Sun Tzu

I've considered that; and I can’t say that Clinton and any in the past that didn’t serve were horrible leaders. I'm also one that has the full respect of the republic's foundation. It's my view that the design allows for evolution while protecting itself from being ignored.

I have seen a recent issue about the U.S. being created on the foundation of Christianity; so there should be no friction with the element of God with national issues both state and federal. Did the makers feel cultural evolution could bring forth the grounds for such possible validity?

Militias had a tremendous contribution to US independence, but are seen much differently now. This for obvious reasons perhaps. Times have changed.

Without checks and balances it would be understandable why great concern would justify not emphasizing that kind of experience. But the 2 other branches carry tremendous power. I also believe the "industrial military complex" is something that has multiple dynamics that should be approached with great responsibility. Our first president led an army didn’t want the position for that very reason. I feel our evolution has brought us to a point that having that professional culture in their resume makes for a better suited leader in the area of Commander in Chief. I would hope that the evolution would continue to a point where America could shift most of its focus outside of defense.

If it sounds as though I saying there should be a General Patton at the helm; I’m not I humbly think service in the military present today would only enhance a candidate.

I understand your point though.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking