Tag Archives: corruption

Just about tired of:

Posted on by

I for one am just about tired of hearing from the talking heads whether on TV, Radio, or in Print say that America needs put “boots on the ground” to fight and defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS. These talking heads fail to realize or do not care that each pair of boots will have one of Americas best standing in them. The one standing in those boots will be someone’s son or daughter, someone’s grandson or granddaughter, someone’s father or mother, someone’s husband or wife, someone’s cousin, niece, nephew, or friend or even someone’s grandfather or grandmother.
Why in Gods name would these blowhards even suggest that America’s best be sent into harms way while at the same time saying that there is no clear plan to defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS? If there is no plan to defeat, there is no plan to win. Are they actually suggesting that more of America’s best be wasted? Are they suggesting that more American service members be sent into yet another “meat-grinder” without the administration having the apparent will to win?

The possible reason that the term “boots on the ground” is so popular with the talking heads is that it removes the human from the equation. After all the boots are not the son or daughter of anyone, nor do boots have brothers or sisters. Boots have no family or friends at all. Boots are just inanimate objects. Putting boots on the ground will accomplish nothing, it takes a Human wearing those Boots to accomplish something. Boots can neither act or think. It is highly unlikely that the boots will feel any pain, but the human that wears them will, if only for a moment. Boots can not scream out in agony nor will they call for their mother, that again takes a human wearing those boots.

Unless these talking heads are willing to go to the Armed Forces recruiting station and sign up. Better yet, these same talking heads should take their own sons and/or daughters down to the nearest Armed Forces recruiting station and sign them up. If these talking heads are unwilling to do these things, they just need to shut the hell up. In other words “put up or shut up”. The talking heads in the media are willing to spend(waste)the lives of sons and daughters the same as politicians are willing to give away money. The politicians will give away all the money of other people, but not theirs. The talking heads are willing to waste the lives of the sons and daughters other people, but not theirs.

Would the talking heads be so vocal about putting boots on the ground if their sons or daughters were wearing those boots?

Inviting Disaster

Posted on by

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families in the wake of the horrendous terrorist attack in Paris on 11/13/15, a terrorist attack carried out by radical Islamic extremists.

Given what happened in Paris on 11/13/15 I have to wonder why the refugees are still being allowed entrance into the countries of Europe and especially wonder why in God’s name are the refugees from Syria and Iraq being allowed admittance into the U.S. This is especially troubling since some in our own government have openly stated that terrorist are most likely blending in with the refugees.

Is the U.S. government taking, not just taking but accepting the risk that a few radical Islamic extremists may infiltrate the ranks of the refugees? As we saw in Paris on 11/13/15 the actual attack was conducted by just a few radical Islamic extremists. The same as America witnessed on 09/11/01 with the radical Islamist attack, the actual attack was carried out by fewer than twenty. The Paris attack was carried out by fewer that ten. The attack at Ft. Hood was carried out by one. The attack in Chattanooga was carried out by one. How many were involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack, Two? The large-scale and coordinated attacks require planning and logistics with many people operating in the background, the so-called lone wolf attacks do not. The only thing the two have in common is picking the right target. It does not take a lot of radical Islamic extremists to cause great amounts of death and destruction sometimes as few as one is all is that is needed.

My question for the government is what is the acceptable level of risk for your refugee resettlement program? Is the government inviting disaster? Is government willing to risk and accept that 1 out of 100 is a radical Islamic extremist? 1 out of 1000? 1 out of 10,000? Remember what one at Ft. Hood and one in Chattanooga were able to accomplish. When I hear that you will have a “robust vetting process” in place it does little to bolster my confidence. My guess is that you are gambling, playing the odds, with the lives of Americans, hoping for the best. Even one radical Islamic extremist is one too many.

BHO had claimed that ISIL(as he prefers to call them)are contained. Then Paris happened. BHO said that was a minor set-back. BHO may have been correct when he said that ISIL was contained. The policy of “containment” has been a success. ISIL(as BHO prefers to call them), their affiliates and their sympathizers are contained on six out of the seven continents, unless they have an affiliate branch in Antarctica.

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some major miracle the government gets this one right and no radical Islamic extremists arrive with the refugees, the government is still flirting with disaster. The disaster facing America in this case would be a financial disaster. Resettling refugees costs money a lot of money. At present the plan for resettlement is to accept and resettle 10,000, I suspect that many more than 10,000 will be arriving. Since they will be arriving without much in the way of finances or belongings they will be provided with the necessities of life and in many cases the luxuries of life. They will need housing, food and clothing at a minimum. All of that costs money as said a lot of money. The money to pay for the refugee resettlement must come from somewhere. The somewhere is actually somebody, and that somebody is the American taxpayer.

I have to wonder where and when the “robust vetting process” will take place. I suspect that the vetting will be conducted upon arrival in America. My question at this point is this. What would be done when a known radical Islamic extremist is found amongst the refugees? Would he or she be sent back to their home country? Would he or she be tried and imprisoned or simply held in the prison system?

It seems that the terrorists operating outside of the Middle-East and North Africa seem to have a tendency to pick “Soft Targets”. The best definition of a “Soft Target” is one in which the terrorist will face the least resistance, meaning an unarmed civilian population. An area where the only protection comes in the form of government forces, whether it be Law-Enforcement of the Military. France itself is not a “soft target”, but the people are as is most of the civilian population of Europe as well as the places they frequent. Most any place the people of Europe frequent is a “soft target”.

Getting to the question of would or could America face the same kind of attack experienced by Paris for a moment, and the answer of it is not a matter of if but when. This is my feeling on that issue. The same thing that was credited with keeping the Japanese from invading may be the same thing keeping the radical Islamic extremists at bay. And that is a citizenry with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether or not the right is exercised it does place a feeling of doubt in the mind of criminals as well as terrorists. Make no mistake the radical Islamic extremists are here, waiting, and more may be arriving with each batch of refugees and they too may wait. But waiting for what. Could they be waiting for sufficient numbers to wage a large-scale operation? I already pointed out that very few or even one can cause large-scale death and/or destruction. Could they be waiting until the gun control groups finally achieve their goal of a totally disarmed civilian population? I think the latter, just waiting for a “soft target”. At this point America itself is not a “soft target” and neither is the population. Just imagine, if the gun control groups and the politicians got their way and somehow managed to disarm the civilian population, what would happen. First off America is a large land mass, if the population was disarmed either voluntarily or by force there is no way that the federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies could patrol the entire country and provide safety for the population. Even if the military was included it would not be enough. Government, Law-enforcement and the Military would be occupied just protecting large cities and critical infrastructure and would barely be able to do that, those of us in the rural areas would be on our own and at the mercy of the terrorists. The rural areas would be given up as most would migrate to the large cities just for some protection. The cities would not be capable of supporting the entire population of this country. America would be a “soft target” from coast to coast.

If the situation were reversed and America found itself in the same position as the middle-east where could the Americans flee too? It is highly unlikely that the countries of the middle-east would accept American refugees. There would be no refugee activists waiting with open arms to welcome anybody. It would be best and even considered wise to close the borders. America must consider America first and stop taking un-necessary risks. There is nothing wrong with helping others but you must take care of yourself. No one has ever been helped by the helpless.

The possibility of even on radical Islamic extremist making it to America is not worth the risk of taking in refugees. The government must stop inviting disaster. As I mentioned America and the American people are not soft targets but there are many soft targets in America.

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.

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.

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.