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.

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.

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.

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?

Inviting Disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 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.