Category Archives: corruption

The Politician and the Pastor

Posted on by

Before I begin let me say this, this post is not in reference to every politician or to every pastor. If this post does not reflect you(politicians and pastors)then it is not about you and you should not take offense to it. If this post reflects you(politicians or pastors)then it is about you and I personally hope that it offends the He double hockey sticks(Hell, in case you could not figure that out on your own)out of you. If your denomination uses a different term than pastor, just insert the correct title according to your denomination. One might not think so, but politicians and pastors have a lot in common. Both are servants.

Yes, politicians holding office are servants, they are public servants. They serve the public interest. The job even comes with a set of clear and explicit instructions. It matters not at what level they serve, there are instructions. Whether it be the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution or the County or City Charter. Sadly, some who hold Public Office lose their way, they go from severing the Public Interest to serving their own Self-Interest. Rather than doing what is best for the public or the Republic they instead do what is best for them and furthering their political career. In addition to serving their own self-interests the serve their political party. They place their own interests and party politics ahead of this Republic and the citizens.

Yes, pastors are servants, they serve God and the congregation. This job too comes with a set of clearly defined instructions. It matters not what the denomination there are instructions. It is the Holy Bible. Sadly, some pastors have lost their way. They go from serving God and the congregation to serving their own best interests. They go from doing what is right in God’s eyes to doing what serves them best in their eyes. Once they no longer serve God there is no way to serve the congregation.

Power and control.
Government(politicians elected or appointed)does(do)have power and control, but only to a limited extent. Their power and control may be lost at the next election. In our government the ultimate power rests with the citizens, well it used to anyway. The only power government has is the power granted to it, well it used to be that way.

Pastors falsely believe that they have power and control over both the Church and the congregation. In truth they have power and control over neither. They can never have power over the Church, Christ is the Church. The Congregation is the body of Christ. No mere mortal can ever have power over the One who defeated death or his body. Silly human. God has the Power and is in Control. God’s power and control are not temporary.

Do as I say not as I do.
Politicians elected or appointed seem to think they are above the law. The same laws, rules and regulations they pass or shove down our collective throats. We are expected to obey the law, no it is demanded we follow the laws, rules or regulations or suffer the consequences. Some of them are apparently exempt as there are no consequences to be paid.

Pastors break the 10 Commandments or the New Covenant(sometimes both)and preach to the congregation about obeying the 10 Commandments and the New Covenant. No the written Word is for all to obey. Unlike the politician there is no loop-hole for you or a position so great as to avoid the consequences. Forgot that one did you.

The Cash-Cow.
Let’s face it there is a lot, I mean a whole lot of money in both politics and religion. There are many politicians and pastors who were quite wealthy before getting into politics or religion. Many became wealthy because of politics. Many became wealthy because of religion. No one should acquire massive wealth as a servant, not a public servant and certainly not a servant of God. There is a little something from the Bible that addresses money and possessions. Those who love money never will have enough and will be ruled by their possessions. A little bit more. As everyone comes, so they depart.

There comes a time when the most inept at their chosen profession must surely recognize that they are doing more harm than good they would just do the right thing for once and leave.

So what happens next?

Posted on by

One has to wonder why the FBI has re-opened the investigation on HRC and the e-mails, especially at this late date. Me personally, I wondered why the investigation was closed in the first place. Given the fact that there were still so many e-mails unaccounted for. And given the fact that so many were given immunity.

The investigation was re-opened with 11 days remaining until the presidential elections. Was the investigation being reopened a distraction from the WikiLeaks dumps? That is one possibility. But, I point out that the MSM was giving little coverage to the WikiLeaks releases anyway. To the MSM the WikiLeaks releases of the Clinton and company e-mails was a distraction from any Trump stories they could dig up. I can assure you, however that if the WikiLeaks releases were about Mr. Trump the MSM would be all over them like flies on feces. It would be wall-to wall 24/7 coverage.

Which brings me to this concerning the MSM. Why is it that the MSM is so much in the tank for the democrats and the socialist liberal progressive agenda? Could it fear, and if it is just exactly is it that the MSM fears? It is plain to see that the MSM does not fear the conservatives. They have nothing to fear from the Trump supporters. They have nothing to fear from the legal and lawful gun owners. They in fact have nothing to fear from Mr. Trump.

America at this time faces a much larger problem than the MSM being in the tank for the socialist liberal progressives and their agenda. America could be facing a national security breach that could prove to be catastrophic. It was reported that HRC’s top advisor and long time friend did not deny the existence of copies of the e-mails on her husbands laptop, she merely stated she did not know how they got there. This leads to yet the possibility of other smart phones, tablets, blackberry’s and laptops that contain the same information which they may find on the laptop in question. Not only is there the possibility of countless devices outside of the government domain having classified information on them there is also the possibility that some, most or all of them could have been hacked.

Think about that for just a minute. Imagine the entire administration could be blackmailed into doing something or not doing something because one person decided on her own to operate outside of normal government security protocols. We will never know what is in the e-mails, but the possibility exists that many(as they are referred to as)bad actors could already have the information contained, all the information, including the yoga schedules, and probably do. Think on this for a minute. “Bad Actors” spend much time and effort trying to hack their way into government websites, they probably spend more time and less effort trying to hack into computers of government employees. There is also the possibility that the former Secretary of State was not the only one in the administration operating a home-brew server for e-mails and government business.

There is no honor among thieves. If it is true as reported that HRC’s top advisor and long time friend did not deny the existence of the e-mails and only offered the defense of she did not know how they found their way to her husbands laptop. There is only one way for an e-mail to end up on a device, in the “in box”, someone had to send it. One thief can not trust another thief.

This re-opened investigation will in most likelihood go on well past the presidential election. The outcome of the election will most likely determine the outcome of the investigation. If HRC wins the election and is inaugurated I doubt very much that we will have a repeat of Nixon.

If Trump wins and is inaugurated prior to the conclusion of the re-opened investigation and there is an indictment of HRC, there will in all likelihood be no presidential pardon. There will instead be a trial, a very ugly trial. She will not go down by herself. BHO and the democrats can not take that risk. If Trump wins and there is a presidential pardon given BHO will have to do that prior to his leaving office. Concerning presidential pardons, Nixon did not pardon himself, Ford gave Nixon his pardon. Had Nixon pardoned himself, or been able to do so, America would have at that moment become a “Banana Republic”. Remember Nixon was not indicted, he was merely exposed and caught up in lies. He resigned in disgrace. He was not even impeached. His pardon settled the issue of him being corrupt. It did not expose the corruption in the rest of the government. The pardon saved a trial and all that could have come with it. If HRC loses and is pardoned by BHO it only settles the matter of her. The pardon will do away with the need for a trial, the corruption and how far it stretches into the government will remain hidden, just as it did with Nixon.

It’s only 8 days until the election and any thing can happen between now and then. If nothing changes there will be only one outcome, by this time or slightly later next Tuesday either Trump or Clinton will be the president-elect. For the sake of this Republic I pray that Mr. Trump is the president-elect.

Something to think on

Posted on by

In last nights debate HRC brought up the fact that Mr. Trump began his business with a loan from his father. She claims it was $14 million he says it was $1 million. The amount does not matter, though I believe him over her. Look at what he has done with a $1 million dollar loan, he has turned a $1 million dollar loan into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. That is one hell of a return on $1 million.

Think on this, the politicians in D.C. have no such record. They have squandered the trillions of dollars they have taken from the tax-paying citizens, and somehow managed to borrow and spend another $20 trillion. If Donald J. Trump could turn a borrowed $1 million into billions imagine what he could have done with $20 trillion.

Speaking of taxes and the tax-paying public, HRC brought up the fact that Mr. Trump has paid nothing in income taxes. She and others claim that Mr. Trump uses the tax codes to avoid paying taxes. Mr. Trump is only using the tax codes to his advantage. It is very doubtful that Mr. Trump wrote any of the tax codes, those were written by politicians. It was the politicians who provided the tools for Mr. Trump to avoid paying taxes, I might point out that Mr. Trump is not the only one using the tax codes to his advantage. Name me one instance during HRC’s time in the Senate that she sought to change the tax codes.

That brings me to this. I get pretty tired of the politicians, democrat and republican claiming that the rich do not pay their fair share. Yet none of them has ever said or put in writing how much would be a “fair share”. Name me one politician who has introduced legislation that would change the tax code, or introduced legislation that would require the rich to pay their fair share. Politicians go out of their way to protect the wealthy, large corporations, investment banks and basically anyone or anything that has money. Why, you ask? Political contributions.

Speaking of political contributions. The way to clean-up politics and get the corruption out of government is to take out the money. There was an old saying that went something like, Money is the root of all evil. Money is not the problem, it is an inanimate object, no emotion and no will of its own. Money does have the power to corrupt, so does the lack of money. Mankind is the corruptible one in this equation. Two of the things that can corrupt mankind are money and power. All men are not corrupted by money and/or power, that seems to be not the case in most politicians.

Take the money out of politics and you will take the politicians out of politics. Two things that should never make a person rich are politics and welfare, they are also the same two things that should be a career. Money in politics have turned public service into self-service.

Corruption in voting. It seems, to me, that voter ID laws should be the law of the land. This one simple act would be the surest way to verify the voter’s identity, and that he or she was entitled to vote and were indeed who they claimed to be. The democrats seem to think that requiring a photo ID places an undue financial hardship on the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable in the population. But, the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable must produce a photo ID to purchase beer, wine, alcohol and cigarettes. Think on this, how many times one must prove their identity during the course of the day?

One last thing, Ethics. It seems odd to me that we keep sending politicians to Washington, D.C. that seem to be short on ethics. There could be no other explanation, if they have an “ethics committee”. Imagine a committee to tell a person when they are acting in an unethical manner or doing an unethical act. Here is the kicker, the ethics committee is made up of other politicians. Sounds like trusting the fox to watch over the hens. Is there an ethics committee in your home or do you just know right from wrong? Ethics can best be summed up with this, Ethics are doing the right thing even when no body is watching.

Glad that’s over

Posted on by

So now the big question is; Who won Trump or Clinton? Both campaigns will be running to the office to check the latest polls. The other minor parties will be doing the same. Checking to see who got a “bump” and who lost ground.

Today the pollsters will be out in force asking their questions, the same questions that allow you pick from of their responses rather than letting you answer their questions in your own words. Remember this pollsters are paid, depending on who is paying the bill sets the questions, how they are worded and your “options” for an answer.

The talking-heads will have a field day today dissecting what Trump and Clinton said. The presidential debates are meant, I suppose, for the purpose of helping the undecided make up their minds and perhaps to give reason to change support form one to the other. The last of these two reasons is pretty much pointless since some states already have early voting in progress. Those people have already made their choice. Nothing in the debate tonight, or the future debates, would have any consequence to those that have already voted, they have already made their choice. It is also very doubtful that either lost or gained any support. There are very few if any voters that have not already made their choice and are just waiting to cast their ballot, no matter what they may claim.

Since everybody is going to declare who they think won or lost the at the debate, I might as well get in on it. So here we go.
Who won? Nobody.
Who lost? Everybody.
I even lost something in this debate. I lost nearly 2 hours of my life. That is two hours I lost and will never be able to get back. Gone forever and for what?

The problem with the debates is the debates. The questions are pointless. Does anybody expect a great, knock it out of the park answer when the question is pointless? Then only two minutes are allowed for a response and thirty seconds for a rebuttal. What could possibly be learned from 2 minutes much less 30 seconds?

Let me give you an example of a pointless question? The moderator asked a question concerning the racial tensions in America. Think about how he phrased the question. Think about it this way. If he were to ask; How do you plan to deal with the racial tensions in America? The answer would be the standard run of the mill answer, and the usual blames will be attached. One claims a lack of law and order and the other claims mistrust. Guess what? Both are the correct answer.

There is another thing about the questions at the debates, the question are phrased so that they can be answered in 2 minutes. There is another and perhaps more important point to make about the debates. The moderator is also a voter, which means that he or she has a preferred candidate and a preferred party. They will not ask questions that may cause embarrassment to the candidate or the party, or in this case the political party nominee. He or she will not show the same discretion to the other side.

What I personally would like to see in the debates are questions that require a much longer answer and some critical thought. For instance, if the moderator wants to ask about racial tensions in America, maybe he or she could raise the question in this manner. Why are there racial tensions in America? I would like to see someone, anyone answer that question in two minutes? (Maybe I will do a post about that subject in the future).

If you want to have productive debates ask better questions. Another thing that would help would be that the moderator leave his personal agenda out of the process.

For me nothing has changed. One wants you to have the opportunity to have a job and the other wants you to have the opportunity to get free stuff.

Paying Tribute

Posted on by

Tribute. noun 1 a: a payment by one ruler or nation to another in acknowledgement of submission or as the price for protection.
Tributary. noun 1: a ruler or state that pays tribute to conqueror.
Tributary. adjective 1: paying tribute to another to acknowledge submission, to obtain protection, or to purchase peace.

The above definitions come from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, and yes I did “cherry-pick” them for use in this post. I intend to continue using this same dictionary as well as a history1800s.about.com article written by Robert McNamara and my own knowledge.

The payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran by BHO and his administration in my opinion amounted to paying a Tribute to Iran. I base my opinion on the following:
The Nuclear Deal with Iran was passed off as a way to prevent a future war. Did anybody ever explain exactly what war this deal was to prevent? Was Iran threatening to go to war with the U.S. or any other nation over the sanctions imposed on Iran? Was Iran threatening to go to war if they were not permitted to become a nuclear nation? Was the payment of the $1.7 Billion included in the deal?

Let us also not forget about the $400 million paid to Iran in cash for the release of 4 hostages. The State Department said it was not a ransom payment they called it leverage. The only way I could see it as a leverage was to with-hold the ransom payment until certain conditions were met. Such as the two planes leaving the ground simultaneously, one carrying the cash(ransom)and the other carrying the hostages.

On a side note. We must not forget that the sanctions imposed on Iran were a direct result of Iran’s actions. Had the Iranians not swarmed the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and taken Americans as hostages the sanctions would have never been imposed.

So let’s go through each definition. Before we do let me clarify something. Iran is a predominately Muslim country following Islam, the Iranians are Persians.
If I use Tribute as a noun, it asks these questions.
If the tribute paid to Iran by BHO was to acknowledge submission, what was it that BHO submitted to? BHO is the head of our government and by default represents America. Did BHO take it upon himself to voluntarily submit to Islam? If he did submit to Islam did he take America with him?
If the tribute paid to Iran was for protection, just who or what is to be protected? Who or what is Iran supposed to Protect?
If I use Tributary as a noun, it asks these questions.
If the tribute was paid to Iran as conqueror, who or what was conquered? Was America conquered by Islam? Or was it a payment for future Islamic conquests?
If I use Tributary as an adjective, it asks these questions.
If the tributary paid the tribute to acknowledge submission, who submitted to what?
If the tributary paid the tribute to obtain protection, who or what was the protection intended for?
If the tributary paid the tribute to purchase peace, who was the peace purchased for and for how long?

All of these questions open up endless speculation. Do they not? Some of the answers one could come up with are down right scary.

Paying Tribute to Muslim nations, the followers of Islam is nothing new.

The following comes from an article written by Robert McNamara at history1800s.about.com

The Young U.S. Navy Battled North African Pirates
Barbary Pirates Demanded Tribute, Thomas Jefferson Chose to Fight

I will not use the article in its entirety, I will use only parts of it and at times interject thoughts and opinions of my own. If you have not read the article in its entirety please do so, it is very interesting and educational.

The Barbary Pirates had been marauding off the coast of Africa for centuries. The North African pirates had been a menace for so long that by the late 1700s most nations paid tribute to ensure merchant shipping could proceed without being violently attacked.

In the early years of the 19th century the U.S. at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson decided to halt the payment of tribute. A war between the small and scrappy American Navy and the Barbary pirates ensued.

Background of the Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates operated off the coast of North Africa as far back as the Crusades. According to legend, the Barbary pirates sailed as far as Iceland, attacking ports, seizing captives as slaves and plundering merchant ships.
As most seafaring nations found it easier and cheaper, to bribe the pirates rather than fight them in a war a tradition developed of paying tribute for passage through the Mediterranean. European nations often worked out treaties with the Barbary Pirates.

So you see there is a long history of paying tribute to Muslim pirates and nations. There is another interesting tidbit from the article by Mr. McNamara.

In March of 1786 two Ambassadors, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the ambassador from Tripoli in London. They asked him why American Merchant ships were being attacked without provocation. The ambassador explained that Muslim pirates considered Americans to be infidels and they believed they simply had the right to plunder American ships.

That answer was simply priceless wasn’t it? The Muslims have not changed one bit. They simply believe that they have the right to plunder those they consider to be infidels. There is even more from the article.

The U.S. government adopted a policy of essentially paying bribes, or tribute, to the pirates. Jefferson objected to the policy of paying tribute. Having been involved in negotiations to free Americans held by North African pirates, he believed paying tribute only invited more problems.

A man like Jefferson in the government of today would be like a breath of fresh air. He recognized the Muslims for what they were and was not afraid to say so. But wait there is still more.

While the tribute was being paid the young U.S. Navy was preparing to deal with the pirate problem by building a few ships destined to fight the pirates off Africa. 1801-1805: The First Barbary War.
When Thomas Jefferson became president he refused to pay any more tribute to the Barbary pirates. In response the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States. Congress never issued an official declaration of war in response, but Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron to the coast of North Africa to deal with the pirates. The show of force by the U.S. Navy quickly calmed the situation.

There was a problem with the way the war ended, it ended with a Treaty. It is the same problem that has plagued the U.S. for years. Congress did not declare war against the pirates and their sponsors(more on this later). Since war was not declared it was not fought with the objective of demanding and unconditional surrender from the pirates or their sponsors.

More from the article. After the victory at Tripoli, a treaty was arranged which, while not entirely satisfactory to the U.S., effectively ended the First Barbary War. There was delay in the ratification of the treaty by the Senate. Ransom had to be paid to free some American prisoners. The treaty was eventually signed and Jefferson reported to Congress that the Barbary States would now respect American commerce.

This brings up two points I made earlier. The treaty to end the first Barbary War was not entirely satisfactory to the U.S., then why the hell was it agreed to much less ratified? The same as the nuclear Deal with Iran, by all reports it was not entirely satisfactory for the U.S., why the hell was it agreed to then carried out? And Make no mistake the deal with Iran is a Treaty. The Secretary of State and others in the administration have already said that some of the money would likely be used to promote terrorism. A nation promoting terrorism is certainly not in the best interests of America, is it? Giving them the money to do it with is insane. The other point is, If the U.S. was victorious then why the hell did a ransom still have to be paid for the freedom of American prisoners? Wasn’t the First Barbary War fought because Jefferson refused to continue paying tribute? Did the vanquished get to dictate terms to the victor? An undeclared war that ends with a treaty is unfinished business. If there was a First Barbary War, guess what followed shortly after? You guessed it.

More from the article. 1815: The Second Barbary War. During the War of 1812 between The U.S. and Britain. The Royal Navy had effectively kept the American merchant ships out of the Mediterranean. Problems arose again with the Barbary pirates at the war’s end in 1815. Feeling that the Americans had been seriously weakened, a leader with the title of the Dey of Algiers declared war on the U.S. the U.S. navy responded with a fleet of ten ships. By July 1815 the Dey of Algiers was forced to commit to a treaty. Pirate attacks on American ships were effectively ended at that point.

You will notice that the First Barbary War ended with an “arranged” treaty and the Second Barbary War ended when the vanquished was forced to sign a treaty. But still a treaty is a treaty no matter if is arranged or forced. The first treaty lasted for 10 years. The second treaty lasted until 2009 when the Somali pirates emerged. They all have one thing in common, the pirating ended with a response from the U.S. Navy along with the Marines. The other thing then as now the Muslims would prefer to attack merchant shipping(they are unarmed vessels), they have yet to try an attack on an Armed vessel. I am referring only to pirates attacking ships on the high seas. I was not referring to the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

You will also notice that the Dey of Algiers declared was on the U.S. only because he thought the U.S. was so weakened it could not resist and would once again begin paying tribute. How typical of Muslim terrorists, picking a target because they thought their prey was in weakened state.

A few paragraphs back I mentioned the Barbary Pirates and their sponsors. Now I will address the sponsors of the Barbary pirates. Back to the article one more time: By the early 19th century the pirates were essentially sponsored by the Arab rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli.

Those four listed above make up what would be known as the Barbary States. If the Barbary pirates could be looked on as terrorists, then Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli could be seen as one of the first state sponsors of terrorism.

No one can argue that Iran is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism. People in our own government has even made that claim. There is another thing, when the negotiations for the Iranian Nuclear Deal began, just who initiated the talks? If Iran initiated the talks Iran would have been the weaker party and unable to demand concessions from the other parties. If Iran did not initiate the talks then it would have been one of the other countries involved. Perhaps it was BHO and his administration that initiated the talks. If this is the case it would indicate that the one initiated the talks was in the weaker spot and unable to make demands and seek concessions from Iran. It would be much like the Second Barbary War, the Muslim pirates declared war because they thought America was weak. I have a feeling that desperation set in somewhere along the line and it became “a deal at any cost” endeavor on the part of all the participants except Iran. I just wonder why so many countries were involved? Why were there deadlines to reach a deal? When time had expired why was a new deadline set? Did Iran demand so many concessions because they viewed the U.S. as weak? Did the BHO administration make so many concessions and demand so little because they were weak?

The Iranian Nuclear Deal intended to avoid or prevent war lets Iran build the ultimate weapon of war, a nuclear weapon. Seems kind of stupid to let someone build a nuclear weapon that has threatened war, in the name of peace.

The “peace at any price” strategy had failed when the British PM Neville Chamberlain used it against Adolph Hitler. Was it not Neville Chamberlain who uttered these now famous words; There will be peace in our time, or something to that effect. Hell he even waved the document that He and Hitler had signed. You know the one that assured peace.

Questions and Answers Part 3

Posted on by

The last post in this series left off with; How far are they willing to go to save their precious party? The answer is pretty simple. They will go as far as they need to, and they will do what ever it takes.

It is bad enough that Mr. Trump has the democrats to contend with, he also must contend with the main stream media and their blind allegiance to HRC and the democrat party. He must also contend with you, the ones who claim that supporting or voting for Trump would go against your principles. So let’s look at things that have not gone or do not go against your principles.

Let’s start with the current crop of republicans who pawned themselves off to the voters as Conservatives. I do not recall you claiming that voting or supporting them went against your principles.

The national debt, does being over $19 trillion go along with your principles? It must, the candidates you forced down our throats are the ones who helped put America in that much debt.

No, I will not continue with this, it serves no purpose. You are what you are and I know you for what you are. I figured you out long ago. It will suffice to say that you love your precious party more than this Republic. You would rather give this Republic to HRC than to give it a fighting chance.

If HRC wins the election on the 8th of November this year, the Republic will have you to thank. You have protections from what you do and what you have done. It will be us, the common folk that will have to live with what you have done.

Keep your damned party. I want my Country back.

Questions and Answers Part 2

Posted on by

We as citizens of America need to start asking questions, a lot of questions. Who, What, Where, Why, When and How should be applied to every decision or statement that comes from the administration and congress. It would seem that Why would be the most important. We must look for a Motive, just like the police do in crime solving. Nobody does something for nothing, there is always a reason. Gather the evidence, investigate and find the motive, pretty simple when you think about it. Means, Motive and Opportunity.

This part of the series, as did the last, has to do with the assertion made by BHO and others that Donald Trump in their opinion is unfit and woefully unprepared to be president. In the last post I left off with; How will the establishment regain control? Can the establishment regain control?

They, the political elite, actually believe that the primaries were about Trump. True enough Trump won the nomination, but the primaries were about America and the American citizens. America was the message and Trump was the messenger. Even if Trump loses to Clinton there is no guarantee that the establishment will ever regain control of the Republican party. But it is certain that if Trump wins the establishment will never regain control of the party. The only way the establishment can regain control, in their mind and thought process, is for Trump to lose. The party elite and their donors as well as their surrogates in the media worked tirelessly throughout the primaries, at the convention and still work today to rid themselves of Mr. Trump.

Make no mistake they want the party back under their control. Will or can the party elite regain control of the party is not the important question. The real question, the important question, is how far are they willing to go to regain control? There is another thing to consider, regaining control does not guarantee the you will retain control. If you regain something that is no guarantee that you will retain control. Regaining and retaining are two entirely different things. So which is the most important? When you work out a way to retain control, you have in essence guaranteed that once control is regained it will never be lost again. This creates a new question. How far are the party elite willing to go to regain and retain control of the party. And remember that it is not only the party elite it goes all the way down to the politicians. It is all about power and control, if there is no control there can be no power. They will not stand for losing neither.

Now this is starting to get complicated and not to mention that it opens the door for some very interesting theories. One does not even have to use their imagination to figure out how far they are willing to go in their quest to regain control and then to retain that same control.

I will say this, the best and most horrific example of how far a politician will go to regain and retain control of something that had “slipped” away is what is called the “Civil War”. Abraham Lincoln declared war on the States of the Southern U.S. who had seceded. The Reconstruction period was the way to retain the Union. The “Civil War” is laid square at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. The Reconstruction period can be laid square at the feet of the politicians succeeding him. Both have been proven to be totally unnecessary. The Southern States were seen as disloyal to the Union. The “Civil War” was the instrument used to get the Southern States to return to the Union. The Reconstruction period was the instrument used to punish them for leaving the Union. More on this later.

I am not saying that the party elite are going to declare a “civil war” against those that they view as disloyal or have a reconstruction period after their victory. Some say that the civil war was waged to save America. You claim that Trump is destroying the party. I just wonder how far you are willing to go to “save” your precious party.

The next post will highlight some of the steps that you have already taken to “save” your precious party.

Questions and Answers Part 1

Posted on by

We as citizens of America need to start asking questions, a lot of questions. Who, What, Where, Why, When and How should be applied to every decision or statement that comes from the administration and congress. It would seem that Why would be the most important. We must look for a Motive, just like the police do in crime solving. Nobody does something for nothing, there is always a reason. Gather the evidence, investigate and find the motive, pretty simple when you think about it. Means, Motive and Opportunity.

Recently BHO had said of Mr. Donald Trump, that he was unfit and woefully unprepared to be president. At the same time he said something to the effect of, he would have been disappointed if McCain or Romney had defeated him. He also said he had confidence in both of them. So I asked myself why did he not say that both McCain and Romney were unfit and woefully unprepared to be president while they were running? At the beginning of the republican primaries there were 17 vying for the nomination, Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson, Mrs. Fiorina and 14 career politicians. Would BHO claim that Dr. Carson or Mrs. Fiorina would have been unfit and woefully unprepared if either one of them had been the republican nominee? We will never know the answer, but I suspect he would have. Would BHO have said that any of the career(professional)politicians were unfit and woefully unprepared to be president? We too will never know the answer, but I suspect he would NOT have. Why not? Glad you asked.

You see Gov. Bush, Sen. Cruz, Gov. Kasich, Sen. Rubio and the 10 others were and are professional(career)politicians, in the truest sense of the word, and are well-connected in the political world. Mr. Donald Trump is not a politician. According to Webster’s, politician 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession 2 b: a person interested in political office for selfish or other usu. short-sighted reasons. If any of those 14 had went on to become the nominee it would have been a politician facing a politician. BHO would prefer HRC to win but if she lost, at least she would lose to another politician. What do you mean? Again, glad you asked.

When a politician wins America loses. Politicians do not have the best interests of America or Her citizens at heart. The professional(career)politicians have their own best interests at heart. They want to be re-elected and do what ever is necessary to accomplish that goal. If they lose they are satisfied that another politician wins. Even if it means or meant destroying this Republic. The career(professional)politicians do not want any outsiders in their midst. They have nothing to gain by letting the populace see what is behind the curtain. If you need proof of this look no further than the video of the statement made by the Senator from NV, minority leader Reid saying, Just give Trump a false briefing he won’t know the difference. Just make something up. They do seem to great lengths to keep us in the dark, and then brag about it. Actually encouraging the ones giving the briefing to lie to the man who could very well be our next president. Kind of makes one wonder what else they could be hiding from us, the citizens of this Republic. Why is it so important to keep the outsiders out? Glad you asked.

They have everything to lose. As long as they control, or think they control, who gets a seat at the table they have nothing to fear. As long as they control the table they control the game, not only controlling the game but making the rules as they go. They have everything to fear when they are exposed to scrutiny. They the establishment and the established politicians are all about power and control. The establishment has now realized that they are losing control, if they lose control they will lose power. To stay in power they must regain control. What they are losing control over are the voters, we made the choice this time in our nominee, the establish had no control. The establishment not only lost control of the voters but they lost control of the republican party. How will the establishment regain control? Can the establishment regain control?

Good questions. Those answers will come in Part 2.

What gets the blame the next time?

Posted on by

We have the Liberal Socialist Progressives pedaling yet another lie. Recently the Secretary of DHS gave an interview in which he stated “Gun control is Part and Parcel of Homeland Security for Public Safety”. That is one big lie, in fact the man is 180 degrees out of plumb. The Truth is that “Gun ownership and the Right of Self-Defense are Part and Parcel of Homeland Security and Public Safety”. But the lie will be repeated and accepted as truth. The victims in Orlando, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga and others all had one thing in common, they were in areas where firearms were prohibited. In each instance the victims obeyed the law, the same can not be said of the Terrorists. Gun control in action.

While it is true that there is no proof that the victims could have defended themselves from the Terrorist if they were armed, there is a high probability that they could have lessened the death toll. There is also the very high probability that the Terrorist would have passed them by if he even suspected they might be armed. But we will never know if they could have or not. Why you ask? They were not given the chance to prove you right or me wrong. Why you ask? They followed the law, the one which you made that prevented them from defending themselves. They may well have failed but at least they could have tried, they never had a fighting chance. You took that from them. Now you push gun control for public safety, you have got to be kidding me. The victims were out in public at a public establishment and they were attacked. When the Terrorist attacked he used a gun or two and those that responded brought guns, many guns. Again the good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. But they had to wait for you. The same action taken by law-enforcement could have been the same action someone in the club could have taken without the wait, if only they had the means.

As of yet America does not have exploding people, yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to explode. Nor does America have exploding cars, trucks, buses or motorcycles yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to own or operate wheeled vehicles that do Explode. Nor does America at this time have roads that explode yet the government allows people into this country that seem to enjoy exploding roads. It seems that it would just make common sense to keep people out of this country that explode, drive or ride in exploding vehicles or enjoy exploding roads. Our government does just the opposite allows them to come here and worse yet they encourage them to come here and even worse they bring them here.

When the time comes, and it will come, when people start exploding it will not be the clothing that exploded it will be the person wearing the clothes. The government will spend more time finding out who made the clothes, so they can blame the clothes and the ease in which that brand can be bought in America, rather than the exploding person. The same goes for cars, buses and trucks even the roads.

In case you missed it, there seems to be a practice in parts of the Middle-East where if a gay is found he is taken to the top of a building, dangled by his feet and then dropped to his death. In some cases they were just outright thrown off of the roof top. When this happens here in America, will you claim that the building was to tall or that the ground was too hard? When a woman gets stoned to death here in America, will you blame her for getting stoned or will you blame the rock for attacking her? What will you blame when mass beheadings occur in America? Will you blame the one being beheaded or will it be the knife? Not to mention the offenses committed against women and children, what will you blame in that instance? The list goes on and on.

You push gun control while you should push for terrorist control. Makes me wonder what it is you really want to control. The legal and lawful gun owners are under control most, definitely the vast majority, exercise self-control while others, a definite minority, are controlled by the laws. Those that exercise self-control will never be a problem, unless forced. Those that are controlled by the law will not be a problem as long as there are laws. What is out of control are the terrorists, they have no self-control and are not afraid of you or your laws much the same as the criminals. Seems to me you are taking out the frustrations of not controlling terrorists or criminals on the already law-abiding.

You push to limit and/or take away the only means that the legal and lawful citizens have to protect themselves. While you on the other hand have a small army at you disposal(a well armed small army)to keep you safe at all times. I have only me to protect and defend me and mine. By the time help arrives, it is most often to late. If you doubt that watch the news.

Seems kind of backwards to me that you provide better for them in their homelands than you will allow me to have in my homeland, and still you seek to further limit me. By the way, Which country is it that your are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for?

I have a much better idea for you to focus your time and energy on. Why don’t you go there(where ever they are from)and teach them how to make clothing that does not tend to explode. Help them build modes of transportation that are not prone to explode. Help them build roads that are not prone to explode. And don’t forget to teach them to build kitchen appliances that are not prone to explode.

-wits

Posted on by

uncle-sam-prayer-for-americaEnough already. The levels of incompetence and ignorance have reached a new all time height. I mean even modern jets have a maximum ceiling(altitude) and even a maximum airspeed where they can still function safely. Apparently there are no such restrictions on incompetence or ignorance, there are no limits on how high it can go or on how fast it can spew forth.

A prime example of this is the political reaction to the recent terrorist attack in Orlando. The political solution is apparently to further restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens. Everybody at the club were law-abiding citizens, they were out for an evening of entertainment and merry-making. As I recall firearms are not allowed in the part of a club serving alcoholic beverages, so consequently the lawful were disarmed, obeying the law. The only one who broke the law was the terrorist who entered the club with firearms. And then he did what terrorists do, he starting killing unarmed citizens(civilians). He chose a “soft target” because he wanted to go about his terroristic intentions unimpeded by the possibility of encountering anyone inside the club that may have been armed. You will note that this like almost all large-scale terrorist attacks the intended victims would have no way to effectively defend themselves. The laws on the books worked just fine, problem is the terrorist had no intention of following the law. It will be the same the next time it happens, wherever it happens, the same as in California. The law-abiding citizens obeyed the law, the terrorists did not nor will they, ever.

Immediately the gun control crowd jumped up on their “soap-box” claiming that more gun control was needed to prevent such acts. They actually blamed the murder and mayhem on the gun. So they cries went out for somebody to do something, the gun violence must be stopped. I do need someone to explain to me how a gun, an inanimate object can become violent all by itself. It again just like every other crime or terrorist act took the intentional effort by a human being to carry out the act. It was not the gun that is or became violent enough to load magazines itself and pull back the charging handle and the aim itself at people and then commence firing and change magazines as the ammo became depleted. No all those actions required a human. I would even be bold enough to claim that if a rifle were to be loaded with a full magazine, the charging handle pulled back and released to send a live round of ammunition into the chamber and the safety not engaged(left on fire) and then placed in a corner the loaded rifle would stand right there until the end of time and never turn violent. The only thing left to do was to pull the trigger and it would go bang, it would wait right where it was left waiting for a human. Magazines can not load themselves, charging handles can not pull themselves to the rear and triggers can not depress them selves, all those steps require human action, willful and intention human actions.

What needs to happen is that the right to self-defense of the citizens of this country needs to be unimpeded. But the gun control crowd and the liberal socialists in government(democrat, republican and independent)will demand and do just the opposite. It is not the law-abiding citizens that are the problem in this country nor is it the availability of firearms. The problem is the criminal element and now terrorists in this country. We do not need gun control, what we do need is criminal control and terrorist control. Criminals can be controlled by the laws already on the books, but only if the laws are enforced. Terrorists can be controlled by not letting them in this country, in other words immigration and visa control. Failing to control immigration and visas into this country is akin to letting people into your house that should never have been allowed on your lawn, then acting surprised when they destroy or attempt to destroy you and yours.

One interesting tidbit was the congress critter from down Orlando way spewing this garbage, people should not be allowed weapons that fire seven hundred a minute. That idiot should do the math on his foolish statement. 700 rounds per minute would equate to 11.6 round per second, that is one fast semi-automatic rifle no to mention the quickness of changing magazines, and the weight of that much ammunition. Are the good people from his district really contemplating sending him back to congress? Lord help us. After hearing what that man had to say I had to consult Webster’s for a possible word and definition that would help describe the level of incompetence and ignorance of some of the distinguished members of government, I came up with the following;
Nit-wits, Half-wits, Dim-wit and Witless, they pretty much all mean the same thing. A stupid or foolish person. The I looked for words to describe the statements they make and possible laws they may attempt to introduce in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack. I came up with the following; Half-baked, not completely thought out.
1959792_716153281770894_2116533504_n

I would like to point this out in case any of the gun control crowd missed it. When the call for help went out it was answered by people with guns, a lot of people with a lot of guns. If you are so against guns why did you call for and expect people carrying guns to show up? If the terrorist wanted to cause such carnage and he did not have a gun or two he would have chosen a different method, the result would have been the same many innocent would have died. The same can not be said if someone, anyone or everyone in the club would have had a least the same capability as the terrorist. I thought you liberals were all about equality and creating a level playing field. You gave one an advantage over many others. Why do you promote policies that go against one of your stronger beliefs? All things being equal, I mean. Seems to me you actually promote inequality.

Then I have to say that the Dim-wits, Nit-wits and Half-wits can only be in government if people of the same caliber continually elect and re-elect them. The only way we have half-baked ideas for laws is that people elect people who hatch half-baked laws. You reap what you sow. You elect stupid you get stupid.

Then there is this, incompetence and ignorance runs rampant through society. Read on Free Republic today where the Southern Baptist Convention(SBC)has banned the display of the Confederate Flag in SBC churches. So let me address this real quick while on the subject of Dim-wits, Nit-wits, half-wits, Witless and Half baked. The Southern Baptist Church I attend does not display the Confederate Flag on the grounds or in the Sanctuary, there are however on display in the Sanctuary the Christian Flag and the U.S. Flags. Were you referring to the Stars and Bars(the Flag of The Confederacy, The Confederate States of America) or the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia? Just asking. Since when did political correctness enter the Sanctuary? If you are by decree banning the flag that may or may not be displayed in a Southern Baptist Church because someone may be offended, when will you deny Christianity because someone may be offended?