a bicycle backwards around the Capitol, performed a nightclub routine, and even ran for President of the United States. For the past several years, he had been waging a battle against cancer. He took a turn for the worse after recent surgery, and died at the age of 87 on June 25, 2003.
         Maddox is best known for the stand he took against allowing black patrons into his fried chicken restaurant, The Pickrick, during the tumultuous civil rights struggle in the South in the 1960’s. Maddox and his supporters resorted to violence, wielding pick handles to bar blacks from entering the establishment, then selling them later as souvenirs.
         He remained absolutely unapologetic about his views on race, claiming that the Constitution should protect the right to disassociate as much as the right to associate. Despite his gruff, outspoken exterior, he had a very tender relationship with his wife of over 60 years, Virginia, and was a devoted family man. He had been battling cancer for several years.
         Maddox did not win the governorship outright. He actually trailed the Republican nominee, but due to Georgia law at the time, because no one had a majority, the decision was given to the State Legislature, which chose Maddox. Despite being such a controversial figure when it came to race relations, during his term as Governor, Maddox appointed more African Americans to state posts than any governor before him.
         Maddox was a staunch conservative, with more than a healthy distrust of the federal government. It was the federal government’s involvement in desegregation that Maddox claimed bothered him the most. Maddox was a symbol of the little man, the working class that had to pull themselves up by the bootstrap and was as hard as nails because of it. However, Maddox also was a dying breed, as showed in the next election, when the polar opposite, Jimmy Carter, became Governor of Georgia, ushering in social reform policies, and a kinder, gentler way of leading the state. Maddox symbolized the last gasp for the old way of life in the South, and the New South that was just beginning to emerge was given life.
         Editor’s Note: I received an email from a family member of Lester Maddox in August 2006. They indicated that in fact Maddox had found religion and regretted his past views. The family member based their conclusions on actual conversations they had with Lester Maddox.”
After reading several articles about Lester Maddox, I realized that some writers were more sentimental about Maddox’s views and accomplishments. As I stated to you, despite his racist attitude, some influential black leaders were able to get him to pass legislation that helped Georgia’s progress and Black progress in particular. These leaders, for the most part, were never given credit for their input when legislation was deemed as progress for Georgia. Maddox never had a clue.




      MSNBC is the best news network to counter Fox News’s distortion of the news and facts. If you examine what Fox News actually broadcasts, what you see is more entertainment and opinion than actual news. No doubt, MSNBC and Fox News are both biased. MSNBC’s approach has to counter-weight the regionally popular and loudly voiced right-winged ‘news’ network. There are regions of the United States and around the world, where Fox is the only source of news.
Fox News has helped to legitimize racial hatred, religious intolerance, regional identity, and the gender gap. The approach is from subtle to obvious. In a time when many of us thought racial intolerance, discrimination, and hate were in the nation’s past, the U.S. presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Hussein Obama reflamed those sentiments. Obama’s father was Black, born in Kenya. His mother was white, born in the United States.
On July 27, 2004, after Senator Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, there was a murmur among the delegates and viewers. “Who was the young senator from Illinois who spoke so eloquently? He may be a good candidate for higher office in the future.” It sounded like a good idea. Some did not take it as seriously based on the history of this nation.
In Springfield, Illinois, February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the United States presidency. Fox News began its campaign of misinformation in earnest after his announcement. The tactics that Fox News used and still uses, is not solely based on an anti-Obama movement, although they have devoted a great deal of time and effort for one single goal. The Obama presidency has created more ‘news’ and ammunition for Fox than any other issue. After the Election of 2008, Obama symbolized the entire Democratic Party, which made it even easier for Fox News to attack.
There must be some sort of signed contract between the ‘news’ agency, the ‘reporters’ and the television commentators. The contract may contain a list of do’s and don’ts, and the penalties that can result from defying them. They also have a list of tactic to deal with their own commentators who sway from the biased ‘script.’ Those people are often interrupted, chastised, or the subject is changed. This is also done with guests who are being broadcasted from a different studio. With guests, they have the added tact of either telling them to “shut up,” or they can turn off their microphone or the entire transmission.
Rumors are generally half-truths and lies that are spread from person to person. If Fox News hears or reads such rumors that fit or support their positions, their attempt to deify Obama, or the Democratic Party, they often use it as if it were fact. The ‘birthers,’ those who hold the belief that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, have acquired a great deal of support from the Fox News. Kenyan birth documents, eyewitness accounts and comments made by birther ‘experts’ are rarely challenged by Fox News.
On August 28, 2012, during the Republican National Convention, Ann Romney, the wife of Republican Presidential contender, Mitt Romney, addressed the delegates. After her speech, most of the Fox News analysts highly praise her speech, calling it great, etc. Juan Williams disagreed and said, “Ann Romney looked to me like a corporate wife.” He added, “The stories she told about struggles — it’s hard for me to believe. I mean, she’s a very rich woman, and I know that, and America knows that.” The other analysts seemed shocked by his comments and reiterated their position. After commercial break, Juan Williams was gone! Where did he go and why? Think!
MSNBC, while also biased, presents a more balanced approach news. Their news is more fact-based than rumor-based. They interview people from both sides of the political aisle. They allow their comments to be made with fewer interruptions. Although some become more aggressive when confronted with a difficult interviewee.
It is a personal opinion that Keith Olbermann was the best! Sure, sometimes he was ‘over the top,’ but his comments and approach to television journalism was attention-getting, entertaining, interesting, and thought-provoking. The reason why he was dismissed is well known, but it is insignificant when compared to the impact he had with the network. Someday, soon, MSNBC should reevaluate their decision and bring him back.

William Phifer

« Older entries