Tag Archives: political parties

How did we get to this point?

Posted on by

We now are witness to the collapse and impending fall of Iraq and BHO takes time to give a speech on “climate change” fundraise, golf and vacation in California. The decision on what military action to take in Iraq will take days, and then only if the Iraqis can work out their political differences. Once again he has “telegraphed” his strategy to the insurgents when he said no “combat troops” will be involved. The Iraqis can not work out their political differences until they can work out their religious differences, and BHO knows this. In fact this latest outbreak of violence in Iraq is their way of working out their political differences based on religion. In the coming days the news media will call the increased violence and fighting in Iraq a “civil war” but it is actually a “religious war”. The Iraqi politicians are not labeled with a (D), (I) or an (R) behind their name, the are either Sunni, Shia or Kurd, therefore the religious beliefs of the elected officials dictate and are dictated in any legislation passed. They do not represent the political party and certainly not the people or the country only the religious beliefs of their sect.

There has even been talk around about breaking Iraq into three separate countries giving each of the three groups in Iraq their own country to curb and possibly prevent further violence and for political expediency. The Sunni, The Shia and the Kurds would have their own countries separate of the others. This insane idea has already been tried and has before almost brought the world to the brink of war. At the conclusion of World War 2 both Korea and Vietnam were divided, the city of Berlin was divided into four parts, Germany itself was divided, even Europe was divided, all for the cause of political expediency. These divisions that were for political expediency created a policy of containment. What was being contained Communism or Capitalism or simply just the people? The division of Iraq will not lead to peace, never has never will, and will not contain the religion or the violence.

The divisions of the nations of the world in the name of political expediency caused a stagnation in some parts of the world, some countries of the world have remained at their stage of development at the conclusion of World War 2. This is demonstrated by their lack of advancement in science and technology, they must rely upon advanced nations of the world for their mere existence with most unable to feed themselves. With few exceptions most notably Israel, South Korea, Japan and China, the only nations of the world to advance past the 1940’s are the victors of World War 2 as demonstrated by the rest of the world calling on them.

Still other nations of the world are stagnated by religious differences and remain in the same stage of development they were in at the outbreak of their religious wars. Culturally they have not advanced beyond killing one another in the name of religion, they have stagnated themselves in the name of religious expediency.

There have been many foreign policy attempts made by many leaders of the world. The policy of appeasement gave us World War 2. The policy of containment gave us the Korean War, The Vietnam War, the First war with Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the second war with Iraq and numerous other hostile actions. But of late we see a new and dangerous foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment. The best example of destabilization is the unprovoked attack on Libya. The best example of abandonment is Iraq. With the foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment if you add in the providing of arms and equipment to insurgents you get the new policy of confusing enemies with allies. Add in the idle threats made with no intent to act you get Syria. Add in the “there will be consequences” you get the Crimea and the Ukraine. The best examples of providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents would be Libya and Syria. The best example of confusing enemies with allies would be the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Now add in the policy of not wanting to offend you get boko haram.

The foreign policy of destabilization, abandonment, providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents, confusing enemies with allies, making idle threats, there will be consequences and not wanting to offend has changed the landscape of the world. The destabilization of Libya by supporting the insurgents with arms and equipment and U.S. airstrikes led to the death of the Libyan dictator, the convenient leaving of more arms and equipment for the rebels to steal and all that combined led to the murder of four Americans at Benghazi. The very same weapons and equipment from Libya were used in the latest insurgency victories in Iraq, where more weapons and equipment were seized including helicopters, surface to air missiles, air to air missiles, anti-tank ammunition, wheeled vehicles and who knows what else. While the insurgents were overrunning town after town they stopped long enough to rob the banks of millions of dollars and gold, raise their flag and invoke sharia law. Abandonment of Iraq has led to destabilization and was an open invitation for al-Qaeda and their splinter groups to take over. Even if the government forces regain their composure and take the fight to the insurgents, which is unlikely, the insurgents still have all the weapons and equipment they already seized not to mention the millions in dollars and gold. If the insurgents take Baghdad they will get more arms and equipment and will have more banks to rob. What will be the next target for the al-Qaeda splinter groups? The U.S. will abandon Afghanistan in two years. Syria still has chemical weapons that have not yet been destroyed and quite possibly biological weapons left over from the first war with Iraq, that would be a great prize for any terrorist group. Iraq is a large country and offers many places to hide chemical and biological weapons left over from the old regime and some of those men from the old regime still live and might just know where to find them.

If America has to engage the al-Qaeda splinter groups in battle it will be a much different engagement, our country will be fighting men armed with our equipment and with the same level of training as our own military. Airpower would be used but at what cost, two forces fighting and using with the same equipment would be disastrous, wrong targets could be taken out, and correct targets could be missed. Friendly fire, mistaking allies for enemies and enemies for allies.

Two quick questions.
1. Did the latest insurgent victories in Iraq come before or after the five Taliban commanders were swapped for one deserter?
2. Has the missing airliner been found?

The best example of non-stagnation is America, there was a time when America even tried to divide itself for political expediency, the north would not let the south out of the union. The American “Civil War” more aptly called the “War of Northern Aggression” was not about slavery as much as it was about the preservation of the Union. The south wanted out for political reasons the north attacked the south for economic and self-preservation reasons. The south did not seek to rejoin their previous rulers, as was the case with the Crimea rejoining mother Russia, the yoke of tyranny had already been forcibly removed and would not be voluntarily worn again. The south viewed the life under the north as tyrannical and oppressive as life before under the rule of the British Crown. Our nation is relatively young but since the civil war we have made many advances in science and technology, we have not remained in the nineteenth century. America have moved on because America was not a victim of the same political expediency that the victors of World War 2 inflicted on the rest of the world.

Reward or Payback?

Posted on by

The swap of one deserter for five Taliban fighters, or more accurately Taliban commanders, was to serve which reward or payback. If the deserter was a prisoner of war and an exchange was agreed to why not one for one? Negotiating is give and take, the weaker your position the more you have to give, unless you wanted one thing now and another later. Is BHO trying to empty Gitmo so it can be closed as he promised? One of his first executive orders was to close Gitmo. No , he still has two years to fulfill that promise, the “high value” terrorists held at Gitmo may have another value. I do not at all buy the statement that the deserters health was failing. Even if it was how did you know? Why are there talks with terrorists? What negotiations are going on behind the scenes? All of this crap will surely be classified and we common citizens will never be privy to what decisions are being made and why.

The answer to why the five Taliban were released from Gitmo and sent to Qatar may well be that Qatar is closer to Syria than Cuba is. Cuba is to far from Syria and the incoming and outgoing mail is censored, thereby making tactical operations and orders to fighters in the field impossible. That is remedied by moving the Taliban commanders closer to the fighters in the field and removing the censorship. The NSA is to busy spying on Americans to worry about the Taliban. Qatar is no more going to keep the five Taliban commanders in check than the man in the moon will.

Recently Assad was re-elected president of Syria. The insurgency in Syria was and is failing and Assad remains in power. The narcissistic one still sees Syria as his big embarrassment, his idle threats and the “red line” failed to help him achieve his goal, what ever that was. Russia stuck its thumb right in the eye of BHO and his foreign policy. The five Taliban commanders may well be returning to the battlefield soon, but they will show up in Syria, not in Afghanistan at least not yet. Over the coming weeks and months we may well see the news reports of renewed fighting in Syria. BHO did recently say that training and support would be provided to the “moderate insurgents” in Syria.

Another embarrassment for BHO was the Ukraine with the Crimea rejoining mother Russia, another instance of Russia sticking its thumb in the eye of BHO and his foreign policy. The Ukraine is still very much volatile. BHO did say there would be consequences.

Syria is another financial basket case that must be propped up, Russia will do the propping and Russia has a naval base in Syria. The five newly freed Taliban commanders may provide what the insurgency was lacking, leadership, a chain of command if you will. If the five Taliban commanders take to the battlefield in Syria, and begin to gain the upper hand Russia will have to intervene to protect its interests. History would repeat itself with Russia and a puppet government facing the Mujahideen, aka the Taliban, in Syria not in Afghanistan. Courtesy of BHO and his foreign policy of there will be consequences. Afghanistan will come later.

Were the five Taliban commanders released as a reward for promising not to engage in terrorist activities again? What will they do after their one year of probation is up? What, if any, job skills did they learn at Gitmo? Was the deserter rewarded for being a deserter? Was he just used as an excuse to release the five Taliban commanders to aid the insurgents in Syria as payback to Russia?

Will the five Taliban commanders remain in Qatar for one year as promised? In Islam it is acceptable to tell an infidel a lie, and the Islamist is not bound to honor an agreement with an infidel.

Ever wonder why BHO continually lies to the American public and does not follow the letter of the law? Going to a Christian church does not make one a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes one a car.

Incentive or coercion

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lowest point

Posted on by

The constant attempt at selling the bogus “climate change” agenda seems to be of more importance to BHO, his administration and the liberal agenda than national security. It does appear to be working on the lesser informed and those that have given up on free thinking and just follow the herd. Living here in Florida it gets hot in the summer, it is supposed to, Florida is not called the “sunshine state” for nothing. When I was stationed in Alaska, guess what it got real cold in the winter, it is supposed to.

I have tried explaining to the ones who believe the climate change non-sense that the seasons are just the earth tilting on its axis, towards and away from the sun. I try to explain that the northern hemisphere is farther from the sun in the summer and is closer to the sun in the winter and the opposite is true in the southern hemisphere. I even explain in the summer being farther from the sun is what causes the longer length of day and the shorter length of night and the opposite is true in the winter. The longer the time spent in the sun the warmer it becomes. They only offer this argument to support their position. It seems hotter now than when I was a kid.

I begin to dismantle their “seems hotter than when I was kid” argument with this. When you were a kid did you stay indoors all the time? The usual response is no, but it is hotter now. I then ask them when they leave their home is the air conditioner running, the response is yes. I then ask when you get in your car do you turn on the air conditioner, again the response is yes. I then ask when you get where you are going is it air-conditioned, you guessed it, the answer is yes. Then I ask them in between your house and your car was it hot, the response is yes. Then I ask in between your car and where you were going was it hot, you guessed it again, the answer was yes. I then explain to them that between the house and the car and between the car and the destination was the way it is intended according to nature and the way the earth works. It seems hotter because you were acclimated to the air conditioning, going from cool to hot only seems hotter because you left a cooler place and entered a warmer place, if you remained outside longer you would be acclimated to the heat and then went to an air-conditioned place you would be cold. I then tell them you can control the climate and even change it in you home, a building and your car and those are the only places there can be any man-made climate change. You have the ability to make a hot building even hotter, a cold building even colder, a hot building cooler and a cooler building hot, but you can not heat or cool the world, God and nature take care of that. I even back up this statement with, if everyone were to turn on the air-conditioners in their cars and roll down their windows Florida would still be hot. Having lost that, the next thing they say is “why was today the hottest day on record”.

I begin to dismantle “the hottest day on record” with this. I ask when was the baseline temperature set, the answer is I don’t know. I then ask where was the baseline temperature taken, the answer is again I don’t know. I then ask how long have the records been kept, the answer, you guessed it, is again I don’t know. I then tell them that I am going to begin record keeping today, it is 92 degrees, if tomorrow it reaches 93 degrees it will be the hottest day on record, if tomorrow it is 91 degrees it will be the coldest day on record. Having lost this argument they say, I meant to say that today was the “hottest ever on this day”.

I dismantle this stupid remark with the same three questions above. Then comes the “we have to do something about the pollution” argument.

They will not give up and admit defeat. I tell them we have cleaned up the messes we made in the past, but in some areas we may have gone too far and have hindered ourselves by over correcting, but do not discount what the earth is capable of. I ask if they studied history in school, most admit to having studied history but did not see the point in bringing up the past. I tell them that hundreds if not thousands of ships have sunk in the oceans of the world, and two world wars have been fought with vast and untold amounts of oils and gas spilled in the oceans. I ask them who cleaned up the oil spills or where did it go, you guessed it, they have no idea.

Then it is my turn. I ask why do you buy into this climate change crap, that was global warming crap? I tell them that when I was in elementary school we were warned of the coming of a new “ice age”. The ice age never came as they predicted, but some nice and funny animated movies came of it.

At least someone made money from predicting the coming of the ice age. I wonder who will make money from climate change.

I know that they are truly lost when they ask what does acclimated mean.

At some point in life these people lost the will or power to think for themselves and simply believe and repeat what they are told. Whoever the government teacher was who taught these people sure earned their money. The young people of today are one fine example of government education, and now they want common core, where they all learn the same basic subjects at the same level. Schools will teach to the lowest level and not the highest, continuing to dumb down America. The goal of education should be to bring the level of education to the highest level, not teach to the lowest. The next generation to graduate school will be evident that government education has reached its lowest point.

Another example of getting it wrong

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Was it another pesky video?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Inheritance, ownership, responsibility and denial

Posted on by

You would think that after nearly 6 years the liberals would quit blaming the former President and his administration for all that is wrong in America, the government and the world, sadly this is not the case.

BHO did not inherit the office of President of The United States of America. He actively campaigned for the office, he wanted to be president no one made him take the job and it was not forced upon him. He wanted to be president for the perks and rewards, but wants and accepts none of the responsibility. The liberal media refuses to lay the failures at his feet and by this, they have aided him in his role as a president who can not be held accountable, and therefore none of his administration is accountable. Everything rolls right off of them much like water rolls off a ducks back. BHO became president of a nation engaged in 2 wars, wars being waged in the open not in secret, he knew they were ongoing while campaigning for president. The VA has been having troubles for years, everyone knew that, everyone promises to fix the VA, but no one does. BHO was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after becoming president of a nation at war, based on what, promising to end the wars. A war that was won in Iraq was lost, and that nation has erupted in violence. Libya was attacked without provocation and that nation has erupted into violence that mat escalate into a civil war. Four Americans were killed in Benghazi, that would be Libya, the very same Libya that was attacked without provocation and destabilized. Syria was threatened with military action for the alleged use of chemical weapons, the threats were thwarted by the intervention of Russia and the fact no allies would join in. The liberal media occasionally reports on the renewed violence Iraq and Libya but will not lay the blame at the feet of those responsible for the failures in foreign policy and will certainly not say the truth, that there is no foreign policy in this administration. Complete ownership of Libya and Syria is with the BHO administration, but since there was no one to “inherit” these two disasters from there is no one to blame.

In addition to having total ownership of Libya, Benghazi and Syria, BHO and his administration has complete ownership of Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Obamacare, the use of the IRS to target the opposition, the BLM land grabs and the VA secret waiting list, these and many more have happened on the watch of the BHO administration and still no one accepts the responsibility or has been blamed for the failures and the liberal media remains silent. Why, the same as before there was no one to “inherit” these disasters from and therefore there can be no blame or responsibility. Although there have been liberals that blame the VA scandal on the waging of two illegal wars. Soon there may even be some “buffoon” who will blame the VA patients themselves for being wounded. Bureaucrats at the IRS and the VA have received bonuses for poor or no service. How can one receive bonuses for poor service unless that was a requirement to receive the bonus in the first place. Were the bonuses at the IRS dependent on how many of the opposition you could silence? Were the bonuses at the VA dependent on how many veterans you could deny services or lie about how much service was given?

The failed foreign policy, or better the lack of a foreign policy of this administration has cost more than the loss of Iraq, the impending loss of Afghanistan, the destabilization of Libya and the latest, the crisis in the Ukraine, it may well cause the collapse of NATO. Iraq was lost and Afghanistan will be lost for the same reasons, the failure of this administration to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement(SOFA) with either country. How could this happen? BHO has no experience and is unwilling to negotiate, look at his record of negotiating with the republicans in congress where his policy is my way or the highway. Now we come to the latest foreign policy blunder, Russia, the Ukraine and the Crimea. Still no blame for BHO. Now BHO wants to clarify his foreign policy, frankly I do not see how the non-existent can be any clearer.

Think on this if you will. At a will reading you learn that you have been given a house, the same house that you always wanted and now you have it. You have just been given ownership of a house, the previous owner is no longer responsible for the house you are. It is a nice looking house so you decide to move in. Shortly after moving in and getting settled in your new home it begins to rain, as the rain becomes a downpour you discover that the roof leaks. You gather buckets, pots, pans and anything you can to catch the water to minimize the water damage. After the rain subsides you dispose of the captured water and climb on the roof for a look. You discover that the roof is corrupted and must be either repaired or replaced. You are angry about the condition of the roof, you forget for a moment that the corrupted roof is your roof, you begin to complain that the house you “inherited” has a corrupted roof and demand that the previous owner be held accountable. After all it is not your fault, all of your “friends” agree with you and together all blame the former owner. Then you remember that the corrupted roof is your roof and the former owner is not responsible for the roof you are. Then you make a really bad decision, even you have no roofing experience you decide to do it yourself. The harder you try the worse you make it, you are in over your head. The small corruption that was is now big corruption and the clouds are gathering. You again began to complain about the roof which had only a small leak will now have a big leak, all your “friends” agree that the leak is going to be bigger, because there was a small leak to begin with and the small leak was not your fault. Your “friends” will not tell you that it was you who made it worse than it was. You begin to gather buckets, pots and pans to catch the impending rain, but you discover that you do not have enough to catch the rain, your “friends” give you their buckets, pots and pans to catch the water to minimize the water damage. This process will continue on and on until you have completely corrupted the roof and nothing will keep the rain out, there will not be enough buckets, pots or pans in the world that can save the house from ruin. And still you and your “friends” will blame the former owner for the original leak, and you will even claim that the leak was getting worse anyway and your attempting to fix it without experience had nothing to do with it growing and ruining the house. What you needed from the start, when the leak was small and could be contained was a friend that did not always agree with you and would tell you the truth even if your feelings were hurt. He may even have said, hey you are no roofer you need a professional roofer, you will only make it worse. Your true friend would have also told you that your house is deeply in debt and that the whole house was your responsibility, the good and the bad. But you do not now or have you ever had such a friend as this. You will instead sit in the rain with no roof over your head and blame others for the rain, the water damage and the fact that you now have no roof, in a constant state of denial with all of your “friends”. Give the jet a rest and find a friend that will tell you the truth, your roof still leaks, your house is deep in debt, many of your neighbors are unemployed and the clouds are gathering.

Post_Turtle

Conservative versus Liberal logic

Posted on by

Today I spent the tidy sum of $1,623.16 on a tires, shocks, struts and an alignment on a truck that is over 14 years old with well over 300,000 miles that on a good day only gets 17 mile per gallon.

Conservative logic. My truck has been paid off for well over 12 years and still runs great but the paint is a little faded and chipped in places. Why would I replace something that still works and is dependable? I bought it as it was being unloaded from the car hauler, other than 1.6 miles they are all my miles, even smoked in it on the test drive before signing the papers, sure shocked the salesman.

Liberal logic. I could have saved myself $1,623.16 in repair costs. I could have bought a new truck that would have come with new tires, shocks, struts and would have already been aligned, plus it would have fresh new paint and as a bonus it might get 20 mile per gallon. Just think I would have a new truck with a warranty, new parts and would get better gas mileage and would only cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $48,000. I could probably get 0% financing for 6 or 7 years saving a ton of money on interest, and I would buy gas less often.

Conservative logic. How long would I have to drive a new truck making monthly payments and only getting 3 miles per gallon more than my old truck that was paid for just to get my $48,000 back? By then it would surely need new tires, shocks, struts, alignment and no telling what else. Then what, by another new one? Using liberal logic I sure could save a lot of money on repairs, but I sure would be in debt forever. As long as mine runs and remains dependable I will continue to drive it and save me $48,000 in the mean time. Who knows it may last me a lifetime, think of the money I save using Conservative logic.

Liberal logic. There IS NONE!!!!!!!

Conservative logic. Do not wait until something is broken to fix it. Fix or repair something that is breaking. It costs less in the long run. Broken things can cause collateral damage, drastically raising the cost, possibly to a level that can not be affordable.

Conservative advice. Fix our breaking country.

Try it.

Try it.

You were wrong again, you will try again and on and on it goes

Posted on by

An open letter to Liberal Politicians in particular, and all politicians in general, even the aspiring ones.

Don’t get me wrong, I admire persistence, but not stupidity. Another shooting in a gun free zone, there are and will be arguments about whether or not an armed citizen could have stopped the shooter, that is the wrong question. The question here is why do you support and encourage criminal acts such as these? The fact of the matter is that you give the criminal everything that is needed in one neat package, victims with no means of defense, and yet you somehow avoid the blame. Do I think that every citizen should be armed? Absolutely not is my answer. The people should be making that choice for themselves, you have no right to make it for them, one way or the other. Unless prohibited by law, everyone that wants to keep and bear arms should be able to, after all the Constitution doesn’t disallow it and the Second Amendment is only a guarantee that the federal government can not infringe upon the right, but again that law is already with us and the criminals break that one, the next one will fare no better. No matter how many laws you pass and enact the only effect you will see from your efforts is continued criminal behavior. Your gun control efforts only provide a greater number of victims. Why are there so many victims? The answer is government provides them. Law abiding citizens obey the law, criminals do not. If you truly believe that guns are so evil why do you seek to enact laws that disarm the civilian population while at the same time seeking to provide more and better arms to law enforcement and the military? If guns are so evil, why do some of you own firearms? If guns are so evil, why do you have an armed security detail? Why are you constantly attempting and sometimes enacting legislation that only effect the lawful and never the unlawful? You see yourselves as leaders, but you do not have any idea what a leader is. Let me spell it out for you. A leader does just that they lead, and they lead from the front, setting the example. Show me that you are a leader, on your gun control measures, turn yours in, get rid of the armed security detail, enforce the laws on the books and really get down to the business of punishing criminals, then we can sit down and talk. As a matter of fact, do this with all your legislation, if it is such a good idea, be a good leader, you go first. No you will not do that, there will always be something hidden in the fine print that leaves you an out. One final question. What are you so afraid of? While I wait for the answers to the questions above, consider this, tell the truth to the people. I know full well that the answers will never come, the same as I know that you will not tell the truth to the people. Permit me to do this for you, I will tell them the truth which will provide the answers. The legislation you enact is not about providing a service or fulfilling a need, it only to control the population, continue to grow government and promote the culture of government dependence, while at the same time insulating yourselves and padding your wallets. The real and ugly truth is that you do nothing to control crime, if crime was eliminated you would have no further need to continue arming law enforcement. You seek to continue the march towards a Police State as the new America, where only the police, military and criminals have weapons, but where do you fit into this, you are not law enforcement and you are not in the military, only leaves one option doesn’t it. You will enact a law giving you law enforcement powers, that is a scary thought the law makers as the law enforcers. I seem to remember a country somewhere and sometime in history where the law makers were the enforcers, no wait, there have been many of them. They all had one thing in common, a really high mortality rate, seems the population had no means of self-defense. In the end there may only two kinds of people outside of government, victims and criminals, the criminals will be divided into two groups, true criminals and the former law-abiding citizens that you and your efforts have forced to become criminals because they would not and could not allow themselves or their families to become victims. The victims will be the victims of the true criminals, just as it has always been, they will never be the victims of the law-abiding, just as it has also always been. There will be only one kind of person inside government and since you seek to have all of the weapons you can not be the victim, leaves only one option doesn’t it. I leave you with this, you are not special, you have been entrusted with a special job, one that was never meant to be a career, you are a politician not a Statesman, you are a public servant not the master of the public, name calling is a sign of a weak position and is usually done by children on the playground when they lose, you have no right to make your opinion and views the law of the land, you have no right to exempt yourself from the law, America is great and special because of the people not the government and lastly America belongs to the people not the government.

An open letter to Business Owners.

Do you have the right to refuse service? Absolutely. Do you have the right to refuse access? Absolutely. Do you have the right to post a no firearms allowed sign at you Business? Absolutely. Do you provide an endless supply of victims? Absolutely. Will I do any commerce with you or your Business? Absolutely NOT. Now, this may be your own business or you may simply be the manager of a national chain that has a no gun policy. You may not in your private life be anti-gun, you chose to work there and in order to keep your job you must follow company policy. Unless you are moocher there is an understanding, you don’t work, you don’t eat. But, if this is your own business and that is your personal policy, for what ever reason, religious or political, you need to set the example, you are supposedly a type of leader. Do you post the same sign on the front door to your home? No, Well, why not, are you afraid that it will invite criminals into your home? You invited them to your business. Regardless, if there is a no-gun policy at your workplace, there are many resources available, courses of instruction if you will, that teach self-defense without a firearm. You could find these courses and offer them to the employees instead of leaving them totally defenseless. My point here is to teach Self-Defense and stop this stupid and dangerous practice of “shelter-in-place”. It is much harder to hit a moving target. I am not saying or even suggesting that someone run headlong into a hail of fire, or the path of a slashing knife or whatever the criminal chose as the tool of their trade, what I am saying is that there are already tools available at the workplace that can be deployed as a self-defense weapon, no one knows of them. Why, because they were never taught, so teach them, or have a professional do it for you and the criminals will never see it coming, force must be met with force, overwhelming if possible. The question of the ages is this, if you truly hate guns, why do you constantly call someone with a gun to your gun-free zone that has one, or are they welcome because they have a gun and a badge. The reason you had to call them in the first place is that you denied someone the same thing that they bring with them and you even advertised it inviting trouble. And finally this, you deny a law-abiding group which is the people who choose to exercise their Constitutional rights from your place of business and the liberals cheer you on. But if you deny a group that is on the approved government list of those that must be protected, even if just placed on the approved list, or give money to a cause that you support or supported at sometime in the past that was not, but is now is on the list of those needing protection, the same liberals that cheered you on for denying one will demand your head on a silver platter if you deny the other. I leave you with this, if you deny me any of my God-given rights or any rights guaranteed by the Constitution I will not be a faithful customer of your establishment, if on the other hand you do not impede or infringe on my rights I will be a faithful customer. I don’t mind paying extra for the same goods and services and will do so gladly. The one thing I will not do is give up any of my rights, God-given or otherwise to save a little money. I may even suffer a horrible fate, but it will not be because I was denied the means to defend myself.

They never intended to, their goal is to disarm the lawful.

They never intended to, their goal is to disarm the lawful.

Freedom and Liberty could be a flourishing crop, but instead you planted the seeds of a Democracy, you reap what you sow.

Posted on by

What you should have been spreading and supporting was the establishment of Constitutional Republics, but no you had to spread and support Democracy. The United States began as a Constitutional Republic, meaning that the founding documents were drafted and approved before the people were elected to fill the Constitutional Offices. The words Democracy and Democrat are not mentioned once in the constitution or any of the other founding documents. As a matter of fact the U.S. Constitution even goes so far as to guarantee each state a Republican form of government. The Pledge of Allegiance even refers to America as a Republic. The word Republican used here does not in any shape, manner or fashion mean the Republican Party, it simply means a Republic and that manner of government. The word Democrat used here does not in any manner, shape or fashion mean the Democratic Party, it simply means a Democracy and that manner of government. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths in speech and writing to avoid the establishment of America as a Democracy or anything even close in resemblance. They distrusted a Democracy and any one that was labeled a Democrat even less than they trusted a full-time standing Army. Calling someone a Democrat was akin to the usage of a “racial slur”, and as they used to say “them was fighting words”. Why does the Constitution only authorize and allow an army to be funded for two years at a time, yet has no time limit on a Navy to be funded? Simple, No trust of a full-time standing army and the Navy can be sent away. That mistrust lies with Great Britain(England), the King and the British Army and rightly so.

The idea and ideals of a Constitutional Republic is that is a Government of, by and for the People. The Founding Fathers recognized that there would even be a time when the unlawful(meaning those that would not obey the laws of God and nature)would be of great number in the Republic that would only obey the Law of Man and will only do that as long as they want. Congress was given the authority to write laws for the good of society, not the President, not the Courts and not the various Agencies of the Federal Government. The President and the various Agencies have in a role in the faithful execution of the Law. The Courts only have a role in the interpretation of the Constitutionality of the Law. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President or any Agency authorized to arbitrarily change or enforce one or any part of a Law, only the “faithful execution of” the entire Law. If arbitrary change, selected enforcement, or imposition of the will of the President or the Courts were to be the case what would have been the purpose of the Revolutionary War? What the U.S. Constitution does do is state in plain language the “duties and responsibilities” of the three branches of government and the powers allowed. The Constitution makes very few things a criminal act, it was intended to be that way. Laws in this Republic were not written to make acts or things legal, they were written to make acts or things illegal. The more laws there are the less Freedom and Liberty there is for the people to enjoy equally.

The idea and ideals of a Democracy is that is a Government of, by and for the Majority. The Founding Fathers never intended any form of government that was “Dictated” by the Majority, as it did not and would not represent the idea and ideals of a Constitutional Republic. In a Democracy laws are written that reflect what the majority believes should be lawful or unlawful. Freedom and Liberty are not equal, the majority enjoys the most of both, as a matter of fact nothing is equal in a Democracy nor can it be. If there is a Majority then there must be a Minority. The usage of the words Majority and Minority here in no shape, manner or fashion has any thing to do with race. This again is used for the manner of government. This is illustrated by the fact that the Constitution is drafted after elections in newly established Democracies, whoever wins gets the honor and privilege of writing the Constitution. Oh, they have a draft of a proposed Constitution before the election, but the “finished product” is “massaged” by the new president or prime minister or both and the parliament and then passed. Will they write it in their best interest or that of the people? That answer is provided by all the “Democracies” around the world. Those that call themselves a Democratic Republic are the biggest joke on the world. They are a government of the majority of the people, meaning the majority is represented first, then the people if at all. They will have a Dictator or a President that receives 100% of the vote, or a rigged election designed to fool the world into believing that they really are a Democracy, and they actually are, the majority rules even if it is only one person.

The time where America degenerated from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy started immediately following the death of the last of the Founding Fathers and was completed with the ratification of the 17th amendment to the Constitution. The 17th amendment cleared the last obstacle in the path to Democracy, the Majority was now in control of the greatest nation on earth. Now the President represents the political party and its agenda nominating political party members of his party or the like-minded of the other political party to cabinet level positions and nominating Justices and Judges that represent and reflect the parties views, not the country. The Senate is now free to represent the political party and not the State, and uses this power at every opportunity. All three branches of the federal government are politicians and represent the majority, if the majority is the majority that they want to support. Most of them remain as “remnants” of the last majority, waiting for the time when they will once again represent the majority not the People. America only exists to this day due to the fact that it began as a Constitutional Republic with limits on government powers, but the majority is now and has been chipping away at the very foundation of this nation.

When the “monster” that you have attempted to build around the world acts or starts to act as it is intended to be, a Democracy, the rule of or the vote of the majority the America government gets upset. When the Crimea held a referendum ballot to remain with The Ukraine or rejoin Mother Russia, the American government objected, even calling it illegal and unconstitutional. When The Crimea voted to rejoin Mother Russia, the world screamed in objection. Russia had a ceremony and welcomed The Crimea back into the fold. The Crimea acted in a totally Democratic fashion and yet the world screamed. The Majority spoke at the ballot box and the wish of the majority in a Democracy got their way. Now the violence is once again raging in The Ukraine, the world is once again screaming. The Ukraine may even erupt in a “civil war” because of Democracy not in spite of it. If that happens the world and the media will call it a “civil war” but it is only “Democracy” in action. The Ukraine may even attempt to put a ballot referendum in place whether to remain a Democracy or rejoin “Mother Russia”. The world will surely scream if the Majority vote to rejoin Mother Russia, but once again it will be Democracy in action. The world will object claiming it to be unlawful and unconstitutional. Russia will once again have a ceremony welcoming a lost “child” home. The Ukraine may even find itself divided and once again it will be because of Democracy not in spite of it. It will only get worse in Europe and around the world. The “Democracies” that have been set up or established in Europe and around the world will continue acting like a Democracy, (majority rule) and the people(in the minority) will reach a point where they want and demand to be heard. The world will have little choice in the matters and affairs of the Democracies around the world, as it should be, each country should be free to choose its own path. Russia is winning this confrontation with the world, and is rebuilding itself to what it considered its greatest times this time it is not with violence and oppression, but is using a tool we gave them, Democracy, the will of the Majority inflicted on all. All of the former states of the former U.S.S.R. may well voluntarily rejoin with Mother Russia in a purely Democratic form, a vote where the Majority gets its way. Maybe it should be called “Mob Rule”.

When FDR famously said that America would be the “Arsenal of Democracy” a more fitting and a better definition of America’s role would have been if he had instead said, that America would be the “Arsenal of Freedom and Liberty”. Maybe if America would have spread or attempted to spread Freedom and Liberty the world would be a much better place for the People and not the Majority.

To the Republic for which it stands.

To the Republic for which it stands.

american_usa_flag_with_eagle_1__97775