And then what?

Is a Civil War possible here in America? I would have to say, Yes. So with that in mind, I looked into 3 Wars in the past a War of Aggression and Conquest, a Revolution and a Civil War. I did this looking for similarities and how the circumstances of each could come into play in modern America and in fact the World.

A Civil War is defined as; a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

By the definition above there is no way possible that the War of Aggression and Conquest 1861-1865 could have or should have ever been called the American Civil War. It was not the citizens of the North fighting amongst themselves, and it certainly was not the citizens of the South fighting amongst themselves.

There was another definition; a war waged to overthrow the government of ones own country. Even by this definition the War of Aggression and Conquest could not be called a Civil War. There were two distinct countries involved. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America, the Union and the Confederacy. The Confederacy nor the citizens of the Confederacy did not wage a war with the Union to overthrow the government of the United States of America. The citizens of the Confederacy certainly did not wage war against the Confederate States of America in an attempt to overthrow the government of the Confederacy.

There was even another definition; a war waged between geographic regions within the same country. While this definition comes close, it still does not fit the bill. True enough North and South are two geographic regions and they could be regions in and of the same country. The only way the War of Aggression and Conquest meets this definition is that the Confederate States of America was in the South, and the United States of America was in the North. America from the time of the Articles of Confederation until now has always been two countries in one, in more ways than one.

There was yet another definition; a war waged between political factions. A war based on politics now this really comes close, nearly a “perfect match”, close but no “cigar”. I encourage you to dive deep into this area on your own. There is much hiding in the shadows in American politics, then and now. Politics and politicians started the rift and placed the kindling.

It was not the Confederacy that started the war, the Confederacy was forced to fight. Forced to fight for its survival. But just what was the Confederacy fighting for? You can answer this for yourselves. But you must look at the reasons and the timing of the Southern States seceding. First was South Carolina then 6 more for a total of 7. Later 4 more seceded for a total of 11. Then look at what would be the benefit(s) of remaining in the Union. You may be surprised at what you find.

The Russian Revolution 1917. This was a two stage Revolution. First Removing the Czar in February(forced abdication and subsequent arrest). Second the “Reds” coming to power in October. Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. This was a Civil War based on politics and political factions, citizens fighting citizens within the same country, overthrowing a government. At the conclusion General Franco became dictator(1939-1975). Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

So let’s get back to the question, is a Civil War possible in America? My answer was and is Yes. If or when it happens it will not be a repeat of 1861-1865, it instead will be a combination of the Russian Revolution(1917)and the Spanish Civil War(1936-1939). The ground work has been laid, the kindling is in place, put there by the activists just waiting for a spark.

America is a nation divided, always has been always will be. This is best proven by some of the founding documents, most notably the Constitution. The Constitution established a government based on compromise. The Framers made compromises to get a document that enough states would support. Each state got a little through negotiation but no one got everything they wanted. Negotiation was the key, though now it has been made apparent that not all of the delegates negotiated in good faith. The big government types left themselves a little “wiggle room” in the Constitution but said there was nothing to fear.

America is at this point more divided than ever, and unfortunately it appears that compromising and negotiating will not and can not heal or even lessen the divide. Some groups want what they want and will resort to violence or threats of violence to get it. It is difficult, no impossible, to negotiate with a person or a group who is unwilling to make a compromise. Strangely enough most of the divisions in this Republic today are based on politics and demagoguery instead of geographical/cultural differences.

Think on this for just a moment. How many in America are calling President Trump an illegitimate president. There has been a lot of time and energy devoted/wasted trying to tie the election of President Trump to Russian influence in our elections. There are even some democrats seeking to find ways to remove President Trump from office, whether by impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment. They want him out of office voluntarily(abdicate)or forced(impeached or the 25th). They would probably rather that he just abdicate, not as messy. I suspect that some republicans fit into this as well.

How many in America are promoting, supporting and encouraging violence as an end to political differences? The most prevalent in this area are the entertainers. There is another aspect to consider when examining the Spanish Civil War. The Fifth Column, the enemy within. Four columns assaulting from outside and the fifth on the inside aiding the four. Think about this, we can all agree that the Media is against President Trump, that could be one column. The anti-fascist element, that could be another column. The illegal aliens could be another column. Those who fall into the heated and inflammatory rhetoric could be yet another column. But who or what would make up the Fifth Column, the enemy within, the enemy among us?

So what would happen if Civil War was visited upon this Republic, citizens taking up arms against their fellow citizens? Will/would it just happen or would/will it be forced to happen? First let me say this; There will only be fighters and victims. The surest way to become a victim is not to pick a side, there will be no fence-setters. The federal government will step in and depending on who heads the government depends on how heavy the hand is. Martial Law will most certainly be declared as Local Law-Enforcement will quickly be overwhelmed. The Writ of Habeas Corpus will most certainly be suspended. The Military will be placed between a rock and a hard place, they will be forced to either take up arms against their fellow citizens or take up arms against their brothers. The same goes for Law-Enforcement. The entire country will be put between a rock and a hard place.

People should spend some time thinking about the aftermath of a Civil War. There will be no way back, not for this Republic, it will cease to exist. The land will still exist but the dream will be extinguished. Atrocities and Retributions will abound during and after the fighting, especially after. They always do.

There is another thing to consider. If there is a Civil War there will be a vacuum, a vacuum that must and will be filled. What will fill the vacuum? Look at the Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine.

There is another thing to consider. The Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine have had little effect on the global economy. What effect would be felt by the global economy if America were to fall into a Civil War? Something tells me that the U.S. is not going to have a Civil War for purely financial reasons. The reason is that it is not time to sink the global economy, not yet anyway. Even the smartest animal trainer knows that the animal they have trained so well and for so long can turn on them at a moments notice. Just because the time is not right for them it may happen(ready or not)anyway.

Just in case the handlers may have “hedged” their bets. Remember back to the “Fast and Furious” gun running episode. Did all of the guns find their way to Mexico? Would it be possible that some of them did but the majority of them are still in America? A possible cache for a possible Fifth Column. You would want your side to come out on top.

A Civil War would usher out the last President and Usher in the first Dictator. Who will/would be which?

So let me ask those who think violence is the way to solve/settle political differences this; Are those that inspire you to action insulated from what they cause? You can bet that they are. Most if not all of those who inspire your acts of violence are nothing more than “attention whores”, they say what they say just to get attention. Learn to think or yourself. You at present are acting out on their behalf.

Be careful what you ask for and understand the consequences, intended and unintended.

What was done with it?

Today marks the 73rd Anniversary of the D-Day Landings in Normandy, France. Tuesday June the 6th 1944 Operation Neptune, from the sea. Sadly some in America and Europe, especially France, will go through this day without even a thought of the events of 73 years ago.

Most of Western Europe had been overrun by Adolph Hitler and his German Military. Entire countries were occupied by the Nazis. Groups of people had been rounded up and placed in concentration camps. People were executed or exterminated for their religions or for a myriad of other reasons or for no reason at all, millions of people were killed. Some of the people of the occupied countries collaborated with the occupying Nazis. Some of the people of the occupied countries continued the fight, the resistance, after their military forces surrendered to the Germans.

The Great Crusade, Operation Overlord. The military intent of Operation Overlord was to drive the German forces from the occupied countries of Western Europe and ultimately to destroy the German Military. A Crusade to return to the people what had been taken from them in conquest, their land and homes. The German military was a Military of Conquest. The Allied Military was a Military of Liberation.

The Crusaders landed at Normandy then moved across Western Europe. They drove out the Conquerors and gave the lands back to the people. The lands were Liberated and then given back to the rightful owners, France was given back to the French and so forth. The Liberated countries were once again free to chart their own destinies. Free from occupation. Sound familiar?

That was then this is now.
Western Europe is once again being invaded, not by a foreign military but a foreign religion. The new invasion is not like the last. The last time was with force, military force. This time it is being done with immigration, the invaders are actually being invited in. They are being allowed in. The new normal, Terrorists and Terrorism. Who would have ever thought that living with Terrorists and Terrorism would be considered “part and parcel” of normal life in the civilized West? Is that not what some of your “exalted Leaders” have said? Or at least something similar?

Now to the Citizens of the Western European countries. On this day go and visit the graveyards of those who died helping to Liberate you and your lands from the last invading hoards. Hundreds of Thousands, if not Millions of brave men gave their lives to rescue you from invaders and occupiers. As you visit the grave sites ask yourself a question. Have I done them justice? Reflect on this for just a minute. Men died helping during the effort to Liberate you and your lands, Crusaders. Men also died in effort to keep your lands occupied and keep you as a conquered people, Conquerors.

What did you do with it when it was Liberated and given back to you?

You, the citizens of Western Europe may yet lose your lands because of the latest “invasion”. Unless you come to your senses and exercise some common sense. It will not be taken from you, you will instead give it away. You may once again need to be Liberated. Crusaders may be in short supply. Your own doing will be your undoing. It is hard to save one from ones self. I do pray for Europe and the citizens of Europe everyday. I pray that you come to your senses before it is too late.

Do not look to be Liberated again from “across the pond”. We too seem too be lacking in the area of exercising some common sense. We may just be too busy to come to your aid, not because we don’t want to, but because we won’t be able to. I also pray for this Republic and the citizens of this Republic everyday. I also pray that we come to our senses before it is too late.

I and many others have said that not all Muslims, followers of Islam, are terrorists. It is time for the non-terrorist Muslims, followers of Islam, to step forward and prove it. Not with words but with deeds.

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.

-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?

How on earth did America reach this low point?

Perhaps a better question would be, How low will America sink? I’m not even talking about the presidential primaries or the conventions, though that seems to be the subject of the times. what I am talking about is America in general and the American citizens in particular.

Is it the state(condition) of America dragging down the citizens or is it the state(condition) of the citizens dragging America down? The answer to this question is that one feeds off of the other in what appears to be a never-ending cycle.

The current state(condition)of America.
If America were a person in the Emergency Room what level of care would be needed? America is by no means in a condition of being placed on Life Support, but the Vital Signs are not good and treatment is required to prevent a further deterioration in Vital Signs. Much like a person America could only end up in the Emergency Room for Illness or Injury or both. Triage would reveal the reason and course of treatment. The triage would reveal that there is both an Illness and an Injury that has caused the continued decay and decline in America. But there is a Cure.

The decline of America and the American citizens began with the birth or more aptly the creation of Generation E. The American government created the E Generation, and the created Generation E has given birth to millions who are a part of Generation E. To answer the question, What is Generation E? Generation E is the Entitlement Generation, the Generation that believes that they are Entitled to anything and everything. Not only are the good and decent citizens forced to contend with and support the Entitlement Generation, we are forced to contend with Generation O and Generation D. In case you are wondering, Generation O is the Offended(by any and everything)Generation, and Generation D is the Dependent(on government for any and everything)Generation.

In the not to distant past there was one constant that kept America safe and strong and that was the citizens. When Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor it was done so to deal a death-blow to the U.S Military and especially the U.S. Navy in the Pacific. Japan did not attack or attempt an invasion on America for one simple reason, an outright invasion of America would have come at an extremely high price and the price was unaffordable to Japan. Had Japan mounted an outright invasion of America, Japan would have faced a heavily armed population. Not only were the citizens armed but they were a hardy and hardened lot. It was famously said by one Japanese “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. The Japanese were ambitious not crazy. It is my opinion that no country on earth would attack America for the very same reason.

In 1941 there were many veterans of WW 1 still among the citizenry and still relatively young and able-bodied hardened by war and further hardened by the Great Depression. Many of the population still lived in rural areas on farms and ranches. They too were hardened by the Great Depression. The people in the rural areas had to make do with what they had and make the best of it. These people had skills, farming skills, raising their own food and hunting skills(actually going into the woods and mountains and taking game)to feed their families. If things were needed that they could not afford they made up for the lack of cash by trading and bartering. They made do without government handouts. They endured the hardships and pressed on. That was then.

This is now. Look around the general public today, you will see many(to many)that are lazy and fat. You see many that will not do for themselves, they expect and even demand that the government do and provide for them. These are the same ones that do nothing to better themselves. These are the ones that feel that they are entitled to something, everything and anything even though they have never earned it. They feel Entitled and are Offended if someone insist that they provide for themselves and have become Dependent on government. They have been Conditioned to believe that the government provides Free Services(Welfare), the government does provide Welfare, but it is not Free, for the government to Give to one it must first be Taken from another. Does anyone really believe that these people know what a true hardship is? They will stand in line for hours upon hours or even camp-out in front of a store just to be the first or among the first to buy the latest electronic gadget or game or to see a movie. But they will not stand in line to do their civic duty and vote. If they do vote and have to wait in line they claim that is not fair or places an undue hardship on them and demand that the government do something. They readily show photo ID to by beer and liquor but cry foul if they must show ID to vote. The only hardship these people know is if they can not acquire the latest electronic gadget or if there reality show gets cancelled. This is the Illness.

The preceding paragraph was not written for every citizen, if it does not apply to you then you will recognize that fact. At the same time those that it does apply to will not recognize that it was written for and about them. Would anybody really expect these people to come to the defense of this country? Would they be willing to lay down their gadgets and pick up a rifle and get behind a blade of grass? I submit that they would not. They would rather submit to an enemy than Offend the same enemy.

Sadly there are not any veterans of WW1 among us now they have all since passed. However, we are fortunate to still have among us some veterans of WW 2, Korea and Viet Nam these too are hardy and hardened men and women. But sadly they are growing old and they too will pass from us in the not to distant future. Additionally we still have among us the veterans of Desert Storm, of which I am one and we too are aging and undoubtedly will also pass from existence. As will the ones who follow.

One undeniable fact is that the Entitled, Offended and Dependent Generations exist in every generation from the Depression era to the present.

Governments role in the decline of America. Where should I start?
Should I start with Tariffs? Tariffs are no more than a tax. A tax placed on goods imported that is paid wholly by the consumer. The tax is not paid by the overseas manufacturer. The tax is not paid by the exporting country. The tax is paid by the consumer in the importing nation to the government of the importing country.
Should I start with Subsidies? Subsidies are no more than corporate welfare. They are used to prop up businesses or industries that the government says provides a benefit. The only one that benefits is the business or industry. Subsidies are paid for with tax dollars. The consumer pays the subsidy(if they pay taxes)and still pays for the product. Buying one thing twice.
Should I start with the other subsidy, Welfare? Yes welfare is a subsidy. The tax payers are forced to subsidize the lifestyles of others that will not or choose not to finance their lifestyles for themselves. There are many welfare cases that are generational. A reward for bad behavior and bad decisions.
Should I start with Income Taxes? Income taxes are at this point a penalty for producing. Welfare is a reward for not producing.
Should I start with the National Debt? Nearing 20 trillion dollars in debt, money spent buying votes and friends. Please explain to me how everything that was taken in was spent or wasted and why you had to borrow an additional 20 trillion dollars to continue spending or wasting.
The list goes on and on. This is the Injury.

Taxes at the outset were intended for the Welfare(Well-Being)of the Nation. They were intended to fund the needful functions of Government, they were not intended to subsidize the less fortunate and especially not the lazy and slothful. There was warning from long-ago that went something like this; The Republic is in danger of failure when the populace discovers they can and then begin voting themselves money from the national treasury. They discovered it, they do it and the Republic is in great peril.

If you need proof that America is in decline you need to look no further that this. Some men that claim to feel like a woman demand to use facilities for women. The state says no, men use men’s rooms and women use women’s rooms. Then some federal government knucklehead says that might be discrimination based on sex. Some men feel Entitled to use women’s rooms based on how they feel and are Offended that they can’t and are Dependent on government to force the women to comply and allow men in the women’s rooms. College students that seek counseling because they were traumatized by someone writing in chalk “Trump” on a sidewalk.

There is another aspect to “Making America Great Again”, other than bringing back jobs and money from overseas, though that would be nice. What is needed to make America great again is for the American citizens to make themselves great again. The citizens need a revival of the American Spirit. American citizens need to become hardy and hardened. American citizens need to return to the practice of Self-Reliance and become Self-Dependent. Rely and Depend on ones own self. Stop being lazy and slothful. Learn to live with-in one’s own means. Learn to make do. Become the one behind the blade of grass. This is the cure so to speak.

America is great, always has been, always will be. The government and some of the citizens are dragging her down. Every time I hear a political clown claiming that he or she will shrink the “size and scope” of government I just bust out laughing. No politician has any intention of shrinking the federal government, I especially get a kick out of one claiming to abolish the IRS. Just how does one abolish a federal government agency? No politician will shrink the federal government in size or scope. If the federal government were to be shrunk, that would in theory return power to either the state or to the people. Do you really think the federal government would empower the states much less the people? Government at all levels is about power and control. What we the people should be concerned with is, when will the government gain absolute power and total control? If and when government gains absolute power and total control over the people it will be because the citizens allowed it to happen.

All of the Kings, Tyrants and Dictators of the world have always feared one thing and one thing only, and that is a nation of Free People. America was founded as a Free Nation(at that time Free and Independent States)inhabited by a Free People Governed by Consent. It is my opinion, If the nation continues down the current path the nation will no longer be a Free Nation inhabited by a Free People governed by Consent, it will become a Nation Ruled by Force with no free inhabitants.

So I now ask what is it that keeps our enemies from our shores? I can assure you that it is not the Entitled, Offended or Dependent Generations. The answer simply put is that there are still enough Hardy and Hardened Americans to make the cost to high to bear. The downside to this is that time and laziness has taken a terrible toll on the Hardy and Hardened.

To answer the Question, How low will America sink? To the very bottom if the people do not wake up and start acting like the Americans and if the government does not start governing as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Both must happen. So which are you ? Part of the Illness? Part of the Injury? Are you willing to be part of the Cure.

The problem with establishment politicians

This goes for politicians at all levels federal, state and local they just plain do not get it. What they just do not get is the fact that the citizens are getting fed up with their greed, corruption and partisan politics.

This is especially true for the GOP. The republican party has disappointed the voters constantly. Making then breaking promises to the voters. It seems that many conservatives in name only say what the voters want to hear then do what ever they or the establishment want as soon as they take office. Well GOP, like it or not the voters are fed up with you, your lies and your politics as usual. I should not be taking such “liberties” with my interpretation with what is happening in the GOP primary process, so from this moment on I will stick with my opinion and stop trying to interpret the action of others.

You will notice above that I called them Conservative In Name Only(CINO) and not Republican In Name Only(RINO), that is because they do not understand the principles of Conservatism. If one does not know or understand the principles of conservatism, how can one claim to be a conservative? As a reminder to the ones who claim the mantle of being a conservative, these are some of the principles of Conservatism; 1: Lower Taxes 2: A Limited Government 3: A Strong National Defense 4: Individual Financial Responsibility. If you can not live up to at least these four principles (these are the easy ones)of conservatism then please stop calling yourself a Conservative.

What the establishment GOP does understand is the principle of big government, which is understandable because the Republican party, yes the party of Lincoln was founded in and on the principles of a big centralized government. The federal government has been growing in size and scope since Lincoln was elected and will continue even after this election.

Another problem with establishment politicians is that they engage in partisan politics. The word partisan takes on a whole new meaning with used in conjunction with politics. The political partisans are nothing like the partisans of WW 2. When someone engages in partisan politics, this is the result, A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance. When a politician engages in partisan politics he/she is only concerned with what is best for the party or the person who best represents the best interests of the party, the party supporters(donors) or special interest groups(lobbyists). Little if any concern is given for what is best for the nation as a whole. The motto of the establishment is “Party First, Foremost and Always”.

The federal government will continue to grow until conservatism and the principles of conservatism come back to America as a way of life. The time has come when the GOP establishment must and will take a back-seat to the voters. There must be a reason the two GOP candidates who do not represent the establishment are winning and leading in the delegate count must be doing so for a reason.

Now on to matter that is near and dear to my heart, the Florida primaries are coming up. You can bet your bottom dollar that an establishment candidate will not get my vote. Not only is the primary coming up, we in Marion County have another issue on the ballot. We are expected to vote yes or no to increased sales tax to fund roads and public safety. A voluntary tax of 1% for four long years. The Marion County Commission has somehow managed to get that on the ballot, typical politicians. There are a present signs going up around Marion County, that read “Road Project Ahead Pending Sales Tax Approval”, these politicians must be kidding. The ones that I have seen are located north of the intersections of CR 25A and CR 329 just before the Lowell Post Office and north of the intersection of CR 315 and CR 316 just before the Ft. McCoy Post Office and I am sure there are more. Making and putting up these signs must have cost money, money that could have been put to better use, maybe road maintenance, but no it was wasted making stupid signs. These signs in my opinion are to put a “guilt trip” on the voters. Go out and see for yourselves, shining examples of waste, fraud and abuse at the county level. This ballot initiative will get a big fat NO from me. If you can waste tax money-making signs, what else have you wasted money on? You waste money and you want me to give you more, “fat chance”. Not only do you want the voters to voluntarily pay more taxes, you will raise the millage rates on property taxes. You want the people to give more and then you will take more. I guess the Marion County Commission calls that a “little give and take”.

Some of my Conservative brothers and sisters are calling for more like Ronald Reagan, I personally am calling for more like Thomas Jefferson. Short of a Jefferson or a Reagan I will settle for a Trump or a Cruz.

Wrong again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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