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.

-wits

uncle-sam-prayer-for-americaEnough already. The levels of incompetence and ignorance have reached a new all time height. I mean even modern jets have a maximum ceiling(altitude) and even a maximum airspeed where they can still function safely. Apparently there are no such restrictions on incompetence or ignorance, there are no limits on how high it can go or on how fast it can spew forth.

A prime example of this is the political reaction to the recent terrorist attack in Orlando. The political solution is apparently to further restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens. Everybody at the club were law-abiding citizens, they were out for an evening of entertainment and merry-making. As I recall firearms are not allowed in the part of a club serving alcoholic beverages, so consequently the lawful were disarmed, obeying the law. The only one who broke the law was the terrorist who entered the club with firearms. And then he did what terrorists do, he starting killing unarmed citizens(civilians). He chose a “soft target” because he wanted to go about his terroristic intentions unimpeded by the possibility of encountering anyone inside the club that may have been armed. You will note that this like almost all large-scale terrorist attacks the intended victims would have no way to effectively defend themselves. The laws on the books worked just fine, problem is the terrorist had no intention of following the law. It will be the same the next time it happens, wherever it happens, the same as in California. The law-abiding citizens obeyed the law, the terrorists did not nor will they, ever.

Immediately the gun control crowd jumped up on their “soap-box” claiming that more gun control was needed to prevent such acts. They actually blamed the murder and mayhem on the gun. So they cries went out for somebody to do something, the gun violence must be stopped. I do need someone to explain to me how a gun, an inanimate object can become violent all by itself. It again just like every other crime or terrorist act took the intentional effort by a human being to carry out the act. It was not the gun that is or became violent enough to load magazines itself and pull back the charging handle and the aim itself at people and then commence firing and change magazines as the ammo became depleted. No all those actions required a human. I would even be bold enough to claim that if a rifle were to be loaded with a full magazine, the charging handle pulled back and released to send a live round of ammunition into the chamber and the safety not engaged(left on fire) and then placed in a corner the loaded rifle would stand right there until the end of time and never turn violent. The only thing left to do was to pull the trigger and it would go bang, it would wait right where it was left waiting for a human. Magazines can not load themselves, charging handles can not pull themselves to the rear and triggers can not depress them selves, all those steps require human action, willful and intention human actions.

What needs to happen is that the right to self-defense of the citizens of this country needs to be unimpeded. But the gun control crowd and the liberal socialists in government(democrat, republican and independent)will demand and do just the opposite. It is not the law-abiding citizens that are the problem in this country nor is it the availability of firearms. The problem is the criminal element and now terrorists in this country. We do not need gun control, what we do need is criminal control and terrorist control. Criminals can be controlled by the laws already on the books, but only if the laws are enforced. Terrorists can be controlled by not letting them in this country, in other words immigration and visa control. Failing to control immigration and visas into this country is akin to letting people into your house that should never have been allowed on your lawn, then acting surprised when they destroy or attempt to destroy you and yours.

One interesting tidbit was the congress critter from down Orlando way spewing this garbage, people should not be allowed weapons that fire seven hundred a minute. That idiot should do the math on his foolish statement. 700 rounds per minute would equate to 11.6 round per second, that is one fast semi-automatic rifle no to mention the quickness of changing magazines, and the weight of that much ammunition. Are the good people from his district really contemplating sending him back to congress? Lord help us. After hearing what that man had to say I had to consult Webster’s for a possible word and definition that would help describe the level of incompetence and ignorance of some of the distinguished members of government, I came up with the following;
Nit-wits, Half-wits, Dim-wit and Witless, they pretty much all mean the same thing. A stupid or foolish person. The I looked for words to describe the statements they make and possible laws they may attempt to introduce in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack. I came up with the following; Half-baked, not completely thought out.
1959792_716153281770894_2116533504_n

I would like to point this out in case any of the gun control crowd missed it. When the call for help went out it was answered by people with guns, a lot of people with a lot of guns. If you are so against guns why did you call for and expect people carrying guns to show up? If the terrorist wanted to cause such carnage and he did not have a gun or two he would have chosen a different method, the result would have been the same many innocent would have died. The same can not be said if someone, anyone or everyone in the club would have had a least the same capability as the terrorist. I thought you liberals were all about equality and creating a level playing field. You gave one an advantage over many others. Why do you promote policies that go against one of your stronger beliefs? All things being equal, I mean. Seems to me you actually promote inequality.

Then I have to say that the Dim-wits, Nit-wits and Half-wits can only be in government if people of the same caliber continually elect and re-elect them. The only way we have half-baked ideas for laws is that people elect people who hatch half-baked laws. You reap what you sow. You elect stupid you get stupid.

Then there is this, incompetence and ignorance runs rampant through society. Read on Free Republic today where the Southern Baptist Convention(SBC)has banned the display of the Confederate Flag in SBC churches. So let me address this real quick while on the subject of Dim-wits, Nit-wits, half-wits, Witless and Half baked. The Southern Baptist Church I attend does not display the Confederate Flag on the grounds or in the Sanctuary, there are however on display in the Sanctuary the Christian Flag and the U.S. Flags. Were you referring to the Stars and Bars(the Flag of The Confederacy, The Confederate States of America) or the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia? Just asking. Since when did political correctness enter the Sanctuary? If you are by decree banning the flag that may or may not be displayed in a Southern Baptist Church because someone may be offended, when will you deny Christianity because someone may be offended?

Wrong again

My prayers and thoughts go out to the victims and their families in San Bernardino, Ca. My appreciation goes to the Law-Enforcement agencies and other first responders.

Another tragedy presents another opportunity for the politicians and activists to politicize the sorrow. Even as the tragedy was unfolding it was being politicized. The Liberal Socialist Progressives will use this tragedy to further promote their agenda. They will as usual politicize the tragedy as they attempt to assign blame or find a way to justify the actions of those responsible for the carnage, which ever serves best to promote their agenda. They will get this wrong as they have in the past gotten so much wrong.

In the attempt to politicize this tragedy the Liberal Socialist Progressives and activists will first blame the gun. They will blame the gun, even though the gun was not the cause of the carnage it was merely the chosen instrument. It was the person behind the gun that should be blamed, and rightfully so. But they will not blame the person, unless the person they can assign the blame to fits in with their narrative and agenda. Then someone will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that justifies the actions of these murderous Moslems.

The first I will address is the apologists. The Liberal Socialist Progressives and the Apologists will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that would justify the actions of these murderous Moslems. Let me just address this in this way, there is no justification for what those murderous ingrates did.

Now I will address the Liberal Socialist Progressives. The Liberal Socialist Progressives as well as the gun control activists will start out saying that “something has to be done to control gun violence”. They will claim that only way to stop or lessen gun violence is that more laws are needed, more gun control laws. The gun control laws already on the books only effect the law-abiding population and has had no effect on the criminal element in our population, nor will any future laws. If there is anyone who believes that laws already on the books have any effect on criminal activity, they need to look no further than the prison system. America has laws making murder a criminal act punishable by imprisonment or death, murders still occur. There are laws against rape, robbery, drug possession and sale, theft and many others, yet the prisons contain people, men and women, convicted of the same acts(crimes). Criminals break the law, that is what they do. The residents in the prison system are not there for obeying the law, if they obeyed the law they would not be in prison.

Not only will they blame the gun, they will attempt to demonize the legal and lawful gun owners and the groups that support and defend their rights to gun ownership. It is not the legal and lawful gun owners that are the problem. I have often wondered why the legal and lawful owners of firearms would need to have an advocate to act on their behalf to guard and protect the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. This is particularly puzzling when each and every politician, upon taking office swears or affirms to uphold the Constitution. Which brings up this point. The Founders and Framers must have known that at some point in time the Federal Government would begin to act as Monarchs and that is most likely the reason why the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights ends with words “Shall not be infringed”. Only the Second Amendment ends with these words.

Think on this for a moment. Could Law Enforcement patrol the entire length and breadth of America, given the sheer size of America, providing safety and security of the population? How often do the residents of rural America even see law enforcement on patrol? Where are the most law enforcement officers seen, in the cities and towns or as they say “out in the sticks”? Law enforcement and the military operating simultaneously could not patrol America for coast to coast and border to border. If the agenda and objective of the Liberal Socialist Progressives and the gun control groups is to have the legal and lawful Americans disarm, either voluntarily of involuntarily, would America be a safer nation for its legal and lawful citizens? I submit to you that it would not. The criminal element has already demonstrated their utter disregard for the law already and would not obey a new law the same as they have disregarded the past laws. I ask this, Would you rather defend yourself and your family with a cellphone or with something at least as powerful as what the criminal who is assaulting you or your family with? If you chose the phone at least the one the other end of the call heard what happened to you or to your family. If you wish to defend yourself or your family with a cellphone I suggest you learn to throw it at 2000 feet per second.

Not only do the Liberal Socialist Progressives get it wrong every time regarding firearms, they also get it wrong on immigration, every time. There was a time in years past, now many years past, when people immigrated(legally)to America to make a better life foe themselves and their families. The legal immigrants assimilated into American society willingly living under the laws and customs of America, that was then this is now. The immigrants of today are no longer expected to assimilate into American society. If they are not expected to assimilate, what makes the Liberal Socialist Progressives believe that they will obey the laws of America, much less respect the customs or traditions? Let me use this example. If an immigrant moves in next to you that comes from a nation where murder is legal, would you want them to assimilate and live under the laws of America, or not to assimilate living under the laws of America and continue murdering because it is the custom of their native land? Would you feel comfortable living next door to a rapist, after all they only rape because it is a custom in their native land? How about a thief or a child molester? Today not only are immigrants not expected to assimilate they are not even expected to immigrate legally.

One thing about the Liberal Socialist Progressives is that they will never admit that their agenda was flawed or had failed. The only failure they ever admit to is that “we did not go far enough”. They never admit the plan was unwise or unjust, just that the plan was not “grand” enough. They only want to “progress”, go forward, no matter the cost or outcome. They are willing to destroy America in the name of “progress”. Maybe the “grand” plan of the Liberal Socialist Progressives is to reduce the entire population of America to a cowering population seeking cover and calling for another to come and save them from some terrorist or criminal. The one receiving the call will undoubtedly arrive carrying what you despise most, a gun. Or maybe the Liberal Socialist Progressives do not think there are already enough criminals in America, they seek to create more by making the legal and lawful owners of firearms criminals.

I can not control every minute of every day, as a matter of fact most of what happens daily is out of my control. I can not be there every second of every minute for my family. But when I am in the presence of my family they can rest assured that I will protect them from harm or die trying. My family and especially my wife will never hear these words from my lips “I am sorry Honey, I wish I could have done more than call for help”.

The difference between me, those like me and the gun control zealots is that not only will I place myself in harm’s way to defend and protect my family I will do the same for your family and even you. While I am willing to place myself in harm’s way to protect those that I love I will do the same for a stranger. The best I can hope for from you is that you will run away and hide then when you are safe you will call someone for help that would use the same tool I would have used, a gun. Amazing isn’t it, I would stand and fight while you would run. Maybe Chivalry is not dead after all, at least not yet.

Inviting Disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 1 Firearms

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.

On gun control, gun safety or whatever they call it now.
BHO, the Liberal Progressives and the Social Progressives somehow think it makes common sense to regulate law-abiding citizens. To them this is logical. They suggest laws and rules that serve to encumber only the law-abiding public. Rules, regulations and laws have been passed at the state and local levels that seek to limit the amount of ammunition that can be loaded in one magazine. High capacity magazines have been banned, there have been attempts to ban certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms. There have been attempts to place a special tax on firearms and ammunition. There have been attempts to ban the sale of firearms between citizens unless there is a firearms dealer involved along with the appropriate government paperwork. These and all the other what you call “common sense” proposals, only serve to place an undue burden on the good and decent law-abiding citizens while not causing a drop of inconvenience on the criminal element.
Conservative “common sense” and logic should and would dictate that the good and decent law-abiding public not be deprived of a single thing that would or could quite possibly enhance their safety in an unsafe world. No person should have to prove or show need a need if he or she wants a high-capacity magazine, or a certain type of firearm, the same as no person should prove or show need when buying a house or a car. Free trade, sales and bartering, between good and decent law-abiding citizens concerning firearms should not be impeded anymore than the sale of homes and cars between citizens. If it is crime you wish to lessen then pass and enforce laws that affect the criminal element and none that impede the good and decent law-abiding citizen.

Perhaps, it is time for the Liberal Progressives, Social Progressives, BHO and the entire Democratic Party to come forward and tell the good and decent law-abiding public of America what it is that they truly want, seek and desire. Gun Control is not your final objective, it is but a “bench-mark” on your way to your final objective.

Here is what I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed population. Let me correct that, Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population. The criminal element of the population will not be disarmed.

If it is true, and I suspect that it is, your final and ultimate objective is a totally unarmed good and decent law-abiding population you must have some sort of plan in place to achieve it. There must be other bench-marks along the way, that is unless you are brave enough to just outlaw private ownership of firearms. You did nothing to further your agenda when you had complete and total control of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency. I suspect you did nothing because you did not have control of the Judicial branch at that time. The Judicial Branch would have most likely “struck-down” any law that infringed on the Second Amendment, if that happened you would have been exposed for what you really are. That would have ended the progressive movement, you were not willing to run that risk.

What you would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population would be a population totally dependent on government for their safety. Without a definitive means of self-defense, one that was at least equal and perhaps superior to that of the criminals, they would have to call on the government to provide for them what they at one time could provide for themselves. You would also gain a totally compliant population, but only to the extent of a good and decent law-abiding population.

What the criminals would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding public would be many more victims. Victims with no means to defend themselves.

What the good and decent law-abiding public would lose by being totally disarmed, everything.

You will not admit that the “Gun Free Zones” are a total and abject failure. What do you do? You only try to make more and more gun free zones. Gun free zones have not, nor will they ever provide for safety. They only provide victims. If you get your wish and make the whole of America a gun free zone, America will become a nation of victims from coast to coast and from border to border. They will be victims of either the criminals or the government.

This is why I say your “common sense” gun control measures and gun laws make no sense, common or otherwise.
There are only two segments of the American population The Good and Decent Law-Abiding Citizens and The Criminal Element, if the politicians are counted they are either a third segment or will fit into one of the first two groups. No the politicians are a separate segment, they could and should be considered the third segment. You should be focusing your laws on the second element, but instead you focus of the first. You appear to have failed in eliminating the criminal element, to make-up for your failures in eliminating the criminals you seek to eliminate the good and decent law-abiding population. You take out your wrath on the good and decent law-abiding population. What ever the politicians do to the first segment will not apply to them as most act as if they are above the law anyway. Your gun control measures will apply to only the good and decent law-abiding population, you will keep for yourself what you would deny others and the criminal element does not care about your laws.

Maybe you should read the writings of Thomas Paine, Common Sense and The American Crisis. You already have the Good and Decent Law-Abiding public behind you, yet you seek to punish them.

Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy

First my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families after the latest shooting in Oregon.
The Liberal Left and the Progressive Liberals are at it again doing their best to politicize another tragedy. A tragedy caused by the policies they support and in most cases have instituted. BHO has politicized every event that supported his as well as the progressive agenda, however this time he came out and said it, he is politicizing this tragedy and will keep politicizing it. I did notice one thing different in his approach this time he has stopped using the term “gun control” and has instead gone with the term “gun safety”.

The sudden change in wording set me to thinking, “What are they up to now”? The change from “control” to “safety” is a change in strategy, but has no effect on the ultimate goal. Think about this, safety and the usage of the word. Motor vehicles are much safer today than they were years ago. That would lead one to believe that fewer people die on the roads and highways of America. Seat belts save lives, so we have a law requiring motorists to wear seat belts, again to decrease the number of motor vehicle deaths each year. Safety seats are used in motor vehicles to make the children safer in the event of an accident. There are countless “safety” laws, rule and regulations in place to make the work place “safer”. Safety glasses have reduced the number and severity of eye injuries. Safety equipment used in and around the work place have reduced the numbers of deaths and injuries. There are even safety items in and around the home to lessen the likelihood of falls and injuries. This would all lead one to assume that safety in all aspects of life is an overall good thing.

Even with the fact that motor vehicle manufacturers making motor vehicles safer, many thousands of people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. Children still die or are seriously injured while in a car seat. People still die or are seriously injured while wearing seat belts. People are still injured or die around the workplace. Many people still die or are seriously injured in accidents around the home.

It would be my guess that some time in the very near future there will a government study. A study on safety, showing the benefits of safety versus reckless behavior. It will also show how government intervention in the name of safety has decreased the number of serious injuries and deaths based on safety laws, rules and regulations. The “facts and figures” will of course show the desired results of the study, even if they have to be skewered. The truth means nothing, the agenda means everything.

This is why gun control laws and measures do not work, nor will they ever. There has yet to be a law, rule or regulation that has stopped a criminal doing what a criminal does, which is to disobey or break the law. Maybe a law should be passed making it illegal to break the law, rule or regulation, that one might convince the criminals to stop their criminal behavior. No that will not work, it would cause the politicians to become law-abiding citizens. That is unless they could somehow see themselves as above the law. Oh silly me, the criminals and politicians already have that view and act accordingly.

With the exception of inserting the word “safety” where “control” is usually used the liberal left and the liberal progressives talking points remain the same. “We must protect the children”.” People need a safe environment to study, learn and grow”. “For the sake of the children”. And so it goes, the talking points never change.

Let’s examine for a moment the utter hypocrisy of the liberal left and the liberal progressives. So you want to provide a safe place for children, do you? The safest place for any child is supposed to be the mother’s womb. Yet you deny the child that safety, you support and fund organizations that go into the womb and take the life of a child, literally ripping them from safety and security. Some of you are even okay with going into the womb and taking the life of a child up to the moment of birth. You want a safe place for children to learn and grow as long as it is not in the womb. Rather than control yourself and not engage in activity that history has proven leads to pregnancy, you choose abortion.
How about them school buses? Are the seats any safer now than the were when I rode them in the 1960’s? Do they have seat belts yet? Oh, that’s right safety costs money. If school buses were safer they would cost more money. Are you letting children’s safety slide for monetary reasons.

As for control there are at present only two types of control the liberal left and the liberal progressives care about, and they are gun control and birth control. A world where abortions are on demand and free of guns.

Just stop claiming it is for the children when you seek gun control, or the new term gun safety your actions have already proven you do not have a concern for the children. Abortion is the number one cause of the death of children. Tell the nation the truth what is your true agenda concerning personal firearms. Stop lying, if you can, and just say what your ultimate goal is.

You claim to want to make a safer environment, yet you seek to deny me and those like me with the most important tool that make the safer environment. The tool that provides a deterrent. No sign announcing a gun-free zone has ever deterred a single mass shooter. How many have been encouraged by or drawn to a place to do evil by the simple sign announcing there will be no resistance. What does the absence of the sign provide? Doubt in the mind of the criminal.

While on the subject, since your intent is to provide for a safer environment for your children. Assuming that they made it out of the womb alive, and you see firearms as evil, and Lord knows that you must protect the children from evil. I have a quick question for you. Have you placed that gun-free zone sign in front of your house yet? No, why not? Could it be that you already know that the gun-free zone sign only invites trouble?