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.

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.

Wrong Title

The president of the U.S.A. has long been looked to as, and referred to as the Leader of the Free World. That statement is not only false, it is down right dangerous, and becoming more dangerous. The President of the United States of America is just that the President of the United States of America, he is not the Leader of the free word, he is however president of the greatest nation in the free world. The label of Leader of the Free World can give one an over-inflated opinion of ones self. This over-inflated opinion did not begin with BHO but it has surely become more noticeable with BHO.

Think how the world has been affected by the action of a person proudly wearing and accepting the label of the Leader of the Free World. The supposed Leader of the Free World actually thinks he knows what is right for the free world. He does this when he does not even know what is best for America, the United States of America. Reaction by Reason and Logic is replaced by Reaction by and from emotion. Giving no thought to what comes next.

Let me use this example. The Colonials living in what would become the United States of America, did not need another country or government to tell them how bad it was to live under tyranny and oppression. They new first hand what living under tyranny and oppression was like. No other country came forward to offer to help defeat Britain if we would try their form of government, it would have been rejected because the Colonials had a better idea. It was the Colonials who fought off the yoke of tyranny and oppression not the government they would form. They sought to build a country like no other and establish a government like no other. A government of, by and for the people. No longer a people of, by and for the government. The people wanted to be free, the word “wanted” is key here.

Some examples of what happens when a person that is the President of the United States of America starts to believe that he or she is the Leader of the Free World.

Iraq. Had the people reached a point where they said “no more” and rise up? That is what the citizens of Colonial America did. Did some outside influence think that they had the right answer, regime change. A people who have lived under a dictator can not be made to be free they must want it. Some people can not handle freedom and liberty, others do not want it. Freedom and Liberty come with a cost, until people are ready to pay the cost they will not seek it. When Freedom and Liberty are gained they must be safeguarded and if necessary fought for to keep. GWB did not understand that simple concept. No matter the pretext for regime change, there is a life after for the people. Removing Saddam Hussein removed one problem and created another, religious sectarian violence and near civil war. BHO did not consider what would happen when he abandoned Iraq, more religious sectarian violence and the rise of ISIL, that became ISIS and now simply IS.

Libya. Again was it the people, citizens of Libya that rose up and said “No More”? Or was it some outside influences come in to stir the “pudding”. The statement from above apply in this case also.

Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen and The Ukraine. Again was it the people, the citizens of these countries who rose up and said “No More”, or is some outside influence or influences?

Reacting out of emotion rather than reacting from reason and logic. Being a person born in a Free nation and enjoying the Liberties that go along with that make it hard to observe or hear about the atrocities suffered by the people of a nation ruled by a dictator. The instant reaction is to free them, that is emotion. Reason and logic should take hold and stop you before you can act, but sadly there are politicians and those who see themselves as the Leader of the Free world that do not. The Leader of the Free World acts before he thinks.

Meddling is not a good foreign policy and division is not a good domestic policy.

There was never a need for and no country has the right to force their will on another country. But, I guess you thought the right when you took on the title Leader of the Free World.

The next person elected President of the United States of America needs to be reminded of that fact, President of the United States of America is your title, you are not the Leader of the Free World you were not elected to that post.

The United States of America has enjoyed a head start on the rest of the world. The key reason for this is written in history. History is loaded with examples of what has failed and what has merely existed. America was not born to fail. America has not merely existed. America has thrived and grown. One part of growing is making mistakes, another part of growing is not repeating mistakes. America does not live in the past, if one stays in the past they only stagnate and are reduced from thriving and growing to merely existing and eventually going to a footnote in history.
A side note on the founding of America. This is for those who do not believe God had a hand in the founding of America and the well-being since. Was it by chance or design that so many would be at the same place at the same time wanting freedom and liberty and then enough at one place at one time willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen?

What will be the next excuse?

The justification of terrorism by Radical Islamic terrorists by the liberal progressives is a new bench mark in stupidity. The Islamic terrorists have no plan or intent to find work or start a business, they already have a job and are in business, and that job is terrorism, and are in the business of jihad, Islamic holy war. As for opportunity, the Islamic Terrorists engage is terrorism at every opportunity. BHO and his minions are so intent on being politically correct and avoiding offending the Muslim world that they will not call the Islamic Terrorists for what they are, Islamic Terrorists. BHO upped the ante when he said the Muslims have grievances. When a group or a person expresses grievances they are in essence trying to prove legitimacy. Is BHO suggesting that the Islamic terrorists are legitimate? The Radical Islamic Terrorists have no desire to improve their lives or the lives of anyone taken hostage or for that matter improving life in their occupied territories. Their only intention is to rob, rape, murder and pillage. The Islamic State has but one goal to re-establish the Caliphate with Baghdad as the capital just as it was before, sort of taking up where they left off.

The policies of BHO are quite similar to those of LBJ and that is frightening. Like LBJ, BHO is running the war from the White House, BHO may even selecting and approving targets personally, just as LBJ did. LBJ as president caused the loss of the Viet Nam war. By the time Nixon became president the anti-war protests were destroying this country. Nixon had to find a way out of that war, Kissinger and the Paris Peace Accords. The U.S. abandoned South Viet Nam and it fell to the Communist North.

BHO has no intention of defeating the Islamic State. The U.S. government is still seeking to arm and train the “moderate Muslims” in Syria that are fighting the Assad government forces. The moderate Muslims, if they can be called that, are at times likely to join with ISIS if they share the same ends. If ISIS is attacking Assad’s forces what will the “moderate rebels” do? Will they just observe? Or will they join with ISIS? I submit they will join ISIS, another instance of the enemy of my enemy. If BHO wanted to defeat ISIS he would be arming the Kurds directly instead of going through the Iraqi government and form an alliance with Assad. But no, he is instead arming the moderates in Syria, who may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or apt to switch sides at the drop of a hat. It seems a bit asinine to arm and train a likely and potential enemy. As I have written before it is extremely difficult to engage and defeat an opposing army that are using the same weapons and training, not to mention the enormous cost in life. It would be like shadow boxing, fighting ones own self.

If the intention is not to defeat ISIS, what is the intention? BHO may well be going back to a cold-war tactic, Containment. What would containment do? If ISIS were to be driven back and contained in Syria, ISIS would be the problem of Assad and his ally Russia. To drive ISIS back into Syria and contain them there they must first be driven from Iraq and where ever else they have set up operations. This can not be accomplished by pin-prick airstrikes. To accomplish this there will need to be a relentless air campaign not seen since WW 2, and then that will not be enough. Men and women in ground combat units will need to engage ISIS. Short of this action the Islamic State must be contained where they are at present.

There is one more glaring similarity between LBJ and BHO, BHO is now attempting the same thing in the war with the Islamic State aka Radical Islamic Terrorists, that LBJ did in Viet Nam, dis-ownership of the war. LBJ wanted to give ownership of the to South Viet Nam, he called it the “Viet Namization of the war”. BHO seems to want to hand the war off to the Arab nations, it will probably get some catchy name.

Not only does BHO not call Islamic extremists for what they are he also refuses to give the proper identity to the victims. The Jews murdered in Paris at the Jewish deli were not “just some folks” They were Jews and they were singled out for murder based on Religion. Just what “folks” does BHO think that would be shopping at a Jewish deli, they sure would not be Moslems. The Coptic Christians that were beheaded in Libya were not jus Egyptian citizens, they were Christians and that is why they were beheaded. These crimes against Jews and Christians were not because they had an unfortunate encounter with Radical Islam, they were singled out and killed because of their religion and for no other reason.

Since BHO felt the need to address the events in Ferguson, MO telling the world that America has its share of racial and ethnic problems, let me interject this about moderates. The protests in Ferguson and in other parts of America were at the onset to address grievances or supposed grievances. How many of the protesters percentage wise were there to address their grievances and how many of the protesters percentage wise were there to cause chaos, mayhem and destruction. The ones who were there to address grievances could be labeled as moderates. When the violence and destruction erupted how many of the “moderates” disengaged? Did they all become “radicals” and participate in the chaos, mayhem and destruction? The moderates joined the radicals and became as one, pack mentality. There were no protests to express grievances about the destruction. There was only more protests that erupted into chaos, mayhem and destruction, the cycle repeated itself and the moderates joined with the radicals. There was no news footage of the moderates disengaging. I ask the same questions about “moderate Muslims”, at what point will they become united as one?

If the lack of jobs and opportunity are the root cause of radical extremism, I ask why are not the unemployed and those denied opportunity here in America not acting as the Radical Islamists? The answer is that they are placated by government in the form of social welfare programs. Sort of bought off to prevent bad behavior. Which brings this up. Will the government placate terrorists with social welfare programs known as tribute payments. The same as the Muslim nations along the African coast did at the beginnings of America. Surely America has not regressed to the point of entertaining the notion of paying tribute to avoid attacks.

Excuses are used to justify an act, such as it was done because _________ (fill in the blank). So I ask, what excuse will be offered by BHO and his administration for the next Islamic attack on another because of religion? Do these people have a gold fish bowl full of excuses, reach in and grab one and make it fit the narrative or position? It is true that America is not at war with Islam, but it sure seems hat Islam is at war with the non-Islamic rest of the world.

At the National Prayer Breakfast BHO slammed Christianity for the Crusades. BHO did not state the truth, that the Crusades were the result of Muslim aggression and domination and the Crusades were the Christians addressing legitimate grievances. He instead blamed Christianity for the Crusades.

Here we go again

It is the same old tired story with BHO, poll numbers drop and find someone to blame, this time it is the large corporations. If he really wanted to know why his poll numbers are dropping like a rock he needs to look no farther than the mirror, that is where the blame lies. Failed policies and a failing administration will be his legacy and his foreign and domestic policies can be summed up in one word. Destabilization.

Why would a sitting President of the United States of America even make the statement “the corporations of America based in foreign countries have effectively renounced their citizenship”? What was he thinking or was he? BHO has been in office since January 2009 and here it is July 2014 and he just realized that American corporations are based overseas for tax breaks. More than likely he is once again pandering to the base and the one’s that constantly have their hands out wanting what someone else has worked for and earned. Blaming a loop-hole for legalized tax evasion or avoidance is another instance of improper blame fixation, the tax codes and loop holes are the problems not the people or corporations who use them, but they were written by politicians. Concerning this the evil rich and the evil corporations are not paying their fair share, yet no liberal has ever said how much is a fair share and most politicians block attempts at changing the tax code. But as I said the tax code with all of the loop holes were written by politicians and politicians go to great lengths to protect and insulate themselves from the very laws the impose on the citizenry. Speaking of paying your fair share I have this question for BHO and the other politicians around the country, are you paying your fair share or are you using the tax code with all of the loop holes to protect yourself and wealth or are you ponying up? Be honest if you can. After all the politicians intentionally wrote themselves out of one of the most heinous, if not the most heinous laws ever inflicted on America, Obamacare. Based on that fact alone I can safely say that you are using the tax code with all the loop holes and not paying your fair share as you demand of others and at every opportunity remind the moochers that the wealthy and big corporations are not paying their fair share while you do not pay yours.

The latest closure of the Embassy in Libya was blamed on increasing violence near and around Tripoli, the real blame lies in the fact that the entire country was destabilized by the policies and actions of BHO and that is where the blame must be placed, at the feet of BHO. Libya is still unstable because no one had a plan after the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi. You plan for the future now not when you get there. The only plan was to topple the regime, there was no consideration for what would come next, unless what you have now is what you wanted. Given the continued habit of this administration jumping to conclusions before the facts come in, commonly known as sticking one’s foot in one’s own mouth, the chaos in Libya may have been the plan all along. BHO here is a simple fix for Libya close the Embassy, cut off diplomatic relations and stop the financial aid until those people can get their shit together. Let them establish a government to their liking and their choosing without any outside influences and if it goes against American morals and principles, not your own, keep them cut off until they come around to the true American way, again not your own, if they deviate later cut them off again. The same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The escalation of violence and destruction in Gaza and the unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas has shown the world how truly ineffective the Foreign policy of BHO and his administration is as if there were not already enough examples. BHO and his administration as well as the main stream media criticizes and chastises Israel for doing what any nation under attack would do. How would the United States react if Cuba were to take up shooting missiles into Florida daily or if Mexico fired missiles daily into Texas? Would we give them financial aid hoping that would end the hostility or would we pound them into puppy kibble? I would hope that we would pound on them until we got tired or they sank into the ocean whichever comes first. The United States provides financial aid to the Palestinians who are controlled, ruled and governed by Hamas, so by default Hamas is receiving financial aid. My question is this, is Hamas and the Palestinian Authority creating a better life for the Palestinians or are they using the money to purchase rockets and the other weapons of war to use against Israel? The weapons of war are neither free or cheap, the money has to come from somewhere. If the Palestinian Authority and Hamas would be as industrious in improving the lives of the Palestinians as they are at digging tunnels to attack Israel maybe there would actually be a country called Palestine. I am sure that the citizens of Israel would rather go through the day with each tending to his or her own business than waiting for the siren blast indicating incoming rockets. I am also sure that somewhere in Gaza there is at least some Palestinians who would rather go through the day tending to their personal business rather waiting for the next retaliatory strike from Israel because some radical Muslim fired rockets into Israel. More than likely American financial aid is being used to finance Hamas and their relentless and unprovoked attacks on Israel, the answer is simple cut off all financial aid and cease any and all relations until the attacks stop. As with Libya let the Palestinian people establish a government to their liking and their choosing and again no outside influences if they choose a government that goes against the morals and principles of America, not the president’s, keep them cut off until they come around. America should no more be helping to finance a war against one of our allies than Israel should be assisting the illegals across the southern border. America must stand with Israel, one day the tables could be turned. Who would you prefer to have standing by your side and quite possibly behind you, an ally or the enemy of your enemy? One more thing the areas that are normally avoided and immune from military action only retain that protected status as long as they are not used for military purposes including a storage facility for weapons of war or a safe haven for combatants, break the rules and become a target. If you don’t believe that check the number of normally protected areas that became targets during WW 2 including a famous Monastery. Use a church or a school as part of a line of fortifications or an ammunition depot and it quits being a church or a school and becomes a target even a hospital or an ambulance can fall into this category. There were even occasions where one religious building was torn down to erect a religious building as a symbol of victory during religious wars, even if the building was undamaged during the conflict, the intention was to erase all signs of the previous symbols of religious expression and to destroy the religion.

A new round of sanctions have been placed on Russia by BHO since the shoot-down of MH-17 are intended to punish or restrict who? The executive order which banned AK-47 rifles and their variants manufactured in Russia from importation into America will not be felt by Putin or the Russian people it was only a stunt and another step in the assault on the Second Amendment. The AK-47 is the most prolific weapon in the world the loss of one customer will make no difference and besides not many American own a true AK-47, the taxes and regulations of weapons capable of fully automatic fire make it at least a financial challenge not to mention the cost of the weapon. With all of the spy satellites in space today would produce a high probability of an image of the airliner in flight and the missile battery either before or after missile launch possibly even at the moment of launch, there should surely be an image of a launcher short one missile. BHO did his usual after the airliner was shot down gave a little speech, informed Russia that the world was watching. The world may have been watching but all they saw was BHO leave town to make it to two Democratic Party fundraisers. Russia was the first to be accused of firing the missile that downed the airliner, that did not stick so the Pro Russian separatists were blamed. There are former members of Russian and Ukrainian military in the separatists that is a given, but would they or do they have the knowledge and training to operate such a sophisticated missile system? The missiles themselves have been around for a long time but the launch and radar system like that of the U.S. are constantly upgraded. The Ukrainian military uses the same equipment as the Russian military. There may well be a satellite image of the launcher and possibly the launch if it is it must not support the narrative of the administration or it would have been released by now. The ban on AK-47 importation is supposed to punish Russia for supplying the Pro-Russian separatists with weapons and equipment. This the dumbest thing that I have heard this week, well nearly. Especially when the Afghanis and the Iraqis were using weapons and training provided by America to kill American troops, added to this Russia was awarded a no-bid contract to furnish weapons, equipment and spare parts to the Afghanis. The weapons were Russian but bought and given to the Afghanis with American dollars. No sanctions were placed on anyone for those murders. The new offensive mounted by the Ukrainian military against the Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk can only bring Ukraine closer to a war with Russia, a war they know they can not win without help from The E.U. and the U.S., WWW 3 anyone. Here is where the labeling gets confusing and the lines become blurred. The fighting in Ukraine is between two factions the Ukrainians and the Pro-Russian Separatists. Why are they not called insurgents or freedom fighters or even militants as they are labeled in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or even Syria? After all Donetsk is seeking freedom from Ukraine and to rejoin Mother Russia. Do not get me wrong I am no fan of Russia, Putin or Communism, but I am all for the right to self-determination. The answer for Ukraine is the same as the others everybody just pull out and cut them off no financial aid no military aid no nothing let the Ukrainians work it out, when they run out of bullets they will have to resort to beating each other to death and fighting like that will tire a person out. Long before they get to that point they will come to their senses and realize that they are only destroying their country, or not. Sometimes you have to nearly destroy something to save it, America itself went through that stage once and settled it and have since lived with the results. We now settle our differences on election day or at least try to, at least we can bitch, and wait until the next election for now at least.

ISIS is still making gains in Iraq and Syria, in fact they have done so well that they even staged a military parade to show off their newly acquired weapons of war. The majority of the weapons and equipment in possession and being used by ISIS was paid for and supplied by BHO and his administration though those in possession were not the intended to have them, however it is another case of the law of unintended consequences, arming the enemy of your enemy instead of an ally. You know you have arrived if you can stage a parade. Even taking time to re-establish a caliphate. Female genital mutilations have been ordered and reports have surfaced of an all female fighting unit, I had thought these people thought of women as property and basically useless, guess they found a use for them. There has not been one word of condemnation that I have heard from the liberals or the main stream media condemning the acts and atrocities leveled against women concerning the ordered and forced genital mutilation. There is also no or very little outcries or condemnation of the murders of Christians in the Muslim controlled countries or regions, the forced conversions of Christians to Muslim, the taxes that must be paid for not converting and the destruction of Christian religious symbols. Do you remain silent in order to not offend? You are only whistling past the graveyard. There is a cost to not speaking out as one group after another is assaulted and annihilated and that cost is no one will be left to speak out or act in your defense.

Says it all

Says it all

You have got to be kidding!!!!!

The “empty suit” we have for a President says “The NSA is vital to National Security”. The NSA will continue to monitor, but, the Telecommunications Companies will join in the effort to “curb abuses”. What is this man so afraid of? Why does he use the NSA to spy on our(what few we have left) allies? Could it be that he fears being upstaged by an ally taking an action that he refuses to? He even had the nerve to drag Paul Revere’s name into his shameful program.
Now, onto why I’m Here today.
Easing the sanctions on Iran is “now” probably the most disastrous foreign policy decision he has made. But, at least this will get the rest of his poor decisions and actions out of the light(perhaps, this is by design). The Iranian government has no fear of us. They have already tested our National and Military resolve in 1979 by seizing our Embassy and holding our people for 444 days. Then it was President Jimmy Carter, he tried only once militarily to rescue the hostages. He didn’t want to risk any “collateral damage” and used the wrong aircraft and put them in an untenable situation. But, with that half-hearted effort he could say “I tried”. Then he started negotiating with terrorists, a process that continues to this day. Now, President Obama thinks he and Secretary of State Kerry can negotiate with a corrupt and overbearing Regime(guess it takes one to know one). With a 6 month period to ensure that Iran is playing by the rules(they wanted)and then to negotiate a final solution.
Could you imagine a President in 1944 wanting to be “politically correct” and not wanting to cause any “collateral damage”? We were at war, and our Nation and Military took the fight to them with a “vengeance”. War is supposed to be Brutal, Ugly and Decisive. We do not declare “War” on anyone anymore, the new sanitized term is “A Use of Force Resolution”. Why is it we don’t declare “War” anymore? The answer is simple “money”. The Geneva Convention spells out the rules of War. Civilians are prohibited from participating, if they are caught(notice I did not say captured)on the Battlefield they are summarily executed. Go to Europe and ask any surviving Partisan Fighter. Another interesting fact, the pilots ferrying military aircraft in World War 2(men and women)were in uniform, even the Merchant Marine were uniformed. Now, we “capture” terrorists on the field of battle and give them protections under the Geneva Convention even though they wear no uniform(another requirement) and have actively participated in operations wounding or killing our military men and women and sabotage(planting roadside bombs). The current Administration has even tried some in the judicial system, where they were afforded Constitutional safeguards. Since the founding of the United Nations, we have not declared War, we have had Police Actions, Use of Force Resolutions and any other “politically correct” or “sanitized” term they could dream up. There are many civilians actively participating in Afghanistan as we speak and they are paid more than our Military personnel.
We abandoned Iraq because our President and his pompous Cabinet could not even negotiate a Status Of Forces Agreement(SOFA). The same fate awaits Afghanistan, we already have a withdrawal date. Disengaging from the enemy and pulling out of a fight before victory is achieved is an admission that your policy and resolve are weak. The word “negotiate” is starting to “tick” me off. This country wields great power(at least it used to), when you negotiate with any one you have just given up the upper hand. Basically, the current Administration’s Foreign Policy strategy is non-existent, and is only appeasing and emboldening our enemies. America will probably survive a continued bumbling foreign policy(or lack thereof). But, only if Iran doesn’t go nuclear, Egypt continues holding off the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria holds out against every terrorist group that has joined the fight and the rest of the Middle East doesn’t self destruct. And lets not forget about Africa. The Middle East might now have a different and better landscape now, if President Carter had acted with a stronger response demonstrating a stronger National resolve.
President Obama had his chance too. When the Iranian students were demonstrating and rioting our Government did nothing and stood by while they were crushed. Iran was weak(financially)and the regime could have been toppled(guess this was during the Arab Winter, and we were not available until spring). Then came Egypt, Mubarak was no saint, but he kept the Muslim Brotherhood at bay. Not to mention he was an ally of ours and a friend of Israel. Then came Libya, Who we had no quarrel with. Obama used our military might to bomb the country and topple Qaddafi. Then Low and Behold the Brotherhood showed up. This brought us to Benghazi, and the death of 4 Americans. The Syrian civil war was raging along splendidly, then Obama drew a red line in the sand. If Assad used chemical weapons, the U.S. would act. It was okay to shoot as many of them as possible, just don’t “gas” them. Chemical weapons were deployed, Obama threatened to act, but wanted approval from Congress, Obama drew his red line without the approval of Congress. The list of Foreign Policy failures continues and I am sure it will only get longer. Now, on to Senator John McCain, this dim wit says “I know who the good guys are”. News for you Senator,all of them are terrorists, they are there to get some experience and waiting for someone like you to give them some cool “toys”. One day I fear, in the near future our brave men and women in the military will have to face the same terrorists using our weapons and tactics(after all we are them training to fight like us).I can only hope that, that fight is on foreign soil and not here. Then you go and stick your nose in the affairs of the former U.S.S.R. Why is it that the politicians are so eager to meddle in other countries political processes, yet will use every Government agency here at home to terrorize or intimidate the good citizens of America? While you politicians in Washington were contemplating arming terrorist groups with fully automatic weapons. State and local politicians were seeking and passing laws restricting personal firearms and magazines of Law Abiding Citizens of America.
Another interesting fact, under the Geneva Convention, only “military ball”(full metal jacket) ammunition can be used on the battlefield. Why is it that our Federal Government bought up so much “hollow point” ammunition? Again I ask, What are these people afraid of? After all “hollow points” can not be used on the battlefield.
One last point, about the President being upstaged. It was Canada that got our people out of Iran, that were not taken hostage at the Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Shame on Jimmy Carter.