​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

 
By Marc Nuttle
 
In 336 AD, the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, declared December 25th as the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. There is no reference in the Bible of the exact date Jesus was born. Constantine chose the date because it aligned with a popular pagan secular holiday of the Empire supported by the citizens of Rome. Pope JuliusI designated it as the official Catholic celebration of Jesus’ birth a few years later. The word Christmas comes from the phrase “Mass for Christ.” One could argue that the controversy today about “Happy Holidays” denigrating the greeting of “Merry Christmas” is an effort by the secular world just reclaiming their original celebration. 
 
What then does one mean when one says “Merry Christmas?"
 
The true meaning of the term Merry Christmas to a Christian embraces the spiritual hope that the essence of the peace of Christ enriches your life. To receive this gift of grace, one must believe that God is in control of the universe, all circumstances, and the purpose of life. Christ, as the Father’s son, came to die for the sins of the world. 
 
If God the Father is in control of all things, seen and unseen, why would he create a world for which His Son had to be sacrificed? Because we are in this system of things to learn the lessons of righteousness and the consequences of evil so that we may live in harmony with God in His Kingdom eternally. The solutions of societal problems will never be achieved in this system of things because the undeniable, self-serving lessons of the instincts of mankind will dominate. The grace of God is necessary for righteousness to rule.
 
Secularists or atheists believe that life has no original purpose. We simply exist by the random acts of nature which were generated by a cold, dark universe. The earth is a speck in the cosmos. We are no more relevant as a life-giving system than an interesting happenstance of cosmic forces.  Therefore, any holiday is just that, a day off from morerandom activity. To some, not all but some the term "Happy Holidays" becomes a statement and world view. Certainly, other religions like Judaism celebrate their traditions during the holidays.  However, many  Intellectuals like to elevate themselves by stating that any appreciation for the life of Christ should be held strictly in the context of a human being who stood for philosophical enlightenment. In other words, one of their own. A mortal man who professed an opinion. Recognizing the possibility of God incarnate challenges their intellectual superiority. 
 
It is interesting that even the great Stephen Hawking had no explanation or theory of how the universe began in the first place. We exist today. And, to exist, something always had to exist before us. Therefore, something always had to exist as “the great uncaused cause.” This reality is beyond the grasp of human intellect. Yes, astrophysicists now believe that there are as many as thirteen dimensions. This still does not explain how something always was.
 
A Christian’s faith in an all-knowing purposeful God is no greater a penumbra than the atheist’s faith that someday science and the ultimate intellect of man will determine all truth.
 
In this week before Christmas, if one looks only at the current events of the world, there is little anticipation of joy. In Yemen, babies are starving because of the actions of governments geopolitically fighting over the Muslim definition of religious dictum. A seven-year-old girl died of dehydration last week as part of a migrant caravan seeking asylum in the United States. No child should ever suffer, let alone face death, as a result of unnatural circumstances. All children and their safety are the obligations of all of us. The United States did not know of the child’s condition on the border. A church or the Mexican government should have ensured the basic needs of the refugees. It is their responsibility once the migrants breached the border of Mexico in the first place. Once there, they cannot ignore them.
 
Yemen is a different case. Starving babies is a humanitarian crisis. The world led by the United States should demand a ceasefire until necessary relief supplies can be provided to hospitals and isolated towns in Yemen. The rules of war can be somewhat dictated by outside world powers. Power should be used for benevolent purposes. 
 
This past week, President Trump, to the glee of the national press, appears to have been involved in campaign law violations. The Mueller investigation trudges on. Bitter partisanship in Congress deepens. If the secular intellects are so sure that life, beginning in randomness, can achieve righteousness in this system of things from within the origins of a cold, dark universe that they cannot define, what then is their evidence?
 
The question becomes, what can one do about the state of the world? First, decide what you believe. Express it to those you love. Stand on your belief, whatever you commit the basis of your existence to be. Just making a decision will impact more lives than you will ever know.
 
This week of Christmas, it is not just that I wish you material blessings. I do. It is not that I just wish you good health. I do. It is not that I believe for one to be happy the world has to be a perfect place, I do not. 
 
It is that I wish for your relationships with each other as meant by the purity of the Love of God. In this Christmas season, I wish for you the grace and the peace manifested and realized by the presence of Jesus Christ.
 
I wish you a Merry Christmas.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
 
 
P.S.This is the last Nuttle Report of the year given that Christmas and New Year’s fall on a Tuesday. The next report will be published on January 8, 2019. ​

By Marc Nuttle
 
As a nation, we mourn the passing of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States of America. His career included serving as a Congressman, Director of the CIA, Ambassador to China, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He is being praised as a moderate president of gracious purpose for the use of power. His restraint of aggressive attitude is not to be confused with a lack of commitment to a strong moral code. He believed in a cause, but it did not dominate his personality. Why?
 
Because George H.W. Bush was relational.
 
The most important things to “41,” as he was fondly called later in life, was first his family and then his friends. He did expect loyalty if you were part of his team. But he had respect for the views and values of others. He was gentle, soft-spoken, and had a knack for expressing thoughts in short sentences. Some who dealt with him politically questioned his level of intensity. The President would rather leave a room than engage in acrimonious discourse. He was the quintessential gentleman.
 
He served our country in extraordinary times as President from 1988 through 1992. In 1989, Bulgaria declared its independence from the Communist Party of the USSR. Few knew at the time that this was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. In 1991, Ukraine declared itself a sovereign state and independent of Soviet influence. At the same time, China was emerging from behind the Great Wall. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a resulting tragedy of the turbulent transition. 
 
What commentators and historians are primarily discussing during this week of national mourning is the U.S. rescue of Kuwait from the invasion by Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This military operation, commonly referred to as Desert Storm, was a measured response to the violation of rule of law between sovereign states. President Bush was criticized at the time for driving Hussein out of Kuwait but leaving him in power of Iraq. History may treat this decision more favorably as conflict in the region continues. 
 
What is not being given enough attention and accord is President Bush’s handling of the Ukrainian effort to become independent of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, up until 1991, was an area of Russia. It was not a sovereign state. The Ukrainian people had a distinct history, culture, and language. But they could only claim a seat of government for two years from 1919 to 1921. They were, in effect, a historical principality. 
 
There were nuclear missile silos on Ukrainian territory. A major network of gas pipelines crossed Ukraine. Ukraine successfully becoming an independent state was complicated both politically and structurally. Soviet generals advised to bring Ukraine back in line with military force. Why?
 
Because they were primarily cause-driven.
 
To the Soviet generals, relationships have little value, only objectives matter. You either agree with the national policy or you are forced into compliance.  The word on the street in Kiev during the crisis was, “remember Czechoslovakia in 1956.” Then a rebellion was put down in a bloody confrontation.
 
I had been dispatched to Kiev to aid in the elections for the independence of Ukraine. My sponsor was the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. quasi-government foundation. I reported in part to the U.S. State Department. During the conduct of the elections, Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the Soviet Union, sent tanks into the streets of Kiev to intimidate the citizens to abandon the electoral process. 
 
There were no diplomatic offices in Kiev. It was considered an outpost. I traveled to Moscow to meet with the U.S. attaché for Ukraine to inquire of U.S. foreign policy on the Ukrainian crisis. I informed the United States that I did not believe the Ukrainian people would stand down. If the Soviets fired on the population, revolutionwould erupt. 
 
President Bush’s response was to openly defy President Gorbachev. He informed his Soviet counterpart that he would lead a coalition of Western countries to isolate the Soviet Union from the community of nations. Any attempt to suppress democracy would be met with protracted diplomatic protocol to recognize the Ukrainian people’s right to declare independence. President Gorbachev decided not to engage the tanks against peaceful citizens. Why?
 
He was more relational in purpose than cause-driven.
 
After the successful elections for independence and the fall of the Soviet Union, records of internal Soviet leaders’ discussions and debate have been published to reveal that the generals were ready to go to war. This was their advice even if the U.S. threatened military action. There were State Department leaders in the U.S. who advised President Bush to abandon the Ukrainian plebiscite. This advice was offered not because they feared war, but because they were cause-driven to maintain the world order as it currently existed at that time.
 
President Bush made his decision not to abandon the Ukrainians in their time of need on the basis that all people deserve to be free. However, he did not threaten to go to war. 
 
Two relational leaders, who believed in causes and creeds, but were not willing to force such causes upon another people at the price of bloodshed, resolved the conflict without major loss of life. It is interesting to consider the pressure that both men were under. President Gorbachev survived a military coup. President Bush survived for only one term. Both men should be lauded for putting people first.
 
The passing of a person’s life is always a time for reflection and mourning. The timing of George Bush’s passing during the beginning of Advent season is particularly impacting. 
 
Jesus Christ was a man who believed in relations first as a way to express the cause of His Father’s Word. He loved all people the same. Yet, He never compromised the cause, the purpose, and the commandments of His Father’s creation. His relationship with individuals and his cause were not separate but unified in the purpose of His message.
 
In this season of Christmas, we must be reminded that we are all in this system of things together. It is not only appropriate but critical for diversityof thought. In respect for each other’s moral values, we seek the application of eternal principles that bind us by generations.
 
In respecting each other and honestly developing relationships, we aspire to establish societal peace through the process of relationalcause. 
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe? ​

​Donald Trump’s first trip overseas as President of the United States has produced a surprising reaction. He has been met with great respect from the leaders of the countries he is visiting. King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia met the President at Air Force One. This is something King Salman never did for President Obama. The greeting by the Saudi government was one of the most elaborate in their history.
 
Why?
 
Because the world is uncoiling. Current structures and alliances have reached their maximum points of acceptable pressure and stress. The appeasement strategy towards Iran, instituted by the principal sovereigns of the world, has allowed Iran to exploit points of weakness in global society, resulting in the development of structural stress fractures. Saudi Arabia now realizes that an unchecked Iran puts the House of Saud in peril. Saudi Arabia purchased $110 billion of sophisticated weapons from the United States because they need them. Further, they want the United States as an ally against Iran.
 
Realignment is occurring right before our eyes.
 
We would expect Israel to lay out the red carpet for President Trump. The United States has historically been Israel’s one, true friend. The President prayed at the Western Wall. Again, a first. No sitting U.S. President has appeared at the Temple Mount. The President executed this sincere ceremonial gesture with great diplomatic acumen. No Israeli government leader accompanied him to the wall. This was for the purpose of reserving the discussion for whether the Temple Mount is in Israeli territory. This holy area was captured by Israel in the Six-Day Arab-Israeli War of 1967. The Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. Israel claims Jerusalem as their historic capital dating back to King David. Neither President Trump nor Secretary of State Rex Tillerson addressed the issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem.
 
The President then met with Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Palestine and the Palestine Liberation Organization. They embraced each other in a symbol of friendship. This gesture, immediately following a trip to the Western Wall, is most significant and extraordinary. President Abbas has recognized President Trump as a hope for future resolution in the Middle East. This hope surpasses his hatred of Israel.
 
The incredible thing is that President Trump’s diplomacy was accepted without question by all leaders.
 
In flying directly from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Ben-Gurion Airport in Israel, President Trump further demonstrated that he is determined to reset the protocol of the region. Saudi Arabia does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. No Israeli citizen can fly in and out of Saudi Arabia on an Israeli passport. There was no criticism or discussion whatsoever about the President’s itinerary. Further, President Trump posed for photo ops with King Salman and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt at the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. Egypt recognizes Israel and accepts passports with an Israeli stamp. The symbolism of this meeting, and President Trump’s departure from Saudi Arabia directly to Israel, establishes a new immediacy of purpose as a priority for Middle Eastern leaders.
 
In other words, President Trump plays by his own rules and intends to enforce them. Arab leaders of the Middle East are showing respect for his initiative. Iran is now faced with the proposition of being isolated as a Shiite nation.
 
Who will realign with Iran?
 
Not China. China has its own economic problems and internal political strife. President Xi is consolidating power. Over 1,000 communist leaders have been purged in recent months. The fight is over whether to double-down on communistic economic controls. President Xi believes in moderation and more cooperation with the West for banking and financial reform. Communist hardliners would close the borders, and by government dictate, demand that Chinese citizens trade only in yuan (the Chinese currency). This would result in an economic catastrophe for China. President Xi is opposed to such government controls. He has asked President Trump for help and is being given some economic cooperation. In return, the Chinese have agreed to open their markets to certain U.S. businesses. Also, China has agreed to pressure North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to stand down. China needs the United States more than the United States needs China.
 
Not Russia. Vladimir Putin’s strategy is based on regional control. The Russian economy is mid-sized at approximately $2 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By comparison, Germany is almost $4 trillion GDP, and the United States is approximately $18 trillion GDP. More importantly, Russia’s main export is oil, and oil is denominated in U.S. dollars. They may not be our friend. They may have meddled in our elections. But this is not the Cold War, winner-take-all strategy of the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Following a trip to the Vatican tomorrow, President Trump is on to Europe to attend a NATO Summit and a meeting of the G-7. This completes a full loop of all economic entities that can impact the world financial structure today. Every other country in the world is economically reliant upon actions taken by the United States, Europe and China. The U.S. has its differences with Europe on a few economic and social issues. But each is committed to the other, absolutely, on the issues of democracy, liberty and freedom.
 
President Trump may have struck a brilliant, strategic mission by weaving a cultural necessity, and therefore an alliance, with China, the Middle East and Europe. Iran and Russia may continue to exacerbate the situation in Syria. But there is no global strategic alliance between them going forward. Certainly, on the issue of extreme terrorism, Russia and Iran have different priorities.
 
It is important to recognize that the basic difference between Sunnis and Shiites is not religious theology. Rather, it is political conferment. A sovereign that attempts to use Islam as the basis for government purpose is blurred in comparison, by definition, to other less theological sovereigns with Muslim majority populations. This is why the rebellion of the Arab Spring did not result in more theocratic government rule. Instead, government accountability became more critical.
 
What the world is looking for is consistent leadership on issues that provide a hope and future for the world not controlled by despots or theological, religious dictators. What is at stake now is this. If leadership for which the world hopes is not provided, a strong man or dictator could rise to force compliance around a single decree of perceived justice. Such a consequence, even on a regional basis, will ultimately intensify world conflicts.
 
The world is uncoiling because the current structure of world alliances has not allowed for the free flow of people, ideas, and free enterprise. The coil has been maintained under pressure by anti-freedom forces. We have reached a point in history wherein world systems cannot be maintained by such forces and therefore will unravel. Whether this occurs without turmoil will depend upon leadership from the United States. We are the only country with the military, the banking, the wealth, the currency, and the Constitution to help the world reorganize and realign under the auspices and aegis of respect for the comprehensive, individual right to the pursuit of happiness.
 
The United States of America is the only sovereign country, in the history of the world, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and that the government is established to facilitate individual freedom. We are one of only a few countries that is not threatened by the unrestrained fluidity of ideals, free enterprise, acceptance of diversity, and individual pursuits of happiness. In fact, America prospers because of these principles.
 
The answer to the uncertainty of the world’s uncoiling and realignment is simply the advancement of God-given rights. And it is a trust in the acceptance, impartiality, and receptiveness that, in the protection of freedom, the basis for solutions to all iniquities will emerge.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?

​One year ago today, very few Americans thought their choices in voting for President of the United States would be Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. The Republican and Democratic nominees are disliked by 60% of the American public. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein represent third parties which each garner less than 5% of the electorate’s votes. Some Americans are so disappointed in their options that they are considering casting a protest vote or not voting at all.
 
All current options available for choosing by the American people fail in affirmatively appealing to over 50% of the electorate. To date, all campaigns have spent their energies denouncing the other candidates as unfit. Hillary Clinton is attempting to label Don Trump as crazy and unstable. Donald Trump is attempting to define Hillary Clinton as too corrupt to be President. The Libertarian Party led by Gary Johnson is defined by a philosophy to reduce the size of the military, legalize marijuana, and limit government restrictions on most social behavior. Mr. Johnson fails to point this out in his quest to be an alternative to the two major parties. Jill Stein, as the head of the Green Party, operates under the aegis of the political theory that all politics revolves around the environment. She disregards any analysis of economic cost of such policy to the dismay of the American public.