Glad that’s over

So now the big question is; Who won Trump or Clinton? Both campaigns will be running to the office to check the latest polls. The other minor parties will be doing the same. Checking to see who got a “bump” and who lost ground.

Today the pollsters will be out in force asking their questions, the same questions that allow you pick from of their responses rather than letting you answer their questions in your own words. Remember this pollsters are paid, depending on who is paying the bill sets the questions, how they are worded and your “options” for an answer.

The talking-heads will have a field day today dissecting what Trump and Clinton said. The presidential debates are meant, I suppose, for the purpose of helping the undecided make up their minds and perhaps to give reason to change support form one to the other. The last of these two reasons is pretty much pointless since some states already have early voting in progress. Those people have already made their choice. Nothing in the debate tonight, or the future debates, would have any consequence to those that have already voted, they have already made their choice. It is also very doubtful that either lost or gained any support. There are very few if any voters that have not already made their choice and are just waiting to cast their ballot, no matter what they may claim.

Since everybody is going to declare who they think won or lost the at the debate, I might as well get in on it. So here we go.
Who won? Nobody.
Who lost? Everybody.
I even lost something in this debate. I lost nearly 2 hours of my life. That is two hours I lost and will never be able to get back. Gone forever and for what?

The problem with the debates is the debates. The questions are pointless. Does anybody expect a great, knock it out of the park answer when the question is pointless? Then only two minutes are allowed for a response and thirty seconds for a rebuttal. What could possibly be learned from 2 minutes much less 30 seconds?

Let me give you an example of a pointless question? The moderator asked a question concerning the racial tensions in America. Think about how he phrased the question. Think about it this way. If he were to ask; How do you plan to deal with the racial tensions in America? The answer would be the standard run of the mill answer, and the usual blames will be attached. One claims a lack of law and order and the other claims mistrust. Guess what? Both are the correct answer.

There is another thing about the questions at the debates, the question are phrased so that they can be answered in 2 minutes. There is another and perhaps more important point to make about the debates. The moderator is also a voter, which means that he or she has a preferred candidate and a preferred party. They will not ask questions that may cause embarrassment to the candidate or the party, or in this case the political party nominee. He or she will not show the same discretion to the other side.

What I personally would like to see in the debates are questions that require a much longer answer and some critical thought. For instance, if the moderator wants to ask about racial tensions in America, maybe he or she could raise the question in this manner. Why are there racial tensions in America? I would like to see someone, anyone answer that question in two minutes? (Maybe I will do a post about that subject in the future).

If you want to have productive debates ask better questions. Another thing that would help would be that the moderator leave his personal agenda out of the process.

For me nothing has changed. One wants you to have the opportunity to have a job and the other wants you to have the opportunity to get free stuff.

Paying Tribute

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.

Purposeful Change

I am not opposed to change, purposeful change, one that is beneficial, purposeful and productive. Since starting this Blog in January 2014 I have been all over the map. My intention now is to focus my time and energy. The plan is to cover current events as well as past events and to tie them into historical events as best I can. I want this Blog to have purpose and direction. I have to add this disclaimer, I’m still unlearning what I was taught. Planning also to include a personal story from time to time.

Questions and Answers Part 3

The last post in this series left off with; How far are they willing to go to save their precious party? The answer is pretty simple. They will go as far as they need to, and they will do what ever it takes.

It is bad enough that Mr. Trump has the democrats to contend with, he also must contend with the main stream media and their blind allegiance to HRC and the democrat party. He must also contend with you, the ones who claim that supporting or voting for Trump would go against your principles. So let’s look at things that have not gone or do not go against your principles.

Let’s start with the current crop of republicans who pawned themselves off to the voters as Conservatives. I do not recall you claiming that voting or supporting them went against your principles.

The national debt, does being over $19 trillion go along with your principles? It must, the candidates you forced down our throats are the ones who helped put America in that much debt.

No, I will not continue with this, it serves no purpose. You are what you are and I know you for what you are. I figured you out long ago. It will suffice to say that you love your precious party more than this Republic. You would rather give this Republic to HRC than to give it a fighting chance.

If HRC wins the election on the 8th of November this year, the Republic will have you to thank. You have protections from what you do and what you have done. It will be us, the common folk that will have to live with what you have done.

Keep your damned party. I want my Country back.

Questions and Answers Part 2

We as citizens of America need to start asking questions, a lot of questions. Who, What, Where, Why, When and How should be applied to every decision or statement that comes from the administration and congress. It would seem that Why would be the most important. We must look for a Motive, just like the police do in crime solving. Nobody does something for nothing, there is always a reason. Gather the evidence, investigate and find the motive, pretty simple when you think about it. Means, Motive and Opportunity.

This part of the series, as did the last, has to do with the assertion made by BHO and others that Donald Trump in their opinion is unfit and woefully unprepared to be president. In the last post I left off with; How will the establishment regain control? Can the establishment regain control?

They, the political elite, actually believe that the primaries were about Trump. True enough Trump won the nomination, but the primaries were about America and the American citizens. America was the message and Trump was the messenger. Even if Trump loses to Clinton there is no guarantee that the establishment will ever regain control of the Republican party. But it is certain that if Trump wins the establishment will never regain control of the party. The only way the establishment can regain control, in their mind and thought process, is for Trump to lose. The party elite and their donors as well as their surrogates in the media worked tirelessly throughout the primaries, at the convention and still work today to rid themselves of Mr. Trump.

Make no mistake they want the party back under their control. Will or can the party elite regain control of the party is not the important question. The real question, the important question, is how far are they willing to go to regain control? There is another thing to consider, regaining control does not guarantee the you will retain control. If you regain something that is no guarantee that you will retain control. Regaining and retaining are two entirely different things. So which is the most important? When you work out a way to retain control, you have in essence guaranteed that once control is regained it will never be lost again. This creates a new question. How far are the party elite willing to go to regain and retain control of the party. And remember that it is not only the party elite it goes all the way down to the politicians. It is all about power and control, if there is no control there can be no power. They will not stand for losing neither.

Now this is starting to get complicated and not to mention that it opens the door for some very interesting theories. One does not even have to use their imagination to figure out how far they are willing to go in their quest to regain control and then to retain that same control.

I will say this, the best and most horrific example of how far a politician will go to regain and retain control of something that had “slipped” away is what is called the “Civil War”. Abraham Lincoln declared war on the States of the Southern U.S. who had seceded. The Reconstruction period was the way to retain the Union. The “Civil War” is laid square at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. The Reconstruction period can be laid square at the feet of the politicians succeeding him. Both have been proven to be totally unnecessary. The Southern States were seen as disloyal to the Union. The “Civil War” was the instrument used to get the Southern States to return to the Union. The Reconstruction period was the instrument used to punish them for leaving the Union. More on this later.

I am not saying that the party elite are going to declare a “civil war” against those that they view as disloyal or have a reconstruction period after their victory. Some say that the civil war was waged to save America. You claim that Trump is destroying the party. I just wonder how far you are willing to go to “save” your precious party.

The next post will highlight some of the steps that you have already taken to “save” your precious party.

Questions and Answers Part 1

We as citizens of America need to start asking questions, a lot of questions. Who, What, Where, Why, When and How should be applied to every decision or statement that comes from the administration and congress. It would seem that Why would be the most important. We must look for a Motive, just like the police do in crime solving. Nobody does something for nothing, there is always a reason. Gather the evidence, investigate and find the motive, pretty simple when you think about it. Means, Motive and Opportunity.

Recently BHO had said of Mr. Donald Trump, that he was unfit and woefully unprepared to be president. At the same time he said something to the effect of, he would have been disappointed if McCain or Romney had defeated him. He also said he had confidence in both of them. So I asked myself why did he not say that both McCain and Romney were unfit and woefully unprepared to be president while they were running? At the beginning of the republican primaries there were 17 vying for the nomination, Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson, Mrs. Fiorina and 14 career politicians. Would BHO claim that Dr. Carson or Mrs. Fiorina would have been unfit and woefully unprepared if either one of them had been the republican nominee? We will never know the answer, but I suspect he would have. Would BHO have said that any of the career(professional)politicians were unfit and woefully unprepared to be president? We too will never know the answer, but I suspect he would NOT have. Why not? Glad you asked.

You see Gov. Bush, Sen. Cruz, Gov. Kasich, Sen. Rubio and the 10 others were and are professional(career)politicians, in the truest sense of the word, and are well-connected in the political world. Mr. Donald Trump is not a politician. According to Webster’s, politician 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession 2 b: a person interested in political office for selfish or other usu. short-sighted reasons. If any of those 14 had went on to become the nominee it would have been a politician facing a politician. BHO would prefer HRC to win but if she lost, at least she would lose to another politician. What do you mean? Again, glad you asked.

When a politician wins America loses. Politicians do not have the best interests of America or Her citizens at heart. The professional(career)politicians have their own best interests at heart. They want to be re-elected and do what ever is necessary to accomplish that goal. If they lose they are satisfied that another politician wins. Even if it means or meant destroying this Republic. The career(professional)politicians do not want any outsiders in their midst. They have nothing to gain by letting the populace see what is behind the curtain. If you need proof of this look no further than the video of the statement made by the Senator from NV, minority leader Reid saying, Just give Trump a false briefing he won’t know the difference. Just make something up. They do seem to great lengths to keep us in the dark, and then brag about it. Actually encouraging the ones giving the briefing to lie to the man who could very well be our next president. Kind of makes one wonder what else they could be hiding from us, the citizens of this Republic. Why is it so important to keep the outsiders out? Glad you asked.

They have everything to lose. As long as they control, or think they control, who gets a seat at the table they have nothing to fear. As long as they control the table they control the game, not only controlling the game but making the rules as they go. They have everything to fear when they are exposed to scrutiny. They the establishment and the established politicians are all about power and control. The establishment has now realized that they are losing control, if they lose control they will lose power. To stay in power they must regain control. What they are losing control over are the voters, we made the choice this time in our nominee, the establish had no control. The establishment not only lost control of the voters but they lost control of the republican party. How will the establishment regain control? Can the establishment regain control?

Good questions. Those answers will come in Part 2.

What gets the blame the next time?

We have the Liberal Socialist Progressives pedaling yet another lie. Recently the Secretary of DHS gave an interview in which he stated “Gun control is Part and Parcel of Homeland Security for Public Safety”. That is one big lie, in fact the man is 180 degrees out of plumb. The Truth is that “Gun ownership and the Right of Self-Defense are Part and Parcel of Homeland Security and Public Safety”. But the lie will be repeated and accepted as truth. The victims in Orlando, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga and others all had one thing in common, they were in areas where firearms were prohibited. In each instance the victims obeyed the law, the same can not be said of the Terrorists. Gun control in action.

While it is true that there is no proof that the victims could have defended themselves from the Terrorist if they were armed, there is a high probability that they could have lessened the death toll. There is also the very high probability that the Terrorist would have passed them by if he even suspected they might be armed. But we will never know if they could have or not. Why you ask? They were not given the chance to prove you right or me wrong. Why you ask? They followed the law, the one which you made that prevented them from defending themselves. They may well have failed but at least they could have tried, they never had a fighting chance. You took that from them. Now you push gun control for public safety, you have got to be kidding me. The victims were out in public at a public establishment and they were attacked. When the Terrorist attacked he used a gun or two and those that responded brought guns, many guns. Again the good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. But they had to wait for you. The same action taken by law-enforcement could have been the same action someone in the club could have taken without the wait, if only they had the means.

As of yet America does not have exploding people, yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to explode. Nor does America have exploding cars, trucks, buses or motorcycles yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to own or operate wheeled vehicles that do Explode. Nor does America at this time have roads that explode yet the government allows people into this country that seem to enjoy exploding roads. It seems that it would just make common sense to keep people out of this country that explode, drive or ride in exploding vehicles or enjoy exploding roads. Our government does just the opposite allows them to come here and worse yet they encourage them to come here and even worse they bring them here.

When the time comes, and it will come, when people start exploding it will not be the clothing that exploded it will be the person wearing the clothes. The government will spend more time finding out who made the clothes, so they can blame the clothes and the ease in which that brand can be bought in America, rather than the exploding person. The same goes for cars, buses and trucks even the roads.

In case you missed it, there seems to be a practice in parts of the Middle-East where if a gay is found he is taken to the top of a building, dangled by his feet and then dropped to his death. In some cases they were just outright thrown off of the roof top. When this happens here in America, will you claim that the building was to tall or that the ground was too hard? When a woman gets stoned to death here in America, will you blame her for getting stoned or will you blame the rock for attacking her? What will you blame when mass beheadings occur in America? Will you blame the one being beheaded or will it be the knife? Not to mention the offenses committed against women and children, what will you blame in that instance? The list goes on and on.

You push gun control while you should push for terrorist control. Makes me wonder what it is you really want to control. The legal and lawful gun owners are under control most, definitely the vast majority, exercise self-control while others, a definite minority, are controlled by the laws. Those that exercise self-control will never be a problem, unless forced. Those that are controlled by the law will not be a problem as long as there are laws. What is out of control are the terrorists, they have no self-control and are not afraid of you or your laws much the same as the criminals. Seems to me you are taking out the frustrations of not controlling terrorists or criminals on the already law-abiding.

You push to limit and/or take away the only means that the legal and lawful citizens have to protect themselves. While you on the other hand have a small army at you disposal(a well armed small army)to keep you safe at all times. I have only me to protect and defend me and mine. By the time help arrives, it is most often to late. If you doubt that watch the news.

Seems kind of backwards to me that you provide better for them in their homelands than you will allow me to have in my homeland, and still you seek to further limit me. By the way, Which country is it that your are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for?

I have a much better idea for you to focus your time and energy on. Why don’t you go there(where ever they are from)and teach them how to make clothing that does not tend to explode. Help them build modes of transportation that are not prone to explode. Help them build roads that are not prone to explode. And don’t forget to teach them to build kitchen appliances that are not prone to explode.