Sally's Political Page





Donald Trump is the only candidate who can turn things around for America and should be taken seriously!!!

He does not take money from “special interest groups” so he can not be bought or controlled.

Neither is he part of “The New World Order” that seeks to destroy our way of life.

As President every decision he makes would be in the best interest of the country.

He is willing to serve as our President for No money and does not want a lifetime retirement package.

Do you know any other candidate who would be willing to do that? …

Like him or not, agree with him or not, it doesn’t matter.

So far…

View original post 140 more words

Gun Control or Population Control?

This post and some subsequent posts have their foundation in the post entitled, Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing.
Gun control or population control, which is it that the gun control activists want? I have stated many times before that government is all about power and control. If the government has absolute power they by default gain absolute control. You ask, Why did I mention gun control activists and government in the same paragraph? The answer is quite simple, at some point activists began to be elected to political, no Constitutional office, while many others have simply been appointed or confirmed to their posts and some were hired. Those that were nominated were done so by those who were elected. Those that were confirmed were done so by those that were elected. Those that were appointed were done so by those that were confirmed. Those that were hired were done so by those that were appointed. And so it goes, everybody in government tends to surround themselves with those that are like-minded.

First let us take a look at the gun control activists groups, the ones not in government, at least not yet. To begin let us examine where they get their operating funds. While some funding comes from donors the majority of their financial resources come from the ultra-wealthy. In at least two groups the ultra-wealthy are also their mouth-pieces. They spout facts that they come up with that furthers their cause, but never give all of the facts. Partial facts are no more than a partial lie. The followers of these mouth-pieces miss several important items. The first is that even though your favorite mouth-piece may or may not personally carry a fire arm he is surrounded by those that do. You can sure bet that somewhere close is a personal bodyguard armed to the teeth, and they are always there. He provides for himself what he wants to deny you, and still you follow him. His children and grandchildren do not go to the same school your children and grandchildren attend. His are protected but yours are not. He does not expose himself or his family to the same dangers he wishes you and your family to be exposed to, and still you follow. If you follow a hypocrite what does that make you? One has to question his motivation.

Now let us take a look at the gun control activists, the ones that are in government. The ones holding political, no Constitutional office, they are surrounded by armed men and women. The buildings they occupy are protected by armed men and women. Is where you work or live protected by an armed security detail? Depending on their office they send out armed details to ensure their safety. Do you enjoy the same in your travels? They are protected, their families are protected all by armed and women. We the tax-payers pay for all of that. If you do not see the hypocrisy in that you are truly hopeless.
While on this subject let us look at gun control activist legislation, both that has passed and that is proposed.
There is only one thing to say about that which has already became law, the only people effected were the law-abiding public, it had no effect on the criminals.
There is much to say about the proposed legislation, but I want to discuss on especially. The proposed additional taxes on fire arms and ammunition, one was a $25 dollar tax on each fire arm sold and a tax of up to 5 cents per bullet. This all comes on top of sales tax. If I understand this correctly, legislature and or city and county commissions are proposing to tax citizens for exercising their Constitutional Rights. Imagine that taxing a person to exercise his or her Constitutional Right. If they are willing to tax one when will they tax the rest? Then there is the proposed licensing fee per gun, per year. It is bad enough that some states require a law-abiding citizen pay a fee and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, now they want a per year fee per gun, yet another tax or fee to exercise a Constitutional Right. This leaves one to wonder is it about gun control or a revenue source, or is it to make the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right so expensive it becomes unaffordable. None of this will ever effect the criminal element.

In the previous post I made the statement that the American population would never voluntarily be disarmed, and I stand by that. As I and others have said, there are only two ways to get people to agree with your position, and they are Reason and Force. The gun control activist groups have been trying for some years to sell their case and they have failed, miserably. They now must seek the help from government to help them further their agenda of disarmament. They have used many catchy slogans and used skewered statistics to sell their case. Let me point out two of their catchy slogans and the complete idiocy in them.

They use the term “Gun Violence”. The claim is that they want to stop “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” in itself is a complete lie. A gun is not capable of being violent. But, they never use the term used in “Self Defense”. As soon as a shooting happens the gun control activist groups are on the scene, but only if the shooting fits their agenda. They never show-up at the scene where a Law-abiding citizen uses a Lawfully acquired gun to protect him or herself and family from a criminal. Government officials even get in on the frenzy. Who says anything when a criminal uses a stolen gun to murder an innocent citizen who just happens to be out for a walk on a beautiful day? But what did the lawyer blame, he blamed the gun for not having a safety, it was not the lack of a safety that caused the gun to fire, it was the willful intention of a known criminal to pull the trigger. It was not the gun, it was the criminal pulling the trigger. I am surprised the lawyer did not blame the victim for getting in the path of the projectile.

Then there is the term “We have to do something”, or “Something must be done”. This an attempt to use emotion instead of logic. Using emotion to deal with a problem is to further restrict the Rights, Freedoms and Liberties of the law-abiding population. Or was this your intention all along? Deal with the problem, the problem is crime and the criminal element, it is not the law-abiding population. It is not the law-abiding population that commit crimes, it is the criminals. Crime and criminal activity will never be effected by imposing even stiffer restrictions on the law-abiding population. If you really want to do something become a crime-fighter, and stop being a rights denier. America and the law-abiding citizens do not need another law to restrict our rights any of them, not a single one. What we do need is the laws already on the books enforced against the criminal element not the law-abiding public. Not just the laws but the penalties. Controlling crime should be the focus. Make the criminal pay for the crime, he or she committed the crime not the law-abiding citizen. How did it get to the point where laws, rules and regulations restrict the rights of the law-abiding and not the law-breakers?

Has there ever been a time where the proper placement of a “Gun Free Zone” deterred a criminal? I would say NO!!! All those “Gun Free Zone” signs have done is to assure the criminal he or she will encounter is a steady supply of victims. Victims that will be cowering. Speaking of gun free zone signs, do you really think that when the gun control activist group mouth-piece encounters one of those signs that he leaves his armed bodyguards outside or has them disarm before going inside, or do they accompany him regardless of the sign? Go ahead guess which happens.

Let us discuss the real agenda of the gun control activist groups. Your true agenda is not gun control but control of who has guns. To control who has the guns you must first find out who has the guns. This is another big part of the gun control activist agenda. Gun owner registration, a national registry of gun owners. This why you spout off the non-sense about the supposed “gun show loophole”. There is no gun show loophole, every licensed firearms dealer in attendance is required to do the exact things he is required to do at his or her brick and mortar store. The only other firearm sales are those conducted by everyday citizens, an everyday transaction, a private sale between two people. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a criminal would be at a gun show to start with, cameras are everywhere and his or her presence would be recorded and they know that. This would especially be true if the purchaser was a known felon. Still you persist with this non-sense. You seek universal background checks, one in which a private sale between two individuals must be conducted at a brick and mortar firearms dealer, and noted on a federal form. You still do not realize that criminals do not acquire firearms in a legal manner. Acquiring firearms in a legal manner would be obeying the law, you forget criminals do not obey the law. Still you persist. What could be your real objective? No I mean your ultimate goal. Is your ultimate goal firearm confiscation? Yes, I believe it is.

You may have become involved with the gun control activist groups thinking ” We must stop gun violence” or ” we have to do something” or that the “gun show loophole” must be closed, if this is the case you do not think for yourself and let others do the thinking for you. As I mentioned in the previous post one of the reasons Japan did not plan an invasion of mainland America was the fact that American citizens enjoy a right that few others enjoy, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You need to read the real history of the nation around the world where the citizens enjoy no such right and the brutality and oppression they endured either from invading forces or the own government.

No, you have not offered any compelling argument for me to voluntarily disarm. You did not and can not win me over with reason. The reasons you offer go against all logic.

On the other hand I have offered you compelling reasons to stop trying to deny me my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have tried to win you over with reason. The difference between you and me is that I will only use reason to change your mind. You on the other hand will do something I and those like me would never do, and that is to use force where reason failed.

Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing

Think about this, the government may soon cause what no other nation is or was capable of accomplishing, the defeat and occupation of the United States of America. Prior to the atomic age there was no nation on earth that could deal a death-blow to the U.S.A. Even when the atomic age was ushered in only the superpowers had nuclear weapons, none used them because of what was known as MAD, mutually assured destruction.

The Japanese attack on Hawaii was not intended to defeat America or to crush the American military. The attack was intended take the U.S. Navy out of the equation of war. There was at that time no way for Japan to reach America directly and the same goes in reverse. A strong navy was required to go to war if the warring nations were separated by an ocean, especially an ocean as vast as the Pacific. The goal I feel was for America to seek peace with Japan. Japan lacked the power and resources to defeat America and simply sought to eliminate the possibility of America using the Navy to take the war to Japan.

Japan did not follow-up the sneak attack on Hawaii with an invasion of mainland America for two reasons.
The first was it would have been logistically impossible to resupply an invading force that was an ocean away. An invading force has two options resupply yourself or forage for supplies. It is not only supplies that would be needed, the invaders would still need replacement soldiers. The replacements would still need to cross an ocean. Without resupply and replacements the invasion would fail.
The second was the American people themselves. The American citizens have at their disposal something that few other citizens of other countries enjoy, and that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Japanese knew that even if they did mount and invasion and gain a foothold they would still have to face an armed population. The price for invasion was not one that the Japanese were willing to pay. Even if the sneak attack in Hawaii had been successful and the U.S. Navy was destroyed or reduced to a level that would prevent its use in war, Japan would still not have invaded America.

Two things have kept America relatively safe against aggression through the years.
The First is geographic isolation. Mainland America has only three neighboring countries, Canada to the north. Mexico to the south of Texas. Cuba to the south of Florida. Of the three only two are directly connected Canada and Mexico. Mainland America has no neighboring countries to the East or West only large bodies of water, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The 49th state Alaska is bordered with Canada and has Russia to the west separated by the Bering Straight. The 50th state Hawaii is an island with no immediate neighbors.
The second is an armed civilian population. A nation where the people enjoy the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Geographic isolation disappeared with the advent of the Advent of the atomic age. Rouge nations now have at their disposal nuclear weapons to attack far way and distant lands. Other rogue nations will soon have at their disposal nuclear weapons. The rogue nations do not give a damn about mutually assured destruction, for them there is no price to high to pay to attack America or an ally of America. Technology, trade and travel have eliminated geographic isolation.

The citizens in some countries have voluntarily given up their personal firearms. The citizens in those countries not only gave up their personal firearms, they also gave up the ability to defend themselves against invasion or a tyrannical government or against criminals. Which may or may not be the same. They have voluntarily given their safety and protection to the government, military and law enforcement in total and complete. The citizens in some countries have never enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and therefore have never had the ability to defend themselves or to protect their countries against invasion. Many if not most of these countries never enjoyed the benefits of geographical isolation, when it was possible.

There is now and has been for sometime an effort to disarm the American citizens. The politicians and activist groups know full well that the American population will never disarm voluntarily. They know it must be done by force(more on this in a later post). This is particularly disturbing given the fact that one of the reasons for Japan not to invade America was an armed population.

This is why I say that the federal government is freely giving those who hate America what geography had denied them in the past. They are and have been given free and unhindered access. To be fair it did not just start with the current administration. But, under the current administration it certainly is gaining momentum. There is no border control thus, there is no immigration control. Not only is there a constant flow of illegals arriving from and through Mexico there is now a new wave of people coming to America. We now are experiencing a wave of refugees from the Middle-East. I might also add that none are being vetted, they are just coming in. They bring nothing and offer nothing. There is no assimilation in to American society. There is no way of telling if they come for a better life, to live off of government handouts or if they come as terrorists. I suspect that the largest portion of those arriving come for the latter two.

As to the matter of the refugees fleeing the Middle-East, why now? The Syrian civil war has been going on for near four years. Now the Syrian refugees are fleeing and arriving in Europe by what ever means available. They bring nothing, they offer nothing and they demand everything. It is worth mentioning that the outflow of refugees begins now given the fact that the Syrian civil war is in its fourth year. It is also worth mentioning that many of the refugees are men, men that appear to be relatively healthy. This leaves me to wonder why these same capable and able-bodied men are not remaining in their country to fight Islamic extremists. I can only see two possibilities as to why the men are fleeing their country. The first is that they could not decide which side to fight for, the government forces or the Islamic extremists, so they just run away leaving everything including family. The second is that they are fighters, Islamic extremist fighters, who have mixed with the refugees to gain a foothold in Europe and will soon arrive in America. Only time will reveal the answer, but I suspect the latter.

Suppose that it was America that was undergoing some sort of “spring” and another nation, an “outside force”, decided that the government of America was oppressive and denying rights to the population. Suppose that same “outside force” decided that the long-established system of government caused strife among the population and it would be best for all if the established form of government should be abandoned. Now suppose that the established and elected government of America stood fast and did not give in to the demands of the outside forces and influences. This would really agitate the outside force and they would have to take action against the established government to see that their visions for how life in America should be. Not only life but government, a government of their choosing not the people’s. But how to accomplish the goal of regime change in America? Direct military action is an option, it is always an option, but it would be the last option. Direct military action against America would be a fool-hardy move, the only outside forces that would consider that move would be one that only sought the destruction of America no matter the cost. There are several that fit that category and more loom on the horizon. At this point America does have some allies who could possibility assist in time of need against an Overt military action. Then again, the outside forces could possibly use the same tactics against America that the BHO administration is using against Assad in Syria. They could use Covert operations, even though these Covert operations are being conducted Overtly. Some faction in America that wanted change could be armed and trained to fight against the established government. This same faction could be identified as a “moderate” group. This faction would not be a military in the truest sense of the word. They would not be soldiers and thus they would not be expected to conduct themselves as soldiers, not on the field of battle and certainly not against the civilian population, no accountability for actions. There would be no Geneva Convention, the rules of how warfare is conducted, and no law, the law would be made as they went along, basically no law. They would only be a “well-trained and armed civilian force, one that is just as well-trained and equipped as military”.(Someone in high political office did say at one time something to the effect of “We need a civilian force just as well-trained and armed as our military”, I wonder if he meant Law-enforcement).

If America found itself in the state Syria is in, what would you do?
Would you pick a side and join? Would join with the government, one that the “world” says you despise? Would you join with the “moderates” to fight against the government, the one the “world” claims you despise, even while knowing that what is coming is even worse?
Would you flee, becoming a refugee? Where would you go? As mentioned above America has only two countries with land borders. Going south from Texas to Mexico is out. The people from Mexico and points south are illegally coming to America to escape their countries. Would you go north to Canada? How many could Canada accept? Would you make your way to Alaska and try to walk or swim to Russia, depending on the season? Would you make your way to Florida down to Key West and try to swim the 90 miles to Cuba? I have not heard of many Americans migrating legally or illegally to other countries of the world, especially Mexico, Cuba or Russia. Canada, Mexico, Russia and Cuba are the closest, the rest of the world is an ocean or two away. Would you be willing to leave everything, family included? If you did become a refugee, and if you were welcomed in a foreign country would you assimilate or would you demand that the country you arrived in give-in to you demands according to the life you had? Good luck with that if you end up in a Muslim country especially if you are not a Muslim or if you are a homosexual.

What is going on a present in Syria is akin to Community Organizing. Community organizers are basically Radical Activists. The radical activists seek change and stir-up the community to achieve their goal. Remember that it is the goal of the activists, militant activists, and not necessarily the goal of the people. The goal is to remove Assad from power in Syria. The activists are the moderates and there partners in radical activism are ISIL/ISIS/IS and any other Radical Islamic Extremist group available. The organizers care only about the goal they do not ever consider what happens because there goal was achieved. If you do not believe that look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There are many other fine examples of community organizing throughout the Middle-East and northern Africa. The goals were achieved and the after effects speak for themselves. The pot was stirred and look what came to the top.

There is a new organizer at work in Syria. Syria has a friend, Russia. Russia has friends and their friends have friends. Russia is going in on the side of Assad, while the U.S.A. supports the one that are called “moderates”. China will pick a side sooner or later if they have not already. And do not forget Iran, and there will be other players in this for sure. Syria may well turn into the new Viet Nam. Assad could be the new Ho Chi Minh. The countries of the Middle-East that are at present enjoying a relative peace better buckle up and hold on, they may find themselves caught-up in this the same as Laos, Cambodia and Thailand were. Regional conflicts tend to grow. NATO and the Warsaw Pact may at last get their long sought after showdown.

As stated above no country in its right mind would use or attempt to use military might to destroy America. America does enjoy a tremendous supply of tools to deter an attack or to retaliate against any attack conventional or unconventional attack, nuclear, chemical or biological. America has Allies, friends and trading partners, right. America has few allies thanks to years of failed foreign policy of this administration and the previous and even before that. The only friends we have are the ones we feel we have to buy. The bought friends will be friends only as long as the money lasts. Friends you have to buy are not worth having.
America even pays its enemies, and gives financial support to those that chant death to America and have vowed to destroy some American allies, Israel.

There is more than one way to bring a country to its knees. Could America be attacked financially? Time will tell. If America is attacked financially the outcome will not be pretty.