Tag Archives: beliefs

A Little Common Sense Would be In Order Part 3 The United Nations and World Opinion

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. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.

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?

The Republican Party and the “Talking Heads”

Posted on by

I was going to use Webster’s and the other research tools available to go after the Republican party and the “talking heads” whether they be in television, print or radio, but I have decided not to go that route, that post will not be published by me and will remain a draft. I have decided to be constructive instead of destructive. Identify problems and offer solutions. There will be statements and opinions in this post that may appear negative, but that which appears negative will have a positive solution. This post will tie into the previous post 10-80-10. So here we go.

First I need to go back to the previous post and address two issues. The first issue is popularity and the polls. At present Mr. Trump is ahead in the early polls and his numbers appear to be continuing upward. His numbers continue to go up despite what is perceived by some as attempts by the GOP establishment to derail him. Not only is Mr. Trump gaining in popularity but so are Ms. Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson. These three candidates are rising in popularity because they are not part of the establishment, the reason is not despite being an outsider. The three of them appeal to the center 80%. Look at the crowds they draw, please do not say they are bused in, every candidate brings supporters everybody wants a friendly crowd. There are probably people in the crowd who would never show for an establishment politician. Senator Ted Cruz is at present also enjoying rising poll numbers, for much the same reason, he is becoming an outsider as well, a political outsider, but an outsider none-the-less. The second issue is the 80% themselves. I used the example of “misfits” in the previous post and how they were discovered by Rudolph and company. It is not that the 80% are misfits, it is that up until now no one has cared about them or the issues they feel are important. The 80% finally have candidates who speak directly to them and address their issues and concerns. The Democrat Party has been catering to the whims and wishes of their 10% and the Republican party has been catering to the whims and wishes of their 10% and neither gave a hoot nor a holler about the 80% in the center. Times may be changing.

Now to the present post. It should be evident by now that the people in the center are pretty much fed-up with the political system in Washington, D.C. The people in the center have a voice and it will be heard one way or another. What needs to happen is a revival in the Grand Old Party, and it needs to happen soon, real soon. It would be better if it were to happen today.

Revival. The GOP needs a “get that old-time religion” moment. To do this the GOP needs to take a step back and look at itself to see if the GOP represents the principles of Republicanism. The Republican party needs to decide and the state which principles of Capitalism it is that they are in favor of and support. Do they support Crony-Capitalism or Free Market Capitalism? The GOP needs to remember that the United States of America is a Republic, a Constitutional Republic. Does the GOP now see and treat the United States of America as a Democracy? I say that the GOP does see and treat America as a Democracy, this needs to change not real soon, but right now. A Constitutional Republic and a Democracy are not one and the same. In a Constitutional Republic laws are passed and enacted that are good and wholesome for the entire population and the laws do not favor one group over another. In a Constitutional Republic the laws that are passed apply to all equally. The same applies to rules and regulations they apply to all and do not favor one group over another, nor do they place undue burden on one group and not all groups. Not only is a Constitutional Republic not the same as a Democracy they at times are the exact opposite. In a Democracy the laws that are passed and enacted are to benefit the majority. Rules and regulation place undue burdens on one group while benefiting another. This should define the differences clearly. In a Constitutional Republic the citizens are governed by consent. In a Democracy the citizens are ruled by the majority. Note that, governed by one and ruled by the other.

There are also some reforms needed relating to the GOP.

Reform. This is for the Republican politicians. If you at present hold an elected Constitutional office and you seek a higher or different Constitutional office you should resign your current office. The vacancy created by your departure will be filled by whatever system your state has in place. You must remember that when you were elected you in fact were hired by the people and it is the people who pay your salary. You were hired to do a job and you receive ample compensation. You were not elected to campaign. You were hired to govern by consent of the people. There is no way you can campaign and tend to the business of the people, especially since the primaries and the general election are so far distant. Is your “day” suffering because of your political aspirations? Or have you simply quit your “day” job but still expect to get paid anyway? In lieu of your resignation how about you only campaign while on vacation, after all you have more than enough time off. One or the other, choose one. Use your time not the people’s, at least make it appear that they are getting their moneys worth. How many of the current field would be running for president if before they could run they had to give-up their “day” job?

Reform. This for the Republican National Committee and the Republican party. It is not your place to pick the Republican nominee, not only not your place it is not your job and certainly not your responsibility. It is the place, job and responsibility of the voters in the primary process. It is your place, job and responsibility to provide the resources and support to who ever the people choose to represent them in the general election. Do your part and let the voters do theirs.

Reform. This for the “talking heads” for the Republican side. Quit bashing the candidates or trying to have a “gotcha moment”. This applies to all whether you are in television, radio or print. If you call yourself a “Republican strategist” then please do tell what the Republican strategy is. If you call yourself a “Republican strategist” you are most likely part of the Republican establishment. Again it is not your place, job or responsibility to pick the nominee, that honor belongs to the voters in the primary process. The odds are that you have already made your choice as to who you want for the nominee, if this is true quit your day job and join their campaign.

In the third paragraph I mentioned that one way or another the voice of the 80% in the center would be heard. One way that their voice will be heard is if the GOP has some revival and get themselves back on track and start living up to the principles and ideals of Republicanism. Short of the revival there are two options for the voters to choose from, Democratic-Socialist or Republican-Socialist.

The other way, in one way or another, would be a third-party, not the TEA Party, it was absorbed by the GOP or dismissed. I am not talking about a new or Independent party. I am talking about a party from the past. A political party from the past that would bring the entire center 80% and a goodly portion of both ends along. Break out the dictionary.

I am talking about the old Democratic-Republican party. The Democratic-Republican party in simple explanation, it favored strict interpretation of the Constitution to restrict the powers of the federal government and emphasized states rights. In short Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I could go for that. Pull some teeth from the mouth of the federal government.

Unless something changed today, Mr. Trump is still the only one that would not say, he would not run as an independent candidate. However, he did say that he would not run as an Independent if he was the Republican nominee. If nothing else you have to admire the “brass” in that statement.
All that aside the first primaries or caucuses are upcoming and that should narrow the field down a bit. But, that is both good and bad. The good is that the field will get smaller and give the candidates a better opportunity to make their case as to why the people should trust them and entrust them. The bad is that the “money men” will start offering donations for favors. After all, remember what Mr. Trump said about his donations and why he made them. Got to appreciate honesty.

I had intended to address the vast sums of money in politics but have decided to save that one for later.

Anyway looking forward to doing my part in the primary process. Also looking forward to the meeting in the “revival tent”.

10-80-10

Posted on by

Some years ago I heard something while listening to talk-radio that stuck with me and recent events have brought that statement back to the forefront. I heard this on the Jerry Doyle Show, what Mr. Doyle said was that the 10% on the left and the 10% on the right controlled the 80% in the middle. The remainder of this post is based on my interpretation of Mr. Doyle’s 10-80-10 statement and recent events.

The 10% on the left are the hardline party-line voters of the Democratic party and will always show-up to vote for the Democratic nominee, they are dependable and reliable. No matter what they will vote party-lines. Never voting for a Republican no matter what.
The 10% on the right are the hardline party-line voters of the Republican party and will always show-up to vote for the Republican nominee. No matter what they will vote party-lines. Never voting for a Democrat no matter what.

You probably noticed that I did not say that the 10% on the right were dependable and reliable. That is because they are not. What they are is dependable and reliable up to a point. They are dependable and reliable only if the Republican nominee is an establishment Republican that is dependable and reliable to vote along party lines. In other words if the Republican nominee is not dependable and reliable to the party, the dependable and reliable republican voters will not vote. For some unexplainable reason the Republican Party thinks that they need that 10% to win elections, thereby they forget about the other 80%. Both parties want their 10% and then fight it out for the other 80%.

This is how the whole thing breaks down, the 10% on the left are the extreme left, the far left and the 10% on the right are the extreme right, the far right. This creates a problem there is never a nominee who is to far left, but there can be a nominee who is to far to the right. No matter how far the left goes they will still get their 10%. No matter how far to the right goes they get their 10%. If at this point you are asking, What is the problem, they both secured their respective bases? You too are forgetting are forgetting the 80%.

Think on it this way, the party loyal providing they show up only cancel the other guys vote. Like I said the left will always show-up, the right not necessarily so. The extremes are there to cancel the votes of the opposing side.

The 80% are the ones who decide elections. The 80% breakdown like this center left, center and center right, some of the talking heads will say left of center, center and right of center. I like my way better they are the center. How the center breaks-down I have no idea, but let us use 20% center left, 40% center and 20% center right. If both parties secure their bases and get the one in the center that are leaning their way that still only gives each party 30%. 30+30+60, leaving 40% to fight over. 40% is a lot to leave on the table. Now it comes down to the 40% deciding the election. What has the republican party done or proposed that would cause any of the 80% to vote republican? Will you place party politics above America again?

How many times has just one issue settled and election. Let’s use the issue of Abortion, pro-life and pro-choice. It comes up in every debate cycle, and is regurgitated party politics. The left is pro-choice and the right is pro-life, with very few deviations. As with any other party plank or platform deviation from party-line politics will have consequences. Check committee appointments, how many that go out side party-lines are committee chairs? How many of the 40% will come to the right based on this one issue? Another way to ask the same question is, How many of the 40% will run the other way based on this one issue?

The easy way to answer the abortion question is this. Again I have to give Mr. Doyle credit, what he said was ” I’m glad my mother did not have one”. I would take it a step further and responded with ” I am glad my mother did not have one, and you. Make them wear the question. My stance on abortion is just that, I am glad my mother did not have one.

So my stance on abortion makes me part of the 80%. I am only a registered Republican because I happen to live in a “closed primary” state, which means if I want a voice in the primaries I must be in one of the parties to have a say. My stance on abortion also does one other thing, it eliminates the possibility of me ever seeking any Constitutional Office, which is probably a good thing. One other thing I do not walk the party line, I am a free-thinker and no political party or any man will ever be able to tell me what to think or do. Damn, just destroyed my political career again.

Let’s focus on the 80% for a minute and the importance of them in the primaries and the national elections on the Republican ticket. While we are at it let’s discuss the unimportance of the 10%. At present there is only one candidate that has already realized the unimportance of the 10% that would be Mr. Donald Trump. He realizes that he will not get those on the extreme right, he is an outsider, not part of the establishment. He has given up on the 10% to focus on the 80%, pretty smart, but then he is a businessman and understands numbers. I am not sure that Dr. Ben Carson or Ms. Carly Fiorina have discovered that yet. At present there is only Sen. Ted Cruz that has demonstrated that he will challenge the Republican party, and the leadership, by criticizing and stepping outside party-lines. I believe Sen. Cruz will not get the party loyalists and he realizes that and will instead focus on the 80%. 80 beats the hell out of 10, every time.

The 80% are getting or are already fed-up with party politics. The political parties want things to continue as they are and do not want the apple cart upset, and will use whatever tactics to insure a party loyalist is the nominee. Look at the list of candidates and ask yourself this, how many represent the political party and the 10%?

I will use Mr. Trump as the basis for the rest of this post. The talking heads are confused as to how Mr. Trump has such high poll numbers. I do not understand the confusion at all. He says what he says and has no “political correctness” filter. Very refreshing indeed. He even said one thing that got him uninvited from a political event hosted by Red State. Mr. Trump would not be allowed to play in the “Republican games”, he was now a “misfit”. His numbers still went up and this confused the talking heads even more.

Misfits are not so bad there is even a beloved Christmas song and a popular Christmas cartoon about the most famous misfit of all time, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Rudolph was different, tried to hide it and when he was found out he became a misfit. Rudolph was not the only “misfit” there were others, you know the story. The important thing and I guess the moral of the story was that even though Rudolph was a misfit and was not allowed to play in the Reindeer games, he grew when others expected him to fade away. One other thing about Rudolph, he found the Island of Misfits. One more thing his red nose became a guiding light. One last thing the misfits on the island were no longer misfits.

I am not saying that Mr. Trump will be the Rudolph of the 80%. The 80% do need a Rudolph, and at last someone has found the “misfits”, the 80%.

One last mention of Mr. Jerry Doyle. While discussing the current events around America, I remarked to a friend “Have you seen my country lately”, then I remembered that was the title of a book written by Mr. Doyle. The book is not at present in my library but soon will be. The book must be worth reading if the title sticks with me this long.

Socialist or Democrat

Posted on by

There was a recent interview with one of the “talking heads” of the democratic party, she was asked a question that she could not or would not give an answer to. She was asked, “what was the difference between a socialist and a democrat”? She was asked more than once. She had no answer, or there was no answer, or there is no difference. She instead wanted to discuss the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Her failure and refusal to answer that question, reveals the answer, there is no difference between a socialist and a democrat. At least, there is no difference between the two in American politics. Since the lady did not know the difference between a socialist and a democrat, I decided to look it up for her.

Socialist 1: one who advocates or practices socialism 2. a member of a party or political group advocating socialism.
Democrat 1a: an adherent of democracy b: one who practices social equality. 2: a member of the Democratic party of the U.S.

A better question to have asked the lady would have been along these lines, prefaced with a statement; There is at present a gentleman, a self-proclaimed Socialist running for president of the United States of America under the Democratic party banner. Are you comfortable with that? That question only has two possible answers. Yes or No. Dodging the question or refusing to answer can only mean that the Democratic party is ok with a Socialist representing the Democratic party. The lady represents the Democratic party, and to do so she must “toe the party line”.
A good follow-up question would have been; What is the difference between Socialism and Democratic? I wonder if she even knows. Followed by this; Does a self-proclaimed Socialist believing in the principles of Socialism represent principles of the Democratic Party today? Again dodging the question or failing to answer only means that Socialism does represent the Democratic party. So to help her out I again turn to Webster’s.

Socialism 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Democratic 1: of, relating to or favoring democracy. 2 : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism. 3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people. 4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish.
Since Democrat and Democratic both reference Democracy I throw this in.
Democracy 1 a: government by the people; esp: rule of the majority. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4: the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority. 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

She could not answer the question but she did say one thing which I feel is very important. She may have brought the democrat liberal progressive out from the shadows. I had heard it before but this time it stuck with me. Maybe it was the way she said it or maybe it was her refusal to answer the question and then interject the phrase. She said “the democrat party was a big tent party”. The only big tent party. I do not think I have taken out of context what she was saying, given the fact that she did not answer the question. What she was inferring was that everyone was welcome in the democrat party. Socialists, Communists and every one else was welcome. She was also inferring that the republican party was a “small tent party”. It donned on me that she was absolutely right. Not only was she absolutely right, she was absolutely wrong. The truth is that the democratic party is a big tent party, and you and your cause are welcome, but only if it furthers the progressive liberal agenda and the democratic party can get some “mileage”, aka votes, out of you or your cause. Think on this. Both the democratic party and the republican party have a platform, planks, if you will. The difference between the two is that the big tent theory allows for more planks to be added to the platform, meaning that the democratic platform will get bigger while the republican platform will remain stagnant. Where do the Democrats keep finding planks to increase the size of their platform? Well, they just create them. It is their agenda. The key lies in their use of the word social. But what is their agenda? Again Webster’s may provide some insight.

When BHO stated he planned to fundamentally change America, he meant what he said. He along with Democrats and some Republicans have changed America, and America has been changed with socialist tactics. America will continue to be changed with social tactics, the political system and the political parties will see to that.

The Democratic agenda.
1. Social Darwinism.
2. Social Engineering.
3. Social Democracy.
4. Social Medicine

The above three lay out the entire democratic liberal progressive agenda. Look them up and everything that is wrong in America can be tied to one of them and they are all Socialist ideals. Everything from and including racial tensions to unemployment.

Check the above definitions of Democracy and Socialism and compare them to what America has descended into and then answer these questions. Is America a democratic or socialist? Is there a difference between a socialist and a democrat when it comes to American politics? Do the democrats in power really live up to the principles of Democrat, Democratic or Democracy? No they do not, but they do exhibit some if not all of the principles of Socialists and Socialism.

I am not done yet, the liberal progressives masquerading as republicans and the talking heads are next.

Random thoughts

Posted on by

On so-called conservative politicians. Getting pretty tired of hearing how you plan to stop the liberal progressive agenda. You continually promise and never deliver. Now you plan to de-fund planned parenthood due to the video of how Planned Parenthood sells organ and parts of human beings. Yes I said human beings, that is what abortion does it kills a human being before birth. This is not the first time the so-called conservatives have threatened to de-fund Planned Parenthood. You failed to do it then and you will fail to do it now. More on Planned Parenthood later. Lets look at some of the other broken promises you have made, I only refrain from saying the lies you sold the voters, no I will not refrain, you lied to the voters. Not only have you lied you will continue to do so until your butts are out of office. You promised that the only way to stop the liberal agenda was for the republicans to control the House. You got control of the House of representatives and you did not stop them, nor did you try, Oh you did a few show votes, but to no avail. That was only done to fool the voters. Looking back it was effective. Next you claimed that if you only had the Senate as well as the House you could make things happen. So far that has been another lie. You had a show vote and it too was to no avail. You ran on promises of de-funding Obamacare, stopping amnesty for illegals and whatever else you could think of to again fool the voters. Again it was effective you got what you wanted, the voters again got nothing. Nothing you promised has been delivered, again broken promises or were they lies. When “push came to shove” you funded every aspect of the government, even those you promised not to fund. You complain when BHO takes more power and steps outside of the Constitution. Then what do you do ? You grant him more power. You refuse to act, the courts get to decide and again you complain. You are self-serving, the constituents are not represented, you represent the Lobbyists and special interest groups. You no longer feel honored to serve. You fatten your bottom line at the expense of the tax-payers. You have forgotten who it is that you work for.

It is time for a Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment. At the present time there are two Mr. Smiths and one Ms. Smith in the field of sixteen. Personally I am looking forward to the debate next week. The only thing that worries me about the Smiths is the possibility that they will start to use the establishment politicians tactic of telling the voters what they want to hear, instead of what needs to be said.

My vote is no longer guaranteed. If you want my vote it will need to be earned, just like my respect. As of this moment the only respect you get is respect for the office you hold, none for you. If you have not earned my vote you will not get it. No more promises will be accepted, action is what I and so many seek from you. No more excuses. No more pity parties.

Now back to Planned Parenthood. You at this point remind me of the German people living in towns and villages near the Nazi Concentration Camps. You act surprised and disgusted by what was happening right under your noses as they did. They claimed to not know what was happening just as you do. They only found out when the activities were exposed. What was it you thought was being done with all of those aborted human beings? You may be disgusted and outraged by the sale of organs and parts of aborted human beings, and you should be. Would you be so vocal if the public was not made aware of the goings on? You would not be using this atrocious activity for personal or political gain would you? So now you again plan to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you think that de-funding that cancer on society will stop their criminal activity? I would hope that there is a law on the books prohibiting the sale of human body parts. Oh, that’s right there is. You only seek to de-fund them. Why are the participants not being prosecuted?

There are two parts to this Planned Parenthood equation. And I use this same equation on the issue of slavery.
The first part of the equation is Planned Parenthood offering the organs and parts of aborted human beings for sale. This in itself is despicable and a down right sin. Just like in slavery there has to be one entity willing to offer a person for sale. Slavery and Planned Parenthood have this in common, a person or parts of a person are viewed as property and are placed on the open market for sale.
The second part of the equation is that there must be someone willing to buy what Planned Parenthood has offered for sale. The same as it was for slavery, someone must be willing to buy the slave. One can only buy what is being sold.

Which is the most evil? The Seller? the Buyer?

I have not read or heard of anyone demanding a “client” list for what Planned Parenthood has up for sale. Is it being done on the open market? Is it an underground market? What are the organs and parts of aborted human beings being used for? If it is illegal to sell human body parts, it makes sense that purchasing the same would be just as illegal. Could the “client” list be so damming that it would be an embarrassment to someone, is that why no one has brought-up the prosecution question?

De-funding criminal activity does not stop criminal activity. Prosecution will at least slow it down. What are you waiting for?

Incrementalism and Gradualism Engineering the means to the ends Part 2

Posted on by

Conditioning the people. It does not have to be all the people, just enough of the people and in the right places. Think of it this way. Conditioner is applied after shampooing to make the hair easier to control and manage, preventing tangles thus aiding in grooming. Conditioning is no more than an application of whatever to make the population easier to control and more manageable. Another way to think of it is this, conditioning the population is a way of grooming them into what government wants them to be versus the way they want to be or are supposed to be.

Conditioning through teaching reliance on government. This began in the 1930’s with government attempts to end the Great Depression, even though government interference caused it to last eleven long years. But, none-the-less the conditioning began. Then came the 1960’s and the “great society”, conditioning on steroids. No longer expect self-reliance or self-sufficiency instead teach and instill government dependence. The government will provide for you that which you can not or will not provide for yourself. If one social program was not enough to bring total government dependence another program would be introduced. Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8 Housing, the list just goes on and on. Sooner or later a segment of the population will be given enough through government social welfare programs to make working for a living pointless. Working and earning even a little bit would cause a drop in the amount received from government social welfare programs. Welfare programs began to be used as either a reward or a punishment. A person could either be rewarded for laziness or punished for trying to make it on their own. Now the point has been reached with welfare programs where those receiving government welfare live as well and in some cases better that the ones who pay the taxes that support those programs. The social welfare programs did as they were intended, that was to make a segment totally dependent on government for their every aspect of their lives. This conditioning took off like a rocket when social welfare programs began to be called “entitlements”. More on entitlements later.

There are many more ways to condition a segment of the population than for government to bestow gifts upon them.

Conditioning through behavior modification. Let’s face it behavior modification has been around a long time. A child who veered from the path of right, or confused right and wrong had his or her behavior modified by parents who actually took the time to raise their children. If you are even close to my age you understood the previous sentence. The government engages in behavior modification in a different way. The government uses taxes and the tax code to modify behavior.
I will use this example as a way to punish with taxes and the tax code. Tobacco and Smoking. For as long as I have been smoking there have been warnings on the packs about cancer, birth defects and a myriad of other warnings. There have been statistics released on how many people die from lung cancer every year. So how does the government attempt to make me change my behavior? They tax the crap out of tobacco. If smoking is so bad why is it not banned? Because there is a federal agency that regulates tobacco. If smoking was banned the government would lose a source of revenue. So I buy tobacco, pay the taxes and try to enjoy a good smoke. Then they further try to change my behavior by telling me where I can not smoke. They still will not ban it, they only limit where it is used and tax the crap out of it. Money is more important than any thing else. The taxes are used to fund social welfare programs, think SCHIP.
I will use this example and a way to reward with taxes and the tax code. Home improvements, the energy star and electric cars. The appliances in your home are aging and you have considered replacing or upgrading. Major appliances are expensive you decide to wait, after all the old appliances still work and do the job that they were intended to do. Enter the government to offer a tax credit if you replace your appliances. The newer ones are more energy-efficient, or so they claim. So you replace them early for a tax credit, a break on income taxes. The same is true of electric cars and solar panels, again the purchase of one garners a tax credit. You do what the government wants and you get a break on taxes. You get not tax credit for conserving without upgrading. You only get a tax break for buying what they want you to buy.

Think about the other ways the population is being conditioned. Getting accustomed and used to seeing and experiencing now what would have been cause for alarm. I am not one to believe that the government allowed the events of 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing and the other terrorist attacks to happen. They may have missed the warnings. They have certainly capitalized on every catastrophe and incident. Government has grown or expanded its powers each and every opportunity presented to it. There are many more, you only have to think.

Are you being conditioned?

Now to entitlements. You are entitled to the following by being an American citizen; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Outside of those three things you are entitled to what you have earned or produced. You are not entitled to one single thing that I or anyone else has earned or produced. You certainly are not entitled to Welfare.

Incrementalism and Gradualism, Engineering the means to the end Part 1

Posted on by

Incrementalism, a policy or advocacy of a policy of political or social changes by degrees.
Gradualism, the policy of approaching a desired end by gradual stages.
Those two words best sum up the Domestic Policy of liberal progressives and especially the current administration. Bit by bit, bringing America down to the level of the rest of the world. Liberalism and progressivism are not just confined to the Democratic Party, it also exists in the Republican Party. In that context when the term “liberal progressive” is used it does not necessarily mean a democrat. Perhaps a better term would be “social progressive” or “political progressive”, that would eliminate some confusion.

The easiest population for government to have absolute power and domain over would be best described as a population of totally compliant Peoples, the ones that are most referred to as sheep, aka “sheeple”. By contrast the hardest people to have absolute power and domain over would be those that believe in the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are only two types of governments around the world.
1 The governments founded on a principle that denies basic rights to the citizens and power is retained by the government, even if that government is composed of only one person. In these countries the constitution, if the country has one, gives power to the government, which by default limits, denies or removes power from the people. These countries are ruled by force not consent, a totalitarian government. The people have no rights and have no choice but to comply with government. The inhabitants are property of the State and are passed along to the next Ruler. This is an example of a Democracy, rule by the majority. Actually the people do have somewhat of a choice, they can choose not to comply, which will have dire consequences.

2 The governments founded on the principle that the government has power only because the population gives their consent to be governed. These countries are governed by consent not by force. In these countries the power remains with the people, a representative government. In these countries the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government, not the people. Not only do the people have and are guaranteed, not granted, their rights, they are also free to exercise them or not, as they choose. The Constitution in these countries limit the power of government, each branch has its own specific roles and limitation and operate on a system of checks and balances.

The question at this point would be do you wish to live under a government or with a government?

If your answer was to live under a government, this is what you chose.
You have only the rights given to you by government and can only exercise them as long as government allows. What the government gives the government can take away.
Basically this sums it up best. Rights when granted are not granted equally. The government has complete and total control over your life and all aspects of it from cradle to grave. Government control is total and limitless. A government that tells you what you can do, when you can do and for how long. A government that tells you what you can buy and when. A government that tells you what you will or will not buy.

If you chose to live with a government, this is what you chose.
You recognize and accept that you have Certain Inalienable Rights namely Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The usage of the word Certain in the previous sentence is the same as the Founders and Framers intended as to mean Absolute. You are responsible for your life from cradle to grave. You have rights that are granted by the Creator of the Universe. They are yours, you can not transfer them, they are yours. You have a choice when it comes to “Certain Inalienable” rights, you are free to exercise them or not. That is real Freedom and Liberty.

Given the choices above and the question of which would you rather do live under a government or live with a government, there arises a new question. Why would a people who had so happily lived with a government would now voluntarily give that up and choose instead to live under a government? Going from being governed by consent to being ruled.

This brings up another question. At what point is the government no longer content with the idea of governing by consent?

There comes a time when government begins to see the population as “a thorn in its side”. When government reaches that point governing by consent goes out the window and rule by force becomes the government. There are only two ways implement a government ruling by force in a nation that had up to that time been governed by consent. The first is Fast and Brutal, in a large nation fast and brutal has inherent problems. The second is in slow, planned, and gradual or incremental steps and requires patient engineering. As I have written before government is about power and control. Government is only concerned with the continued existence and well-being of government. The larger government grows the harder it is to control, at some point it goes out of control, out of control of the people, that is. The larger government grows the more power it has or takes and the more power it wields over the population. Soon the population is powerless to resist the force of government.