World circumstances exacerbate tension and anxiety in society with an intensity not realized globally since the second World War. One could worry oneself into a tailspin depression. Loss of hope for some metastasizes when there is no perceived way out of the imagined crisis. Holy Week turns the tables on all “what ifs” to look at every problem with an opposite critical analysis. Hope and belief in God’s plan renders peace and security.
 
Christianity advances the theology that God created the world with a purpose in mind. His strategy is not a work in progress. The purpose was perfect from the beginning of creation. He knows all things. He anticipates all things. He is surprised by no things. He is threatened by no things. His purpose will be achieved in the end.
 
“And we know that all things work for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28
 
The secular world ridicules religion and the people who believe as irrelevant. Atheists believe in moral relativism. Marxists believe that pleasure and prosperity leave one empty. Collectively, such ideology supports the axiom that there are no absolutes, no truths, and no eternal moral code. Therefore, in society, there is no accountability and no reason or meaning to be held by any values transcendent.
 
I have personally been confronted by communist leaders who have condescendingly lectured me on the paramount reward of the state versus religion. Only the state, they crow, can provide material necessities for an individual’s needs.
 
They fail to recognize the spiritual concept on turning the tables of critical analysis.
 
Understanding and believing that God is in control, committed to a purpose that results in good, driven by love, yields confidence that all circumstances are but a passing journey of trials and tribulations to a kingdom without physical or mental pain.
 
Finding solace with others of a like mind can provide relief from difficult situations. We not only do better when we approach problems together, we actually heal and repair our spirituality. Recent excavations around Ephesus led archeologists to the conclusion that Christian groups did provided material services to the general community.
 
In the 1st century, lamp oil was an essential commodity to everyday life. The Mayor of the town controlled the distribution of oil. To obtain a small measure, a citizen had to provide a goat for sacrifice to the Greek gods. The Mayor got to keep the goat carcass. Many citizens could not afford this.

The excavations revealed that there were many oil pots in homes with Christian artifacts. The evidence indicates that Christians carefully managed, shared, and contributed oil to each other to avoid both the cost and blasphemy of sacrificing precious livestock to a false god. Not only did they share the light of the Word, they shared the light of the oil. In so doing, they were a release for tension and anxiety and turned the tables in the crises’ critical analysis.
 
In the 4th century, Rome was collapsing as a failed state. Chaos was ensuing. Christian communities shared food, clothing, shelter, and all they had with those in need. There was no condition to receive their munificence. It didn’t matter if one were Jewish, Samaritan, Philistine, or Roman. All were welcome. Acting as a like-minded group strengthened individual spirituality and turned the tables in the crises' critical analysis. It is one of the greatest times of evangelical expansion in recorded history. For they reflected Christ through unconditional love.
 
Today, in the 21st century, the crises of the times appear apocalyptic. How we as a society help each other survive will position our place in history as understanding or ignoring the turning of the tables concept. 
 
God teaches us to love one another. How much does he love us?

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
 
Accepting Christ's gift, celebrating his resurrection, and understanding God's love is the mission of Holy Week.

At Christ’s crucifixion, there were two thieves on either side of him facing the same death penalty. One of the thieves believed and asked Jesus to “remember him” when He arrives at His kingdom. Jesus replied, “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.” The believer thief was at peace even though he found himself in circumstances that, from the viewpoint of this system of things, was hopeless. By his faith, he knew that he was simply on a journey to the promise land. 
 
As to the question, "Is religion relevant?", ask the thief on the cross with Jesus at Calvary.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?

Happy Easter!

The latest uproar caused by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's recent interview has more than just shaken the British monarchy. The tumultuous personal family institutional conflicts have seeded doubt on the ability of any government to establish societal unity in reference to race, creed, color, or sex.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, when asked today in a press conference to comment on the royal controversy, declined to answer. He said that any response to Harry and Meghan's accusations should come from the Royal Family. He added that he was very disappointed in the matter because the Crown provides a moral avenue for the unification of all citizens of Great Britain. 

This consternation surrounding royal conflict and how to absorb the meaning emotionally says more about humankind than the current royals or the 1,200-year-old British monarchy. Societies of the human race have historically sought kingships as universal authorities over governance. Even when given the opportunity to live under the laws and leadership of a loving God, nations of people have chosen kings. 

In ancient Israel, God lived among His people. He appointed judges to govern. At a pivotal time, those in authority failed to provide justice. The people cried out for "a king to judge us like all nations." 1 Samuel 8:5. Samuel objected, yet the Lord told him, "obey the voice of the people and all they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." 1 Samuel 8:7. God further instructed Samuel to warn them of the ways of a king who shall reign over them. Samuel delivered God's warning, you won't like it. 

Ultimately, Saul was chosen King of Israel "…and all the people shouted 'Long live the king.'" 1 Samuel 10:24. This scripture is where the English tradition originated to shout "Long live the king" when a new monarch is crowned. Following this time in ancient Israel, God has allowed the experiment of kings over the people to play out to its logical conclusion. 

It is interesting to note that nearly every nation in the world today was at one time governed by a hierarchical succession in the structure of a monarch, emperor, czar, tribal leader, chief, or dictator, or was the colony of a country with an authoritarian leader. Even Canada and Australia are still technically subjects of the British monarchy. Twenty-six royal families currently rule in the world by various levels of authority and privilege. Great Britain is the greatest monarchy that, at one time, ruled a worldwide empire. 

Why do we as members of the human race seek kings in full authority to unite us? Because we know we cannot do it ourselves, and we fear the authority of God. 

In ancient Israel, the Israelites were blessed to have God live among them. They asked for a king, and the result has been exactly what Samuel warned. In 1776, the colonies of America had a king. In declaring independence, our forefathers declared God the Sovereign. It is not a coincidence that, in this age of economic turbulence, the two greatest economic powers on the planet, the United States and China, are challenging the evidence of the great American Experiment. 

China throughout its history has been governed by an emperor or an authoritarian leader. Their call of obedience is to the state. A law has been passed directing every Chinese corporation to appoint to the Board of Directors an officer whose responsibility it is to monitor and assure that all activities and objectives of the company are dedicated for the "greater glory of China." They are doubling down on the demand for a king. 

China dictates unity by governmental decree. The United States seeks unity in the universal commitment to equality of human rights. The further the United States turns away from the truth that all rights come from God, the further America's divisions widen. For the only ultimate alternative to the creed that God is sovereign over man and man is sovereign over government is the false religion of communism that government is sovereign over man and there is no God. Any other structure of government must weigh the absolute imperative of 1 Samuel 8:7. 

There has been at least one king, King David, who ruled every day in respect of the Lord's Word. He was a man after the Lord's own heart. For unity, mankind needs a king or a leader who, by reference, casts the vision of righteousness that all individuals are created equal in the purpose of the Lord. Only in the recognition of His sovereignty can we be united despite each of our own prejudices. 

Queen Elizabeth II is the spiritual leader of England as the head of the Anglican Church. On several occasions, she has invited pastors to Buckingham Palace, including Billy Graham, to advise her on the Word of the Lord and His laws for ruling the people. She has never denied the sovereignty of the Lord. Perhaps this is why she has a 73% approval rating even though less than 55% of the citizens of the United Kingdom are Christian. Citizens naturally respond favorably to a benevolent monarch who seeks and governs by the laws of a higher authority.

In these times, we cry out for leaders who will seek God to guide them in ruling over their people. In essence of unity exists the acknowledgment that God is sovereign over kings. The Judges of the Old Testament as fallen humans disappointed the Israelites in the dispensation of justice. Leaders today, as subjects of the same fallen world, will continue to fall short if their obedience is to the objective of the state only and not to God's authority. 

Learning this lesson is critical in the duration of this system of things. The Lord loves us so much that He wants us to realize His Truth and obey His Laws. He is the Creator of time. And for realizing this Truth in essence of unity, He will give us all the time it takes.

And, He has all the time in the world.

The dilemma of how to reconcile the latest British monarchy crisis is less about the institution or "the Firm" and more about our own personal moral constitution. 

In whom do we trust with ultimate authority?


My name is Marc Nuttle, and this is what I believe.

What do you believe?
​

​The Grand Old Party opened its virtual national convention last night to complete “the start of the final scene” of the 2020 Presidential election season. The theme of the first night was that Democrats are intent on destroying America and changing our country’s way of life as we know it. President Trump and the party spokesmen called for policy to protect the cultural mores of social stability enmeshed in our societal fabric.
 
The national news outlets described the atmosphere of the tenor as dark. Their conclusion was that the strategic purpose of the call was to shore up the base. Again, they miss the point as they misunderstand the motives of the American electorate.
 
President Trump knows that his base is solid. The Democratic vision is so liberal that it presents everything necessary to secure the conservative voting bloc for the President. What progressives ignore, and the press refuses to analyze, is that the American public is a right-of-center society and has been since World War II. On a multitude of issues, the identified conservative coalition of voters in a presidential cycle has averaged 65%. The liberal coalition therefore is 35%.

For the past two years, and just prior to the pandemic crisis, the election profile for President Trump was basically unchanged. Thirty-four percent loved the President and loved his policies. Thirty-seven percent hated the President and hated his policies. Fifteen percent disliked the President personally, but liked his policies more than they disliked his personality. And last, 14% liked his policies but disliked his personality more than they liked his policies. Among likely voters, if the election were held in January, President Trump would have lost the popular vote 49% to 51%, but won the electoral college.
 
Those numbers have now shifted since the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, but only among the 29% swing vote who dislike him personally but like his policies. What is important to recognize is that, without considering personalities, 63% of the American public like the President’s policies. Thirty-seven percent detest those policies.
 
All of these opinion percentages are consistent with the historical averages of the 1 to 10 scale and the swing vote. America is not a left-of-center nation.
 
What defines the swing vote? They believe in a strong national defense. They want the nation’s borders secured for reasonable immigration policy. They seek local control of schools (a 10th Amendment issue that authority which is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution defaults to the individual states.) They desire a balance to be determined between LGBTQ rights and religious rights. They are committed to racial equality. For economic policy, they are clear on less government regulation for small business, reasonable taxes, and accountability for government spending. If the Independent Party had a party platform, it would include these policy positions.
 
As noted in the last Nuttle Report, 44% of the American public are now registered as Independents, a majority having left either the Republican or Democratic party. The problem is there is no Independent Party infrastructure to sound the clarion call for common sense.
 
The Democratic convention stressed Joe Biden’s character as calm, discerning, compassionate, and empathetic. The campaign strategy is to portray him as “Father Joe” to the church of the American body politic. The sounding alarm was that Donald Trump’s personality is monstrous. And, in civility alone, the country will survive, heal, and prosper. In that message was the hidden theme to moderate Republicans who like Trump’s policies but dislike him personally. It’s okay to vote for personality over policy.
 
The GOP convention will emphasize that the Democratic Party policies are monstrous. They must be confronted and fought in the trenches at every point of advancement. The theme will echo the warning that there can be no compromise. The image invoked is that of Winston Churchill defying the passivists who sought negotiated settlement with Hitler. Any foothold of socialism is an unacceptable encroachment on the framework of freedom. President Trump has said that he is the only thing that stands between America and chaos. In such an allegory, he is “Winston Trump.” The overt message to moderates who like his policies but dislike him personally, is that it’s okay to vote for policy and tolerate personality.
 
The Democrats are perplexed in that President Trump leads Joe Biden 48% to 38% on who can best solve the problems of the economy. How can that be, they ask, when the economic crisis happened on his watch? Put in the historical context of the above graphics, it’s easy to see. The swing vote defaults to the freedom side of the scale for solutions if available. What’s most interesting is that, for the first time since the Great Depression, the economy may be in such jeopardy that the public does not trust the Democrats to permanently restructure it without moving the American system into socialism. This could tilt the scale of election decisions based upon security versus opportunity to the side of freedom.
 
If the 29% swing vote decides that their economic sustainability is paramount in their decision-making process for whom to vote, a majority may choose policy over personality.
 
If the election comes down to a comparison on presidential personality only, Biden wins. If the election comes down to a comparison on policy only, Trump wins.
 
In deciding between “Father Joe” versus “Winston Trump,” measure carefully the matrix of the next four years. Regardless of who is elected President, on November 4th the day after the election, the challenges of the economy, foreign policy, and cultural values facing America will require emergency attention.
 
The first step of the first day for the first policy solution will define the future for a generation.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?

NBC just released their latest survey research conducted in concert with the Wall Street Journal. The research is designed to help journalists and the public navigate critical issues of concern to the nation. We are now entering the early season of the next Presidential election cycle. As more and more candidates jump into the race, the first analysis for consideration is what are the general characteristics of character that the public desires in the next President of the United States.
 
Basic questions in reference to presidential character and personalities are broken out by party, age, income, background, ethnicity, and gender. A full chapter of the research refers to the incumbent President, Donald Trump. 
 
The cross tabs on the Democratic party rendered some rather puzzling conclusions. 
 
On the question asking what characteristics are most favorable to you for a presidential candidate:
 
                               Enthusiastic and or Comfortable
                                                   Dems                 Overall
    Business executive                 31%                   56%
    Socialist                                   45%                   25%
    Evangelical Christian              37%                   54%
    Muslim                                     67%                   49%
 
It is not surprising that the Democratic party would favor a socialist over a business executive, particularly given the fact that three announced Democratic candidates tout socialist philosophy. At least they stand on the avowed tenets of a socialistic government.
 
What is curious is that, by an almost 2-to-1 preference, Democrats prefer Muslims to evangelical Christians. On what matrix of principles do they come to this conclusion? 
 
Christians believe that all men and women are created equal, regardless of race, creed, color, sex or religious beliefs. In the Christian faith, women have equal rights. A broad and general education is sought for all children. The Constitution of the United States was ordained, and therefore, the liberty it mandates must be protected. Christians also believe in and are obedient to the democratic processes of the United States Republic. Israel has a right to exist. A family is the center of its own moral authority.
 
Many Muslims in the United States today are God-fearing, law-abiding citizens who care about their families and their security and prosperity, just like every other American. They coexist peacefully with others in their community. They own businesses, pay taxes, and contribute to a blended culture. They deserve respect and every right provided by the Constitution. In these rights exists their equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness in the culture that they desire to raise their families.
 
The ultimate benefit and record of cultural and religious assimilation does not explain the Democratic preference for a Muslim characteristic of Presidential character.
 
Islam, in its doctrinaire emphasis, does not recognize men and women as equal in society in the same context as American culture. Education is controlled by the theological state. Islam does not recognize the doctrine of separation of church and state. Sharia law supersedes sovereign law. Jews and Christians are identified as infidels. Gay rights are not a priority. The ideologues of Sunni and Shiite divisions are in bitter dispute. Liberty and freedom are not paramount principles to be protected at all costs. Freedom of will is not recognized as critical to personal relationships. 
 
Why then favor Muslims over evangelicals for a Presidential characteristic? It is The Left’s Characteristic Conundrum. 
 
The public today identifies equally as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, about one-third each. The discussion generated by the recent research also centered on whether Democrats would rather nominate someone who believed like they each individually do or nominate someone because he or she is more likely to beat President Trump. Little attention has been paid to the fact that the public at large does not favor the characteristics they desire in a candidate. For instance, a socialist was only viewed favorably by 25% overall. So far, the early Democratic candidates are playing to their base. 
 
Thirty-three percent of the American public self-define as born again evangelical Christian. Sixty-two percent believe in God and worship in a mainline religion. This religious identification in America is not just a remnant of America from 1776. Colonists not only practiced their faith, but their faith was also integrated into the laws of the State constitutions of the colonies. The Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789, incorporated the legal structures of state constitutions, and therefore, the cultural principles of rights to freedom of religion as protected liberty. 
 
Those who believe that the economics of socialism versus capitalism are the only principles to be dissected are missing the point. Capitalism, governed by the morality of Christianity, produces free enterprise. Free enterprise provides and maintains the framework of free will in society. Free will is critical to personal relationships. Personal relationships are crucial to Christianity and will always be defended by Christians as a constitutional right.
 
Make no mistake about it. It is not by accident that the first words of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, critical and necessary to the passage and acceptance of the Constitution were: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
 
Professing socialism in its creed of redistribution of wealth is one strategy of defining government cause and effect. Professing Muslims as preferable to Christians, without substantiation of the connection to the Islamic creed, is a strategy of an enigma. 
 
America today needs clarity on cultural purpose. Puzzling quotients further exacerbate the political divisions in our country. For democracy to work, positions taken by leaders should be sound, concise, and directive. Candidates should have the courage to stand on their convictions and let the people decide. 
 
We should support candidates who believe in freedom, liberty and free will. We should seek leaders who have the faith and confidence in our constitution to trust the authority of individual families.
 
These are the essential characteristics critical for every President of the United States.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle, and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?

The nation expects and anticipates the release of Robert Mueller’s report any day. The speculation among the talking heads is that the findings may be inconclusive. In layman’s terms for us, that means that there is not clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity on President Trump’s part to justify impeachment. Without such a recommendation, the House of Representatives will be hard-pressed to invoke articles of impeachment. Assuming acquittal by the U.S. Senate, such action by the U.S. House risks making the Democrats look partisan for partisan’s sake.
 
The reaction emotionally by political special interests has been as varied and intense as the divisions of society. What is driving such diverse opinions isnot generated as much by political ideology as the fact that, as a people, we are lost in our national identity.
 
Those who despise President Trump will claim that his demeanor alone is enough to warrant impeachment. As thorough and non-partisan as the Mueller investigation appears to be, Trump detractors will never give him “his day in court” with a result of not guilty.
 
Those who support President Trump will argue that the result of his presidency, especially economic development, is achievement enough to tolerate his personality if, in fact, the evidence concludes that there was no collusion with the Russians. This base of support believes that the existing power structure is corrupt and self-serving in its own right. The Establishment sets a standard of protocol which only benefits and serves their own interest.
 
There are those legal experts who honestly debate the definitions and nuances of the criminal code and statutes. They are narrow in their league and do not fundamentally change the opinions or attitudes of the partisan activists. 
 
There is another segment of society, possibly larger than all of those listed above, that simply says, “I don’t know what it all means.” This group comprises decent, law-abiding Americans who just want their leaders to do the right thing. They are citizens who unselfishly desire that each of their brothers and sisters has equal access to the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness. 
 
What has caused Americans to dissolve into such a negative, acrimonious divide in identity? It is because, in our pursuit of happiness, we have lost our pursuit of common ideas. The United States as a culture is insufficient in defining what it means to be an American. There is not now a standard from which to debate one’s point of view. We are adrift in our identity of purpose. We have been abandoned by our leaders who have taken identity politics to a critical state only for their pursuit of power.
 
What are the circumstances that have allowed this crisis to occur?
 
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party today do not exist at the grassroots. They may still in some areas of the country have precinct and county organizational meetings. But as national parties, they are little more than a collection system for delegates to a national convention. The Party Platforms are not respected. Their national message is incoherent. Voters are left to the individual rhetoric of candidates, and therefore, personality politics.
 
Both the Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention, the two largest denominations of Christians in America, are under attack. They are accused, on the basis of certain facts, of not policing and holding leaders accountable for sexual improprieties and abuse of those under their authority. This, along with the collapse of the political parties’ consistent messaging on philosophical issues, has left the public to their own means to find a national theme on basic principles.
 
Human beings are naturally attracted to like-minded groups. We are tribal by nature. This tendency leads to a need to dominate society by group identity when universal care for others and their opinions are disregarded.
 
Nature abhors a vacuum, and she will always fill it. Personal blogs have proliferated without any allegiance to national themes. Many sources of information today are beyond blind partisanship. They are non-factual and, at times, present unfounded conclusions. Citizens are so busy today living their lives, they have little time to discern fact from fiction to form their own opinions. In the past, the parties provided direction on government policy, and the church provided a foundation on morality.
 
In China today, the government dictates civic activity. There is little freedom of speech or freedom of choice. The State tells the citizens what the goals and objectives are. There is no confusion to a Chinese citizen on what is expected in his or her relationship with the government. The government now assigns a social index to each citizen. This is a rating on their social obedience to government dictates. This is not what we want for America. We as Americans are destined to be free in our thought, yet we must be committed in our common purpose.
 
As America awaits the findings of the Mueller report and the substance of the upcoming testimony of Michael Cohen before Congress, the process of determining acceptance and meaning of facts depends upon the basis of determining one’s identity. An identityis based upon transcendent principles, rules of conduct, elements of character, and commitment to fairness that are timeless. 
 
The Christian faith directs that all people are equal in God’s eyes. We are all relatives in the sense that we come from one ancestor. The identity of a Christian is not based on this earthly system of things. It is based on the hope of an eternal heavenly Kingdom wherein all injustice is eliminated and righteousness is the ruling principle. Therefore, by faith, a Christian is at peace regardless of the current chaos.
 
Absent faith, a person’s only recourse is to believe that, in this system of things, somehow common opportunity can be realized. Without the definition of a given written word, this quest for equality is based upon the false premise that a person’s background, culture, gender, or station in life, is the ruling axiom. Therefore, lacking consensus on the definition of a common national identity, society is relegated to either relying upon faith or on this system of things which is an undependable work in progress.

It is not so much that the United States finds itself in crisis, but that its citizens have been abandoned to find for themselves their default identity. This is the identity upon which a person falls back on as a last resort. In making this choice, one stakes his or her life and their children’s future on a vision for their existence.
 
No argument can be found for solving the disputes of citizenconflict through trust in this system of things. For the current world is fueled by survival of the fittest or the dominance of group identity.
 
Only in the faith of a greater calling may one find peace in the struggles of this system of things.
 
A person’s default identity defines not only the peace of their coexistence but any hope of peace for our children.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
 
 
​

Archaeologists, anthropologists, and behavioral scientists have long been fascinated with the migration of prehistoric humans. The patterns, the influences, and the sociological motivations to explore all physical space on earth have, in certain academic disciplines, dominated the study of prehistoric society.
 
The prevailing view has been that clans, tribes, or ethnic groups were hostile to each other upon direct encounter. It is an assumption among paleogenomiciststhat migrating groups competed with each other for resources and were therefore pugilistic and uncompromising in their migration journey. Further, these conclusions were reached based upon the attitudes of society today.
 
Such scientific theories are now being challenged. Ancient Homo sapiens may have been cooperative and enabling of each other.
 
Recent advances in DNA analysis of ancient human remains have shed new light on the human story.  Skeletal bones found on the island country of Vanuatu in Oceaniarender new evidence as to the true relationships and purpose of early mankind. Prehistoric settlers of this isolated archipelago were of mixed blood of diverse ethnic groups known to exist at the time. Pottery found in an ancient cemetery now supports the theory that the ancients shared societal advancement to the benefit of the entire human community. The pottery discovery carries artistic decoration distinct to one Asian culture. It was believed that the advancement of pottery was engaged in general. However, the artistic design was not transferred from group to group. This new discovery implies that early humans shared and respected everything together. This is not to assume that groups crossed paths and then immediately circled around a kumbaya campfire. But, there is no evidence that they went to war and killed each other either. 
 
Ancient explorers leveraged each other with little or no conflict. Why? Because, for some yet unknown reason, mankind has been compelled to populate the earth. To the ancients, this was a common purpose of all mankind.
 
Scientists have yet to determine conclusive reasoning of evidence why prehistoric migration of Homo sapiens continued beyond environmental areas of comfort. When in Africa, why move North or East out of the tropics? At the end of the last ice age, why risk life and limb to trek across the Bering Straits to populate North America? Why move west from the Russian steps to populate Europe? Why continue to migrate when the current location was satisfactory in providing all critical needs of existence? And why continue to migrate from such a location when there was no immediate threat of a natural enemy? No other species has ever done this, only mankind.
​

The above picture captures in context the confrontation of two diverse cultural and ethnic groups. The initial image is most disturbing. I delayed the Nuttle report in an effort to fully examine what took place on the mall in Washington, DC. This event deserves more thought and what it means about the fabric of America than just an analysis of current events.  America is under stress, and not for all the reasons that some intellectual elites would have us believe.  
 
The national press continues to disappoint. CNN immediately ran the headline that a white youth confronted an elderly Native American disrespectfully on the Capitol Mall. The image then went viral and all sides of the debate were intensified in their anger. The headline was wrong, and the story was at best a half-truth. 
 
Available isover two hours of video which, when reviewed, tells a more complete story. The young man was part of a Catholic High School field trip to attend a March for Life rally. Black Hebrew Israelites were spewing inflammatory comments indiscriminately. The high school kids were playfully chanting a school cheer. The Native American elder approached them, not the Black activists, for the purported purpose of diffusing the tension. A member of the Native American entourage was recorded yelling, "White people go back to Europe. This is not your land!" This is hardly calming rhetoric.
 
The truth is probably that the provocation was caused because the youth was wearing a symbolic red hat that said“Make America Great Again.” This phrase is an anathemato Native Americans. To indigenous peoples, America was great when their culture possessed the land. The term implies a time when their constitutional rights were not respected. The good old days were not necessarily good for them. It is a time to which they do not wish to return. Little attention is given to the fact that the white young man was a child, caught in unanticipated circumstances. No attention has been given to the Black Israelite activists who may have been the inciters of the confrontation.  
 
The national press continues to provide fuel for ethnic anger.
 
Recently a Buzz Feed article claimed that special prosecutor Mueller had evidence with corroborative proof that President Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie about Russian investments. Again, the national press went into frenzied feeding taking the report as fact and inflaming ideological partisans.  In a rare and unprecedented action, Robert Mueller issued a statement denying the story. At least someone cares about the truth and the impact of unchecked falsehoods on the public.  
 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is denying access to the House Chamber for President Trump to deliver his state of the Union Message. The State of the Union Speech was established for the primary purpose of providing the explanation of a unifying message to the American people. Now, even that is being disrupted. It is as if no one cares about healing our divisions.
 
The press continues to operate for personalagenda in a negligently unprofessional manner. They are accountable to no one. They are incapable of policing or course-correcting themselves. They fail in lack of criticism of themselves for the detrimental effect of their spurious reporting.
 
We have had crisis conflicts throughout the history of our American democracy. In the fledgling days of our country, Marbury v. Madison set in stone the legal concept of judicial review. The Civil War was a result of intractable issues concerning states’ rights and individual rights. Today we are in multiple layers of conflict: divisions of government, factions in government, cultural and ethnic groups, states’ rights issues, and a belligerent agenda-driven press.
 
The common concern and moral commitment of all Americans must be to establish a platform of common purpose as a footing upon which to stand.  
 
Anthropologists, in unanimity, refer to the one common ancestor of mankind as Eve. In the Bible, Eve was Adam's wife. Secular scientists use the term as an analogy to indicate that one woman is the seed of all mankind. Whether Biblical or scientific, the result is the same. Since the beginning of human history, we were one race with one common purpose. As Eve's family grew, migration began, possibly in and of itself as a purpose. When attempting to reach isolated locations, mankind cooperated and lived together. As the earth became inhabited, farming and the domestication of animals ensued. Some people then stayed, enjoyed the local environment and benefitted from the fruits of their labor.  However, contempt of uncaring, unsharing, uncompromising selfishness was learned, not instinctive. Society has achieved success through structure. Sovereign states have a right to secure borders and protect their way of life. Yet, all cultures and ways of life should be respected in one common identity of one human race. 
 
Prehistoricman pursued life and sought his purpose in cooperation with other ethnic groups. The DNA from the skull of Vanuatu indicates that neither culture nor skin color werean impediment to cooperation. In cooperating, they occupied the same land, apparently in peace. Perhaps in the lessons of the beginnings of human history, the lessons of the ancients could be applied today. 1
 
A sense of hopelessness permeates U.S. citizens’ psyche out of a feeling of powerlessness. What is an individual citizen to do about the state of dysfunction and conflict in which America finds itself? It begins with each individual determining what is the common purpose of a common human race. It is incumbent upon each of us to reject half-truths and hidden agendas. Racism, bigotry, and intolerance should never be tolerated. 
 
The common decency, morality, and respect of dignity for each person’s definition of ‘love thy neighbor’ must be the common foundation on which society builds its infrastructure. Never yield to hate. And, believing in a common purpose can be a powerful solution. 
 
It is coincidental that scientists use the term Eve as the reference for the Mother of Humanity. For in the Bible, it was God who gave Adam and Eve the instruction: keep My Commandments, tend to the environment, live in peace, go and populate the earth.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
 
 
1For more information on the Vanuatu skull, go to  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-paleogenomics.html