Category Archives: Republic

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.

-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?

Time to wake-up

Posted on by

Wake-up sleepy heads, as they say “Wake-up and smell the coffee”. While you are at it wake-up the American spirit, the spirit that should reside inside every legal and lawful American citizen. Wake-up your values and take notice of what is going on around this country. Wake-up your morals and take notice of what is happening around this country.

Then again you may not be sleeping, you may be like the frog in the pot of water. You were not placed in a pot of hot water if you were you would have recognized the danger that you were in and you would have immediately gotten out. You were placed in a pot of water with a comfortable temperature and you remained. A fire was built under the pot you were comfortable in and the temperature was slowly increased and you never felt the danger that was awaiting you. The water is getting hotter and hotter and still you remain, never noticing the water is at, if not already past the temperature where if you were placed in it at the beginning you would have gotten out. Perhaps you have gotten comfortable while you are being stewed. Comfortable and complacent.

America finds herself in the unfortunate position of being the frog in the pot of near boiling water. The American spirit has been being boiled out of the citizens for so long the American spirit is being boiled out of America herself. There is at this point two flames in America one is growing bigger and stronger while the other is growing smaller and weaker. The flame growing is the flame under the pot with America in it. The flame growing smaller is the flame of the American spirit, Freedom and Liberty.

Now, let’s talk about “Making America Great Again” more specifically the “Greatness of America”. America truly is a great, unique and exceptional country no matter what the “apologists” claim or say. I would dare to say that there is no nation on earth like America. What was it that made America great to begin with. A little history, short version.

America was not a free and independent nation in 1776 or times prior. The 13 colonies existed under the rule of a tyrannical and despotic Monarch. A point was reached when the insufferable was no longer sufferable. America declared its independence in 1776, and then fought for it for 5 long years. It took 5 years for the British to finally get the message that the Colonials had stood all they could stand and would stand no more, but get the message they did. The beginnings of American greatness began with the Colonials they wanted freedom and liberty and were willing to take up arms and possibly sacrifice everything, even their lives to gain it. Independence was not granted to the Colonials, they fought for it and won it many died to gain it. Those brave souls earned for each and every legal and lawful citizen of this great nation Independence with all of the Freedoms and Liberties associated with it. In short America became a great nation not because of the world, but instead in spite of the world, and therefore owes no apologies to the world.

So, how did America find herself sitting in a pot of near boiling water? There are three answers to that question.
The first answer is sadly enough the citizens. The citizens found out soon enough that they could indeed vote themselves money from the national treasury(more on this in a later post).
The second answer is that the government changed. They found out soon enough that they did not need consent to govern(more on this in a later post too).
The third answer is that the Conservatives found themselves swallowed up by the Republican Party(more on this now). The Republican Party does not now or has it ever represented any Conservative values. There have been times when a Conservative have been elected President and along with him brought Conservative values, but was only allowed to implement Conservative changes to government that the Republican Party would allow. The Republican Party is the party of Big Government, always has been always will be. The Democratic Party is nothing like it was, and has deteriorated to a level of outright Socialism. The funny thing is that most Conservatives are former Democrats. President Reagan was at one time a Democrat, as he famously stated when asked why he left the Democratic Party “I did not leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left me”. President Reagan knew and recognized that the Democratic Party had been hi-jacked and would never return, lost forever to Radical Ideologues. There are still many Democrats in the spirit of President Thomas Jefferson and President Ronald Reagan, but none of them hold office as Democrats and sadly they do not fit in with Republicans(this will also be covered in a later post).

There is before America a chance, perhaps the last chance to get out the hot water. That chance comes in the form of Mr. Donald J. Trump, he is no Jefferson or Reagan but he is the possible way out. Look at the rest of the contenders, one is a self-proclaimed socialist and the other is, well. Sanders and Clinton will both keep America in hot water, boiling the very life and spirit out of her and us.

Many of us recognized the dangers of being a pot of water long ago and got the heck out of it. Now we find ourselves trying to pull America out of the pot. The task before us is a great one. We try to pull but America sinks deeper in the pot, slowly having the spirit cooked out of her. There are times when we make great progress then a set back occurs and America slips back in. But we keep trying, it would be a shame to let this Nation continue to boil. At any rate, if you are asleep wake the heck-up realize that America is in a heap of trouble climb out of the pot dry yourself and for God’s sake help us pull this great nation out of the proverbial pot. You do have another choice, you can remain asleep in the pot of boiling water until one day you hear someone say “Put a fork in her she is done”. Your choice.

Maybe this explains it

Posted on by

There has to be a reason why the political elite and the political powerbrokers are still trying to derail the Trump Train, and this may just explain it.

First Donald J. Trump got where he is in the presidential primary process not because of them, but in spite of them, even their best efforts to stop him failed. He spent his own money, not the money from the usual cast of characters. That must really tick them off. Not only did he spend his own money, he spent less than the political insiders. He spent less because it was his money, and not other people’s money. This is something politicians will never grasp, they spend other people’s money when they should be spending money like it was their own. If they did the nation would not be 19 trillion in debt.

Second the establishment politicians have let the conservatives down for far too long. The political elite, the powerbrokers and their surrogates claim that Trump is not conservative enough or a true conservative. For far too long the voters have had to support the so-called conservative candidate the republican party wanted. When they are elected the vast majority of them act a liberal socialist progressives. We have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and caused a revolution in the republican party. The voters will decide who is conservative enough to represent them and your party not you. This must really tick you off, to that I say good. You have been ticking us off long enough. We are now the adults in the room.

Third the voters are tired of being lied to. Donald J. Trump has not even officially won the primary process as of yet and is already fulfilling campaign promises. Imagine that, as impossible as it sounds, we have a man running in the primaries and he is already fulfilling campaign promises. Not exactly a quality of a career politician, is it?

Fourth Donald J. Trump appeals to the voters, look at the number of votes he has already amassed in the primaries and it is not over yet. The people must feel that they will finally have a voice in government. Not only that, there is finally a presidential candidate that speaks to the voters, not the lobbyists, special interest groups or donors. Some talking heads claim that the Trump Train is a cult of personality. I disagree with them, but I will say that at least Trump has some personality, unlike the previous nominees and the establishment politicians that were in this primary at the start. The last two republican nominees were whipped in the general elections, so much for electability.

Fifth you are afraid of Trump. Perhaps you fear a Trump presidency more than you fear a Clinton presidency. Do you fear Trump because of what he might or might not do? Are you afraid that the game might be up? Do you fear exposure of your past misdeeds?

The Strategy of Cowardice

Posted on by

That which is happening now is certainly revealing. What it reveals is that desperation has set in. The republican field of candidates seeking the nomination has dwindled from 17 to now just 3. Enter the Cruz/Kasich “deal”. With the Cruz/Kasich deal allows the primary process to go forward with 3 candidates in some states and only 2 candidates in others. Donald Trump is and will be the only one of the three on every ballot from this point forward. Donald Trump is demonstrating that he is the only one with guts enough to move forward risking defeat each and every time. While the other two will no longer have to risk coming in dead last in a field of three, but then only at certain times. They get to choose the times and which contests they will skip. Fine and Dandy for you. What you are doing is limiting the choices the voters could make. Another instance of a politician placing himself first and foremost. Neither Cruz or Kasich are willing to skip a contest they could possibly do well in. Donald Trump is willing to participate in every contest, win-lose or draw. It appears to me that the Cruz/Kasich deal shows that neither Cruz or Kasich has the guts to face a tough fight. They simply pull out of possible loss. Rather than risk losing they simply choose not to play. The strategy of Cowardice.

Cruz and Kasich are blinded by political ambition. They are so blinded that neither sees that the voters see them as a part of the problem, they are not seen as part of the solution. They just do not get it. If they do get it, they simply do not believe it. Whereas, Donald Trump is seen as part of a possible solution. That is another thing that they do not get.

I have no doubt that this “deal” was only one of the many things discussed and “hatched” at the closed-door meetings between the RNC, politicians and their donors. I also have no doubt that promises were made for Cruz and Kasich to go along with this “back-room deal”. I also have no doubt that this deal is or was the only “back-room deal” or scheme planned and hatched. I am sure the rest of this plan will come to light at a later time.

The RNC has now reached a point where desperation is setting in. The stop Trump effort was in no doubt, at least to me a RNC plan. I believe that they are so desperate they would be satisfied if a democrat once again occupied the Oval Office. What would be the “rhyme and reason”. The only answer I can come up with is to protect the Status Quo. The entire political system in general and politics including politicians specifically is corrupt, to what level the corruption has reached is any body’s guess. The only one’s that know that answer are the political insiders, and they ain’t telling. We ain’t knowing because we ain’t asking the right questions. Donald J. Trump might just be the question and the answer. The level of corruption in government would be exposed if an outsider exposed it, but to expose the corruption the outsider must get inside. An outsider could also expose the level of corruption in the government as well. I have a hunch that once the level of corruption is exposed the citizens will expect and demand accountability and may even seek out some retribution.

The RNC must realize by now that do not just have one problem(Donald J. Trump) they have another problem(We The People). Every vote for Trump is a vote for America, it is not a vote for the RNC. I believe that the voters in both parties have lost Faith, Confidence and Trust in the political parties and most of all in the politicians. We no longer Trust the political parties or the establishment politicians. Even if the RNC finds a way to stop Mr. Trump, they still have us to contend with. The voting in the primary process has proven that the RNC and the politicians are no longer trustworthy. More than that the RNC can no longer trust us to support it. It was not the Thirteen Colonies that abused the British Crown, it was the British Crown that abused the Thirteen Colonies. The Colonials finally reached the point were they would no longer stand for abuses. Much the same with the RNC and the voters. It was not the Voters who abused the RNC, it was the RNC that abused the Voters. The point is arriving where the voters are growing tired of the abuses. How will the RNC contend with us, We The People? We can no longer trust you and now you can no longer trust us. Greed and Corruption caused the rift between the Crown and the Colonies. Greed and corruption has caused the rift between the RNC and the Voters. Remember the RNC made the first move, the same as the British Crown. The sheep are waking up. What will the RNC do to “lull” them back to sleep? Can they?

Now it is time for the big question. Which of the three remaining candidates would make a great president, the ones who avoids possible difficulties or the one willing to face all possible hardships? One that avoids challenges or the one who boldly faces challenges? This provides part of the answer to the question of why the people are so “pissed-off”. It seems that politicians avoid anything that could endanger their political future.

Neither of the two participating in this scheme are willing to drop-out and let the remaining two “fight-it-out” to the end. It is no longer about gathering a few delegates here and there. And let us not forget this deal was hatched between and by politicians in a moment or fit of desperation, one politician promising to help another politician reach his goal. There in lies the problem both Cruz and Kasich want the same thing, both want to be president. In true form of politicians one of them is bound to break the deal. Neither Cruz or Kasich could reach out to the voters and gain their support, confidence or trust. This is why they are behind and losing badly.

Kasich stayed in the race to force a contested convention. Cruz would be happy with a contested convention. I thought the object was to win not force a contested convention. It seems pretty sad that the focus has shifted from winning to tying, or preventing a win. I am sure Cruz would rather Kasich just drop-out all together, but Kasich has no intention to drop-out. Trump has the same goal he has had from the beginning, and that is to win, go to the convention to accept the nomination.

One thing that perplexes me is when a candidate has the strategy of running on the statement “I am the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton”. The only way to beat Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democrat nominee is, is if the voters turn-out to vote for you. If the voters do not vote for you, you do not win. So far the majority of voters have voted for another candidate, not you. I understand the concept of bound and unbound delegates. If the convention lasts long enough eventually all delegates are unbound. Winning the convention makes little difference if the general election is lost. Don’t believe me look back at 2008 and 2012.

There are “talking heads” that claim the Trump candidacy is nothing more than a “Populist Movement”, meaning that Trump is only winning because he is popular. The general election is nothing more than a popularity contest, with the addition of the Electoral College, giving the illusion of representation. Electoral College votes are doled out based on the popularity of the candidate in that state, if he or she fails to get the most popular votes he or she does not get the Electoral College votes. The most popular candidate gets the Electoral votes. Winning the popular vote in Alaska does not carry the same weight as winning the popular vote in California. The whole election process, every election process is based on popularity. The next president has to be popular in enough states to lay claim to 270 Electoral College votes, no matter how unpopular he or she is in the remainder.

The Declaration of Independence ends with these last few words, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Could you even imagine politicians of today using such words and actually meaning it? I submit to you they would not. Any documents written today would end with, we pledge to each other the Fortunes of others, we are politicians we have no Honor.

Personally I would laugh my ass off if Cruz and Kasich never got another single vote. If either want to win, then beat Donald J. Trump on the Field of Honor, or do you not have any Honor? No you are politicians, Honor is foreign to you.