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.


Just about tired of:

I for one am just about tired of hearing from the talking heads whether on TV, Radio, or in Print say that America needs put “boots on the ground” to fight and defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS. These talking heads fail to realize or do not care that each pair of boots will have one of Americas best standing in them. The one standing in those boots will be someone’s son or daughter, someone’s grandson or granddaughter, someone’s father or mother, someone’s husband or wife, someone’s cousin, niece, nephew, or friend or even someone’s grandfather or grandmother.
Why in Gods name would these blowhards even suggest that America’s best be sent into harms way while at the same time saying that there is no clear plan to defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS? If there is no plan to defeat, there is no plan to win. Are they actually suggesting that more of America’s best be wasted? Are they suggesting that more American service members be sent into yet another “meat-grinder” without the administration having the apparent will to win?

The possible reason that the term “boots on the ground” is so popular with the talking heads is that it removes the human from the equation. After all the boots are not the son or daughter of anyone, nor do boots have brothers or sisters. Boots have no family or friends at all. Boots are just inanimate objects. Putting boots on the ground will accomplish nothing, it takes a Human wearing those Boots to accomplish something. Boots can neither act or think. It is highly unlikely that the boots will feel any pain, but the human that wears them will, if only for a moment. Boots can not scream out in agony nor will they call for their mother, that again takes a human wearing those boots.

Unless these talking heads are willing to go to the Armed Forces recruiting station and sign up. Better yet, these same talking heads should take their own sons and/or daughters down to the nearest Armed Forces recruiting station and sign them up. If these talking heads are unwilling to do these things, they just need to shut the hell up. In other words “put up or shut up”. The talking heads in the media are willing to spend(waste)the lives of sons and daughters the same as politicians are willing to give away money. The politicians will give away all the money of other people, but not theirs. The talking heads are willing to waste the lives of the sons and daughters other people, but not theirs.

Would the talking heads be so vocal about putting boots on the ground if their sons or daughters were wearing those boots?

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 2 Israel and the Palestinians

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

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

On Exercising Restraint. I am getting mighty tired of Israel being told to exercise restraint when it comes to dealing with Terrorists, and especially the Palestinians. Israeli PM Netanyahu, the IDF and the Israelis in general have exercised extreme and remarkable restraint in the latest attacks by the Palestinian terrorists. It is by contrast that the Palestinians have exercised the total lack of restraint. The latest from the State Department is for both sides to exercise restraint. The current Administration and its merry band of minions in the State Department along with the MSM make it seem that the ratio of dead Israeli victims and dead Palestinian terrorists are disproportionate. What are they looking for a game of tit-for tat, one for one? Would they all rather that Israel wait for the number of Israeli killed by terrorists rise to the number of dead terrorists before more can be killed and then only in matching numbers? Excessive force and disproportionate numbers of dead are the constant talking points of the administration and the MSM.

While the current Administration and its merry band of minions call for both sides to exercise restraint, none of them demand that the Palestinians stop the attacks. This is by far the most telling of who the Administration supports. The Administration could use financial sanctions against the Palestinians by withholding funds to the Palestinian Authority until the attacks stop. But they have not taken this route nor will they. The citizens of our closest ally and friend in the Middle-East are being brutally and viciously attacked and the Administration keeps sending money to the ones doing the attacking. Go figure.

I wonder if the Administration would slap sanctions on Israel, if Israelis were the aggressors. I bet they would. I also wonder how much restraint BHO and his minions would demonstrate here in America if the situation were reversed. If the attackers were Muslims on Jews or Christians, would it be restraint or action? If the attackers were Jews or Christians on Muslims, would it be restraint or action? Think about it.

It makes no sense common or otherwise to demand restraint from the ones being victimized. It also makes no sense common or otherwise not to demand the attackers cease and desist. It does make sense common and otherwise to force and use force to stop the attack even if it seems excessive. If the attack is vicious and brutal the response must be overwhelming and not a weak or half-hearted response.

Israel lives in a rough neighborhood and each day is a fight for survival. The citizens of Israel and indeed Israel itself have a right to self-defense. The Administration and the merry band of minions, or at least most of them, have only “fought for survival” during the “Black Friday” sales.

Common sense and indeed logic would dictate that if you are under attack you should respond with even more determination than the attacker. Furthermore the attacker showed no restraint in his or her actions and the intended victim should show no restraint in defending themselves. There is the right to defend oneself and there is an obligation to defend others who are not capable of defending themselves. We are our brothers keeper as well as our sisters keeper. The Jews are the brothers and sisters of Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Random thoughts

On so-called conservative politicians. Getting pretty tired of hearing how you plan to stop the liberal progressive agenda. You continually promise and never deliver. Now you plan to de-fund planned parenthood due to the video of how Planned Parenthood sells organ and parts of human beings. Yes I said human beings, that is what abortion does it kills a human being before birth. This is not the first time the so-called conservatives have threatened to de-fund Planned Parenthood. You failed to do it then and you will fail to do it now. More on Planned Parenthood later. Lets look at some of the other broken promises you have made, I only refrain from saying the lies you sold the voters, no I will not refrain, you lied to the voters. Not only have you lied you will continue to do so until your butts are out of office. You promised that the only way to stop the liberal agenda was for the republicans to control the House. You got control of the House of representatives and you did not stop them, nor did you try, Oh you did a few show votes, but to no avail. That was only done to fool the voters. Looking back it was effective. Next you claimed that if you only had the Senate as well as the House you could make things happen. So far that has been another lie. You had a show vote and it too was to no avail. You ran on promises of de-funding Obamacare, stopping amnesty for illegals and whatever else you could think of to again fool the voters. Again it was effective you got what you wanted, the voters again got nothing. Nothing you promised has been delivered, again broken promises or were they lies. When “push came to shove” you funded every aspect of the government, even those you promised not to fund. You complain when BHO takes more power and steps outside of the Constitution. Then what do you do ? You grant him more power. You refuse to act, the courts get to decide and again you complain. You are self-serving, the constituents are not represented, you represent the Lobbyists and special interest groups. You no longer feel honored to serve. You fatten your bottom line at the expense of the tax-payers. You have forgotten who it is that you work for.

It is time for a Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment. At the present time there are two Mr. Smiths and one Ms. Smith in the field of sixteen. Personally I am looking forward to the debate next week. The only thing that worries me about the Smiths is the possibility that they will start to use the establishment politicians tactic of telling the voters what they want to hear, instead of what needs to be said.

My vote is no longer guaranteed. If you want my vote it will need to be earned, just like my respect. As of this moment the only respect you get is respect for the office you hold, none for you. If you have not earned my vote you will not get it. No more promises will be accepted, action is what I and so many seek from you. No more excuses. No more pity parties.

Now back to Planned Parenthood. You at this point remind me of the German people living in towns and villages near the Nazi Concentration Camps. You act surprised and disgusted by what was happening right under your noses as they did. They claimed to not know what was happening just as you do. They only found out when the activities were exposed. What was it you thought was being done with all of those aborted human beings? You may be disgusted and outraged by the sale of organs and parts of aborted human beings, and you should be. Would you be so vocal if the public was not made aware of the goings on? You would not be using this atrocious activity for personal or political gain would you? So now you again plan to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you think that de-funding that cancer on society will stop their criminal activity? I would hope that there is a law on the books prohibiting the sale of human body parts. Oh, that’s right there is. You only seek to de-fund them. Why are the participants not being prosecuted?

There are two parts to this Planned Parenthood equation. And I use this same equation on the issue of slavery.
The first part of the equation is Planned Parenthood offering the organs and parts of aborted human beings for sale. This in itself is despicable and a down right sin. Just like in slavery there has to be one entity willing to offer a person for sale. Slavery and Planned Parenthood have this in common, a person or parts of a person are viewed as property and are placed on the open market for sale.
The second part of the equation is that there must be someone willing to buy what Planned Parenthood has offered for sale. The same as it was for slavery, someone must be willing to buy the slave. One can only buy what is being sold.

Which is the most evil? The Seller? the Buyer?

I have not read or heard of anyone demanding a “client” list for what Planned Parenthood has up for sale. Is it being done on the open market? Is it an underground market? What are the organs and parts of aborted human beings being used for? If it is illegal to sell human body parts, it makes sense that purchasing the same would be just as illegal. Could the “client” list be so damming that it would be an embarrassment to someone, is that why no one has brought-up the prosecution question?

De-funding criminal activity does not stop criminal activity. Prosecution will at least slow it down. What are you waiting for?