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?

Maybe this explains it

There has to be a reason why the political elite and the political powerbrokers are still trying to derail the Trump Train, and this may just explain it.

First Donald J. Trump got where he is in the presidential primary process not because of them, but in spite of them, even their best efforts to stop him failed. He spent his own money, not the money from the usual cast of characters. That must really tick them off. Not only did he spend his own money, he spent less than the political insiders. He spent less because it was his money, and not other people’s money. This is something politicians will never grasp, they spend other people’s money when they should be spending money like it was their own. If they did the nation would not be 19 trillion in debt.

Second the establishment politicians have let the conservatives down for far too long. The political elite, the powerbrokers and their surrogates claim that Trump is not conservative enough or a true conservative. For far too long the voters have had to support the so-called conservative candidate the republican party wanted. When they are elected the vast majority of them act a liberal socialist progressives. We have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and caused a revolution in the republican party. The voters will decide who is conservative enough to represent them and your party not you. This must really tick you off, to that I say good. You have been ticking us off long enough. We are now the adults in the room.

Third the voters are tired of being lied to. Donald J. Trump has not even officially won the primary process as of yet and is already fulfilling campaign promises. Imagine that, as impossible as it sounds, we have a man running in the primaries and he is already fulfilling campaign promises. Not exactly a quality of a career politician, is it?

Fourth Donald J. Trump appeals to the voters, look at the number of votes he has already amassed in the primaries and it is not over yet. The people must feel that they will finally have a voice in government. Not only that, there is finally a presidential candidate that speaks to the voters, not the lobbyists, special interest groups or donors. Some talking heads claim that the Trump Train is a cult of personality. I disagree with them, but I will say that at least Trump has some personality, unlike the previous nominees and the establishment politicians that were in this primary at the start. The last two republican nominees were whipped in the general elections, so much for electability.

Fifth you are afraid of Trump. Perhaps you fear a Trump presidency more than you fear a Clinton presidency. Do you fear Trump because of what he might or might not do? Are you afraid that the game might be up? Do you fear exposure of your past misdeeds?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist or Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incrementalism and Gradualism Engineering the means to the ends Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Are you being conditioned?

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