Category Archives: Self-Defense

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 2 Israel and the Palestinians

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives and their merry band of minions.

On Exercising Restraint. I am getting mighty tired of Israel being told to exercise restraint when it comes to dealing with Terrorists, and especially the Palestinians. Israeli PM Netanyahu, the IDF and the Israelis in general have exercised extreme and remarkable restraint in the latest attacks by the Palestinian terrorists. It is by contrast that the Palestinians have exercised the total lack of restraint. The latest from the State Department is for both sides to exercise restraint. The current Administration and its merry band of minions in the State Department along with the MSM make it seem that the ratio of dead Israeli victims and dead Palestinian terrorists are disproportionate. What are they looking for a game of tit-for tat, one for one? Would they all rather that Israel wait for the number of Israeli killed by terrorists rise to the number of dead terrorists before more can be killed and then only in matching numbers? Excessive force and disproportionate numbers of dead are the constant talking points of the administration and the MSM.

While the current Administration and its merry band of minions call for both sides to exercise restraint, none of them demand that the Palestinians stop the attacks. This is by far the most telling of who the Administration supports. The Administration could use financial sanctions against the Palestinians by withholding funds to the Palestinian Authority until the attacks stop. But they have not taken this route nor will they. The citizens of our closest ally and friend in the Middle-East are being brutally and viciously attacked and the Administration keeps sending money to the ones doing the attacking. Go figure.

I wonder if the Administration would slap sanctions on Israel, if Israelis were the aggressors. I bet they would. I also wonder how much restraint BHO and his minions would demonstrate here in America if the situation were reversed. If the attackers were Muslims on Jews or Christians, would it be restraint or action? If the attackers were Jews or Christians on Muslims, would it be restraint or action? Think about it.

It makes no sense common or otherwise to demand restraint from the ones being victimized. It also makes no sense common or otherwise not to demand the attackers cease and desist. It does make sense common and otherwise to force and use force to stop the attack even if it seems excessive. If the attack is vicious and brutal the response must be overwhelming and not a weak or half-hearted response.

Israel lives in a rough neighborhood and each day is a fight for survival. The citizens of Israel and indeed Israel itself have a right to self-defense. The Administration and the merry band of minions, or at least most of them, have only “fought for survival” during the “Black Friday” sales.

Common sense and indeed logic would dictate that if you are under attack you should respond with even more determination than the attacker. Furthermore the attacker showed no restraint in his or her actions and the intended victim should show no restraint in defending themselves. There is the right to defend oneself and there is an obligation to defend others who are not capable of defending themselves. We are our brothers keeper as well as our sisters keeper. The Jews are the brothers and sisters of Christians.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 1 Firearms

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.

On gun control, gun safety or whatever they call it now.
BHO, the Liberal Progressives and the Social Progressives somehow think it makes common sense to regulate law-abiding citizens. To them this is logical. They suggest laws and rules that serve to encumber only the law-abiding public. Rules, regulations and laws have been passed at the state and local levels that seek to limit the amount of ammunition that can be loaded in one magazine. High capacity magazines have been banned, there have been attempts to ban certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms. There have been attempts to place a special tax on firearms and ammunition. There have been attempts to ban the sale of firearms between citizens unless there is a firearms dealer involved along with the appropriate government paperwork. These and all the other what you call “common sense” proposals, only serve to place an undue burden on the good and decent law-abiding citizens while not causing a drop of inconvenience on the criminal element.
Conservative “common sense” and logic should and would dictate that the good and decent law-abiding public not be deprived of a single thing that would or could quite possibly enhance their safety in an unsafe world. No person should have to prove or show need a need if he or she wants a high-capacity magazine, or a certain type of firearm, the same as no person should prove or show need when buying a house or a car. Free trade, sales and bartering, between good and decent law-abiding citizens concerning firearms should not be impeded anymore than the sale of homes and cars between citizens. If it is crime you wish to lessen then pass and enforce laws that affect the criminal element and none that impede the good and decent law-abiding citizen.

Perhaps, it is time for the Liberal Progressives, Social Progressives, BHO and the entire Democratic Party to come forward and tell the good and decent law-abiding public of America what it is that they truly want, seek and desire. Gun Control is not your final objective, it is but a “bench-mark” on your way to your final objective.

Here is what I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed population. Let me correct that, Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population. The criminal element of the population will not be disarmed.

If it is true, and I suspect that it is, your final and ultimate objective is a totally unarmed good and decent law-abiding population you must have some sort of plan in place to achieve it. There must be other bench-marks along the way, that is unless you are brave enough to just outlaw private ownership of firearms. You did nothing to further your agenda when you had complete and total control of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency. I suspect you did nothing because you did not have control of the Judicial branch at that time. The Judicial Branch would have most likely “struck-down” any law that infringed on the Second Amendment, if that happened you would have been exposed for what you really are. That would have ended the progressive movement, you were not willing to run that risk.

What you would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population would be a population totally dependent on government for their safety. Without a definitive means of self-defense, one that was at least equal and perhaps superior to that of the criminals, they would have to call on the government to provide for them what they at one time could provide for themselves. You would also gain a totally compliant population, but only to the extent of a good and decent law-abiding population.

What the criminals would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding public would be many more victims. Victims with no means to defend themselves.

What the good and decent law-abiding public would lose by being totally disarmed, everything.

You will not admit that the “Gun Free Zones” are a total and abject failure. What do you do? You only try to make more and more gun free zones. Gun free zones have not, nor will they ever provide for safety. They only provide victims. If you get your wish and make the whole of America a gun free zone, America will become a nation of victims from coast to coast and from border to border. They will be victims of either the criminals or the government.

This is why I say your “common sense” gun control measures and gun laws make no sense, common or otherwise.
There are only two segments of the American population The Good and Decent Law-Abiding Citizens and The Criminal Element, if the politicians are counted they are either a third segment or will fit into one of the first two groups. No the politicians are a separate segment, they could and should be considered the third segment. You should be focusing your laws on the second element, but instead you focus of the first. You appear to have failed in eliminating the criminal element, to make-up for your failures in eliminating the criminals you seek to eliminate the good and decent law-abiding population. You take out your wrath on the good and decent law-abiding population. What ever the politicians do to the first segment will not apply to them as most act as if they are above the law anyway. Your gun control measures will apply to only the good and decent law-abiding population, you will keep for yourself what you would deny others and the criminal element does not care about your laws.

Maybe you should read the writings of Thomas Paine, Common Sense and The American Crisis. You already have the Good and Decent Law-Abiding public behind you, yet you seek to punish them.

Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy

Posted on by

First my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families after the latest shooting in Oregon.
The Liberal Left and the Progressive Liberals are at it again doing their best to politicize another tragedy. A tragedy caused by the policies they support and in most cases have instituted. BHO has politicized every event that supported his as well as the progressive agenda, however this time he came out and said it, he is politicizing this tragedy and will keep politicizing it. I did notice one thing different in his approach this time he has stopped using the term “gun control” and has instead gone with the term “gun safety”.

The sudden change in wording set me to thinking, “What are they up to now”? The change from “control” to “safety” is a change in strategy, but has no effect on the ultimate goal. Think about this, safety and the usage of the word. Motor vehicles are much safer today than they were years ago. That would lead one to believe that fewer people die on the roads and highways of America. Seat belts save lives, so we have a law requiring motorists to wear seat belts, again to decrease the number of motor vehicle deaths each year. Safety seats are used in motor vehicles to make the children safer in the event of an accident. There are countless “safety” laws, rule and regulations in place to make the work place “safer”. Safety glasses have reduced the number and severity of eye injuries. Safety equipment used in and around the work place have reduced the numbers of deaths and injuries. There are even safety items in and around the home to lessen the likelihood of falls and injuries. This would all lead one to assume that safety in all aspects of life is an overall good thing.

Even with the fact that motor vehicle manufacturers making motor vehicles safer, many thousands of people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. Children still die or are seriously injured while in a car seat. People still die or are seriously injured while wearing seat belts. People are still injured or die around the workplace. Many people still die or are seriously injured in accidents around the home.

It would be my guess that some time in the very near future there will a government study. A study on safety, showing the benefits of safety versus reckless behavior. It will also show how government intervention in the name of safety has decreased the number of serious injuries and deaths based on safety laws, rules and regulations. The “facts and figures” will of course show the desired results of the study, even if they have to be skewered. The truth means nothing, the agenda means everything.

This is why gun control laws and measures do not work, nor will they ever. There has yet to be a law, rule or regulation that has stopped a criminal doing what a criminal does, which is to disobey or break the law. Maybe a law should be passed making it illegal to break the law, rule or regulation, that one might convince the criminals to stop their criminal behavior. No that will not work, it would cause the politicians to become law-abiding citizens. That is unless they could somehow see themselves as above the law. Oh silly me, the criminals and politicians already have that view and act accordingly.

With the exception of inserting the word “safety” where “control” is usually used the liberal left and the liberal progressives talking points remain the same. “We must protect the children”.” People need a safe environment to study, learn and grow”. “For the sake of the children”. And so it goes, the talking points never change.

Let’s examine for a moment the utter hypocrisy of the liberal left and the liberal progressives. So you want to provide a safe place for children, do you? The safest place for any child is supposed to be the mother’s womb. Yet you deny the child that safety, you support and fund organizations that go into the womb and take the life of a child, literally ripping them from safety and security. Some of you are even okay with going into the womb and taking the life of a child up to the moment of birth. You want a safe place for children to learn and grow as long as it is not in the womb. Rather than control yourself and not engage in activity that history has proven leads to pregnancy, you choose abortion.
How about them school buses? Are the seats any safer now than the were when I rode them in the 1960’s? Do they have seat belts yet? Oh, that’s right safety costs money. If school buses were safer they would cost more money. Are you letting children’s safety slide for monetary reasons.

As for control there are at present only two types of control the liberal left and the liberal progressives care about, and they are gun control and birth control. A world where abortions are on demand and free of guns.

Just stop claiming it is for the children when you seek gun control, or the new term gun safety your actions have already proven you do not have a concern for the children. Abortion is the number one cause of the death of children. Tell the nation the truth what is your true agenda concerning personal firearms. Stop lying, if you can, and just say what your ultimate goal is.

You claim to want to make a safer environment, yet you seek to deny me and those like me with the most important tool that make the safer environment. The tool that provides a deterrent. No sign announcing a gun-free zone has ever deterred a single mass shooter. How many have been encouraged by or drawn to a place to do evil by the simple sign announcing there will be no resistance. What does the absence of the sign provide? Doubt in the mind of the criminal.

While on the subject, since your intent is to provide for a safer environment for your children. Assuming that they made it out of the womb alive, and you see firearms as evil, and Lord knows that you must protect the children from evil. I have a quick question for you. Have you placed that gun-free zone sign in front of your house yet? No, why not? Could it be that you already know that the gun-free zone sign only invites trouble?

Gun Control or Population Control?

Posted on by

This post and some subsequent posts have their foundation in the post entitled, Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing.
Gun control or population control, which is it that the gun control activists want? I have stated many times before that government is all about power and control. If the government has absolute power they by default gain absolute control. You ask, Why did I mention gun control activists and government in the same paragraph? The answer is quite simple, at some point activists began to be elected to political, no Constitutional office, while many others have simply been appointed or confirmed to their posts and some were hired. Those that were nominated were done so by those who were elected. Those that were confirmed were done so by those that were elected. Those that were appointed were done so by those that were confirmed. Those that were hired were done so by those that were appointed. And so it goes, everybody in government tends to surround themselves with those that are like-minded.

First let us take a look at the gun control activists groups, the ones not in government, at least not yet. To begin let us examine where they get their operating funds. While some funding comes from donors the majority of their financial resources come from the ultra-wealthy. In at least two groups the ultra-wealthy are also their mouth-pieces. They spout facts that they come up with that furthers their cause, but never give all of the facts. Partial facts are no more than a partial lie. The followers of these mouth-pieces miss several important items. The first is that even though your favorite mouth-piece may or may not personally carry a fire arm he is surrounded by those that do. You can sure bet that somewhere close is a personal bodyguard armed to the teeth, and they are always there. He provides for himself what he wants to deny you, and still you follow him. His children and grandchildren do not go to the same school your children and grandchildren attend. His are protected but yours are not. He does not expose himself or his family to the same dangers he wishes you and your family to be exposed to, and still you follow. If you follow a hypocrite what does that make you? One has to question his motivation.

Now let us take a look at the gun control activists, the ones that are in government. The ones holding political, no Constitutional office, they are surrounded by armed men and women. The buildings they occupy are protected by armed men and women. Is where you work or live protected by an armed security detail? Depending on their office they send out armed details to ensure their safety. Do you enjoy the same in your travels? They are protected, their families are protected all by armed and women. We the tax-payers pay for all of that. If you do not see the hypocrisy in that you are truly hopeless.
While on this subject let us look at gun control activist legislation, both that has passed and that is proposed.
There is only one thing to say about that which has already became law, the only people effected were the law-abiding public, it had no effect on the criminals.
There is much to say about the proposed legislation, but I want to discuss on especially. The proposed additional taxes on fire arms and ammunition, one was a $25 dollar tax on each fire arm sold and a tax of up to 5 cents per bullet. This all comes on top of sales tax. If I understand this correctly, legislature and or city and county commissions are proposing to tax citizens for exercising their Constitutional Rights. Imagine that taxing a person to exercise his or her Constitutional Right. If they are willing to tax one when will they tax the rest? Then there is the proposed licensing fee per gun, per year. It is bad enough that some states require a law-abiding citizen pay a fee and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, now they want a per year fee per gun, yet another tax or fee to exercise a Constitutional Right. This leaves one to wonder is it about gun control or a revenue source, or is it to make the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right so expensive it becomes unaffordable. None of this will ever effect the criminal element.

In the previous post I made the statement that the American population would never voluntarily be disarmed, and I stand by that. As I and others have said, there are only two ways to get people to agree with your position, and they are Reason and Force. The gun control activist groups have been trying for some years to sell their case and they have failed, miserably. They now must seek the help from government to help them further their agenda of disarmament. They have used many catchy slogans and used skewered statistics to sell their case. Let me point out two of their catchy slogans and the complete idiocy in them.

They use the term “Gun Violence”. The claim is that they want to stop “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” in itself is a complete lie. A gun is not capable of being violent. But, they never use the term used in “Self Defense”. As soon as a shooting happens the gun control activist groups are on the scene, but only if the shooting fits their agenda. They never show-up at the scene where a Law-abiding citizen uses a Lawfully acquired gun to protect him or herself and family from a criminal. Government officials even get in on the frenzy. Who says anything when a criminal uses a stolen gun to murder an innocent citizen who just happens to be out for a walk on a beautiful day? But what did the lawyer blame, he blamed the gun for not having a safety, it was not the lack of a safety that caused the gun to fire, it was the willful intention of a known criminal to pull the trigger. It was not the gun, it was the criminal pulling the trigger. I am surprised the lawyer did not blame the victim for getting in the path of the projectile.

Then there is the term “We have to do something”, or “Something must be done”. This an attempt to use emotion instead of logic. Using emotion to deal with a problem is to further restrict the Rights, Freedoms and Liberties of the law-abiding population. Or was this your intention all along? Deal with the problem, the problem is crime and the criminal element, it is not the law-abiding population. It is not the law-abiding population that commit crimes, it is the criminals. Crime and criminal activity will never be effected by imposing even stiffer restrictions on the law-abiding population. If you really want to do something become a crime-fighter, and stop being a rights denier. America and the law-abiding citizens do not need another law to restrict our rights any of them, not a single one. What we do need is the laws already on the books enforced against the criminal element not the law-abiding public. Not just the laws but the penalties. Controlling crime should be the focus. Make the criminal pay for the crime, he or she committed the crime not the law-abiding citizen. How did it get to the point where laws, rules and regulations restrict the rights of the law-abiding and not the law-breakers?

Has there ever been a time where the proper placement of a “Gun Free Zone” deterred a criminal? I would say NO!!! All those “Gun Free Zone” signs have done is to assure the criminal he or she will encounter is a steady supply of victims. Victims that will be cowering. Speaking of gun free zone signs, do you really think that when the gun control activist group mouth-piece encounters one of those signs that he leaves his armed bodyguards outside or has them disarm before going inside, or do they accompany him regardless of the sign? Go ahead guess which happens.

Let us discuss the real agenda of the gun control activist groups. Your true agenda is not gun control but control of who has guns. To control who has the guns you must first find out who has the guns. This is another big part of the gun control activist agenda. Gun owner registration, a national registry of gun owners. This why you spout off the non-sense about the supposed “gun show loophole”. There is no gun show loophole, every licensed firearms dealer in attendance is required to do the exact things he is required to do at his or her brick and mortar store. The only other firearm sales are those conducted by everyday citizens, an everyday transaction, a private sale between two people. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a criminal would be at a gun show to start with, cameras are everywhere and his or her presence would be recorded and they know that. This would especially be true if the purchaser was a known felon. Still you persist with this non-sense. You seek universal background checks, one in which a private sale between two individuals must be conducted at a brick and mortar firearms dealer, and noted on a federal form. You still do not realize that criminals do not acquire firearms in a legal manner. Acquiring firearms in a legal manner would be obeying the law, you forget criminals do not obey the law. Still you persist. What could be your real objective? No I mean your ultimate goal. Is your ultimate goal firearm confiscation? Yes, I believe it is.

You may have become involved with the gun control activist groups thinking ” We must stop gun violence” or ” we have to do something” or that the “gun show loophole” must be closed, if this is the case you do not think for yourself and let others do the thinking for you. As I mentioned in the previous post one of the reasons Japan did not plan an invasion of mainland America was the fact that American citizens enjoy a right that few others enjoy, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You need to read the real history of the nation around the world where the citizens enjoy no such right and the brutality and oppression they endured either from invading forces or the own government.

No, you have not offered any compelling argument for me to voluntarily disarm. You did not and can not win me over with reason. The reasons you offer go against all logic.

On the other hand I have offered you compelling reasons to stop trying to deny me my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have tried to win you over with reason. The difference between you and me is that I will only use reason to change your mind. You on the other hand will do something I and those like me would never do, and that is to use force where reason failed.

Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing

Posted on by

Think about this, the government may soon cause what no other nation is or was capable of accomplishing, the defeat and occupation of the United States of America. Prior to the atomic age there was no nation on earth that could deal a death-blow to the U.S.A. Even when the atomic age was ushered in only the superpowers had nuclear weapons, none used them because of what was known as MAD, mutually assured destruction.

The Japanese attack on Hawaii was not intended to defeat America or to crush the American military. The attack was intended take the U.S. Navy out of the equation of war. There was at that time no way for Japan to reach America directly and the same goes in reverse. A strong navy was required to go to war if the warring nations were separated by an ocean, especially an ocean as vast as the Pacific. The goal I feel was for America to seek peace with Japan. Japan lacked the power and resources to defeat America and simply sought to eliminate the possibility of America using the Navy to take the war to Japan.

Japan did not follow-up the sneak attack on Hawaii with an invasion of mainland America for two reasons.
The first was it would have been logistically impossible to resupply an invading force that was an ocean away. An invading force has two options resupply yourself or forage for supplies. It is not only supplies that would be needed, the invaders would still need replacement soldiers. The replacements would still need to cross an ocean. Without resupply and replacements the invasion would fail.
The second was the American people themselves. The American citizens have at their disposal something that few other citizens of other countries enjoy, and that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Japanese knew that even if they did mount and invasion and gain a foothold they would still have to face an armed population. The price for invasion was not one that the Japanese were willing to pay. Even if the sneak attack in Hawaii had been successful and the U.S. Navy was destroyed or reduced to a level that would prevent its use in war, Japan would still not have invaded America.

Two things have kept America relatively safe against aggression through the years.
The First is geographic isolation. Mainland America has only three neighboring countries, Canada to the north. Mexico to the south of Texas. Cuba to the south of Florida. Of the three only two are directly connected Canada and Mexico. Mainland America has no neighboring countries to the East or West only large bodies of water, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The 49th state Alaska is bordered with Canada and has Russia to the west separated by the Bering Straight. The 50th state Hawaii is an island with no immediate neighbors.
The second is an armed civilian population. A nation where the people enjoy the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Geographic isolation disappeared with the advent of the Advent of the atomic age. Rouge nations now have at their disposal nuclear weapons to attack far way and distant lands. Other rogue nations will soon have at their disposal nuclear weapons. The rogue nations do not give a damn about mutually assured destruction, for them there is no price to high to pay to attack America or an ally of America. Technology, trade and travel have eliminated geographic isolation.

The citizens in some countries have voluntarily given up their personal firearms. The citizens in those countries not only gave up their personal firearms, they also gave up the ability to defend themselves against invasion or a tyrannical government or against criminals. Which may or may not be the same. They have voluntarily given their safety and protection to the government, military and law enforcement in total and complete. The citizens in some countries have never enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and therefore have never had the ability to defend themselves or to protect their countries against invasion. Many if not most of these countries never enjoyed the benefits of geographical isolation, when it was possible.

There is now and has been for sometime an effort to disarm the American citizens. The politicians and activist groups know full well that the American population will never disarm voluntarily. They know it must be done by force(more on this in a later post). This is particularly disturbing given the fact that one of the reasons for Japan not to invade America was an armed population.

This is why I say that the federal government is freely giving those who hate America what geography had denied them in the past. They are and have been given free and unhindered access. To be fair it did not just start with the current administration. But, under the current administration it certainly is gaining momentum. There is no border control thus, there is no immigration control. Not only is there a constant flow of illegals arriving from and through Mexico there is now a new wave of people coming to America. We now are experiencing a wave of refugees from the Middle-East. I might also add that none are being vetted, they are just coming in. They bring nothing and offer nothing. There is no assimilation in to American society. There is no way of telling if they come for a better life, to live off of government handouts or if they come as terrorists. I suspect that the largest portion of those arriving come for the latter two.

As to the matter of the refugees fleeing the Middle-East, why now? The Syrian civil war has been going on for near four years. Now the Syrian refugees are fleeing and arriving in Europe by what ever means available. They bring nothing, they offer nothing and they demand everything. It is worth mentioning that the outflow of refugees begins now given the fact that the Syrian civil war is in its fourth year. It is also worth mentioning that many of the refugees are men, men that appear to be relatively healthy. This leaves me to wonder why these same capable and able-bodied men are not remaining in their country to fight Islamic extremists. I can only see two possibilities as to why the men are fleeing their country. The first is that they could not decide which side to fight for, the government forces or the Islamic extremists, so they just run away leaving everything including family. The second is that they are fighters, Islamic extremist fighters, who have mixed with the refugees to gain a foothold in Europe and will soon arrive in America. Only time will reveal the answer, but I suspect the latter.

Suppose that it was America that was undergoing some sort of “spring” and another nation, an “outside force”, decided that the government of America was oppressive and denying rights to the population. Suppose that same “outside force” decided that the long-established system of government caused strife among the population and it would be best for all if the established form of government should be abandoned. Now suppose that the established and elected government of America stood fast and did not give in to the demands of the outside forces and influences. This would really agitate the outside force and they would have to take action against the established government to see that their visions for how life in America should be. Not only life but government, a government of their choosing not the people’s. But how to accomplish the goal of regime change in America? Direct military action is an option, it is always an option, but it would be the last option. Direct military action against America would be a fool-hardy move, the only outside forces that would consider that move would be one that only sought the destruction of America no matter the cost. There are several that fit that category and more loom on the horizon. At this point America does have some allies who could possibility assist in time of need against an Overt military action. Then again, the outside forces could possibly use the same tactics against America that the BHO administration is using against Assad in Syria. They could use Covert operations, even though these Covert operations are being conducted Overtly. Some faction in America that wanted change could be armed and trained to fight against the established government. This same faction could be identified as a “moderate” group. This faction would not be a military in the truest sense of the word. They would not be soldiers and thus they would not be expected to conduct themselves as soldiers, not on the field of battle and certainly not against the civilian population, no accountability for actions. There would be no Geneva Convention, the rules of how warfare is conducted, and no law, the law would be made as they went along, basically no law. They would only be a “well-trained and armed civilian force, one that is just as well-trained and equipped as military”.(Someone in high political office did say at one time something to the effect of “We need a civilian force just as well-trained and armed as our military”, I wonder if he meant Law-enforcement).

If America found itself in the state Syria is in, what would you do?
Would you pick a side and join? Would join with the government, one that the “world” says you despise? Would you join with the “moderates” to fight against the government, the one the “world” claims you despise, even while knowing that what is coming is even worse?
Would you flee, becoming a refugee? Where would you go? As mentioned above America has only two countries with land borders. Going south from Texas to Mexico is out. The people from Mexico and points south are illegally coming to America to escape their countries. Would you go north to Canada? How many could Canada accept? Would you make your way to Alaska and try to walk or swim to Russia, depending on the season? Would you make your way to Florida down to Key West and try to swim the 90 miles to Cuba? I have not heard of many Americans migrating legally or illegally to other countries of the world, especially Mexico, Cuba or Russia. Canada, Mexico, Russia and Cuba are the closest, the rest of the world is an ocean or two away. Would you be willing to leave everything, family included? If you did become a refugee, and if you were welcomed in a foreign country would you assimilate or would you demand that the country you arrived in give-in to you demands according to the life you had? Good luck with that if you end up in a Muslim country especially if you are not a Muslim or if you are a homosexual.

What is going on a present in Syria is akin to Community Organizing. Community organizers are basically Radical Activists. The radical activists seek change and stir-up the community to achieve their goal. Remember that it is the goal of the activists, militant activists, and not necessarily the goal of the people. The goal is to remove Assad from power in Syria. The activists are the moderates and there partners in radical activism are ISIL/ISIS/IS and any other Radical Islamic Extremist group available. The organizers care only about the goal they do not ever consider what happens because there goal was achieved. If you do not believe that look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There are many other fine examples of community organizing throughout the Middle-East and northern Africa. The goals were achieved and the after effects speak for themselves. The pot was stirred and look what came to the top.

There is a new organizer at work in Syria. Syria has a friend, Russia. Russia has friends and their friends have friends. Russia is going in on the side of Assad, while the U.S.A. supports the one that are called “moderates”. China will pick a side sooner or later if they have not already. And do not forget Iran, and there will be other players in this for sure. Syria may well turn into the new Viet Nam. Assad could be the new Ho Chi Minh. The countries of the Middle-East that are at present enjoying a relative peace better buckle up and hold on, they may find themselves caught-up in this the same as Laos, Cambodia and Thailand were. Regional conflicts tend to grow. NATO and the Warsaw Pact may at last get their long sought after showdown.

As stated above no country in its right mind would use or attempt to use military might to destroy America. America does enjoy a tremendous supply of tools to deter an attack or to retaliate against any attack conventional or unconventional attack, nuclear, chemical or biological. America has Allies, friends and trading partners, right. America has few allies thanks to years of failed foreign policy of this administration and the previous and even before that. The only friends we have are the ones we feel we have to buy. The bought friends will be friends only as long as the money lasts. Friends you have to buy are not worth having.
America even pays its enemies, and gives financial support to those that chant death to America and have vowed to destroy some American allies, Israel.

There is more than one way to bring a country to its knees. Could America be attacked financially? Time will tell. If America is attacked financially the outcome will not be pretty.

Coexistence part 2 Guns

Posted on by

Can the people who are pro-gun and the people who are anti-gun coexist? The answer is YES. People “coexist” each and every day with differing points of view. The reason they can do this is because they make a choice to exercise their right to own a gun or not.
as for me, I am in the pro-gun “camp”. Owning and carrying concealed weapons is my right and I choose to exercise that right. There is however a high level of responsibility that accompanies the exercise of this right as with exercising any right. A responsibility that I willingly accept.

My responsibilities as a gun owner and a concealed weapons permit holder.
I am responsible to know and understand my weapon its capabilities as well as its limitations. Not only must I know my firearm, I must know the ammunition that is associated with a particular firearm.
I am responsible to secure my weapon and ammunition to prevent unauthorized use. I would do this even if there was no law, much the same as I would never drink from a toilet. Just like the law making a person secure weapons and ammunition, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to post a sign behind a toilet telling the user it was unsafe to drink.
I am responsible to know and understand firearms safety and how to safely handle a firearm.
I am responsible to know and understand the laws of my state concerning firearms and concealed carry.
When traveling I am responsible to know the laws of the states concerning firearms and concealed carry that I will or could possibly travel through as well as the laws concerning firearms and concealed carry of the state that I intended to visit for a spell. In some cases it gets even more involved than that, sometimes the local laws must be known and understood.
My list of responsibilities goes on and own, if you have got the picture by now you are definitely not in the same camp I am in, you are in the anti-gun camp.

Do those in the anti-gun camp have responsibilities? Yes, they do. As a matter of fact those in the anti-gun camp have many of the same responsibilities as those in the pro-gun camp, though hey do differ from the above list. The first and foremost is the protection, safety and well-being of yourself and your family, and this list goes on and on.

As to the matter of self-defense, just because a person is anti-gun does not necessarily mean that they are against self-defense. They may just choose to defend themselves when required to do so in a different manner. Whether it be a knife, a bat, a stick or just calling for help from someone with a gun.

There are many reasons that could land a person in the anti-gun camp, religious reasons, strong moral convictions and again the list could be long. Below are just some of my own observations.
One thing that I have noticed for so many in the anti-gun camp is that some people have a fear and/or misunderstanding of firearms. This instance of fear was addressed in a previous post, titled The problem is the reason. Another reason is the total lack of respect of a firearm. Education is another reason, it seems that “fear” in the main educating point concerning firearms by the anti-gun culture, teaching about firearms was also addressed in a previous post, titled Teach them young teach them correctly. Another reason is the lack of exposure. How many in the anti-gun camp have ever been to a public firing range? The answer is relatively few.

To make an informed statement about firearms or any other subject it is my opinion that one must educate themselves and not rely on others who are just speaking to be heard. You know, the ones who do not even have a proper understanding of the subject and use data skewered towards their position whether the data is true or not, most often not. The truth matters not to these people, just the furtherance of their agenda.

After you have educated yourself and have had at least some exposure you can make an informed statement and possibly argue your point based on fact not propaganda. If after education and exposure you still remain in the anti-gun camp I will support your choice and decision, even though I disagree.
But, if you refuse to educate yourself or even be exposed to firearms, religious and moral convictions excluded, then you are not in the anti-gun camp, you are in the gun-control camp and you will be addressed shortly.

Do I believe that everyone should own a firearm? Absolutely not, there are some who should never be trusted to have a firearm and there are those who have lost that right by engaging in criminal activity. Much the same as there are some politicians holding a Constitutional office that should never be trusted to hold office any office especially if it gives or bestows upon them power over another.

Now to address the most heinous group of all, those in the gun control camp. I call you the most heinous group for this, you are not about gun-control you are about rights control and deprivation. You seek to use the power and force of government to deny or deprive me my right to own firearms. You use each tragic event where a firearm was used to further restrict my rights concerning firearms, and you have a powerful ally in the media. You report on tragedy but fail to report the lawful use of firearms to protect life and limb. You focus on criminal activity and neglect lawful activity. You are fools if you think you can reduce the swords into plowshares and still exist. Two quick points for you.
First, it was men using firearms that won America’s independence from a tyrannical king. If it were not for the use of firearms to gain independence, America would still be under the control of the British Throne. Is that where you would be? Living under tyranny. The King of England sought to keep America subjugated with firearms. The Colonials used firearms to win Independence.
Second, it was Americans that used firearms to save the world in two World Wars. Tyrants and Dictators sought to overrun and rule the world using firearms. The good and righteous saved the world using firearms.

Now, you in the anti-gun and gun-control camps think that I have just made your case for you and will attempt to use my words against me. You are wrong and nothing could be farther from the truth. I have instead made my point and case for owning firearms clearer.
Think on this. Prior to the advent of firearms Kings and other evil tyrants used any means and weapons available to subjugate other countries and indeed their populations, whether it was the jaw bone of an ass or a rock. Good and righteous men using the same weapons freed themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Firearms are not the problem. The problem is evil and tyranny. As long as there is evil and tyranny in the world, and it has existed since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. Good and righteous men and women will use the same weapons to defend themselves and to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression as the tyrants of the world use to place them under tyranny and oppression. The evil tyrants use at this moment firearms in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of entire countries and the populations, some times even entire continents. The good and righteous at this moment will use firearms to prevent the placement of the yoke around their necks and in some cases to remove the same yoke.

For those not in the pro-gun camp think on this. It was the good and righteous through the use of firearms that made it possible for you to say and in some cases do or attempt to do stupid things.

There are only two ways to bring people to agree with your opinion or position, Reason and Force.
To the anti-gun camp I will attempt to get you to remove your tent from the campground you presently occupy and place it in the pro-gun camp. But the difference is that I will only attempt to use reason, never force. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt to convince you to move to my camp through reason you should remain in your camp if you remain anti-gun. If you are only anti-gun and remain as such but do not seek to limit the rights of others you are welcome to move to the pro-gun camp, because it is about more than being pro-gun it is about the preservation of rights. All of them. But if you are really gun-control which equates to rights control or elimination you should really be in the gun-control campground, where you belong.
To the gun-control camp, come out of the closet and state you true intention, which is to attempt to restrict or eliminate my rights. I see you for what you really are, you may as well admit it. You failed to bring me to you camp through reason, now you attempt to use the force of government to make me move. You will use government in an attempt to deny me the right self-defense.

Can the pro-gun camps and the gun-control camps coexist? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I am about freedom and liberty and the freedom to exercise my rights. They in my opinion are about tyranny and oppression by limiting or eliminating rights.

Do you really think that you still have the bill of rights or any rights at all because the government has your best interests at heart?

Look at other countries around the world, I mean really look with your eyes open. Take special note of the countries who deny the population a means to defend themselves, if it is not the government it is the terrorists who have placed the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of the population. At present they have no recourse but to wear the yoke. But soon some brave soul may find and take up the jawbone of an ass or a rock and begin the process of removing the yoke. But how many will die before the same weapons that were used to place the yoke are used to remove the yoke.

Are you really sure that you only want to trust the government with weapons?

Staying independent on Declaration of Independence Day

Posted on by

Tomorrow we celebrate our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain and the British Crown and the tyranny associated with it. Some call it the Fourth of July, some call it America’s Birth Day, still others call it Independence Day. There will be fireworks displays, barbeques and family outings, but few will stop to give thanks to the brave patriots that won our freedom from a tyrant king. The best guess by the best minds suggest that only 3 percent of the colonials actually engaged in the fight to gain independence at the onset, and fewer than 12 percent actually provided financial and material support and only about 20 percent of the total population wanted to be free of the British Throne and the tyranny associated with it. The issue of being free or being subservient remains the same today.

Being Free and Independent comes with a massive amount of responsibility. The Free and Independent citizen must rely on his or her own skills and resources to provide for the family the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. They must be frugal never wasteful, living by the motto waste not want not. They also are the first to lend a hand when a neighbor is facing great challenges. They also know that they are responsible for the protection and safety of their home and family. They know and accept the fact that they are responsible for their lives including retirement and healthcare. They only want enough government to look after national business and even then as small a government as possible. They also live within their means creating as little debt as possible, if you can not afford it you do not need it. They never blame others for their failures, each failure is an opportunity to be successful the next time, living and learning. They are mindful of what is in their pockets and keep their eyes and hands out of other people’s pockets, while trying to keep the government out of their pockets. These are the people who understand Independence and deserve to celebrate and give thanks.

Being subservient has no responsibility. The subservient citizen relies on the skills and resources of others to provide the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families. They are wasteful never frugal living by the motto of easy come easy go. They never help a neighbor in times of trouble, unless there is something in it for them. They rely on and call on others to protect their home and family. They expect others to provide for every aspect of their lives including retirement and healthcare. They want a large government to ensure that the big government has enough resources to take from others and give to them, the bigger the better. They live well beyond their means, if they can not afford it they look for yet another government program to provide it. They constantly blame others and call themselves victims. They constantly look in other people’s pockets to make sure they have at least as much, if not then they will expect the government to stick in its greedy hand and take some or all. They spend it even though they never earn it. These are the people who do not understand Independence and have no right to celebrate and will never give thanks. These are the people who celebrate every month when the checks come in and never say a word of thanks to ones who provided it, the government only sent it after they took it from the pockets of others who earned it. Talk about ungrateful, they should at least thank the Patriots for providing the Freedom needed for the productive to support the moochers.

If America was at this point in time fighting to gain independence and throw off the yoke of imperial tyranny, there would be more than 3 percent who would actually engage in the fight, but the support would be much less and the total number of citizens who actually cared one way or another I fear would be much lower.

What will you celebrate tomorrow and who will you thank? I will be celebrating our Declaration of Independence and giving thanks to the Patriots who wrested this great nation from tyranny, being especially thankful that our Independence was won in 1781 at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War and not trying to win it in these times.

Incentive or coercion

Posted on by

One has to wonder why now are so many restaurants, fast food and sit down, are posting no fire arms allowed signs, and why banking institutions are deciding to close accounts for firearms retailers or are refusing to open accounts for fire arms retailers.

The decision by the restaurant owners may be tied to Obamacare. The employer mandate exemption sought by many restaurant chains may have “strings” attached. Was the “exemption” only a “deferral”? What are the restaurant chains forced to do to continue to qualify for the exemption? The restaurant chains know that if they comply fully with the Obamacare mandates they will have to raise their prices as their overhead costs rise, or that they will be forces to fire or layoff workers to get below the threshold. They also know this, the placement of no firearms signs will invite criminals. This is called “making a deal with the devil”. Remember it was the politicians that forced their will upon you, removing your freedom of choice as how to conduct your business and what benefits you must provide or what restrictions you must make on your patrons. Remember them by voting their sorry asses out of office. You have the right to conduct your business as you see fit, not how the government forces you conduct your business. I will see and remember the sign on your door and you can rest assured that my shadow will never cross your threshold and my money will never cross your palm. I will never check to see if you took down that stupid sign, for me it will be up forever.

The decision by the banks may be tied to the bank bailouts and continued borrowing from the Federal Reserve. The firearms retailers seem to have been labeled as “high risk”. Insuring “high risk” occupations and borrowing against “high risk” business ventures come with a much higher premium for insurance, and a much higher interest rate for borrowing. The banking institutions may even get a “sweeter deal” from the fed if they refuse to serve certain accounts, this used to be called discrimination.

WE may even soon see the start in business insurance policy cancellations and denials for the “high risk” firearms retailers, after all the Insurance Industry was “bailed out” by the government(taxpayers) also. A business can not remain in business with out insurance, one “slip and fall” can wipe out a small business.

Labeling the firearms retailers as “high risk” will surely make its way to ownership of firearms as “high risk” to home owners insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and even auto insurance. As pointed out above, the higher the risk the higher the premiums.

Which one of our Constitutional Rights will next be labeled “high risk”?

The Second Amendment is a guarantee that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it does not guarantee that private companies and individuals, including yourself even if forced to for economic reasons can not. We may be “forced” to “voluntarily” give up our Constitutional and Second Amendment rights for affordability.

Now is the time for the Pro-Gun groups to fix their differences and join forces to establish gun friendly banking institutions and insurance companies. You will get my business.

Another example of getting it wrong

Posted on by

Yet another fine example of BHO and his administration getting it all totally “ass backwards”. BHO has told the terrorists across the Middle-East exactly what will occur in the next two years. The U.S. military will cease combat operations this year, a force of 9,800 will remain to train the Afghani forces through 2015 then draw down to a force of 5,000 and that their will only be embassy and security by the end of 2016. What a treasure trove of free intelligence, and by the president no less, they can trust him because he is not their president and will not lie to them. Why on earth would the commander-in-chief intentionally inform the enemy of the future plans of the U.S. military and give the enemy or potential enemy the exact date that America and its interests would be the most vulnerable to attack? The new foreign policy agenda is the same as the old one, meaning that there is not one, but with the added feature to nothingness the stupidity of disclosing to enemies and potential enemies his unwillingness to engage in long protracted military actions. This was the same mistake made by the administration with regards to Libya. It was stated from the onset that it would be a limited air campaign designed to lessen the fighting power of government forces and that there would be no boots on the ground. Not only were the government and insurgent forces told how they would be attacked, more importantly they were told how they would not be attacked. Arms, munitions and equipment was being supplied to the insurgent forces, what the administration could not provide to them outright were placed where they could conveniently steal what was needed. Then came Syria with another instance of insurgents facing government forces, BHO drew a “red line” saying Syria would face military action is chemical weapons were deployed. The military action was revealed by the administration in the threat or precision strikes designed to weaken the government forces and again that no American boots would be on the ground, again the entire strategy was revealed.

Now BHO and his administration has a plan to assist the “moderate” terrorists facing the government forces in Syria. Billions of dollars will be spent to arm and train the moderates, there are several problems with this and two questions will highlight two of the major problems:
1. Who are they? Since you have already disclosed your willingness and eagerness to help them in their struggle, they only must figure out what the administration sees as a “moderate”. Then again they already know the administrations definition of “moderate”. BHO and the administration was in full support of the muslim brotherhood, so anything up to the level of being an “extremist” is a “moderate”.
2. Where do they come from? This is very important, the training and equipment furnished to the “moderates” could be used to cause destabilization in their home countries. There have even been reports of gang members from America fighting alongside the terrorists.

This comes back to this:
1. The continued efforts of BHO, his administration and the liberals on the left and right constantly seek to disarm American citizens or at the very least limit the choice of weapons and ammunition capacity.
2. Arming and equipping the federal agencies with both defensive and offensive weapons and equipment.
3. Shrinking the U.S. military to pre-WW2 levels.
4. The statement by BHO, we need a civilian force just as well-trained and just as well armed as the military. The moderate terrorists the administration intends on training and arming are not in any military and by default are civilians and are a force. They will be trained and armed just as the military is.

Military secrets, weapons and training are supposed to be shared with known allies, those fighting for a common cause and goal, not with those you think will come around to becoming an ally, after they no longer hate you and want you wiped off of the map.

Was it another pesky video?

Posted on by

BHO has ordered a U.S. Naval ship and 1,000 Marines to the shores of Libya and ordered that all Americans leave Libya. 4 quick questions.
1. Did the administration receive information about another anti-muslim video being released on you tube? No it won’t be this one the administration has already used it and soon will have a lot of explaining to do, or maybe they won’t. The only people who care about the murders at Benghazi are the same ones that always cared and wanted the truth. The administrations supporters even quit blaming the video and followed the “what difference at this point does it make” chorus.
2. Did the administration receive credible intelligence of a credible threat to Americans? If this was the case the administration must have missed the first Benghazi attack.
3. Did the embassy staff ask to be evacuated because the violence in Libya has become so widespread that no foreigners are safe? If this is the case the whole Benghazi cover-up will explode. The ambassador, Christopher Stevens had repeatedly asked for additional personnel and resources in the weeks and days leading up to him and three other Americans Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty being murdered. The requests were denied or ignored. No help was sent prior to or during the attack.
4. Or could it be that they must be evacuated to prevent more Americans being killed with weapons provided to terrorists by the administration, kind of fast and furious 2.0? If the administration does not evacuate and lets it happen, it will bring us all the way back to the point where Brian Terry, a U.S. Border Patrol agent was murdered with weapons provided by the administration to Mexican criminals, and that has yet to be answered for.

For now I believe the worry in question #4 is correct for the following reasons:
1. There is no suspect video, and if a video was made of the attack on the embassy it would show the use of weapons and equipment supplied by the administration being utilized to kill Americans. A public relations nightmare that could never explained away, and no one, not even the staunchest supporters could say “what difference at this point does it make”.
2. The “telegraphing” to the enemy that the Marines are coming and then we are leaving, don’t shoot. The terrorists have won. Libya was destabilized by the administration and will now be abandoned, much like Somalia was in the 1990’s. The world has seen what the foray into Somalia left the world, a terrorist pirate haven. This may not have been what was intended, but this was the gift to the world by a failed foreign policy.

I believe that Libya is being abandoned for the following reasons and they are intentional and sinister:
1. The muslim brotherhood has no home. Egypt caught many of them after their ouster from power, threw them in prison, tried, convicted and sentenced to them death. The ones that escaped are spread across Northern Africa and the Middle-East. Libya is their best choice for gathering and a resurgence in power. Libya is lawless and open for occupation.
2. The brotherhood is broke, no cash the assets they had were mainly in Egypt and are unavailable. Libya has energy resources that can be converted into cash.
3. The administration stood by the brotherhood when they were oustered and demanded that they be reinstated to power. If they can not have Egypt, then why not give them Libya.

The staunchest supporters of this administration remind me of the people who were used as advertising props for the old Tareyton cigarettes ads, sporting a black eye and saying “Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch”. Personally I found the taste terrible and the two part filter lacking in substance, a bad combination terrible with no substance. Never could understand how any one could stand by that brand. Bought a pack once opened it, lit one, put it out, field stripped it and bought a pack of Camels. Never bought Tareytons again. Kept the Tareytons to give to anyone who asked if they could “borrow” a smoke, I’d give them one, they never asked for another. Those 19 people either gave up smoking or gave up bumming smokes.