Marc Nuttle
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Marc's Previous Work
  • Projects
    • Subscribe to the Nuttle Report >
      • 30 Day Free Trial!
  • Blog
  • CONTACT
  • Subscriber Login

Marc Nuttle Blog

​​Marc Nuttle's blog includes samples of the Nuttle Report as well as regular updates.

Constitutional Conflicts

3/2/2021

Comments

 
Picture
Last Thursday, Congress achieved something many thought impossible. The House of Representatives passed legislation that united progressive feminist organizations with evangelicals. The legislation passed was the Equality Act. Christians and women’s rights groups were forged into opposition. Both ideological groups believe the Act is a unconstitutional threat to their core beliefs.
 
The Equality Act is ill-named. It is not about equality but the imposition of generic LGBTQ ideology as a superior constitutional right to religious freedom or women’s rights. The language of the bill is intended to blur gender identity as specifically set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sex as a protected class is replaced or covered with the new definition of sexual orientation and gender identity. By doing this, the specific category of sex is diminished.
 
By this legislation, religious freedom and the free exercise of one’s faith become marginalized, restricted, and, ultimately threatened. Church organizations, including hospitals and educational institutions, will not be able to hire people based on their core beliefs. An atheist will have a constitutional right not to be rejected for employment at a church-based facility if the Equality Act is passed by the Senate and becomes law. Individual creeds will take precedence over cultural creeds.
 
Feminists are concerned because gender identity replacing biological sex as a protected category could curtail strides and advancements in women’s rights over the past several decades. This could mean that scholarships in sports or grants and loans for women in business could now be awarded to transgender men. Some fear that the result of the Equality Act would, in fact, be to erase women from society as a category of people protected for equal rights. The scientific biological definition of a man or a woman would become less determinative.
 
The Act threatens an individual’s right to freedom of speech. The famous cake case, “Masterpiece Cakeshop” in Colorado was litigated under the First Amendment determination of free speech. The baker, Jack Phillips, was open for business to anyone who wanted to buy a cake from general merchandise. However, he reserved the right to create products that were not in violation of his faith. The case was actually resolved on the grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not enforced the law equally among secular businesses and businesses of faith. At issue is freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof for one’s constitutional rights in commerce. The Equality Act would undermine these First Amendments rights as inferior to LGBTQ rights.
 
Such cake bakers will be forced to stop baking cakes.
 
The Equality Act restructures the intent and purpose of our Republic. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If Congress were to enact this legislation into law, states would be hindered by limited authority in managing education, healthcare, employment, vocational-technical training, and election laws in governing the policy of their states. A critical component of the brilliance of the Constitution was specifically allowing individual states, operating collectively as a Republic, to maintain certain powers for the governing of society as individuals living in those states saw fit.
 
The Equality Act is therefore not about equal rights at all. It is about forcing a new ideological definition of normalcy onto a public, regardless of their religious, personal, or governmental views. This is not about mainstreaming LGBTQ people. It is about changing or eliminating any other viewpoint or activity in contradiction to their worldview.
 
The logical extension of the Equality Act philosophically may render unintended consequences. To coin the old phrase “coming to a theater near you soon” is universal drug enforcement, gun control, and redefinition of interstate commerce.
 
In an effort to redefine gender in society, progressives believe that the end justifies the means. They will always accept the sacrifice of collateral damage to achieve the purpose of ultimate standardization of society, including gender identity. In this case, the collateral damage is the elimination of certain freedoms of the Bill of Rights.
 
The Constitution begins with the phrase, “We the People,” not “We the government of standardization.” Constitutional Conflicts need not result in the elimination of one group’s rights over another. Certainly not by an act of Congress redefining the powers of the separate branches of government at the expense of the people. If one group’s rights are to become superior over another, it should be accomplished only by constitutional amendment.
 
The central debate for the Equality Act is incompatible with civil rights. The rights of all minorities and women as a gender are not in conflict constitutionally with other individual’s First Amendment rights.
 
The Tenth Amendment gives us the answer on what to do in reference to the struggle for power between the branches of government. If the power is not clear, it is reserved to the people.
 
The Constitution, with all of its amendments, protects distinctive ideologies as the Creator celebrates diversity. Without protection of distinctiveness or respect for diversity, our society will collapse under the oppressive weight of standardization.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
Comments

The Bermuda Triangle of Economics

2/5/2021

Comments

 
Picture
The Bermuda Triangle is an area in the Atlantic Ocean, east of Florida between Bermuda and Puerto Rico. Legend has it that many sailing vessels and aircraft traversing the region have mysteriously disappeared without explanation. Upon reasonable forensic examination, these rumors are proven largely to be myth. Yet, disappearances have occurred.
 
Discussions on political theory for structuring government coordination in the world could result in a new triangle of policy that will trap, and then eliminate, small business. If implemented, the disappearance of small businesses will not be a myth.

A profound objective that on its face appears to be prudent will actually result in the death of creative economics. Unrestricted new ideas are the inspiration for progress that has benefited society’s standard of living as we know it today.
 
Progressives who advocate the coordination of all governments for the purpose of a one-world standard are insensitive to the needs of small businesses to be flexible. Liberals are numb to the consequences of imposed regulations on the free market sector. Once made aware of the threat regulations pose to small and family-owned businesses, certain leaders have no remorse for business owners' plight. Big government objectives requiring global coordination are paramount in purpose. Therefore, the consequences rendered of lost small business are acceptable collateral damage.
 
The first side of the triangle is the global objective of managing climate change. Globalists believe that anything the entire world uses should be managed by a global governmental body. The Treaty of the Sea was promoted pursuant to this thesis. The air a person breathes fits into this category of belonging to the world. The only way to effectuate climate control is for every manufacturer to be subject to a world standard of operation. The only way to control all manufacturers is through individual governments enforcing a global law. Certain manufacturers in the United States are required to add scrubbers to their towers to control emissions. These scrubbers cost millions of dollars, adding nothing to the bottom line. Businesses are told by government inspectors that, if they cannot afford the scrubbers, then they can’t afford to be in business. This is, of course, a government perspective, not a market definition.
 
Only a large business with a substantial market share can afford the regulation.
 
The second side of the triangle is the global objective of managing universal health care. Bill Gates, in a recent interview, laid out his strategy on how to avoid the next pandemic. Six thousand scientists, operating in research institutes, would be strategically placed around the world to watch for the next pandemic. They would take measurements and observations every day to shield the spread of the next virus outbreak. If a new coronavirus was detected, a protocol would immediately go into effect to shut down the immediate surrounding environment to contain the virus. Such a plan would require the cooperation of every government in the world to implement.
 
The third side of the triangle is the global objective of managing the financing of operations. This has most recently been stated as the great capital reset or capital redistribution. Such strategy involves the management of capital and labor worldwide to ensure that the objectives of the other two sides of the triangle are met. This side of the triangle is necessary so that every manufacturer and every government in the developing world can afford to comply with the new regulations and protocol.
Picture
Once the triangle is completed, most small and family-owned businesses are ultimately eliminated.

What does this mean to world society? Small businesses are the innovative engines that present new and efficient products and services for a developing economy. The economy serves the people’s desires. Nimble management, unencumbered by burdensome government regulations or past legacies, allows for the creativity of the human imagination to flourish. Eighty percent of all new jobs currently created in the United States originate in businesses of 25 employees or fewer. 
 
In a world system of coordinated governments, the people serve the government objectives. Limited economic choices are provided by government planning.

Progressives seek climate change as their moral authority. They pursue global health care as society’s essential authority. They demand redistribution of capital as their operational authority to achieve their means.
 
As possibly well-meaning as the construction of this triangle is, it eliminates an essential element of freedom in society, the right to pursuit of happiness in one’s own determination of economic destiny. In any elimination of freedom, society in general pays a great price. Elites are immune to the effects for they are privileged in their position. The more restrictive a government, the narrower the community of Elites. Authoritarianism is unselfish and insensitive to who benefits from the fruits of government. The ones who suffer are those who are subject to the government regulations that demand control of the fruits of their individual labor.
 
Government control of the economy minimizes business competition resulting in stale standardization. Business as usual becomes acceptable through tolerance. Excellence in service and innovative change become a threat to the status quo. Introduction of new products enhancing the standard of living become impossible for the entrepreneurs.
 
Individual freedom is the goal of righteous government. This Declaration of Independence is the founding principle of the United States. The Bermuda Triangle of Economics will not only change American society, it will destroy its spirit. The United States has produced the greatest economy the world has ever known. In this prosperity, opportunity has flourished.
 
One only has to recognize the liberation of individual talent in this one single economic fact to know what is important for any society. Fifty percent of the U.S. non-farm adult workforce works for a small or family-owned business of 25 employees or fewer, producing 50% of the Gross Domestic Product.
 
With this fact in mind, does anyone really believe that the consequences of the Bermuda Triangle of Economics are worth the cost? 
 
We only have to look to our forefathers for direction in answering this question for our children.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
Comments

Franklin’s Query

1/19/2021

Comments

 
Picture
Picture
Rising Sun Chair
The Rising Sun Chair was the official seat where George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention. The chair was positioned on a platform allowing General Washington, as president of the Convention, to oversee the proceedings in the debate between the delegates.
 
And a raucous debate it was.
 
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was birthed out of the absolute crisis and need to cure the governing structure of the colonial confederation. It took four years to call the Convention. Once convened, it took four months to agree upon the Constitution.
 
When the Convention delegates voted to send the Constitution to the states for ratification, Benjamin Franklin, in a conversation with James Madison, was reported to have said, “I have often, in the course of the session, looked at that sun behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length, I have happiness to know that it is a rising… and not a setting sun.”
 
On more than one occasion, the Convention delegates were at an impasse to agree on a new structure of government. At one point, the debate had disintegrated into such divisive chaos that Benjamin Franklin and others called for a recess to commit to prayer for one day.
 
And, so they did.
 
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” ratified the Constitution that became the example for the world. Franklin offered our Constitution as a template for European leaders to consider, confident that it would become the world’s new standard.
 
For many years, kings and dictators labeled America as an experiment, yet to be verified in its government comportment. Certainly, we have been tested throughout our history. And, certainly, America is being tested today. Confidence in our democracy has been weakened. Forty-three percent of the American public believes that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen or the subject of substantial fraud. That number is not just composite of conservatives. Seventy-four percent of Republicans question the election results. But also, 35% of Democrats doubt the validity of the reported outcome.
 
Another category illustrating national fracture are those who feel isolated from the benefits of American democracy. Forty-six percent of Americans think America is unfair and discriminatory as a country. Barely 54% of all citizens are satisfied with the elections or the United States as a country. The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates that a scarce 23% of citizens believe that the United States is on the right track.
 
Tomorrow, America inaugurates the next President of the United States. This event is beyond solemn. A peaceful transfer of power in the U.S. is the foundational hope for order in the rest of the world. The Capitol looks like an armed camp. State capitols are on high alert. Rumors of disruption abound through chatter on the internet that the sun will rise tomorrow on a day of destiny for the United States of America.
 
The situation renders emotion intensified. The outcome of tomorrow’s constitutionally mandated inauguration will be a benchmark in American history. The culmination of the democratic process for electing a Commander in Chief by the will of the people is on exhibit. One could come to the same moment of question facing Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention: is the sun rising or setting on the United States?
 
At a time so dire, so emotional, so personal to each of us in the history of our great country, we seek remedy. The only remedy appropriate is supernatural. As did our Founding Fathers, it is time for us to pray.
 
I therefore offer this prayer for the United States, with consummate respect for all religions, and for those who claim no religion.
 
            Father in Heaven, I pray:
 
  • That You, Father God, will be honored as sovereign
  • That the inauguration of the next President will be peaceful in Washington, DC and in all state capitols
  • That the Constitution will be respected as the supreme law
  • That the republic will be strengthened through the democratic commitment of its citizens
  • That, as a people, the United States will begin to heal through common purpose of freedom for all
  • That societal divisions will bridge through brotherly compassion
  • That every family will be made whole in the security of their pursuit of happiness
  • That every citizen will feel included, respected, listened to, and loved
           
           Amen. 

Franklin’s query is our query today. Faith in what is good is the power to achieve what is possible. May our faith in our country answer the question at hand, that the sun is still rising on the United States of America.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
Comments

“Father Joe” Versus “Winston Trump”

8/25/2020

Comments

 

Volume 8, Issue 34

Picture
The public’s tightrope walk in the political circus
​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%.
Picture
Historic 1-10 Scale of the American Electorate
A further breakdown simplifies the analysis. Thirty percent of the public desires more government in their pursuit of personal security. Thirty percent of the public believes inherently that less government is the path to opportunity and personal freedom. Thirty percent is driven by the need for personal economic security. Ten percent at any given time are in prison, seriously ill, or otherwise incapacitated. When issues become complicated, the public’s default position is always to what provides security, what provides freedom, or what provides economic sustainability.
Picture
Historic Position of Swing Vote in Presidential Elections
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?
Comments

The Start of the Final Scene

8/18/2020

Comments

 
Picture
1832 First Party Convention
The Democrats held the nation’s first party convention in 1832. They nominated Andrew Jackson for President and Martin Van Buren for Vice President. This set the stage for the theatrics of launching a candidate for President in the United States. 2020 will be the last year of a national convention as we know it. We are entering the start of the final scene of our nation’s political history.
 
For the last several election cycles, the national news outlets have threatened to drop coverage. Viewer ratings have declined substantially since the 1970s. With the advent of cable news channels, party conventions became an extension of partisan policy rather than unifying themes. Americans have, in general, rejected extreme partisanship. The fact that the Independent Party now has the largest registration (44%) in the U.S. is commentary that the Democratic and Republican messages are not working, even though they were the only national shows in town. (The Independent Party has no national convention.)
 
The first night of the first national party convention in a presidential cycle is traditionally the start of the Presidential general election. Four years from now, this initial launch will be traditionally restructured, redesigned, and re-strategized. COVID has accelerated the trend to jettison obsolete programming, entertainment, and outdated modes of interactivity. Everyone from Disney to the NFL to national political parties are now rethinking personal relationships. Doing things the old way simply because that’s the way they have always been done is no longer a starting point for consideration.
 
The start of the final scene is more than just political drama. It is the unraveling of a complicated national plot to its logical conclusion. The French call this particular part of the play’s development denouement. Such a scene is based on past circumstances of the plot projected through to the conclusion that reality demands.
 
And so, it begins. What might we expect?
 
The Democratic convention opened last night with an evangelical prayer. It closed in the name of Jesus Christ. This is the first time such a prayer has been rendered at a Democratic convention in many years. The managers of the production evaluate every single word proffered for impact and political intent. Why then an evangelical prayer? It was intended to soften Christians’ perspective in reference to the Democratic party platform and to ease one’s conscience that it’s okay to vote for Joe Biden.
 
Small business owners were emphasized and given credit for being responsible for 50% of all jobs in America. Again, this is unusual for a Democratic convention to highlight. This was done to precondition small and family-owned businesses to the forthcoming message that more government support is needed for the economic recovery.
 
John Kasich, former governor of Ohio, led the anti-Trump Republican choir’s message that civility and acceptance are necessary qualities for presidential character. Emphasizing respect for government officials presages the theme they will present that government action is best run by committee with the least amount of conflict as possible. Michelle Obama prioritized these points.
 
Tonight, the Democrats will preach to their base. The headliner will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Other liberals will echo her sentiments. The strategy is to weave continuity between the progressive base, the Bernie Sanders movement, and minority leaders of the party.
 
Further, the general theme of the convention tonight will be that Joe Biden is a good man who listens. He can absorb multiple opinions and determine and implement consensus policy. In other words, he is a good committee manager. He is the quintessential candidate for those who believe in more government.
 
Tomorrow night will be the ultimate stage for former President Barak Obama. He will return to Joe Biden the favor of stating that it’s acceptable, and in this case preferable, to support an outlying candidate who is driven by government solutions.
 
All messages rendered by the speakers are tethered to the basic emotional premise that Donald Trump is simply unsuited to be President of the United States. The strategy is to make the election a simple referendum on whether or not you like President Trump personally.
 
Thursday night will be former Vice President Biden’s opportunity to make the case that policy is less important than personality. His greatest challenge is convincing Americans to support him for what he represents in character rather than for any policy that they desire or fear.
 
The policy plot of denouement yet to be exposed is the complicated mixture of socialism versus free enterprise. One can debate the benefits of each. But in the era of COVID, that will not be the determinative substance of the conversation. The question, as to the result of hidden policy applied in the great unraveling caused by the coronavirus, will simply be: is more government the critical objective or is individual freedom the critical principle to be protected?
 
For some, Joe Biden is less than that for which they had hoped. For some, Donald Trump is more personally than they can stand. We should not ask which one can unite us. We should ask which one will protect freedom as an essential life principle.
 
Progressives are mistaken that people demand equal outcome. What people desire is equal opportunity to peace in destiny. By this, they seek fulfillment in their life’s purpose as each one determines it. This eternal right transcends age, race, gender, and creed.
 
Vice President Joe Biden will sacrifice individual freedom through more government regulation to achieve equal outcome. President Trump will sacrifice equal outcome through less government regulation to achieve individual freedom.
 
Regardless of personalities, one must determine for oneself what is most important in this cumulative scene of our country’s history. Determining what is more important, individual freedom or a government managed society, will clearly identify the logical outcome of a complicated plot known as the Great American Experiment.
 
Elysium is not possible in a mankind-managed society. Only in faith in a spiritual society ordained by God is there hope for perfection.
 
A universal peace of individual destiny can be realized only in freedom of choice. Individuals making decisions freely in line with their own ideal of happiness is the only possible process to achieve peace in existence.
 
Defining peace through personal creed imposed on others divides society. The destruction of evil is only consecrated when righteousness for all is the motive. An individual creed set against all as a tribal exclusivity simply replaces the evil perceived.
 
As the curtain rises on the final scene of this critical Presidential election, look beyond this system of things to the principles most important to you for peace in your personal destiny. . .
 
Look to your own faith in eternal values.
 
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
 
What do you believe?
Comments

The Left’s Characteristic Conundrum

3/5/2019

Comments

 
Picture
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?
Comments

February 26th, 2019

2/26/2019

Comments

 
Picture
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?
 
 
​

Comments

Lessons of the Ancients

1/24/2019

Comments

 
Picture
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.
​
Picture
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
Comments

Merry Christmas

12/18/2018

Comments

 
Picture
 
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. ​
Comments

Relational Cause

12/4/2018

Comments

 
Picture
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? ​
Comments
<<Previous
    SUBSCRIBE
    $25 per year
    Marc Nuttle

    Marc Nuttle

    Marc Nuttle is a lawyer, author, consultant and businessman who's had a varied career. He has represented and advised Presidents of the United States, leaders of foreign countries, state officials and corporations. Marc has worked on government policy and has predicted economic trends. Marc managed the successful Right to Work campaign in Oklahoma in 2001. 

    Marc Nuttle's blog includes samples of the Nuttle Report as well as regular updates.

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    August 2020
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    September 2017
    May 2017
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Links

    newhorizoncouncil.com

    Categories

    All
    Elections 2016

    RSS Feed

Marc Nuttle
Home | Biography | Projects | Contact | Terms of Service
All website design, text, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all software are owned by The Right Strategy Group LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Any use of materials on this website, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, without the prior written consent of The Right Strategy Group LLC., is strictly prohibited.
Powered by The Right Strategy Group
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Marc's Previous Work
  • Projects
    • Subscribe to the Nuttle Report >
      • 30 Day Free Trial!
  • Blog
  • CONTACT
  • Subscriber Login