Tag Archives: founding documents

The problem with establishment politicians

Posted on by

This goes for politicians at all levels federal, state and local they just plain do not get it. What they just do not get is the fact that the citizens are getting fed up with their greed, corruption and partisan politics.

This is especially true for the GOP. The republican party has disappointed the voters constantly. Making then breaking promises to the voters. It seems that many conservatives in name only say what the voters want to hear then do what ever they or the establishment want as soon as they take office. Well GOP, like it or not the voters are fed up with you, your lies and your politics as usual. I should not be taking such “liberties” with my interpretation with what is happening in the GOP primary process, so from this moment on I will stick with my opinion and stop trying to interpret the action of others.

You will notice above that I called them Conservative In Name Only(CINO) and not Republican In Name Only(RINO), that is because they do not understand the principles of Conservatism. If one does not know or understand the principles of conservatism, how can one claim to be a conservative? As a reminder to the ones who claim the mantle of being a conservative, these are some of the principles of Conservatism; 1: Lower Taxes 2: A Limited Government 3: A Strong National Defense 4: Individual Financial Responsibility. If you can not live up to at least these four principles (these are the easy ones)of conservatism then please stop calling yourself a Conservative.

What the establishment GOP does understand is the principle of big government, which is understandable because the Republican party, yes the party of Lincoln was founded in and on the principles of a big centralized government. The federal government has been growing in size and scope since Lincoln was elected and will continue even after this election.

Another problem with establishment politicians is that they engage in partisan politics. The word partisan takes on a whole new meaning with used in conjunction with politics. The political partisans are nothing like the partisans of WW 2. When someone engages in partisan politics, this is the result, A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance. When a politician engages in partisan politics he/she is only concerned with what is best for the party or the person who best represents the best interests of the party, the party supporters(donors) or special interest groups(lobbyists). Little if any concern is given for what is best for the nation as a whole. The motto of the establishment is “Party First, Foremost and Always”.

The federal government will continue to grow until conservatism and the principles of conservatism come back to America as a way of life. The time has come when the GOP establishment must and will take a back-seat to the voters. There must be a reason the two GOP candidates who do not represent the establishment are winning and leading in the delegate count must be doing so for a reason.

Now on to matter that is near and dear to my heart, the Florida primaries are coming up. You can bet your bottom dollar that an establishment candidate will not get my vote. Not only is the primary coming up, we in Marion County have another issue on the ballot. We are expected to vote yes or no to increased sales tax to fund roads and public safety. A voluntary tax of 1% for four long years. The Marion County Commission has somehow managed to get that on the ballot, typical politicians. There are a present signs going up around Marion County, that read “Road Project Ahead Pending Sales Tax Approval”, these politicians must be kidding. The ones that I have seen are located north of the intersections of CR 25A and CR 329 just before the Lowell Post Office and north of the intersection of CR 315 and CR 316 just before the Ft. McCoy Post Office and I am sure there are more. Making and putting up these signs must have cost money, money that could have been put to better use, maybe road maintenance, but no it was wasted making stupid signs. These signs in my opinion are to put a “guilt trip” on the voters. Go out and see for yourselves, shining examples of waste, fraud and abuse at the county level. This ballot initiative will get a big fat NO from me. If you can waste tax money-making signs, what else have you wasted money on? You waste money and you want me to give you more, “fat chance”. Not only do you want the voters to voluntarily pay more taxes, you will raise the millage rates on property taxes. You want the people to give more and then you will take more. I guess the Marion County Commission calls that a “little give and take”.

Some of my Conservative brothers and sisters are calling for more like Ronald Reagan, I personally am calling for more like Thomas Jefferson. Short of a Jefferson or a Reagan I will settle for a Trump or a Cruz.

Forward to the Past

Posted on by

Freedom and Liberty are but one generation away from being extinguished is certainly a true statement, sort of. The further this nation gets from the days of its founding the less some of the population, and the numbers keep growing, understand the reasons why America why America wanted to be and became a free nation. The reasons the Colonials wanted to be free were basically pretty simple. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, yep just that simple. The Colonials had suffered(lived)under the rule of tyrants and despots as long as that life was sufferable. When the insults, usurpations, despotism and tyranny reached a point where they were no longer sufferable those brave men and women rose up against tyranny and threw off that form of government and instituted a new form of government. The intended form of government was one in which governed by consent of the governed, it was not one in which they would be ruled. When one is ruled there is no need for consent. If the colonials had only sought to continue to live under tyrannical and despotic rule the would have been no need for the American Revolutionary War. No, they did not intend to replace tyranny with tyranny, they instead sought to live a life with individual freedoms and liberties, willing to live and be governed, but not willing to live under rule by force.

It is not just this or the next generation that places this Republic in danger, sadly previous generations play a major part in placing this Republic in great peril. Many in America, people of all ages and dispositions have become completely dependent on government. These are the people who only slightly mumble in complaint against government overreach. They expect that the government provide for their lives from cradle to grave. What they do not grasp is the fact that if the government gives the government can take away. They also do not grasp the fact that for the government to “give” them something it must first be “taken” from another.

Another true statement is, Freedom and Liberty are but one election away from being extinguished. It is saddening and somewhat frightful that the voters of America are even considering voting for some of the candidates who are seeking the office of the President of the United States of America.
Lets face it when a self-proclaimed Socialist is running in the primaries and doing very well there is something wrong. The talking heads and pundits on TV, radio and print seem to think that this is because the voters only support a socialist because they do not understand what socialism is or just do not care. While I do believe that they do not care they do know what socialism is. Basically it boils down to this, whether it is socialism, communism or fascism the government takes care of everything and that is what they want. The supporters of socialism want the government to take care of everything and thus they are free from personal responsibility. The residents of nations under socialist, communist or fascist rule live a life where the government provides for their lives from cradle to grave.

There is an old saying from the past that sums it up best, and it goes something like this; The Republic is finished when the voters realize that they can vote themselves money from the national treasury. So with that, I ask you this, which is the lowest of the low, the one that would vote him or herself money from the treasury for personal gain or the one that would provide an avenue for a person to vote themselves money from the treasury? There would be no mechanism for a person to vote for themselves money from the treasury unless a corrupt politician provided that avenue. That shows that the politician is the lowest of the low, but the person that votes money from the treasury for his or her own gain is pretty damned low, also.
It seems that some of the voters of today, of varying ages and dispositions have given up on the ideas of self-determination and self-reliance and seem content to be cared for by government. It is quite possible that this election could be the one that ends the Republic as we know it. It also seems that some voters are voting to move forward into the past taking what was left to us and giving it back to tyranny and despotism.

It does not matter if the Tyrant is a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent a tyrant is a tyrant. If the democratic party is willing to accept a Socialist who carries the letter (I) behind his name, to run on the democratic ticket the Democratic Party has become the Democratic Socialist Party. The GOP is not much better than the Socialist Democrats, at least not in the aspect of pushing forward with the “big government” agenda. I get tired of hearing Republicans calling themselves Conservatives. I also get so tired of hearing the Republican Party being the “party of Lincoln and of Reagan”. Lincoln was a big government republican, he came from the Whig party. Do not confuse the Whig Party with the Whigs of the Colonial and Revolutionary War times. Maybe the GOP really are “big government” Republicans and not Conservatives. They would stop being RINO(republican in name only) and become known as CINO(conservatives in name only). Government is about power and growing government and acquiring even more power.

Yet another true statement is, Freedom and Liberty could be extinguished by one more stupid vote or action by the congress critters, the courts and/or the current administration. This is perhaps the most damning of all, the Legislative branch is supposed to write legislation and send it to the President for signature of approval or veto. Congress does not read the legislation they pass, remember these words “You have to pass it to find out what is in it”. The president is not supposed to legislate by executive order. The courts are supposed to interpret law not make law, abortion and same-sex marriage come to mind. If a law is unconstitutional then by all means strike it down, do not strike it down and then just up and make law. The idea was to have three separate branches of government, each with its own specific role in government, a system of checks and balances.

Some of the candidates on the GOP side are saying what needs to be said, while others are saying what we want to hear. As for abolishing the IRS, just how is that possible? What about the 16th Amendment? Do you just plan to abolish the 16th Amendment by executive order? As for simplifying the tax code that takes legislation. Does anybody really believe that the government will in any shape, manner or fashion give up that power? We on the right, the Conservatives, the true Conservatives have been promised so much by Republican Party politicians only to be disappointed, sold down the river so to speak. Promises made but never kept and in some cases no attempt was even or ever made to act in a manner to fulfill the promises.

On the Democratic Socialist side all of the candidates are promising to give away “free” stuff. As pointed out above the only way for the government to give away anything it must first be taken away from another. Ask one of the Democratic Socialists, what happens when all of the wealth has been redistributed and everybody is equally poor what happens next? As for taxes how much is a fair share? To tax the wealthy at a level you say is their fair share you have to modify the tax code. That takes legislation, are you planning to tax by executive order? How many poor people have ever given another a job.

This election is about more than electing a President and some Senators there is the possibility that three or four Supreme Court Justices will be replaced. Think about that, it is especially important since the Supreme Court has taken up deciding rights and making law. The President will nominate Justices and the Senate will hold confirmation hearings. Do you really want a Democratic Socialist naming a person to a lifetime appointment?

Fail to learn the lessons of history and history repeats itself. Do not vote America back in time, politically. I was not there, but I read somewhere that the times before 1775 really sucked.

What would be the Price, Cost, Value and Worth?

Posted on by

The question in the title of this post is in reference to the God-given and Constitutional rights each American is free to enjoy and exercise or not as they see fit. Another series of questions that goes along with this post is the following; Could a person be convinced to sell their God-given and Constitutional rights? Could a person be convinced to trade or exchange their God-given and Constitutional rights?

There has been much of late on the internet about a possible gun grab by the federal government. It is my, as well as others, belief that a gun-grab by the federal government would have dire consequences. Of all I have read regarding the gun-grab and the plans to do so whether by executive order or by legislative means I have neither seen or heard about the following possibility.

Could it be possible to tie the free exercise of the Second Amendment to money, money from the federal government. No, I am not talking about a gun buy back plan or program. What I am talking about is tying gun ownership to receiving government monies. Think about this for a moment. How many households across America receive checks, federal government checks, every month retirement pensions, social security, disability checks or welfare, food stamps, wic and the rest of the long list of what are now called “government entitlements”.

I do not think that the federal government would or could implement and carry out a gun grab. But the federal government could tie gun ownership to government payments. The federal government would not be necessarily infringing on the right to keep and bear arms per se. Gun ownership or the lack of gun ownership could just be a pre-condition to receiving federal checks or federal benefits. It could be as simple as if a person was not willing to give up the right to keep and bear arms he or she would be ineligible for government money of any type. If a person wanted to continue receiving federal government he or she would only need to “voluntarily” give-up the right to keep and bear arms. In this instance the federal government did not deny the person their right to keep and bear arms, the right was exchanged for money, sold so to speak.

Think about this for a moment, the “experts” estimate that 47% of the households in America are on at least one form of government assistance. Could these households go a month without the checks that they rely upon for their very existence? Probably not. Add to this the numbers of retirees from the military and the federal government, they also receive pension checks from guess who? Don’t forget about the number of persons on social security old age or disability, that check also comes from guess who? Also don’t forget about the number of persons getting VA benefits, again a government check. Most of America could and would be disarmed with this simple maneuver, tying gun ownership to money. The government would not be grabbing your gun you would be giving it up freely.

Voluntarily disarming could also be a pre-condition to being hired by the federal government. Simple you want a government job, disarm. Gun=No government job. The only gun you could carry would be a government issued gun and then only if the position required it, and only as long as the tour of duty.

This would be only the beginning, not only would you “voluntarily” give up your right to keep and bear arms, you would also most likely be placed on a prohibited person list. You would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm the same as a common criminal, though you committed no crime. You could not buy guns or ammunition. There would most likely be a form that you would be required to sign explaining all of this to you.

Hold on it gets worse. Now that the right to keep and bear arms has been freely exchanged for a continuation of government checks, and the person placed on the prohibited persons list, there now must be a system to ensure compliance. To ensure the person is in full compliance with the “exchange program” there must be a system of checks and balances, so to speak. The government would be authorized to conduct unannounced and warrantless searches for guns and ammunition. The way the system is now if a search warrant is issued for a 65 inch flat screen TV, no area can be legally searched where a 65 inch flat screen TV could not be hidden. There would be no excluded areas for search if they were searching for a single bullet.

If one is found with a prohibited item I am sure there would be confiscation, fines and a loss of benefits along with a lengthy prison term. No telling what could or would be found looking for a single bullet. So in fact you sold your Second Amendment right, and lost your Fourth Amendment protection. They get a two for one deal. The question is this; How much will you sell your rights for, and what others would you lose?

Oh, and keep this in mind, even a draconian measure like this would not effect a single criminal.

Wrong again

Posted on by

My prayers and thoughts go out to the victims and their families in San Bernardino, Ca. My appreciation goes to the Law-Enforcement agencies and other first responders.

Another tragedy presents another opportunity for the politicians and activists to politicize the sorrow. Even as the tragedy was unfolding it was being politicized. The Liberal Socialist Progressives will use this tragedy to further promote their agenda. They will as usual politicize the tragedy as they attempt to assign blame or find a way to justify the actions of those responsible for the carnage, which ever serves best to promote their agenda. They will get this wrong as they have in the past gotten so much wrong.

In the attempt to politicize this tragedy the Liberal Socialist Progressives and activists will first blame the gun. They will blame the gun, even though the gun was not the cause of the carnage it was merely the chosen instrument. It was the person behind the gun that should be blamed, and rightfully so. But they will not blame the person, unless the person they can assign the blame to fits in with their narrative and agenda. Then someone will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that justifies the actions of these murderous Moslems.

The first I will address is the apologists. The Liberal Socialist Progressives and the Apologists will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that would justify the actions of these murderous Moslems. Let me just address this in this way, there is no justification for what those murderous ingrates did.

Now I will address the Liberal Socialist Progressives. The Liberal Socialist Progressives as well as the gun control activists will start out saying that “something has to be done to control gun violence”. They will claim that only way to stop or lessen gun violence is that more laws are needed, more gun control laws. The gun control laws already on the books only effect the law-abiding population and has had no effect on the criminal element in our population, nor will any future laws. If there is anyone who believes that laws already on the books have any effect on criminal activity, they need to look no further than the prison system. America has laws making murder a criminal act punishable by imprisonment or death, murders still occur. There are laws against rape, robbery, drug possession and sale, theft and many others, yet the prisons contain people, men and women, convicted of the same acts(crimes). Criminals break the law, that is what they do. The residents in the prison system are not there for obeying the law, if they obeyed the law they would not be in prison.

Not only will they blame the gun, they will attempt to demonize the legal and lawful gun owners and the groups that support and defend their rights to gun ownership. It is not the legal and lawful gun owners that are the problem. I have often wondered why the legal and lawful owners of firearms would need to have an advocate to act on their behalf to guard and protect the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. This is particularly puzzling when each and every politician, upon taking office swears or affirms to uphold the Constitution. Which brings up this point. The Founders and Framers must have known that at some point in time the Federal Government would begin to act as Monarchs and that is most likely the reason why the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights ends with words “Shall not be infringed”. Only the Second Amendment ends with these words.

Think on this for a moment. Could Law Enforcement patrol the entire length and breadth of America, given the sheer size of America, providing safety and security of the population? How often do the residents of rural America even see law enforcement on patrol? Where are the most law enforcement officers seen, in the cities and towns or as they say “out in the sticks”? Law enforcement and the military operating simultaneously could not patrol America for coast to coast and border to border. If the agenda and objective of the Liberal Socialist Progressives and the gun control groups is to have the legal and lawful Americans disarm, either voluntarily of involuntarily, would America be a safer nation for its legal and lawful citizens? I submit to you that it would not. The criminal element has already demonstrated their utter disregard for the law already and would not obey a new law the same as they have disregarded the past laws. I ask this, Would you rather defend yourself and your family with a cellphone or with something at least as powerful as what the criminal who is assaulting you or your family with? If you chose the phone at least the one the other end of the call heard what happened to you or to your family. If you wish to defend yourself or your family with a cellphone I suggest you learn to throw it at 2000 feet per second.

Not only do the Liberal Socialist Progressives get it wrong every time regarding firearms, they also get it wrong on immigration, every time. There was a time in years past, now many years past, when people immigrated(legally)to America to make a better life foe themselves and their families. The legal immigrants assimilated into American society willingly living under the laws and customs of America, that was then this is now. The immigrants of today are no longer expected to assimilate into American society. If they are not expected to assimilate, what makes the Liberal Socialist Progressives believe that they will obey the laws of America, much less respect the customs or traditions? Let me use this example. If an immigrant moves in next to you that comes from a nation where murder is legal, would you want them to assimilate and live under the laws of America, or not to assimilate living under the laws of America and continue murdering because it is the custom of their native land? Would you feel comfortable living next door to a rapist, after all they only rape because it is a custom in their native land? How about a thief or a child molester? Today not only are immigrants not expected to assimilate they are not even expected to immigrate legally.

One thing about the Liberal Socialist Progressives is that they will never admit that their agenda was flawed or had failed. The only failure they ever admit to is that “we did not go far enough”. They never admit the plan was unwise or unjust, just that the plan was not “grand” enough. They only want to “progress”, go forward, no matter the cost or outcome. They are willing to destroy America in the name of “progress”. Maybe the “grand” plan of the Liberal Socialist Progressives is to reduce the entire population of America to a cowering population seeking cover and calling for another to come and save them from some terrorist or criminal. The one receiving the call will undoubtedly arrive carrying what you despise most, a gun. Or maybe the Liberal Socialist Progressives do not think there are already enough criminals in America, they seek to create more by making the legal and lawful owners of firearms criminals.

I can not control every minute of every day, as a matter of fact most of what happens daily is out of my control. I can not be there every second of every minute for my family. But when I am in the presence of my family they can rest assured that I will protect them from harm or die trying. My family and especially my wife will never hear these words from my lips “I am sorry Honey, I wish I could have done more than call for help”.

The difference between me, those like me and the gun control zealots is that not only will I place myself in harm’s way to defend and protect my family I will do the same for your family and even you. While I am willing to place myself in harm’s way to protect those that I love I will do the same for a stranger. The best I can hope for from you is that you will run away and hide then when you are safe you will call someone for help that would use the same tool I would have used, a gun. Amazing isn’t it, I would stand and fight while you would run. Maybe Chivalry is not dead after all, at least not yet.

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 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.

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.

Wrong Title

Posted on by

The president of the U.S.A. has long been looked to as, and referred to as the Leader of the Free World. That statement is not only false, it is down right dangerous, and becoming more dangerous. The President of the United States of America is just that the President of the United States of America, he is not the Leader of the free word, he is however president of the greatest nation in the free world. The label of Leader of the Free World can give one an over-inflated opinion of ones self. This over-inflated opinion did not begin with BHO but it has surely become more noticeable with BHO.

Think how the world has been affected by the action of a person proudly wearing and accepting the label of the Leader of the Free World. The supposed Leader of the Free World actually thinks he knows what is right for the free world. He does this when he does not even know what is best for America, the United States of America. Reaction by Reason and Logic is replaced by Reaction by and from emotion. Giving no thought to what comes next.

Let me use this example. The Colonials living in what would become the United States of America, did not need another country or government to tell them how bad it was to live under tyranny and oppression. They new first hand what living under tyranny and oppression was like. No other country came forward to offer to help defeat Britain if we would try their form of government, it would have been rejected because the Colonials had a better idea. It was the Colonials who fought off the yoke of tyranny and oppression not the government they would form. They sought to build a country like no other and establish a government like no other. A government of, by and for the people. No longer a people of, by and for the government. The people wanted to be free, the word “wanted” is key here.

Some examples of what happens when a person that is the President of the United States of America starts to believe that he or she is the Leader of the Free World.

Iraq. Had the people reached a point where they said “no more” and rise up? That is what the citizens of Colonial America did. Did some outside influence think that they had the right answer, regime change. A people who have lived under a dictator can not be made to be free they must want it. Some people can not handle freedom and liberty, others do not want it. Freedom and Liberty come with a cost, until people are ready to pay the cost they will not seek it. When Freedom and Liberty are gained they must be safeguarded and if necessary fought for to keep. GWB did not understand that simple concept. No matter the pretext for regime change, there is a life after for the people. Removing Saddam Hussein removed one problem and created another, religious sectarian violence and near civil war. BHO did not consider what would happen when he abandoned Iraq, more religious sectarian violence and the rise of ISIL, that became ISIS and now simply IS.

Libya. Again was it the people, citizens of Libya that rose up and said “No More”? Or was it some outside influences come in to stir the “pudding”. The statement from above apply in this case also.

Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen and The Ukraine. Again was it the people, the citizens of these countries who rose up and said “No More”, or is some outside influence or influences?

Reacting out of emotion rather than reacting from reason and logic. Being a person born in a Free nation and enjoying the Liberties that go along with that make it hard to observe or hear about the atrocities suffered by the people of a nation ruled by a dictator. The instant reaction is to free them, that is emotion. Reason and logic should take hold and stop you before you can act, but sadly there are politicians and those who see themselves as the Leader of the Free world that do not. The Leader of the Free World acts before he thinks.

Meddling is not a good foreign policy and division is not a good domestic policy.

There was never a need for and no country has the right to force their will on another country. But, I guess you thought the right when you took on the title Leader of the Free World.

The next person elected President of the United States of America needs to be reminded of that fact, President of the United States of America is your title, you are not the Leader of the Free World you were not elected to that post.

The United States of America has enjoyed a head start on the rest of the world. The key reason for this is written in history. History is loaded with examples of what has failed and what has merely existed. America was not born to fail. America has not merely existed. America has thrived and grown. One part of growing is making mistakes, another part of growing is not repeating mistakes. America does not live in the past, if one stays in the past they only stagnate and are reduced from thriving and growing to merely existing and eventually going to a footnote in history.
A side note on the founding of America. This is for those who do not believe God had a hand in the founding of America and the well-being since. Was it by chance or design that so many would be at the same place at the same time wanting freedom and liberty and then enough at one place at one time willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen?