Taking the wrong path

Posted on March 6, 2018 by willisbryan2014

It would seem that the Florida State Senate has taken up the “mantle” of Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, the Great Appeaser. Was he not the one who said after his meeting with Hitler, “peace with honour” and “peace for our time? All he and Edouard Daladier of France had to do was grant almost all of Hitler’s demands. Czechoslovakia was to cede the Sudetenland to Germany, leaving Czechoslovakia defenseless. Then Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia.

I guess to his way of thinking it would be better to lose a part than the whole thing. The problem is that the Sudetenland was his nor Daladier’s to give away. I can just here Hitler’s reaction now to all of his demands not being met. Aw shucks, okay then I will settle for this if it is all I can get. It seems that politicians will never realize that they can not appease tyrants, they can never give them enough. Make no mistake about it the liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)and their allies are no more than tyrants.

Mind you the Senate bill passed on a 20-18 vote, with 2 republicans siding with the democrats.

What is being given up.
Raising the minimum age to by rifles to 21 from 18.
Create a waiting period on the sales of weapons.

The article stated that many pro-gun rights republicans did not like the idea of raising the minimum age to by rifles or creating a waiting period on the sales of the weapons. If they did not like either of the ideas then why in the heck did they vote for the bill? The answer is quite simple. They are caught up in the “We have to do something” crap. If they dont do something the gun control crowd and the other LLSP will remind the voters that they did nothing when they had the chance come election season. Appeasing the left, attempting to negotiate with a tyrant. Sound familiar?

Does this go far enough for the democrats? Absolutely not. In the words of one democrat, No! No, I don’t. The democrat would have liked to see an assault weapons ban. The republicans believe that they have gotten somewhere. What they have done is to allow the “Camel to get its nose into the tent”. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. The democrats are expressing their own, “Aw shucks” moment. Will the democrats settle, at least for now, for what the republicans are willing to give up? Why not? The proof is in the statement made by a democrat Senator “This is the first step in saying never again”. I suppose to mean they will take more later. If the republicans were to have banned “assault weapons” the democrats would still have wanted more. If the republicans would have banned all semi-automatic long guns that still would not have been enough.

The democrat Senator stated, I can not live with a choice to put party politics above an opportunity to get something done that inches us closer to the place I believe we should be as a state. Well just where does the good Senator believe that we should be as a state? But party politics did come into play, all democrats opposed this Senate bill.

The Florida House is at this moment still “hatching” their scheme. The legislative session in Florida is scheduled to end this coming Friday, hopefully it will end before these distinguished knuckleheads can further restrict the rights of legal and lawful gun owners. But alas, they will either cobble something together at the last-minute hurriedly so they can go home, extend the legislative session or call a special session to enact gun control measures, just to appease the LLSP.

But, to be sure what ever the State of Florida does, it will pale in comparison to what the distinguished bunch in D.C. will come up with.

The proposed gun control measures and legislation at the state or federal levels have nothing at all to do with ending mass shootings or with protecting the children. If it was about protecting the children, the LLSP would oppose abortion, after all the unborn child is the most vulnerable. The students in school have been taught and therefore expect government to protect them. It was the government that let down the students at the school in Parkland. The unborn child expects his or her mother to protect them, many are unfortunately let down by their mother. More children are lost to abortion in this country than any other cause. Nobody thinks about or are reminded about the innocent lives lost to abortion because there is no memorial service, moments of silence, candle light vigils, grave or urn, they dont get one.

The LLSP here in Florida and nationwide are using the student activists as a tool and a propellant for their agenda. They will use them for all they are worth and only as long as they are useful. The student activists were expecting and now demanding that government do something to make their lives safer. They do this even though in this particular incident it was government that failed them, it stares them in the face and yet they refuse to see it. The Founders and Framers had already provided for their protection in the Constitution. The First Line of Defense was provided for by those wise men, provided for by the Militia and the Second Amendment. As others have said, “The Militia was the original homeland defense”.

The LLSP, composed of the leftists(even those who wear the mask of conservatism), their accomplices in the media, the various gun control groups and now the student activists seek and demand restrictions and bans on the law-abiding population in an effort to do what, control crime or to control the law-abiding public? Radical ideologues, each and everyone.

Some on the right say stupid things like, We have to accept things like this occurring because we live in a “Free and Open Society”. These mass shootings are not a result of living in a “free and open society”. They are instead what happens in a society that has lost its way. If these mass shootings were a result of living in a free and open society they would have always been a part of our culture. They are instead only recent additions.

The left likes to say, “These measures will not prevent such acts in the future, but if we can save just one like they will have been worth it”. They already know what they want will never work. There is no proof that the last “assault weapons” ban saved even one life, but they want to ban “assault weapons” again.

The last assault weapons ban of 1994 came with a sunset date 2004, the next one will have no such feature. It will last forever. Once they get the “assault weapons” they will come for the rest, one by one, or lump sum. Just like Hitler, he wanted it all, they gave him most, then he took the rest. He lost his ass when he got greedy, “He bit off more than he could chew” as we say down in these parts.

There is no historical proof that had Hitler not received concessions WW 2 would have never happened. There is however historical proof that even though he got his concessions WW 2 happened. Hitler, like all tyrants and dictators in history began their reigns of terror by imposing restrictions on the population. Would the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and the rest been so easy to control if they had been able to retain their arms? Would it have been as easy to get them to get in the box cars?

I say no more, no more concessions. You can not negotiate with tyrants, not even in good faith, they have no faith. They give nothing. The right seems to think they win if they only give them some of what they want and demand. One day it may come down to us only having muskets. The appeasers will say “Look at least we still have muskets and have preserved the Second Amendment”.

DEO VINDICE

Southern Born, Southern Proud

Posted on February 12, 2018 by willisbryan2014

This post will in most likelihood send the farcebook censors running for their safe-places and frankly I don’t give a rat’s behind. The time is upon us where we must make and take a stand. We Southrons(Southerners)must do all we can to preserve our Heritage and preserve our Rights as Southrons and Christians.

Think on this. How many times have we been lectured too about being tolerant of others? Yet, we are not tolerated, we are ridiculed.

We are expected to be tolerant of gays and lesbians, I believe they are called the LBGT community, I also understand that a whole plethora of other letters have been added to their description. But no letter they have claimed indicates that they welcome those of us who are straight(normal). We are expected to be welcoming to them yet they are not expected to be welcoming of us. So much for tolerance and reciprocity. If this crap keeps up we will all be expected to be a part of the LBGT community. No Thanks.

Think about how many times per day you and I see the symbols of the LBGT and what ever letter they now have affixed to their movement. Whether it be on the media outlets or within our own sight. We are expected to react positively or not to react at all. We cant claim to be offended, for if we did we would be called homophobic. We cant run to our “safe-spaces”, we don’t have safe-spaces nor do we feel a need to have them.

We are expected to be tolerant of those who enter our country illegally. Law-makers at the federal and state levels have even introduced legislation to protect their rights, some governors have even signed that legislation into law. Rights by the way they do not have. Those who are here legally and lawfully have Constitutional protections, those who are here illegally and unlawfully dont. The democrats even shutdown the government over the issue of illegal immigrants, dreamers and DACA. They are in this country illegally and display the flags of their native lands, this to is not supposed to offend us. Yet they are offended by our flags, we must hide our flag from their sight so as not to offend them. They burn our flag in protest, but what are they protesting? We have been lectured too by some in high government offices that America is a nation of immigrants. Well that may be, true to a point. The immigrants of times past assimilated into American society, learning to read and write English. Those days are long past, today immigrants are no longer encouraged to assimilate. As a matter of fact it appears that assimilation is discouraged, even frowned upon. Why do I have to press 1 to continue in English?

We must be tolerant of the Muslims coming to this country. Employers are being forced to bend over backwards to accommodate their religious beliefs and activities. At the same time employers are sued if they allow Christian prayers on company property. We must be tolerant of Islam while being intolerant of Christianity. If we get offended we are labeled as islamophobic.

We are expected to be tolerant of the what I call the gender confused. We are expected to let them use the bathroom of their choice, no matter how they are plumbed. We are not supposed to get offended if a man thinking he is a woman or vise versa, for that day to go into the bathroom with our wives and/or children and not complain. Wouldn’t want to offend them. I am not quite just sure if there is a phobia, ist or ism label for that one or not, don’t rightly care. There is at he same time no consideration of the woman who wants to use the women’s room absent the prying eyes of a man claiming to be a woman. The offended confused can and do sue because they have been “shortchanged”, not allowing them to express their preference. Yet, what legal avenue does the one being forced to submit to the bathroom choice policy? Do that with mine and I will do more than just offend you.

As a side note, to those businesses that have adopted the policy of using which ever bathroom you want my shadow will never cross your threshold. Much the same for those businesses that post a no firearms sign.

For most the rest of this post I will be using visual aids found on the internet.

As a matter of fact we are expected to be tolerant of everyone and everything but ourselves. We are expected to deny our culture and heritage. To borrow a line from a book I read, We are expected to sit atop the stool of everlasting repentance, apologizing for our culture and heritage. Well, this ol’ boy aint sitting atop no stool, I aint got nothing to apologize for. I certainly aint gonna apologize for being a Southron. I certainly aint gonna apologize for being the descendant of a Confederate soldier. I will also not apologize for being descended from those brave men who first fought for our Independence from the British. I am a Floridian, and no apology there either. I am an un-reconstructed Southron, and again no apology. If you are sitting atop that stool kindly get the hell down. Take a stand. Make a stand. Be proud of your culture and heritage.

The social justice warriors are demanding that the symbols of the South must be torn down. They seem to be offended by our culture and our heritage. The Flags of the Confederacy, the Statues and the Monuments are all offensive to them they claim that they are the symbols of slavery and white supremacy. Hogwash, they are no such thing. To borrow a line from another book I read, These people suffer from Confederaphobia, Confederaphobia an American epidemic.

So what are we to do? Well that is entirely up to you, but time is short, do something. I have few suggestions.

Quit apologizing and get down from the stool. This should be easy. Did or do you own slaves? No, then quit apologizing for slavery and quit apologizing for those who did. See how easy that is.

Educate yourself on your culture and heritage. Realize that you have been lied to since grade school and seek the truth. The soldiers of the Confederacy were noble men who believed in their cause. It was not a lost cause or a fool’s errand.
If you are in denial and find yourselves constantly apologizing for being a Southron, it is you who are on a fool’s errand.

Educate your children and grandchildren. They are being taught a lie, it is your responsibility to teach them the truth.
It is our descendants who must carry on. At this moment the preservation of the Southron heritage and culture seems pretty bleak. This must be turned around.

One would think that we are living in George Orwell’s book 1984. The Ministry of Truth had the power to say what the truth was and change the truth a the drop of a hat. There was no truth in that ministry, much the same as the education system teaches everything but the truth, while calling what they teach the truth. The former truth was dumped down the memory hole and the new truth
became the truth, the truth that had always been. 2+2=4 right? But it equals exactly what they say it does. Remember the impeachment hearings of a few years back. It depends on what your definition of is, is.

When a Confederate symbol taken down put two, three or more up in its place. Show your pride. In fact you could put up a Christian flag for good measure. Yes you can be a Southron and a Christian at the same time. My ancestors were. Don’t believe the lie that the Confederacy was not a Christian country and a Christian people.

Educate others. Spread the word. Spread the truth. Join an organization that supports and promotes the South, Southron Culture and Southron Heritage. If you join an organization participate to the level you can. Don’t be browbeaten into being at every event across the land, or chastised for not being at some place others think or thought you should have been at. Most of us have limited resources and have jobs to support our families. If you cant find one start one, even a book club.

Forget about the whole “coexist” ideology. You can not now and never will be able to coexist with those who only want you to be destroyed. You may be perfectly capable of being a good neighbor with people who are different with you, but they will never be good neighbors to you. Coexistence is a fool’s errand. It was Gen. William T. Sherman who once said “The problem with the South is that it has to many Southerners”. Fully one-quarter of the male population of the South were either killed or maimed during your civil war. Towns, cities and the Southern people were ravaged and savaged. Well Billy Boy, both my Great-Great Grandfathers survived and here I am.

Make no mistake about it what is going now with the symbols, statues and monuments of the Confederacy is no more than another period of Reconstruction, reconstruction 2.0, if you will. The South may have lost its bid for independence, the South did not lose its identity. There is another thing, the socialist social justice warriors will not stop with eradicating the last vestiges of the Confederacy. While they “chomp” away at the symbols Confederacy, they are “nibbling” away at much more.

Hide and watch. It will not stop with eradicating the Confederacy, they are already moving towards other targets. Think the plaques at the Church attended by George Washington. Much the same as the, at the time civil unions of same-sex couples. Civil unions was not the goal, it was however a “launching pad” towards their ultimate goal. Their goal was same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is with us today, not by legislation, but by a ruling, a decree if you will. Not by the president, but by the courts, the Supreme Court. The majority opinion of 9 people in black robes decided that the rest of the country had to succumb to and accept same-sex marriage as the law of the land. Make no mistake their goal is the complete and total eradication of this Republic. Which brings this question, How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time. Eradication of all things Confederate is just the “launching pad”.

There was a futuristic fiction movie some years ago, the title was Fahrenheit 451. It was a movie about firemen, they did not exactly fight fires, they instead would set things afire, books to be specific. There were another group of people in the movie. They spent their time talking, not just talking but reciting books that they had read and memorized. As they aged they began reciting to the young, the young were taught to memorize a book that they had never seen, memorizing the spoken word. If the terror were to ever end the surviving generations would then be able to reproduce, print the books that had been lost. They were saving literature and history. If not for this effort all history would have been lost. I encourage you to watch the movie, before it too is lost.

Sherman said what he said in his time. I say what I say in my time. The problem with the South is that has too many “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags”.

DEO VINDICE

God Bless Florida

It is high time ….

Posted on November 1, 2017 by willisbryan2014

It is high time to put things in their proper context. Thing needs to be placed in proper context, and if there is blame to assign proper context will make it clear as to who or what is at fault. This is the second part of a series.

What I am referring to is the latest terrorist attack, the one in New York. Good grief, in news story after news story the headline was “Terrorist truck attack”, this crap makes it appear that the truck was the terrorist and committed this heinous act. The truck was not the terrorist, and a truck being an inanimate object is not capable of committing an act of terrorism.

It seems that the selection of words and their placement were/are an attempt at “blame-shifting”. The rented truck was merely the tool of choice, the weapon, in this terrorist attack. The man behind the wheel was the terrorist. The man behind the wheel was a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Those that were killed and those that were injured we his victims, his intended victims. The Islamic terrorist drove the rented truck onto a bicycle/pedestrian path, intentionally. The Islamic terrorist then proceeded to run down/over as many people as possible, again intentionally.

Had the Islamic terrorist used a knife in his dastardly act, the headlines would have been a “terrorist knife attack”. The knife would have played a key role in terrorism the same as the truck did this time, at least in the minds of the apologists. They seem to confuse the what for the who.

A more fitting headline would have been “Islamic terrorist kills 8 and injures many more in New York City”. Time to quit candy-coating, blame-shifting and most of all get off the wagon, the politically correct wagon. Call it for what/who it is.

Now the politicians will try to come up with ways to stop these kinds of attacks. They will suggest some type of barriers to prevent motor vehicles from entering pedestrian/bicycle areas. They will come up with plans that cost millions. Let’s say they erect barricades between the sidewalks/paths and the streets, but what happens when an Islamic terrorist enters the sidewalk/path on foot or bicycle with a knife or axe and does what Islamic terrorists do? Now what? The answer is much simpler that erecting barricades and is free. No terrorists no terrorism.

Unfortunately there are already many terrorists already in this republic, thanks to many previous administrations. The latest terrorist attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist who has lived among us for years. It has been reported that he has been here since 2010, and just now decided to wage Jihad. How many more are there? Are they just waiting for the right time to strike?

What is the answer? I dont know, but somebody better come up with something fast, and I mean something better than barricades. If not this Republic will soon find itself in the same sorry state as Europe. If something dont change Americans can soon resign themselves to the fact that terrorism is just part and parcel to life in the big city. Are you ready for that? Just waiting for the next attack.

Law enforcement will spent many hours searching for a motive as to why this attack was carried out. Maybe we as citizens should be searching for the motive as to why our lawmakers democrat and republican, are so lax in their immigration laws and policies. Why are they so much into diversification and multi-culturalism.

DEO VINDICE

And Tomorrow?

Posted on September 4, 2017 by willisbryan2014

This post will cover a lot of ground, intentional. This post will leave gaps and holes, again intentional. This is just the first of many parts, the gaps and holes will at some point be filled in. Some will seem repetitive, some things are worth repeating. Each will be lengthy, grab a cup of coffee, sit back and enjoy.

Each generation has but one wish, and that is the hope of leaving for their descendants a better place than they inherited from their ancestors. The only way to insure this is to have good and proper(truthful) record of the history of the people and their country. Half-truths are no substitute for the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As it relates to history there are three types of history.
1 Past History. The history of yesterday and the days past.
2 Present history. The history of today though it is still being written and will not be finished until tomorrow.
3 Future history. The history of tomorrow and days yet to come.

In the annals of mankind there is but one book written that covers all three areas of history, and that is the Holy Bible. The Word, God’s Word. From Genesis through Revelations.

So, what about tomorrow? Do we want tomorrow to just another today? Do you want to continue living the same day over and over? Just like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day? We don’t have to live in the past nor should we, and frankly I doubt that today’s population could endure the hardships of our ancestors, nor do we have to. Nor can we just live for today, the here and now. This would be existing and not living. Tomorrow is the key. Tomorrow should and will be better than today if only we let it.

What kind of tomorrow will we have if we allow some in society to erase or demand that others erase today and yesterday from history? How far are they willing to go in their efforts? What is their ultimate goal? These are questions that need to be asked.

Demands to remove “offensive” Confederate symbols from the Flags of the Confederacy to Monuments to the Confederacy are just the beginning. Much like the demands from the “alt-lifestyle” community.

That mess started with just a demand to visit “loved ones” in the hospital, so the idea of a Civil-Union was forced on the rest of society. This whole issue could have been avoided by the use of a simple power of attorney. But no, their ultimate goal was a legal marriage, and the courts have provided for a small segment of our population what the rest of the population has been denied, a Constitutional Right to Marry. There still is no Supreme Court ruling to allow the marriage of a Man and a Woman, nothing making different sex marriage a Constitutional Right. A friend of mine(Male)just recently married his long-time sweetheart(Female)and there was something unusual on the marriage license, instead of having a space for the husband and the wife, it had a space for the spouse and the spouse. Good Grief. I wonder what sex if any will be listed on birth certificates now and in the future. Canada already has three sexes to choose from on their passports.

Now back to all things Confederate being “offensive”. In recent post I said that people would begin changing their names because they may be offensive to some person at some time. Well it is now it has gone straight to the point of a person being punished because of his name, because it might offend someone. The sportscaster was not allowed to broadcast or announce on a college football game because his name is Robert Lee. This has got to be a first. I wonder, could he have performed his normal duties if his name was Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels? Just asking. I kind of suspect that he would have, and most likely with cheers from the left. After all Earth Day is celebrated on Lenin’s birthday and Castro, Chavez, Guevara, Marx, Engels, Mao and Lenin are all heroes to the left.

So where is all of this heading? As stated above the attack on all things Confederate is just a starting point, a sort of “jumping off point”. There is an ultimate goal, there has to be. Even if all things Confederate could be “erased” from sight, the memory of the Confederacy would still exist. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America still exists as the “law of the land’ of the Confederacy, it was never repealed.

If the intent to destroy all things Confederate is tied to a sort of atoning for slavery then only the middle is under attack. The Confederacy in the opinion of some was founded on the premise of continuing that “Peculiar Institution”. This is not the opinion of many others including myself. One could I suppose claim that the first seven sates seceded over slavery. But how could one suppose the same of the next four states to secede? Going back to the original seven seceding states South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. They each and all seceded because they had a right to do so in the same spirit that the original 13 colonies when they seceded from Great Britain. To chart their own destinies and institute a government that best suited them, they formed the Confederate States of America, drafted a Constitution and set up a provisional government.

Now let’s go to the four states who later seceded and what caused their secession. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas all voted to remain in the Union as the other seven voted to depart from the union. So ask yourself why they voted to stay and then voted again to exit and why. The four voted to leave the union after and only after President Lincoln attempted to raise an army with each of the remaining union states contributing a requisite number of men to accomplish the task at hand. So just what was the task at hand? The task at hand was to force the original seven seceded states back into the union and comply with federal laws, laws they considered ruinous. The four seceded rather than take up arms to force their fellow countrymen back into the union. The point here is that the federal government would use force against fellow Americans not because they refused to free slaves but because they dared to “buck” the system, and secede. There was no law to free the people held in slavery.

There were other states actively considering seceding. It would appear to some states that the federal government was becoming what the Colonials have fought just 85 years earlier.

Lincoln waged war against Americans to preserve the Union not to end slavery. It was not the Colonials that waged war with Britain, the King chose war. It was not the Confederacy that waged war against the Union, Lincoln chose war. A little note, Lincoln thought so highly of Lee that he offered him the job of commanding the federal forces against the Confederacy. Lee refused, resigned from the federal army and returned to Virginia to defend his home state.

Had the seven not seceded they in all likely hood would have retained slavery and the slaves would have remained in bondage. In fact slavery would have continued in all states North and South that were yet to abolish slavery, of their own volition. As stated above their was no federal law outlawing slavery. Had there been no what some people call the Civil War, we call it the War for Southern Independence there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation. Which by the way freed absolutely no slaves, it was merely a political maneuver, a slick one at that.

The Confederacy is just viewed as the “low-hanging fruit”, easy to pick. For many reasons, number one being the slavery issue. The Confederacy is viewed as a group of slave states therefore anyone who defends the Confederacy, it’s Flags and Monuments will be labeled as racists and bigots. This backed up by “cherry picking” speeches and papers from selected individuals concerning slavery and causes for secession. Half-Truths. The whole truth is out there for you to find, if you care about the truth. But let me ask you this. Would you fight a long war, 4 long years just to keep a race in bondage, knowing that keeping them in bondage lowers your chances to gain employment? Think about it. Would you fight a war to protect yourself and your country? Would fight a war, no matter how long if this country was invaded by a foreign nation? Would you harbor ill-feelings if your country was conquered and then occupied for years if not centuries.

So if all of this being “offended” stems from the Confederacy and slavery, why not address the real issue. The buying and selling of humans. The lesser of two evils, many choices made are based on just that, the lesser of two evils. We can all agree that slavery, human bondage, is an evil, a great evil. But as with anything else it can be divided into categories. Buying and selling slaves, which is the lesser of the two? Buying? Selling? One can not buy what is not for sale. One can only buy what is for sale. One can not sale that which another will not or can not buy. No market no sale. Think about it. If the hating of and removal of all things Confederate is based on the premise of slavery, then one must start with the slave traders. Did the plantation owners demand slaves to work their plantations? Did someone create a market by providing slave labor. But then again this would cause people to think for themselves. Being indoctrinated is not conducive to thinking, unless you count groupthink.

As stated above the hatred of a subsequent removal of all things Confederate is just a “stepping-stone” for the liberal socialist progressive left, going after the “low-hanging fruit”. What is going on now is just the beginning. The end goal is not to erase the Confederacy, it is to erase America itself, erase America from existence, sending her down the proverbial “memory hole”. To go after the Constitution, or what is left of it, for in the Constitution is the phrase “three fifths of all other persons”. Destroy the Constitution, destroy America.

The ultimate goal, I believe is a second period of reconstruction, a reconstruction of America. Erase the old and construct the new, the New America with a new Constitution and a new form of government. This time there will be no Bill of Rights, you will have no Rights, only Duties, Responsibilities and Obligations. This has got to come to a halt, and I pray that it does before it becomes too late.

Maybe this from Germany will help. When they can for the(insert what is appropriate)I said nothing, because I was not a(again inset what is appropriate). Keep the process going listing all that has no concern for you because you are not a whatever. You will at some point during the process come to a point where you are affected, but remember that when each group is attacked the numbers of those can or could resist constantly dwindle. When they came for me there was no one left to speak out. There is another aspect to consider in this application. Call it payback, revenge or whatever term you choose to use. It would be easy to say; You refused to stand up or speak out for me or on my behalf, why on God’s green earth should I assist you now? Think about that. Segregate. Isolate. Destroy.

But where does it stop? Will it stop when all of the Monuments and other symbols of the Confederacy are destroyed and erased from memory? No, my friend it will not stop there. Will it stop when all books and papers favorable to the Confederacy are collected and burned? No, my friend it will not stop there either. It will not stop until all that represents America is destroyed, removed from sight and then burned.

Anti-FA has some allies in this destruction of America, some willingly and others unwittingly. A word of caution. The ones marching under the banner of Anti-Fascist America are the Fascists, those going with the flow, so to speak, are just tools, tools to be used and then disposed of. They will accept no point of view but their own. They resort to violence to accomplish their immediate goals. Their immediate goals are to work towards their ultimate goal, one step at a time. They should probably use their correct name, Jacobins, the “ends justify the means” crowd. There will come a time towards the end where Anti-FA will have no choice but to implement their own Operation Mockingbird. You have heard of Operation Mockingbird, haven’t you? You may know it better by the common name, The Night of the Long Knives. Those who accompany Anti-FA might just want to brush up on history, before that too is erased.

DEO VINDICE
What was right in 1776 was right in 1861 and is still right today
God Bless Dixie
God Bless Florida
God Bless Southern Heritage

Stand strong Texas, the Florida Baptists are just gearing up. The real cavalry is on the way, The Church.

And then what?

Posted on June 30, 2017 by willisbryan2014

Is a Civil War possible here in America? I would have to say, Yes. So with that in mind, I looked into 3 Wars in the past a War of Aggression and Conquest, a Revolution and a Civil War. I did this looking for similarities and how the circumstances of each could come into play in modern America and in fact the World.

A Civil War is defined as; a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

By the definition above there is no way possible that the War of Aggression and Conquest 1861-1865 could have or should have ever been called the American Civil War. It was not the citizens of the North fighting amongst themselves, and it certainly was not the citizens of the South fighting amongst themselves.

There was another definition; a war waged to overthrow the government of ones own country. Even by this definition the War of Aggression and Conquest could not be called a Civil War. There were two distinct countries involved. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America, the Union and the Confederacy. The Confederacy nor the citizens of the Confederacy did not wage a war with the Union to overthrow the government of the United States of America. The citizens of the Confederacy certainly did not wage war against the Confederate States of America in an attempt to overthrow the government of the Confederacy.

There was even another definition; a war waged between geographic regions within the same country. While this definition comes close, it still does not fit the bill. True enough North and South are two geographic regions and they could be regions in and of the same country. The only way the War of Aggression and Conquest meets this definition is that the Confederate States of America was in the South, and the United States of America was in the North. America from the time of the Articles of Confederation until now has always been two countries in one, in more ways than one.

There was yet another definition; a war waged between political factions. A war based on politics now this really comes close, nearly a “perfect match”, close but no “cigar”. I encourage you to dive deep into this area on your own. There is much hiding in the shadows in American politics, then and now. Politics and politicians started the rift and placed the kindling.

It was not the Confederacy that started the war, the Confederacy was forced to fight. Forced to fight for its survival. But just what was the Confederacy fighting for? You can answer this for yourselves. But you must look at the reasons and the timing of the Southern States seceding. First was South Carolina then 6 more for a total of 7. Later 4 more seceded for a total of 11. Then look at what would be the benefit(s) of remaining in the Union. You may be surprised at what you find.

The Russian Revolution 1917. This was a two stage Revolution. First Removing the Czar in February(forced abdication and subsequent arrest). Second the “Reds” coming to power in October. Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. This was a Civil War based on politics and political factions, citizens fighting citizens within the same country, overthrowing a government. At the conclusion General Franco became dictator(1939-1975). Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

So let’s get back to the question, is a Civil War possible in America? My answer was and is Yes. If or when it happens it will not be a repeat of 1861-1865, it instead will be a combination of the Russian Revolution(1917)and the Spanish Civil War(1936-1939). The ground work has been laid, the kindling is in place, put there by the activists just waiting for a spark.

America is a nation divided, always has been always will be. This is best proven by some of the founding documents, most notably the Constitution. The Constitution established a government based on compromise. The Framers made compromises to get a document that enough states would support. Each state got a little through negotiation but no one got everything they wanted. Negotiation was the key, though now it has been made apparent that not all of the delegates negotiated in good faith. The big government types left themselves a little “wiggle room” in the Constitution but said there was nothing to fear.

America is at this point more divided than ever, and unfortunately it appears that compromising and negotiating will not and can not heal or even lessen the divide. Some groups want what they want and will resort to violence or threats of violence to get it. It is difficult, no impossible, to negotiate with a person or a group who is unwilling to make a compromise. Strangely enough most of the divisions in this Republic today are based on politics and demagoguery instead of geographical/cultural differences.

Think on this for just a moment. How many in America are calling President Trump an illegitimate president. There has been a lot of time and energy devoted/wasted trying to tie the election of President Trump to Russian influence in our elections. There are even some democrats seeking to find ways to remove President Trump from office, whether by impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment. They want him out of office voluntarily(abdicate)or forced(impeached or the 25th). They would probably rather that he just abdicate, not as messy. I suspect that some republicans fit into this as well.

How many in America are promoting, supporting and encouraging violence as an end to political differences? The most prevalent in this area are the entertainers. There is another aspect to consider when examining the Spanish Civil War. The Fifth Column, the enemy within. Four columns assaulting from outside and the fifth on the inside aiding the four. Think about this, we can all agree that the Media is against President Trump, that could be one column. The anti-fascist element, that could be another column. The illegal aliens could be another column. Those who fall into the heated and inflammatory rhetoric could be yet another column. But who or what would make up the Fifth Column, the enemy within, the enemy among us?

So what would happen if Civil War was visited upon this Republic, citizens taking up arms against their fellow citizens? Will/would it just happen or would/will it be forced to happen? First let me say this; There will only be fighters and victims. The surest way to become a victim is not to pick a side, there will be no fence-setters. The federal government will step in and depending on who heads the government depends on how heavy the hand is. Martial Law will most certainly be declared as Local Law-Enforcement will quickly be overwhelmed. The Writ of Habeas Corpus will most certainly be suspended. The Military will be placed between a rock and a hard place, they will be forced to either take up arms against their fellow citizens or take up arms against their brothers. The same goes for Law-Enforcement. The entire country will be put between a rock and a hard place.

People should spend some time thinking about the aftermath of a Civil War. There will be no way back, not for this Republic, it will cease to exist. The land will still exist but the dream will be extinguished. Atrocities and Retributions will abound during and after the fighting, especially after. They always do.

There is another thing to consider. If there is a Civil War there will be a vacuum, a vacuum that must and will be filled. What will fill the vacuum? Look at the Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine.

There is another thing to consider. The Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine have had little effect on the global economy. What effect would be felt by the global economy if America were to fall into a Civil War? Something tells me that the U.S. is not going to have a Civil War for purely financial reasons. The reason is that it is not time to sink the global economy, not yet anyway. Even the smartest animal trainer knows that the animal they have trained so well and for so long can turn on them at a moments notice. Just because the time is not right for them it may happen(ready or not)anyway.

Just in case the handlers may have “hedged” their bets. Remember back to the “Fast and Furious” gun running episode. Did all of the guns find their way to Mexico? Would it be possible that some of them did but the majority of them are still in America? A possible cache for a possible Fifth Column. You would want your side to come out on top.

A Civil War would usher out the last President and Usher in the first Dictator. Who will/would be which?

So let me ask those who think violence is the way to solve/settle political differences this; Are those that inspire you to action insulated from what they cause? You can bet that they are. Most if not all of those who inspire your acts of violence are nothing more than “attention whores”, they say what they say just to get attention. Learn to think or yourself. You at present are acting out on their behalf.

Be careful what you ask for and understand the consequences, intended and unintended.

Paying Tribute

Posted on September 13, 2016 by willisbryan2014

Tribute. noun 1 a: a payment by one ruler or nation to another in acknowledgement of submission or as the price for protection.
Tributary. noun 1: a ruler or state that pays tribute to conqueror.
Tributary. adjective 1: paying tribute to another to acknowledge submission, to obtain protection, or to purchase peace.

The above definitions come from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, and yes I did “cherry-pick” them for use in this post. I intend to continue using this same dictionary as well as a history1800s.about.com article written by Robert McNamara and my own knowledge.

The payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran by BHO and his administration in my opinion amounted to paying a Tribute to Iran. I base my opinion on the following:
The Nuclear Deal with Iran was passed off as a way to prevent a future war. Did anybody ever explain exactly what war this deal was to prevent? Was Iran threatening to go to war with the U.S. or any other nation over the sanctions imposed on Iran? Was Iran threatening to go to war if they were not permitted to become a nuclear nation? Was the payment of the $1.7 Billion included in the deal?

Let us also not forget about the $400 million paid to Iran in cash for the release of 4 hostages. The State Department said it was not a ransom payment they called it leverage. The only way I could see it as a leverage was to with-hold the ransom payment until certain conditions were met. Such as the two planes leaving the ground simultaneously, one carrying the cash(ransom)and the other carrying the hostages.

On a side note. We must not forget that the sanctions imposed on Iran were a direct result of Iran’s actions. Had the Iranians not swarmed the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and taken Americans as hostages the sanctions would have never been imposed.

So let’s go through each definition. Before we do let me clarify something. Iran is a predominately Muslim country following Islam, the Iranians are Persians.
If I use Tribute as a noun, it asks these questions.
If the tribute paid to Iran by BHO was to acknowledge submission, what was it that BHO submitted to? BHO is the head of our government and by default represents America. Did BHO take it upon himself to voluntarily submit to Islam? If he did submit to Islam did he take America with him?
If the tribute paid to Iran was for protection, just who or what is to be protected? Who or what is Iran supposed to Protect?
If I use Tributary as a noun, it asks these questions.
If the tribute was paid to Iran as conqueror, who or what was conquered? Was America conquered by Islam? Or was it a payment for future Islamic conquests?
If I use Tributary as an adjective, it asks these questions.
If the tributary paid the tribute to acknowledge submission, who submitted to what?
If the tributary paid the tribute to obtain protection, who or what was the protection intended for?
If the tributary paid the tribute to purchase peace, who was the peace purchased for and for how long?

All of these questions open up endless speculation. Do they not? Some of the answers one could come up with are down right scary.

Paying Tribute to Muslim nations, the followers of Islam is nothing new.

The following comes from an article written by Robert McNamara at history1800s.about.com

The Young U.S. Navy Battled North African Pirates
Barbary Pirates Demanded Tribute, Thomas Jefferson Chose to Fight

I will not use the article in its entirety, I will use only parts of it and at times interject thoughts and opinions of my own. If you have not read the article in its entirety please do so, it is very interesting and educational.

The Barbary Pirates had been marauding off the coast of Africa for centuries. The North African pirates had been a menace for so long that by the late 1700s most nations paid tribute to ensure merchant shipping could proceed without being violently attacked.

In the early years of the 19th century the U.S. at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson decided to halt the payment of tribute. A war between the small and scrappy American Navy and the Barbary pirates ensued.

Background of the Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates operated off the coast of North Africa as far back as the Crusades. According to legend, the Barbary pirates sailed as far as Iceland, attacking ports, seizing captives as slaves and plundering merchant ships.
As most seafaring nations found it easier and cheaper, to bribe the pirates rather than fight them in a war a tradition developed of paying tribute for passage through the Mediterranean. European nations often worked out treaties with the Barbary Pirates.

So you see there is a long history of paying tribute to Muslim pirates and nations. There is another interesting tidbit from the article by Mr. McNamara.

In March of 1786 two Ambassadors, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the ambassador from Tripoli in London. They asked him why American Merchant ships were being attacked without provocation. The ambassador explained that Muslim pirates considered Americans to be infidels and they believed they simply had the right to plunder American ships.

That answer was simply priceless wasn’t it? The Muslims have not changed one bit. They simply believe that they have the right to plunder those they consider to be infidels. There is even more from the article.

The U.S. government adopted a policy of essentially paying bribes, or tribute, to the pirates. Jefferson objected to the policy of paying tribute. Having been involved in negotiations to free Americans held by North African pirates, he believed paying tribute only invited more problems.

A man like Jefferson in the government of today would be like a breath of fresh air. He recognized the Muslims for what they were and was not afraid to say so. But wait there is still more.

While the tribute was being paid the young U.S. Navy was preparing to deal with the pirate problem by building a few ships destined to fight the pirates off Africa. 1801-1805: The First Barbary War.
When Thomas Jefferson became president he refused to pay any more tribute to the Barbary pirates. In response the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States. Congress never issued an official declaration of war in response, but Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron to the coast of North Africa to deal with the pirates. The show of force by the U.S. Navy quickly calmed the situation.

There was a problem with the way the war ended, it ended with a Treaty. It is the same problem that has plagued the U.S. for years. Congress did not declare war against the pirates and their sponsors(more on this later). Since war was not declared it was not fought with the objective of demanding and unconditional surrender from the pirates or their sponsors.

More from the article. After the victory at Tripoli, a treaty was arranged which, while not entirely satisfactory to the U.S., effectively ended the First Barbary War. There was delay in the ratification of the treaty by the Senate. Ransom had to be paid to free some American prisoners. The treaty was eventually signed and Jefferson reported to Congress that the Barbary States would now respect American commerce.

This brings up two points I made earlier. The treaty to end the first Barbary War was not entirely satisfactory to the U.S., then why the hell was it agreed to much less ratified? The same as the nuclear Deal with Iran, by all reports it was not entirely satisfactory for the U.S., why the hell was it agreed to then carried out? And Make no mistake the deal with Iran is a Treaty. The Secretary of State and others in the administration have already said that some of the money would likely be used to promote terrorism. A nation promoting terrorism is certainly not in the best interests of America, is it? Giving them the money to do it with is insane. The other point is, If the U.S. was victorious then why the hell did a ransom still have to be paid for the freedom of American prisoners? Wasn’t the First Barbary War fought because Jefferson refused to continue paying tribute? Did the vanquished get to dictate terms to the victor? An undeclared war that ends with a treaty is unfinished business. If there was a First Barbary War, guess what followed shortly after? You guessed it.

More from the article. 1815: The Second Barbary War. During the War of 1812 between The U.S. and Britain. The Royal Navy had effectively kept the American merchant ships out of the Mediterranean. Problems arose again with the Barbary pirates at the war’s end in 1815. Feeling that the Americans had been seriously weakened, a leader with the title of the Dey of Algiers declared war on the U.S. the U.S. navy responded with a fleet of ten ships. By July 1815 the Dey of Algiers was forced to commit to a treaty. Pirate attacks on American ships were effectively ended at that point.

You will notice that the First Barbary War ended with an “arranged” treaty and the Second Barbary War ended when the vanquished was forced to sign a treaty. But still a treaty is a treaty no matter if is arranged or forced. The first treaty lasted for 10 years. The second treaty lasted until 2009 when the Somali pirates emerged. They all have one thing in common, the pirating ended with a response from the U.S. Navy along with the Marines. The other thing then as now the Muslims would prefer to attack merchant shipping(they are unarmed vessels), they have yet to try an attack on an Armed vessel. I am referring only to pirates attacking ships on the high seas. I was not referring to the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

You will also notice that the Dey of Algiers declared was on the U.S. only because he thought the U.S. was so weakened it could not resist and would once again begin paying tribute. How typical of Muslim terrorists, picking a target because they thought their prey was in weakened state.

A few paragraphs back I mentioned the Barbary Pirates and their sponsors. Now I will address the sponsors of the Barbary pirates. Back to the article one more time: By the early 19th century the pirates were essentially sponsored by the Arab rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli.

Those four listed above make up what would be known as the Barbary States. If the Barbary pirates could be looked on as terrorists, then Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli could be seen as one of the first state sponsors of terrorism.

No one can argue that Iran is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism. People in our own government has even made that claim. There is another thing, when the negotiations for the Iranian Nuclear Deal began, just who initiated the talks? If Iran initiated the talks Iran would have been the weaker party and unable to demand concessions from the other parties. If Iran did not initiate the talks then it would have been one of the other countries involved. Perhaps it was BHO and his administration that initiated the talks. If this is the case it would indicate that the one initiated the talks was in the weaker spot and unable to make demands and seek concessions from Iran. It would be much like the Second Barbary War, the Muslim pirates declared war because they thought America was weak. I have a feeling that desperation set in somewhere along the line and it became “a deal at any cost” endeavor on the part of all the participants except Iran. I just wonder why so many countries were involved? Why were there deadlines to reach a deal? When time had expired why was a new deadline set? Did Iran demand so many concessions because they viewed the U.S. as weak? Did the BHO administration make so many concessions and demand so little because they were weak?

The Iranian Nuclear Deal intended to avoid or prevent war lets Iran build the ultimate weapon of war, a nuclear weapon. Seems kind of stupid to let someone build a nuclear weapon that has threatened war, in the name of peace.

The “peace at any price” strategy had failed when the British PM Neville Chamberlain used it against Adolph Hitler. Was it not Neville Chamberlain who uttered these now famous words; There will be peace in our time, or something to that effect. Hell he even waved the document that He and Hitler had signed. You know the one that assured peace.

Wrong again

Posted on December 3, 2015 by willisbryan2014

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.

Just about tired of:

Posted on November 27, 2015 by willisbryan2014

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

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

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

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

Inviting Disaster

Posted on November 19, 2015 by willisbryan2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on October 23, 2015 by willisbryan2014

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.

	The Armed Christian on Truth
	willisbryan2014 on They will never learn
	They will never lear… on They will never learn
	Lisa the Infidel on They will never learn
	willisbryan2014 on He is Risen