Tag Archives: values

10-80-10

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist or Democrat

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incrementalism and Gradualism Engineering the means to the ends Part 2

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Are you being conditioned?

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

A sickness crosses the Land

Posted on by

More of a decay than a sickness. The decay is from rot and corruption, and it is spreading at a fever pitch. There is an old adage that goes; America can never be destroyed from the outside, if America is to be destroyed it must come from the inside. Truer words could never have been said, but those words were said long ago. That was the America that was.

This is the America that is. America is being destroyed by the rot and corruption that exists on the inside. If that were not enough rot and corruption are being brought inside from the outside. Much like a piece of lumber under attack from termites and exposure the elements. Both eating away, both causing irreversible damage.

There is another old adage that goes; An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This country at one time had all the tools necessary to prevent rot and corruption. That was then this is now.

The Reverse Revolution was mentioned in the last post. Just a refresher: A revolution, like the American Revolution, was waged to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression inflicted on the colonials and the country by an unjust government. A Reverse Revolution, like the one being waged against the American people, is being waged to put the yoke of tyranny and oppression on the people and the country by an unjust government.

The sad part is that the government is using one of this countries most cherished founding documents to do it. The government is using none other than The U.S. Constitution in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression upon the neck of America. The equal protection clause is at this time is their favorite weapon in this war. The equal protection clause was to protect the people not their causes or lifestyles. But even the usage of the equal protection clause is not used equally. It is used only if it benefits government and the politicians who occupy Constitutional Office and helps to fulfill their agenda.

If any do not believe that the Constitution is being used to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the neck of America, I suggest that you read the following; The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Arms. Check the list of offenses the British Crown committed against the Colonies and the Colonials. One that stands out is the arbitrary nullifying of Laws. Case in point, the State of Florida, as did many others, had until recently a law on the books banning same-sex marriage. The people voted on it and it passed and became Law in Florida and many other states. That was then this is now. The SCOTUS ruled, no legislative process they just ruled, and the country was forced to recognize same-sex marriage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as being a right. Laws were over-turned and the peoples voice was silenced. The same goes for abortion, that too was legalized by SCOTUS, now it has been revealed that this great nation has been reduced to allowing the sale of body parts and organs of the unborn, and giving millions to the agency responsible. What other horrors has the SCOTUS unwittingly un-leashed on America? Only time will tell. There will probably be many and they too will be horrendous.

The other day I was visiting various blogs, one of the many that I frequent, It was a “prepper” blog. Yep, I read opinion, politics, history, prepper and conspiracy theory sites. The part that caught my attention in the post I was reading was about the Constitution. The author was writing about a prepper community and if they survived the event someone would have to rebuild America, he suggested that every one in the community have a copy of the Constitution as a guide to rebuilding America. I do not think the author realized that even though the Constitution was written by good and decent men, it is being used now as the instrument for the destruction of America.
On a side note: Conspiracy theories are only theories until that theory becomes fact.
The preppers are nothing like the reality show. How do I know? Guess. The preppers are not some fringe group. If prepping is a fringe activity, explain this. The Federal government has a fully staffed and equipped prepper agency, FEMA, paid for with your tax dollars. If it is okay for the government, why is it only a fringe activity if the citizens do it? The preppers use their own money.

Back to the Constitution, as I said it was written by good and decent men. It is only worth the paper it is written on if good and decent men meant it when they take the oath to uphold it. You would be hard pressed to find good and decent men among career politicians.

The rot and corruption that is destroying America must be stopped. It can be stopped by electing good and decent men to Constitutional office. We do not need more politicians we need more statesmen. We need statesmen who will pledge their lives, their sacred honor and their fortunes. We do not need politicians who intend to make a fortune while holding office. It can also be stopped by a Press that fulfills its obligation to the people, by holding the government accountable. It can be stopped by a citizenry that understands that if they wish to reap the benefits of living in America they must bear the burden of supporting it.

Just saying

Posted on by

Decisions and action may have immediate benefits, but it does have consequences and there are almost always unintended consequences.

Let’s take same-sex marriage. The SCOTUS just up and decided to make a Constitutional issue out of an issue that was not a Constitutional matter. Marriage is based on religion. One could say that the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution on all matters constitutional. But leaving that aside, if marriage at least in their eyes and opinion has become a Constitutional issue what about divorce. Is divorce now also a Constitutional issue?
Let’s face it some marriages do end in divorce, some of which turn into bitter court battles. Marriages end in divorce for many reasons infidelity, financial reasons and so many more. But above all Marriage is the leading cause of Divorce.
I can’t wait to hear about these same-sex marriages ending up in divorce court. Some people spend thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to get married and much more is spent terminating the marriage. Lawyer fees, court costs and the like. How will the judge decide who pays child support or alimony? As to the matter of alimony in traditional marriage that was pretty easy. As to child support, unless the same-sex couple adopted a child one of them came into the marriage with children. Really I can hardly wait. Will the judge make one pay for the others child or will the judge say the child is your responsibility. Oh, the possibilities. Same-sex divorce could even spawn a new reality show.
Who knows the SCOTUS may have just taken an action that would turn the economy around, lord knows the administration has not. Lawyers will certainly benefit. Revenue will increase in the issuance of marriage licenses, government profits.

We now have this from the administration and the DOD, we are warned to avoid large gatherings this Independence Day, now referred to as the 4th of July. If the threats are credible why not just cancel the events? The events are not cancelled, but mass attendance is discouraged. Why? Could this be a further attempt to chip away at the foundation of America?

I was just wondering if there are any Gay Pride events scheduled, after all they just got the right to get hitched. If there are, was mass attendance discouraged?

Will BHO be American proud and illuminate the White House Red, White and Blue for Independence Day?

BHO and his administration still negotiate with countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, yet lit up the White House in gay pride colors. The other side of this equation is that those who execute homosexuals are willing to negotiate with BHO after his open support of homosexuality. Some people in government have no morals or principles.

To what ends?

Posted on by

It has been said that “the ends justify the means”. There was also a statement to the effect of “fundamentally changing America”, which should have been to the effect of “radically changing America”. America has certainly been “fundamentally changed” by “radicals” in government, from the executive branch to the judicial branch including the legislative branch. The legislative branch has willingly abdicated its powers and responsibilities to the executive branch and in some instances to the judicial branch. The judicial branch has usurped powers from the states and nullified the voices(votes) of the people. The executive branch, well.

The SCOTUS has usurped the power and assumed authority to legalize same-sex marriages in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Regardless of state laws and without regard to the will of the people. The judicial branch has apparently assumed the role of legislating from the bench. Apparently the States have no rights and the people have no say.

Same-sex marriage was a “social issue”, and what was once a social issue was taken up by the courts and is now law. There are dangers when social issues are taken up by the courts, and especially dangerous when they become law. They are enacted without the legislative process. There was no bill from congress, passed by congress then sent to the president for signature that would allow same-sex marriage throughout the land. Ask yourself why? The answer is this, the politicians would have committed political suicide if they passed such a bill. They relied on the courts to decide that one, again abdicating their powers and responsibilities. Much the same way they decided to “deal with Obamacare”, they let the courts decide that one too.

Breaking down the saying “the ends justify the means”. The “ends” refers to the finishing of or arriving at the goal. The means refers to the route taken or the object or method used.

Now that the SCOTUS has legalized same-sex marriages, all the same-sex couple has to do is to pay a fee to obtain a marriage license and find a place to “tie the knot”. There are many options available but I will only discuss three.
1. Go to the Justice of the Peace. This avenue will garner a few but it does not make a “statement”.
2. Go to a Mosque. This avenue will garner none, in the muslim world homosexuality is punishable by death. No Iman will perform a wedding ceremony for homosexuals and no one will force a muslim to perform the ceremony. Political Correctness, you know, fear of offending the muslims. Homosexuality is against their religion.
3. Go to a Christian Church. This avenue will garner the most activity. Why you ask? Because it makes a “statement”. The homosexual community will go to a Christian Church and demand to be married in the church, knowing it is against their religion. The government will step in and force the church to perform the ceremony. There is no fear of offending a Christian. Besides the government has the power through the IRS to cause financial hardships on the Church by revoking the tax exempt status.

So, with the above in mind consider this. If the “ends” were to destroy Christianity in America the “means” to do so is legalizing same-sex marriages. If a Pastor of a local Church is approached to perform a same-sex marriage he has two choices.
1. Deny the request only to be forced by the government to do so.
2. Perform the ceremony, which violates the basic tenants on which Christianity is founded, marriage is between a man and a woman. If the Pastor performs the ceremony the people who attend church will leave the church as the basic tenants of Christianity are no longer followed by the Church. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t. No way to win. How many Churches will remain if no one attends? NONE.

The Church could voluntarily give up the tax exempt status and avoid pressure by the IRS. But you still have the DOJ to contend with, namely in the form of the civil rights division. Legalizing same-sex marriages has by default made it a right, a civil right, and we know how the current administration views denying someone their civil rights. The LBGT community probably has their own version of the reverend waiting in the shadows ready to visit at a moments notice.

The above references to the Christian Church refer only to the physical building, not the religion or to the real “church”. The building is only a place to gather for worship and fellowship. The Pastor is the leader, the authority figure. If the Pastor is ill or cannot make it to “Church” there is another who can lead the service. The Christian religion lives in the heart of the Christian. The Church is the Christian.

The legalizing of same-sex marriage will not destroy Christianity in America. It may cause “Churches”(buildings) to close, but the Religion and the real Church(the Christian) will endure and flourish. It may even cause Christianity to go “underground” for a time. Christians may be persecuted, but that is nothing new. Neither one is.

Legalizing same-sex marriages was just another vain attempt by man to think he knows better than God. We as man are but ashes and dust temporarily inhabiting a body, and to ashes and dust we shall return when our time on earth is finished. God has always been and will always be.

The attempt to destroy Christianity in America may just be a point along the way to the ultimate “ends” the total and utter destruction of America itself. Most houses undergo destruction or demolition from the roof down. Even though the house is destroyed the foundation remains. A new house can be built on the existing foundation, providing the foundation was strong enough to withstand the demolition of the house. To erase all signs of the original house the foundation must also be destroyed.

The United States was built on a strong and solid foundation. The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that is our foundation. The founding documents make a reference to the Creator of the Universe. There is also reference to the Laws of Nature and of nature’s God. There is also a reference to being endowed by their Creator.

Christianity has long been under attack and assault by the liberal progressives. Not just Christianity it is the symbols of the Christian religion. What the liberal progressives and at times the SCOTUS are engaged in is the chipping away at the foundation of the house in an attempt to bring down the house and remove all signs that it once existed. The House that was and is America. There is a more powerful force in this universe than the liberal progressives. You have weakened the house but the house still stands.

Two passages came to mind when I heard the decision by the SCOTUS.
1. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. Then I thought, yes they do they are vain and stupid.
2. Jesus wept. Then I thought He probably did.

It is long overdue

Posted on by

The current field of potential candidates who have “thrown their hats in the ring” by announcing their campaign to become President of the U.S.A. offers some interesting possibilities. We as usual have a cast of characters from the establishment, but we also have new choices. We have one that is a renowned surgeon, one that is the former head of a large corporation and one that is what would be called a tycoon. This post only concerns the Republican field of contenders.

The questions to ask oneself is this concerning the establishment politicians are these. Have they made it this far because they are career politicians? Have they made it this far because of the system?
For the one’s currently holding elected Constitution offices these are the questions to ask. Do you represent and serve the electorate or the political party? Do you serve the people’s or the money and the agenda associated with the money? Are you fulfilling your oath to uphold the Constitution? Were you elected on character or did the political party buy you the Constitutional office that you now occupy?
For the ones not holding a current Constitutional office? Will you represent the people or the political party? This question answers itself, just after your name will be your political party affiliation.

For the three outsiders, never holding public office before, did you make it to where you are because of, or in spite of the system?

Just the possibility that an outsider could actually win the nomination process and then actually get elected to the office of the President of the United States of America set me to thinking. This event would “shake the political landscape to its core”. Washington D.C. and politics would be changed for evermore.

Then I got to thinking how else could Washington D.C. be changed? Then I starting thinking of ways to shrink the government, getting government out of the personal lives of Americans and saving money and in the process saving America.

First thing an immediate government hiring freeze, no new employees and vacant positions would remain vacant. No one fired YET!!!!!!.

Now the FUN begins and the SHAKEUP starts.
Each newly elected President names his cabinet and his staff.
Political appointees, political hacks, political operatives and bureaucrats get to D.C. and never leave, that would change because they would find no employment and would be forced to return home.
1. No more damned Tsars, they all go and no more appointed.
2. The White House chef, no more overpaid cook. The president is the Commander-in Chief of the Military. Pull the White House cook staff from the ranks of the military. If the food they prepare is good enough for the rank and file it should be good enough for the Commander, the same food eat what they eat. They are already being paid by for the tax payers. Why pay two people to do one job? Already saving money.
3. Personal assistants, really, if you need assistance with everyday activities you belong in a long-term nursing facility not in the White House, this goes for you and your family. Walk your own dog. Saving more money.

Some thought on Cabinet members.
Secretary of Defense. No more bureaucrats, find a retired Sergeant Major, First Sergeant or preferably a Platoon Sergeant or even a private. They understand the plight of the everyday soldier and most excel in the common sense arena.
Secretary of State. As above any one of those could get the job done, their way of negotiating is I win you lose.
Secretary of the Treasury. Find the wife of any Military service member, they understand the value of a dollar. As matter of fact this would be a good choice to appoint in any money handling or budgetary office.
Secretary of Health and Human Services. No more bureaucrats, find a competent real life doctor, a skilled doctor not one who does plastic surgery, one who actually saves lives and values life.
Secretary of Transportation. Find a Fleet Manager of a large trucking company they understand the roads and could even help with logistics.
Home Land Security. Since we are stuck with this department we may as well have a qualified Secretary. Choose from one of the Sheriffs around the country, one comes to mind. Border Patrol and ICE need good leadership as well. Again choose from the sheriffs, two more good candidates come to mind.
The rest of the cabinet should be filled in the same manner, the person holding the post should at least have experience in that field. Politicians have political experience, and since most are career politicians that is all the experience they have political and no real-world experience.
Education goes back to the States.
Some departments simply go away, especially those that are redundant.

The Surgeon General should come from the ranks of the military and especially consider a Flight Surgeon.

The one heading up the V.A. should be one that has needed the V.A.

The political landscape in America is long overdue for a shakeup and finally the swamp should be drained, or clean out the septic tank which ever expression you prefer.

I do not wish to hear “but they have no experience”.
No one said that about BHO and look at where we are now both domestically and foreign. You were happy letting a liberal with no experience run things, why not give a conservative the same opportunity?
Nor do I want to hear “but they don’t have a college education”.
Look at where we are now with all the geniuses we have at present running things. Going to and graduating college does not make you smart the same as sitting in a garage does not make you a car. The difference between a box of rocks and what the so-called geniuses in Washington D.C. have between their ears is the box.

Yes, It is long overdue. The politicians seek to do a comprehensive reform of the immigration laws, I say it is time to comprehensively reform American politics. At this point I am so fed up with the so-called conservative republicans who in all actuality are no more than progressive liberals I am to the point of supporting and seeking a third option. A true conservative who wants to restore America to greatness, the status before social liberalism and political correctness.

Possibilities and a twist

Posted on by

Lately there has been much on JADE HELM and the possibilities of the military exercise being used as a prelude or practice for Martial Law and a round-up and extraction of citizens for either placement in FEMA Camps or outright elimination.

First let’s take up the possibility of Martial Law.
Martial Law by definition is 1: the law applied in occupied territory by the military of the occupying power 2: the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain order and safety.
Let’s break these down.
Martial Law under definition 1 would require of two one of two possibilities.

1 America invaded, defeated and occupied by a foreign power. This is highly unlikely, unless prearranged for political expediency. Even then the foreign power would have to face the American people. Even Japan after the successful sneak attack on the U.S. Military at Pearl Harbor did not dare to attempt an attack on mainland America. Japan and it’s military did not at that time fear or respect the U.S. Government or the Military, if they had they would have never attacked. What they did fear was the American people and their capabilities, the same as any person with half of a brain would do.

2. The American government to declare war on the American people, this is the most unlikely of all. It is the American people who pay for government, the government dries up and ceases to exist and the people are still here. Even if this were to happen ALL civilian(non-military)personnel would be removed from office to be replaced by the military, either in the effected areas or the nation as a whole, this would not serve politicians well. Remember Martial Law is administered by the Military. That is unless they appointed themselves as Generals and Admirals.
Martial Law under definition 2 is the problem and has almost an endless array of possibilities of coming into existence. Let’s take a look at some of these possibilities.

First a large-scale terrorist attack. Let’s not forget the events on September the eleventh of 2001. 9/11 solidified the American people like no time since the Japanese attack on December seventh 1941. Differences were set aside and the Americans became one voice. Public order and safety remained intact. Another would do the same.

Second a natural disaster. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind and the events that unfolded along the gulf coast especially those in New Orleans. Law, order and public safety deteriorated rapidly. Local law enforcement agencies were over whelmed and the active and guard units of the military were called to assist. This event met the criteria for definition 2. Not meaning to downplay the loss of life, property and damage inflicted by Katrina but it was a localized event. Though the area of destruction and damage was large it was small in comparison to the size of America. Therefore if Martial Law was declared it would have been for a relatively small area in America and would have ceased upon restoration of order and public safety.

Third societal breakdown. Much like witnessed in Missouri, Maryland, New York and the other localities where riots broke out after the death of a person, and every time a minority, at the hands of law enforcement. These were too a localized event that law enforcement was capable of handling to restore order and public safety.

Fourth a total financial collapse. This event would trigger civil unrest like almost no other. Government would have no funds to pay the bills, this would not trigger the unrest. The unrest would commence as soon as the government checks stopped coming. Those that have become dependent on government, and in some cases generational, for their every need and in some cases wants would find themselves penniless with no prospects. The amount of crime that would arise would soon overwhelm local law enforcement, the military could even be overwhelmed.

Fifth a total power failure. It would not matter if it was caused by the forces of nature or manmade the result would be the same. Possibilities three and four would follow in short order. The “grand daddy” of them all.

Sixth a small-scale terrorist attack. Not meaning to downplay the loss of life, pain or suffering but the Boston Marathon bombing comes to mind. Again the country came together. But, the Boston Marathon bombing provided something the 9/11 attacks did not. The bombing provided two live terrorists on the loose in a major U.S. city, Boston. The man hunt for the two suspects caused the “lock-down” of a city and provided law enforcement the opportunity to conduct warrantless searches of people’s homes in search of the two suspects in the name of public safety, of course.

Of the six possibilities listed above, and there are many more, only the second can not be arranged, the other five can be engineered or allowed to happen. However government is not above “capitalizing” on natural disasters.

Just as the Boston Marathon bombing provided opportunities for placing a city on “lockdown” and warrantless searches which proved to be valuable training, Hurricane Katrina provided opportunities as well. Warrantless searches of homes for stranded people and most important of all forced relocation of citizens. Were there any complaints? It was all done in the name of public safety. Much was revealed about the people and how much freedom and liberty they would surrender in the name of security. 9/11 brought air travel in America to a stand still and ushered in an even larger government. Travelers must now endure the intrusions of the TSA just to travel by air, again more freedom and liberty were surrendered for security. Not to mention one glaringly important fact. People, at least some of them, will obey government and follow directions without question.

Now to the matter of round-ups and extractions. This type of operation would require an effort on such a large-scale it is almost unmanageable. So much must tale place before such an effort could be undertaken. All forms of communication would most certainly have to be shut down. There would need to be a MSM blackout, no news. No television, radio, cell phones, internet and the list just goes on and on, but the population remains mobile. Shut all of this down at once, see possibility number three. Not to mention every one selected for round-up would have to be tracked 24 hours a day to ascertain their exact location prior to commencement of the round-ups not to mention the extraction method would need to be close at hand. Even if selected people were placed on color coded priority lists the logistics are mind-boggling.
There is a way however, to get the intended quarry to come to you. No need to find them if you know where they will be, a kind of arranged meeting. More on this in a subsequent paragraph.

One more note on Martial Law, where it has been implemented the people had no way to fight back and were the losers in an armed contest. A military government was established soon replaced by a provisional government and eventually a stable permanent form of government if all went according to plan. In recent conflicts the martial law part was never implemented, it instead went straight to a provisional government that became permanent even if it was corrupt. Politically Expedient.

Disarming a nation. There are those who will say there are only two ways to get a person to agree with you. Reason and Force. In other words get them to voluntarily disarm or take them by force. Taking them by force could come at a heavy cost. Voluntarily disarming is the cheapest way. But what if there was a third way? Let them keep them but give them no reason to resist, it is for your own good and safety, or show them resistance is futile at best.

As to JADE HELM 15 I am not saying that it is or is not a prelude or practice for the implementation of Martial Law or being used as a cover for round-up and forced relocations. It may be to demonstrate the over whelming force that could be deployed against resistance, but it could be used to demonstrate the force and reaction a terror group would be facing. What I do find odd about the exercise is the publicity, though that may be the intention. Advertising a show of force is a pretty effective deterrent. The duration is tiring an taxing on a person participating. The training in, near and around populated areas. Most military accidents occur during training. Or maybe just an excuse to pre-position needed equipment and personnel.

Above I only listed six possibilities. What if there was a seventh? An “accidental” release causing a potentially extremely deadly biological event real or imagined.

Here is the twist. This goes back to arranging a meeting, bringing your quarry to you. Why now the news of the “accidental” shipments of live anthrax so close to an announced realistic military training exercise? News comes out everyday of more shipments. If it is live and ends up in the hands of some incompetent lab assistant that “accidentally” opens Pandora’s Box, what then. This would be the “news flash”. An accidental release has occurred all persons should report to wherever for testing. The Quarry comes in voluntarily and “tests positive” and must be relocated for treatment to prevent further spread. There you have it turned yourself in and willing got on the bus to receive “treatment”.

Or maybe JADE HELM 15 is to bring distrust upon the Military, after all they are the most trusted part of the government. Events are being used to bring distrust for law enforcement.

Feeding the Monsters

Posted on by

There are certainly many Monsters roaming America and the planet, and feeding them will certainly keep them alive and well. Throughout history Monsters have been associated with Evil, and Evil has been associated with Monsters.

One prime example of a Monster historically documented was Hitler, and no one can deny that Hitler was Evil. Hitler was even called Monstrously Evil. Hitler was ultimately destroyed along with Nazism. The Monster and the Evil he created were defeated and destroyed. There have been many other men and women throughout history who were Monsters and certainly Evil. Without fail each and every one of them were associated with fear, oppression and broken promises. Most rose to power feeding on fear, oppression and promising to make things better for the middle class, while others were born into power. Monsters create other Monsters and Evil creates more Evil, each feeding off of the other.

The problem with Monsters is that all of them do not always appear in life as they appear in fairy tales and in the movies, if they did they would be easy to recognize. Monsters are one of life’s great deceptions. Monsters may not look or appear as Monsters but they are incapable of hiding their inner Monstrous tendencies eventually they are exposed for what they are. The problem with Evil is that Evil does not always appear as Evil. Evil can and most often appears as good or necessary. Evil is another of life’s great deceptions. There is the notion that evil can be used for good, as far-fetched as that seems.

Monsters and the Evils that they create can only exist in darkness and secrecy. To be rid of them they must be exposed to the light and truth.

The question one should be asking, at least the one I was asking myself, is why would someone intentionally continue to feed the Monster and allow the Evil it creates to continue. The Monster and the Evil that I am referring to is ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State. Given the military might of this nation, why does the Islamic State, as they now refer to themselves, continue to exist? The Monster and the Evil it does survives and thrives.

Last week Delta Force was successful in eliminating one of the Islamic State’s top thugs. In the same week the Islamic State was able to successfully attack two towns, Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Our military under the brilliant leadership of BHO focuses on taking out one man while IS focuses on taking and occupying two towns in two different countries. IS is able to recruit from nearly every country in the world the dead man will soon be replaced. The two towns will cost more than one man to retake.

Multi-million dollar aircraft and priceless pilots are being sent out to bomb trucks in the desert. This same tactic was used in Viet Nam with disastrous results.

This why I say the Monster is still being fed. IS is still being resupplied with world-class military equipment. The defenders of Ramadi dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment to include tanks in the face of IS fighters. That plus what they picked in the Palmyra offensive should give U.S. airpower more and new targets. As long as the Iraqi forces cut-and-run IS should have a never-ending supply of equipment and airpower should have a never-ending supply of targets. How many times have American combat aircraft and bombers flown missions only to destroy American equipment?

The spokesmouth for BHO said the Iraqi forces that dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment in the face of an IS attack were not trained by the U.S. This brings up two questions.
First, who trained them? The ones who were trained should be training. The U.S. should have trained the trainers.
Second, if they were not trained by the U.S. then why the hell were the using American equipment?

The U.S. Military Academies are still open, aren’t they? Why have not great military commanders leaders like Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, Puller and the rest come out of West Point, VMI, Annapolis and the rest. Or have they and they have been side-lined or fired? Is someone afraid one of them might go full Patton on IS?

Keeping IS alive and well could be just as intended, never actually intending to defeat them gives one and enemy and war, even if limited, for life.

If BHO is un-willing to use the massive military might against IS, who is he planning to un-leash it on? Is there another Monster and great Evils in some ones future? Training for something. Ukraine? JADE HELM?

Coexistence part 2 Guns

Posted on by

Can the people who are pro-gun and the people who are anti-gun coexist? The answer is YES. People “coexist” each and every day with differing points of view. The reason they can do this is because they make a choice to exercise their right to own a gun or not.
as for me, I am in the pro-gun “camp”. Owning and carrying concealed weapons is my right and I choose to exercise that right. There is however a high level of responsibility that accompanies the exercise of this right as with exercising any right. A responsibility that I willingly accept.

My responsibilities as a gun owner and a concealed weapons permit holder.
I am responsible to know and understand my weapon its capabilities as well as its limitations. Not only must I know my firearm, I must know the ammunition that is associated with a particular firearm.
I am responsible to secure my weapon and ammunition to prevent unauthorized use. I would do this even if there was no law, much the same as I would never drink from a toilet. Just like the law making a person secure weapons and ammunition, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to post a sign behind a toilet telling the user it was unsafe to drink.
I am responsible to know and understand firearms safety and how to safely handle a firearm.
I am responsible to know and understand the laws of my state concerning firearms and concealed carry.
When traveling I am responsible to know the laws of the states concerning firearms and concealed carry that I will or could possibly travel through as well as the laws concerning firearms and concealed carry of the state that I intended to visit for a spell. In some cases it gets even more involved than that, sometimes the local laws must be known and understood.
My list of responsibilities goes on and own, if you have got the picture by now you are definitely not in the same camp I am in, you are in the anti-gun camp.

Do those in the anti-gun camp have responsibilities? Yes, they do. As a matter of fact those in the anti-gun camp have many of the same responsibilities as those in the pro-gun camp, though hey do differ from the above list. The first and foremost is the protection, safety and well-being of yourself and your family, and this list goes on and on.

As to the matter of self-defense, just because a person is anti-gun does not necessarily mean that they are against self-defense. They may just choose to defend themselves when required to do so in a different manner. Whether it be a knife, a bat, a stick or just calling for help from someone with a gun.

There are many reasons that could land a person in the anti-gun camp, religious reasons, strong moral convictions and again the list could be long. Below are just some of my own observations.
One thing that I have noticed for so many in the anti-gun camp is that some people have a fear and/or misunderstanding of firearms. This instance of fear was addressed in a previous post, titled The problem is the reason. Another reason is the total lack of respect of a firearm. Education is another reason, it seems that “fear” in the main educating point concerning firearms by the anti-gun culture, teaching about firearms was also addressed in a previous post, titled Teach them young teach them correctly. Another reason is the lack of exposure. How many in the anti-gun camp have ever been to a public firing range? The answer is relatively few.

To make an informed statement about firearms or any other subject it is my opinion that one must educate themselves and not rely on others who are just speaking to be heard. You know, the ones who do not even have a proper understanding of the subject and use data skewered towards their position whether the data is true or not, most often not. The truth matters not to these people, just the furtherance of their agenda.

After you have educated yourself and have had at least some exposure you can make an informed statement and possibly argue your point based on fact not propaganda. If after education and exposure you still remain in the anti-gun camp I will support your choice and decision, even though I disagree.
But, if you refuse to educate yourself or even be exposed to firearms, religious and moral convictions excluded, then you are not in the anti-gun camp, you are in the gun-control camp and you will be addressed shortly.

Do I believe that everyone should own a firearm? Absolutely not, there are some who should never be trusted to have a firearm and there are those who have lost that right by engaging in criminal activity. Much the same as there are some politicians holding a Constitutional office that should never be trusted to hold office any office especially if it gives or bestows upon them power over another.

Now to address the most heinous group of all, those in the gun control camp. I call you the most heinous group for this, you are not about gun-control you are about rights control and deprivation. You seek to use the power and force of government to deny or deprive me my right to own firearms. You use each tragic event where a firearm was used to further restrict my rights concerning firearms, and you have a powerful ally in the media. You report on tragedy but fail to report the lawful use of firearms to protect life and limb. You focus on criminal activity and neglect lawful activity. You are fools if you think you can reduce the swords into plowshares and still exist. Two quick points for you.
First, it was men using firearms that won America’s independence from a tyrannical king. If it were not for the use of firearms to gain independence, America would still be under the control of the British Throne. Is that where you would be? Living under tyranny. The King of England sought to keep America subjugated with firearms. The Colonials used firearms to win Independence.
Second, it was Americans that used firearms to save the world in two World Wars. Tyrants and Dictators sought to overrun and rule the world using firearms. The good and righteous saved the world using firearms.

Now, you in the anti-gun and gun-control camps think that I have just made your case for you and will attempt to use my words against me. You are wrong and nothing could be farther from the truth. I have instead made my point and case for owning firearms clearer.
Think on this. Prior to the advent of firearms Kings and other evil tyrants used any means and weapons available to subjugate other countries and indeed their populations, whether it was the jaw bone of an ass or a rock. Good and righteous men using the same weapons freed themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Firearms are not the problem. The problem is evil and tyranny. As long as there is evil and tyranny in the world, and it has existed since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. Good and righteous men and women will use the same weapons to defend themselves and to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression as the tyrants of the world use to place them under tyranny and oppression. The evil tyrants use at this moment firearms in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of entire countries and the populations, some times even entire continents. The good and righteous at this moment will use firearms to prevent the placement of the yoke around their necks and in some cases to remove the same yoke.

For those not in the pro-gun camp think on this. It was the good and righteous through the use of firearms that made it possible for you to say and in some cases do or attempt to do stupid things.

There are only two ways to bring people to agree with your opinion or position, Reason and Force.
To the anti-gun camp I will attempt to get you to remove your tent from the campground you presently occupy and place it in the pro-gun camp. But the difference is that I will only attempt to use reason, never force. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt to convince you to move to my camp through reason you should remain in your camp if you remain anti-gun. If you are only anti-gun and remain as such but do not seek to limit the rights of others you are welcome to move to the pro-gun camp, because it is about more than being pro-gun it is about the preservation of rights. All of them. But if you are really gun-control which equates to rights control or elimination you should really be in the gun-control campground, where you belong.
To the gun-control camp, come out of the closet and state you true intention, which is to attempt to restrict or eliminate my rights. I see you for what you really are, you may as well admit it. You failed to bring me to you camp through reason, now you attempt to use the force of government to make me move. You will use government in an attempt to deny me the right self-defense.

Can the pro-gun camps and the gun-control camps coexist? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I am about freedom and liberty and the freedom to exercise my rights. They in my opinion are about tyranny and oppression by limiting or eliminating rights.

Do you really think that you still have the bill of rights or any rights at all because the government has your best interests at heart?

Look at other countries around the world, I mean really look with your eyes open. Take special note of the countries who deny the population a means to defend themselves, if it is not the government it is the terrorists who have placed the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of the population. At present they have no recourse but to wear the yoke. But soon some brave soul may find and take up the jawbone of an ass or a rock and begin the process of removing the yoke. But how many will die before the same weapons that were used to place the yoke are used to remove the yoke.

Are you really sure that you only want to trust the government with weapons?