Friday, August 30, 2013

Who we should REALLY be bombing AND "oopsies" I'd LOVE to see.

     Our beloved Holy Messianistic Fuhrer, Barack Obama decided today that if neccessary, America would "go it alone" in Syria. The Awesome Rockstar also said "there would be no 'boots on the ground'" should we have to bomb the crap out of Syria.
     Pardon me for bringing up Bush, but didn't Our Most Omnipotent Wookie shagger say words to the effect that "Bush was responsible for the decline of respect of America with his bombings"? Didn't Obama also infer he had sufficient foreign policy "experience" because he had lived overseas as a child? And didn't he also say that the world would LOVE Obama and the Muslims would no longer attack America because Der Lord und Savior Obama willed it?
     I'm sorry for bringing up Il Douche's words.
     Don't say I'm a racist for mentioning that. I've heard it before and the liberal's use of the R-word has made it null and void.
     I'd like to bring up a few technical points, since The All-Knowing, All-Seeing Il Douche won't.
     First is the use of chemical weapons. It's STANDARD DOCTRINE IN ALL ARMIES to give your troops notice you're going to be popping off a chemical weapon. This gives them time to put on gas masks (personal protective masks for us military types), and their chemical suits. You can put on a mask and achieve a proper face-to-mask seal in 7-12 SECONDS, (depending on which mask you have).
     So, why are there military casualties? Given that Syria (like any nation) has a finite number of troops or people they can take from the workforce, why would Assad kill his OWN troops? Why would he kill his own citizens?
     Some will say he did it to blame on the "rebels."
     But yet, using a chemical weapon crosses a line leading to sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic issues and ultimately war. Does anyone REALLY think Assad WANTS to start shooting at Americans?
     Assad needs a bullet in his head, but not at this moment BECAUSE he's fighting those "rebels." "Rebels" from most Muslim countries--and Muslims from other countries--including AMERICA. "Rebels" with links to Al Qaida (whatever!).
     The All-Idiotic Obama forgets "history." History shows that REBELS are those who LIVE in the country BEFORE the revolution, not show up afterwards. These "heroic rebel groups" are terrorists, pure and simple.
     Now let's say Obama is stupid enough to ignore 94% of the American people DO NOT want America doing anything in, to, or against Syria. For purposes of blogging, Imagine when The Nobel Peace Prize Winner starts dropping bombs like 60's "hippies" dropped their pants.
     Unless there's ABSOLUTE PROOF, verified by independent, reliable sources, we should be bombing the crap out of these so-called "rebels."
     Rebels first, Assad later.
     Remember the SEQUESTER? Yes, that budget-cutting, money saving device Obama was for before he was against it, or is that the other way around?
     Il Douche gives the order, the planes should go out and drop their bombs.
     Imagine the scene: Pilots return to base, all jubilant and proud for fighting "at Obama's behest" (yes, Obama did say that!) and head to debriefing.
     "You were supposed to bomb this target HERE...not THERE. You bombed the shit out of the rebels!"
    "Oops! The sequester cuts cut into our maintenance budget. The computer said we were HERE, not THERE."
     "I turned on the cockpit light and there was a short in the system somewhere, because the bombs fell off the plane. I really hope no soldiers were hurt."
     "I've been bombing Al Qaida for so long, I don't know how to bomb anyone else!"
     And the classic all combat arms soldiers know...
     "I'm a young second know better to trust my overeducated, inexperienced ass with radios, GPS, maps, and BOMBS...."


Thursday, August 29, 2013

Why Russia is backing Syria and the consequences of revolution

     Tonight, I'm going to talk about why I think Russia is backing Assad.
     DISCLAIMER: my knowledge of the Middle East is a bit dated, but I believe my premises are still valid.
    1: Syria is the only "serious" jumping point to Israel and Lebanon. If the Russians REALLY decided to change things via bayonet, Syria is the place they'll base troops. If they take Lebanon, they are in a GREAT position to threaten the Suez Canal, Israel, and the Mediterranean in general.

     2: Russia has problems with Muslims too. Chechnya is a major sore point for them. (The Boston Bombing suspects emigrated from Chechnya and even called there AFTER the bombings). No love lost between the Russians and Muslims.
     The Russians know WHAT they're getting with President Assad. 
     An quotation attributed to several AMERICAN Presidents, including FDR goes like, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch."
     Assad is Putin's son-of-a-bitch. Not because of money, but because the alternative is far worse.
     Don't get me wrong, President Bashir Assad needs a .50 frontal lobotomy performed ASAP. He's supported terrorism across the Middle East for years. He needs to go bye-bye, whether by ballot, rope or a bullet.
     Therein lies the problem.
     A partial quote from Rudyard Kipling:

    "Stick to the Devil you know." 

     Why is Putin is sticking to the Devil he knows?
     No matter how you cut it, Syria WAS a stable nation. Tyrannical, but INTERNALLY stable. Say what you want again, but Assad has REAL control of his chemical weapons.
     What happens IF the "rebels" (you know, those fun-loving, pranking Muslims working with Al-Qaida) take control of Syria?
     If they take control, they ultimately get hold of all those chemical weapons and delivery systems. Israel could be attacked as a warm-up exercise. If Israel's nuclear weapons policy is like ours, Damascus will have a 2 million degree sunrise an hour after any chemical attack is proven. (US Policy states WE will NOT use nuclear weapons in a first strike, but we retain the right to use them in retaliation for a WMD attack).

     Consider the "new government" does NOT use those chemical weapons. They just sit on them and think for a moment.
     In the meantime, Russia would instantly lose their influence and port of call privileges in Syria. And it gets WORSE.

     What happens AFTER the "revolution?"
     One only has to look at Egypt to answer that question. The Muslim Brotherhood acted like a spoiled child given the keys to the gun cabinet, the liquor cabinet, the car, and Dad's ATM card. The Egyptians bought the promises, put up with creeping Sharia law for about a year and threw the MB out. Clearly, the Egyptians do NOT want the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

     For purposes of discussion, let's say Der Holy Lord and Savior Mommy-Daddy Obama gets his way and Syria is taken over by those outrageous party animals, the Muslim Brotherhood.
     What happens next?
     After a healthy dose of ethnic and religious cleansing, the Muslim Brotherhood will eventually get control of the chemical weapons and decide where to use them.

     Leon Uris wrote in his novel "The Haj" a line which must be seriously considered. The following is NOT a perfect quote, but close enough for blogging purposes.
     "The Druze against the Sunni, the Sunni against the Shi'ite and all of us against the infidel."
     Radical Muslims HATE infidels. However, they have a special brand of hatred for Communists (and probably their descendants because of Chechnya. Given how Chechnya is fighting/has fought the Russians, it would not be too hard to imagine a few of those chemical weapons going to Chechnya to help out their beleagured brothers in their jihad. Putin would not be pleased, but would give the order to nuke/gas someone.
     Ask yourself this: What did WE do when the Soviet Union decided to put nukes on Cuban soil? We made them back down because there was no way we would tolerate such a threat to our security.
     Why should Putin tolerate a threat to HIS security?
     I'm no Putin fan, but his keeping America out of Syria make more sense than Il Douche's idea of going in.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Who will benefit from an attack on Syria?

     Let me see if I get this right:
     Syrian President Assad allegedly uses chemical weapons against his own people, KNOWING he would make Syria a pariah in the eyes of the world.
     Is it me, or does that sound like rather stupid/suicidal behavior from a maniac desperate to maintain power and stay alive?
     Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting the VICTIMS of the chemical weapons attack say the attack came from the REBELS. (You know, those wonderful misunderstood friendly Muslims with links to Al Qaida.)
      WHY would the REBELS do this?
     Because they are NOT going to win. Syria's army is too big, too well-trained (for an Arab army) and even with foreign aid and weapons coming to them, they cannot win, especially with Russia and China backing Syria.
     Their only hope is to get the United States to bomb the crap out of Assad (in the name of 'retaliation') in the hopes of weakening his regime so they can take over and impose a Sharia-based Muslim government.
     NATURALLY, this "attack" will "not be to destroy the infrastructure of Syria" but to retaliate/punish Assad for use of chemical weapons (while conveniently helping the rebels).
     We bomb Syria. That is an act of war.
     By rights, Syria could LEGALLY declare war on the US and here comes the next wave of terrorists. (Realistically, the Syrians CANNOT sustain an invasion/attack against the USA, but they can make life hell.)Supporting the rebels is an act of war (depending on if Russia and China want to make a big deal out of it).
     And what do we get for supporting the rebels? They're not going to renounce their ties to Al Qaida, they're not going to love the United States. They're not going to do anything in return. Maybe once they take over Syria, they might consider attacking Israel, but that's about it.
     It's a lose-lose proposition.
     But tie this into the next upcoming bitch-slap for Il Douche.
     The March on DC.
     I think Obama is scared shitless at the thought of being in DC that week. Last count I saw at the Patriots' Guild FB page had up to 3 million unarmed citizens being in DC that week, plus up to 1 million armed citizens being just across the Potomac in VA.
     Absent a strike in Syria, this march could become one of the pivotal moments in American--if not WORLD history. Under the right circumstances, it would be VERY likely we hear "Hail to the Chief" played for Joe Biden.
     Unless Obama finds a suitable a distraction.
     It's not in the interests of the United States to get involved in a war that A: we have no part in and B: does not benefit us in any way.
     The only person who will benefit is Obama.

Pattern of my life....

     Tuesday afternoon, I was helping a co-worker move a fridge. Dipshit wannabe thug in one of those blinged out cars T-boned us. (at least it wasn't MY truck). I hit my head against something and was dizzy and seeing double for a while. Wound up spending the night in the hospital as a precaution while they checked me for head injury. (Irony, I didn't even break the skin, but how the F I wound up with a concussion, I don't know!) Doc said the good news was that I wasn't gonna die on them. Bad news is that I am the prown owner of a "Type 2" knee sprain. (as bad as you can get before you need surgery to fix it) and I can't do anything strenuous for at least two weeks, including standing for long periods of time.
     That means I'm NOT going to DC.
     In the best case, I'd be making the knee worse that it is, delaying my healing, etc. Worse case, my knee would make me one hell of a slow target.
     At least work understands. Since we're still doing inventory, I'll be running a computer and entering stuff until I get off of the "no long standing" stuff.

     Seems like I run into a lot of this. Get my heart set on something, then something takes it away and I get something else.
     Makes me wonder if I'm God's stress/chew toy or incredibly lucky.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Why I post political stuff

     To be honest, I'd rather post more postive things. I'm sure more than a few people have blocked my posts, because they consider them "offensive" "upsetting" or simply because I'm pushing them outside their "comfort zone" by my relentless questioning of Il Douche's competency, plans and 'agenda.'
     I'd rather have fun and make people laugh by posting my nude photo online.

     I'd rather spend my time searching for a good conservative woman with a zest for life than constantly posting political stuff.
     You say "So, why don't you?" "Why post your political views when you CAN be looking for the conservative nudist woman of your dreams?" (or variations on the theme).
     It's not about personal ego, a vain effort to display some form of sophistication, attention getting, or a way to piss friends off (Yes, I know I have family and friends who drink the Kool-Aid and wish I'd drink less Tea).
     Why do I post?
     Because I care about an ideal GREATER than myself. The America I believe in is dying from internal political rot. The rot goes deep. While I blast the "Democrat-Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Communist Party," I also blast RINOS (Republicans In Name Only.)
     I'm honest enough to acknowledge BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties are guilty of contributing to this political rot. However, the rot is far deeper in the Democrat Party than the Republican Party. The Democrat Party is like a terminal patient. Despite constant efforts, it doesn't get any better. Better to let it go in peace and start fresh.
     The GOP has its share of rot too. The Republican Party is like a cancer patient. The condition is bad, but the infusion of new blood and ideas (the TEA Party) can save it and restore it to full health and vitality.
     America TODAY resembles the enemies Uncle Sam trained me to kill decades ago. Back "in the day" only Communists oppressed their political opponents, spied upon their own people, and indefinitely detained their citizens for very questionable reasons. The Communists knew we would kill them with great skill, pride and joy. They decided they better not confront a professional military under COMPETENT civilian and military leadership.
     In my years of service, I've visited friends in hospitals and attended many funerals. I've paid my respects to the fallen and done what I can to ease the pain for family members left behind. The America I love respected its veterans and the fallen. The America I defended did not use the government to harass the political opposition. America then did not spy on its citizens and say "F**k your inquiry, it's for your own good" when questioned. The America I know did not indefinitely detain citizens and deny them their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to a fair and speedy trial.
     The America I would have died for used the Constitution as the base and meter of its laws. The Supreme Court was considered the most learned legal minds of the day, and though I disagree with some of those rulings, those rulings were made with AMERICAN LAW and the CONSTITUTION in mind. The Supreme Court did not pay attention to "Foreign Law" or "unwritten precedent." Say what you will, they tried their best to get it right.
     When there was wrongdoing or blame to be taken, the PRESIDENTS often stood up and took that blame head on.
     Carter took the blame for the failed Iranian rescue attempt.
     Reagan took the blame for Iran-Contra.
     Obama hasn't taken the blame for one thing, denies knowing anything about IRS-Gate, Fast&Furious, NSA-GATE, Extortion 17, or Benghazi. But yet Obama hides behind legal minutae, a lap-dog press, and millions of mindless minions who accuse and smear anyone who stands up to Obama of being a racist.
     I post my political views to educate and awaken my family and friends. Either they see the danger coming and feel helpless to do anything about it, or they don't see it and continue to "trust the government."
     I post as a means of fighting Obama's Regime.
     I am one man. I have chosen my side freely and I will not regret it no matter how the battle goes. I choose to make my stand here and now so my family and friends don't have to.
     I eagerly look forward to the day when I can TRULY enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I currently have life. Our liberties are being taken away one by one. I cannot pursue happiness without the freedom to choose what that happiness is.
     It's all about the freedoms we have today. If we don't fight for them today, we won't have them tomorrow.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

A few thoughts on the March on DC, Il Douche and a prediction

     I was talking to an old Army buddy about two weeks ago and the conversation turned to the March on DC. I said I hoped to go to the March on DC, but wasn't sure I'd be able to do it because of gas prices. There was a moment of silence on his end of the line, then he said, "You really want to go to this thing?"
     "Of course."
     "Let me get this straight. If I go, you expect me to drive 100 miles out of my f***ing way, pick you and your shit up, then keep from choking the crap out of you for 600 odd miles?"
     "You need a navigator." 
     "If I manage not to choke you, we'll do some protesting on both sides of the river by day and trying to get laid by night. After five days of this, I get to drive another 600 miles with you either crowing about scoring some hottie or whining about me cock-blocking you the whole damn way?"
     "Sounds like a plan. When and where do I pick you up?"
     You gotta understand that Army buddies are gruff, sarcastic, use the F-word every other sentence (and on occasion, use the F-word and its variants in a complete, cohesive sentence), refuse to sugar-coat anything, will curse you for the slightest thing, threaten your life and limb for whatever, yet will loan you money or risk life and limb for you minutes later.
     When you and your buddies find each other after years of hearing nothing, the first words besides colorful expletives are often along the lines of "You still owe me $20" and "Where's the beer?"
     Within an hour, friendship moves from "hibernation" to "full speed ahead" as if the intervening years hadn't existed. Nothing in the world like an Army buddy.


     Once I had a ride arranged, my thoughts turned to "what the hell will I do once I'm there?"
     I plan on putting on my finest clothing (yes, I do have decent clothing, despite my nudist lifestyle) and hoof it over to the Capitol to give my Congressman a piece of my mind--PEACEFULLY. I honestly don't expect to see him, given it's the first week of the session, there will be at least thousands of citizens milling about with a purpose, and that I don't have an appointment.
     I intend to hand-deliver a letter to his staff, explaining (again) my disappointment on his 'yea' vote on  'Indefinite Detention.'
     The letter states that Indefinite Detention clashes with the Constitutional right to a speedy TRIAL and let him know I am not a happy constituent on this issue.
     After that, I will thank him for signing HR 36, which authorizes a Select Committee on investigating the Benghazi Massacre. I will likewise encourage him to encourage other Representatives and Speaker Boehner (218 signatures are required OR Speaker Boehner's authorization) to sign it. In addition, encourage him to support IMPEACHING OBAMA for IRS-Gate, NSA-Gate, Benghazi and Fast&Furious.
     A hand-delivered note is almost as good as getting a few moments of the Congressman's time. A staffer will tell him that I shown up and hand-delivered the letter. The fact one person made a 600 mile trip to deliver an opinion when a phone call/Email could have done the same thing gets noticed--in a good way. Anyone willing to go that far should be listened to because if not listened to, that person will go to equal lengths LEGALLY to get the Congressman out of office.
     After completing that task, depending upon the time of day, I plan to saunter over to Senator Rand Paul's office with a letter. I think he needs some encouragement. I don't think I'll actually get to talk to him and all that, but while I have no problem in letting my elected representatives know when I'm pissed off about something, I'm determined to let them know when they get it right.
     Once I complete my task, I'm going to go into the Tourist Mode and take lots of pics of "My trip to DC." (PLEASE let there be Libertarian Supermodels indulging in civil disobedience at a Demand the Right to Bare Breasts rally!)
     In addition, I plan to finally meet  fellow Patriots I've E-mailed in the course of the past weeks who likewise intend to visit their elected Representatives.
     I think I will know how I will feel when I finish.
     I will be happy, for despite efforts from one of the most corrupt and evil Regimes ON EARTH to disrupt the march (lots of infiltrators on various Net sites saying we shouldn't go because ____) or outright stop the March by refusing to issue the appropriate permits. I still did what I said I was going to do. I lawfully exercised my God-given right to speak as a citizen and petition my elected represenatives as I saw fit.
     Upon my departure from Rome/DC, I will return to the right side of the Rubicon/Potomac, change into suitable clothing and exercise another right called "open carry."
     Open Carry is simply carrying your firearm openly. No permit required as long as the weapon is easily visible, whether its holstered on a hip or a rifle slung over a shoulder. The Virginians are cool with open carry as long as it's done responsibly. By being "cool" with "Open Carry on the Potomac," Virginia is letting DC know they don't approve of their BS gun control proposals. Gotta love that.
     I will seek out and actively participate in PEACEFUL pro-2nd Amendment rallies, any possible training seminars being given and by that participation, join the ranks of determined citizens proud to let Il Douche and his Regime where we stand.


     My prediction:
     In talking with another friend, we disagreed upon one key question. "WHERE'S OBAMA GOING TO BE?"
     My buddy believes that Il Douche is going to 'be out of town' that week 'on business.' No way will Il Douche want to be anywhere near an anti-Obama march.
     I disagreed by saying that if Il Douche decamps and runs like a scalded dog, it will reinforce the perception that he is a pure physical coward. Especially if he leaves his family behind. A leader afraid in his own capital is not a leader. He HAS to stay put. He HAS to at least look like a leader.
     There is truth in both statements.
     If Der Holy Rockstar Messiah Mommy-Daddy, Lord and Savior Il Douche decides to leave BEFORE the protests, it shows his fear.
     If he decamps DC for whatever reason (excepting a VALID NATIONAL EMERGENCY THING), DURING the protests it reinforces the perception he is scared because he knows the truth.


Monday, August 19, 2013

Biden wants to run for President.

     Guess who thinks he has a chance to become the Democrat 2016 nominee.
     Vice President "Joking" Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden.
    While the Wall Street Journal's story Biden for President claims Biden's supporters think it will be a "legacy" campaign (i.e. 'I'll continue Obama's great programs!), Obama will NOT endorse Biden if Hillary Clinton is running.
     Let's be completely honest here.
     Joe Biden is in his position because he is a CFI.
     Complete Fucking Idiot.
     Being a CFI is a prerequisite for being a Democrat Vice President. COMPETENCY is NOT DESIRED. Why?
     The old joke of "Presidential Life Insurance" comes to mind. If Biden were competent, there would be more assassination attempts against Obama. (And before any butt-hurt whiny-assed Democrats start screaming and crying, remember--you've said the same thing about GOP VP Candidates as well!)
     During the Vice Presidential Debate against Paul Ryan, all Biden could do was smirk, make funny faces, etc. 

     Frankly, I was hoping Martha Raddatz would have a "Cher" moment, slap some sense into Biden and say "Snap out of it!"
    Democrats said Biden looked "Vice Presidential."
    Reality intrudes. Biden STILL looks like:

          I wouldn't trust Joe Biden with an unloaded peashooter 4 states over (under ADULT supervision, I might add), much less with anything that goes "Pew, pew, pew" (yes, that's a Bidenism.)
     I sure the hell wouldn't trust him with the economy, foreign policy. If Biden runs on "Obama's Legacy" he runs on one of a legacy of failure.
     And that's why Biden will NEVER become President. He's a failure, just like Obama.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Schooling a "Progressive" fool about Revolution

     According to Allen Clifton, anyone who thinks the Second Amendment gives us a right to revolt is a traitor. Here is the link to his grandiosely-titled "So you believe guns give us the right to overthrow the government? Congrats. You're a traitor."
You're a traitor

     School is in session. Take the "Progressive" blinders off, Allen and pay attention.

     The Founding Fathers were reluctant with the thought of a government with ALL the power. They wrote the Constitution to severely limit the powers of government and the level of control it could exert over its citizens.     Even with the protections of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers knew they had to have a final method of restoring government. Hence, the Second Amendment was born.
     If Clifton had READ the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founding Fathers, he would have learned that the Founding Fathers WANTED the people to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical Administration and restore the government. They do NOT say "overthrow" as that infers putting in another style of government. Restore means removing the rot from the political system, installing NEW politicians who can clean up the mess left by their incompetent/tyrannical predecessors.
     Why else would they put the key words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in the Bill of Rights? Those four vital words do NOT appear anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.
     Meaning the government had better not try taking guns.
     Enough said.

     Now to move onto Clifton's next statement.

     "Has anyone ever heard of the Civil War? How did armed citizens fare against the federal government in the late-1800′s? You know, back when citizens and the military were much more evenly armed, and our military was much less powerful."

     Clifton conveniently chooses to ignores fact that weaken his position. This is normal of the left-wing "Political Science" crowd, but ignoring facts when making a military plan will get you and your men killed every time.
     The Civil War is another name for the "War between the States." CIVIL WAR is usually two or more groups of citizens fighting for control of the government.
     The Conferderacy had seceeded from the Union and formed its own sovereign nation. This is a major factor for the war. The Confederacy was at a significant disadvantage for the following reasons:

1. Lack of industry. The Confederacy was an agricultural powerhouse, not an industrial one. If they had more arms factories and fewer fields of cotton, the "Civil War" could have gone the other way.

2. Lack of credible military resources. The Confederacy had to build up an army and navy from scratch. The Union had a navy and retained most of the equipment for the Army. The Union Navy blockaded the South and cut off their supplies of manufactured goods (primarily weapons) with great effect. The Confederate States Army had to organize and train. In the initial stages of the war, the CSA was a far cry from an "organized army." Yet it became good enough to outfight the Union until superior numbers, equipment and leadership came into play.

3. Lack of time to build those factories and develop a credible military. If the South had waited ONE YEAR before firing on Fort Sumter, they would have had those factories and better equipped and trained armed forces. Still, given they started from scratch, the Confederates fought with daring, skill, determination and honor. They were NOT pushovers. They went down fighting.

     Oh, SNAP! Clifton's ignorance of military matters just got him a bitch-slap from me.
     Pay attention, Clifton. School is still in session!
     Let's look at his next quote.

     "These people really think things would go better against the modern United States military? Also known as the most powerful war machine that’s ever existed.And the ironic part is most of those who believe in a possible “armed revolt against the United States government” are the same people who support the party which funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into our military defense budget—which is controlled by the federal government."

     Clifton, you don't win a war by fighting the battle the ENEMY wants to fight. Good example is the fall of France in 1940. After World War One, France built a line of fortifications from its border with Switzerland up to its border with Belgium. It was impressive, and ultra-modern. It had everything except brothels. They expected the Germans to just throw themselves against the Maginot Line. The Germans didn't. They said "We're not fighting the last war, or fighting your battle. We'll wait for an opportunity." When the Germans moved into Holland, British and French forces moved forward through Belgium, exposing the northern flank of the Maginot Line. The Germans moved behind, outflanked the Maginot Line and captured France in a matter of weeks. The Germans almost wiped out the British Expeditionary Force. (If not for the "Miracle at Dunkirk, they would have!)
     Clifton believes the revolutionaries will be STUPID enough to fight a battle in open terrain against what truly is the most powerful military on the planet. Clifton forgets there are millions of veterans who know better. No doubt the left-leaning supporters of Clifton will say "France was the exception to the rule. was the Germans against the FRENCH, who are so screwed up they have to have a Foreign Legion to protect them" and demand another example.
Here it is:
     The Viet Cong learned the hard way when you fight the battle America wanted them to fight, they die in droves. (Tet Offensive, 1968). We killed more than 117,000 Viet Cong and North Vietmamese Army troops. The Viet Cong were finished as a fighting force. The NVA's plans of taking over were set back years. After a thorough ass-kicking, they went back to their prime strategy consisting of, "We don't have to outfight the Americans--just outlast their political will to take casualties."
      Militarily, America won the battles, but lost the war politically because the VC technique was effective. Sort of like what's going on today in Afghanistan.
     Clifton deliberately ignores ONE VITAL FACTOR separating the Revolution and Civil War from a potential rebellion against the government today.
     The mindset of the people who would fight that war.
     "US against THEM."
     During the Revolution, the Colonists were "US" and those freedom-stealing British were "THEM." The British had no problem fighting and killing Colonists, who they considered the lowest of the low due to their hit and run tactics. They didn't care how many Colonists they killed. The three percent of the colonists who initially fought the revolution did not like those dirty Redcoats much either. While they did not win the war at the outset--they did not lose. They bought time to train and influence France to lend a hand.
     During the Civil War, it wasn't American vs. American. It was America versus the Confederacy that had seceeded and formed a completely separate, sovereign nation. That distinction is often ignored.
     The Union forces despised "Billy Reb" as much as the Confederacy despised "Johnny Yank." The combatants did not see each other as "brothers on separate sides." There is much written about "someone knowing someone on the other side." That feeling of fellowship or sorrow did not translate to the battlefield. There was no pity, though both sides did TRY to fight honorably, as the concept was known then. Again, it was an "US versus THEM" type fight.
     The "revolution" Clifton worries about will be comprised of "US versus US." Neither the military nor the growing militia movement want to fight each other, not out of cowardice, but out of commonality. Both groups are devoted to protecting America and the Constitution. They do NOT see each other as the enemy.
     Contrary to Clifton's veiled inferences, the military is not comprised of mindless, unemployable robots who fight "at Obama's behest." They are amongst the brightest citizens in America, I kid you not. Clifton thinks the very second people start waving guns and screaming "Revolution," the mind-numbed killing machines who fight at Obama's behest will instantly spring into action, launch a $50,000 Hellfire missile on them, machinegun the corpses then call in a tank to run over the pieces.
     This is why Clifton might have a degree in Political Science, but he doesn't know shit about the military. He forgot to read the small print.

     "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God" (which can be omitted if that clashes with a personal belief).

     That is the oath of enlistment taken by everyone in the Armed Forces. The military is VERY well-schooled on this.
The first and foremost priority is the CONSTITUTION. They are REQUIRED to bear true faith and allegiance to it. Period. Not a "If I want to" kinda thing, but REQUIRED TO.
     "That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
     What is inferred in these words, but explained to the servicemember is that LAWFUL orders are required to be obeyed. For instance, Obama decides its time to grab guns and orders the military to start grabbing guns.
     The Constitution states plainly "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Confiscation is clearly infringing, no matter how you couch it in legalese. Therefore if Obama was to give the order to confiscate guns, the military would give him a hearty FUCK YOU and there would NOTHING he could do about it.
     "Just following orders" is NOT a valid legal defense. The Nuremburg Trials proved that. My Lai proved that again. Every servicemember is EXPECTED TO DISOBEY unlawful, unConstitutional orders. EXPECTED TO. Following an illegal order WILL get servicemembers a court-martial. Period.
     Then there is the concept of "immoral" orders. Being told to violate the Oath of Enlistment is immoral. The Armed Forces CAN refuse to obey immoral orders as well.
     Thus Clifton's little wet-dream fantasy of millions of mind-numbed zombies fixing bayonets and killing citizens who rise up against his favored Progressive-Communist-Socialist government gets bitch-slapped.
     The Federal Government certainly controls the troops, BUT they don't own the troops. The troops think for themselves. Obama knows better than to give the military an order they will not obey. The second he orders military intervention, he knows he will instantly anger MILLIONS of citizens, and his presidency WILL end. Period.
     There was a poll going around in thye 90's (a study by some Navy Captain for a thesis paper) asking Marines how willing they would be to fire on American citizens and confiscate firearms. One in four said they would do it. The other three wouldn't.
     One in four. Does Clifton REALLY believe the other three are going to sit by and watch "the one" follow illegal and immoral orders and violate the Constitution? Reality is that "the one" will catch a bullet from one of the other three.
   Run along Clifton. Go back to the school you got your degree from and demand a refund. If you want a real education about the Armed Forces, grow a pair and serve, don't just read about it from some lame-brained Progressive/Communist leaning site.

     In the event of a revolution, I see the Armed Forces of the United States staying out of it. I suspect the Joint Chiefs of Staff will tell Obama that the Armed Forces will stand guard and protect America from foreign threats while the citizens sort the mess out domestically (You can let DHS save you!).
     A popular internet meme reads, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."
     The Founding Fathers established the means to remove corrupt, tyrannical or incompetent politicians.
     First and foremost is elections.
     When JUSTICE (not revenge) must be served, there is impeachment and removal processes.
     But what happens when the guilty parties also control government and the bureaucracy to never-before-seen extremes and impeachment and removal becomes impossible?
     Rebellion is the FINAL step of RESTORING government to a functional status. Nobody in their right mind rebels simply because they can. Rebellion is done ONLY when the political and legal processes become so stymied or corrupt that there is no other way to restore the government. (The Founding Fathers even created the Order of Succession in order to prevent removing ALL the government and slowing recovery.)
     Martin Luther King said, "Everything Hitler did was legal under German law."
     Those who know anything about the period know there were some who actively resisted Hitler. Then, the Resistance were considered and treated as traitorous scum.
     Today they are heroes. Their actions are taught to German children.
     Allen Clifton calls anyone who thinks the Second Amendment gives us the right to rebel "traitors."
     I've proved him wrong.
     History will prove him wrong too because the real traitors are in office and the heroes are coming to save the nation!

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

More disturbing news about Benghazi

     Months have passed since the Benghazi attack, and we have far more questions than answers.
     The first attempt at coverup was "The attack was not a terrorist attack proper, but a riot spawned by a YouTube video. It was not a terrorist attack."
     Then General Ham and Admiral Gaoulette were relieved from their commands (military for "fired") for not-so-clear reasons.
     Anything and everything related to the attack was suddenly declared "Top Secret" and witnesses were ordered to shut up OR ELSE.
     Then word came out about weapons leaving Libyan Army bases and making their way to groups with Al-Queda links in Syria.
     The latest revelation about this CLAIMS Obama was having dinner, then talking to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when the attack happened.
     While the Embassy/Compound/Whatever (remember this was a "changed talking point" in the beginning) was being attacked, it is said that Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's top advisors was CALLING THE SHOTS!
     Jarrett has no military experience, yet she's playing "Commander in Chief?"
    What. The. Fuck.
     Why didn't The Holiest Savior Rockstar Messiah Nobel-Prize-Winning Awesomeness Obama simply tell Netanyahu he had a serious issue to deal with and that he'd call back later. Netanyahu would probably be cool with that. Allies are like that (even loyal ones that Obama treats like crap).
     Please don't roll your eyes at the screen and say "Come on, you don't know what Netanyahu would do."

     Netanyahu hates terrorists enough to serve in the Israeli Army's elite "Sayeret Matkal" (their version of Delta Force) and kill terrorists. He would definitely understand.
     Here's a few more questions raised by this new "revelation."
     1. Why didn't someone, ANYONE tell Obama "Look, we're looking like crap overseas, our people are under fire, and would you get off the fucking phone long enough to send some badasses to kill the terrorists?"
     2. If the phone call was SOOOOOO important, why didn't Obama say "Get Joe Biden in the Situation Room and see what he says"?
     (Yes, I know Biden's a complete idiot, however he IS the Vice President and THEORETICALLY--sanity lapses notwithstanding--should be able to comprehend that we're getting the crap kicked out of us, this is going to look REAL bad and some LEADERSHIP is needed.)
    IF Valerie Jarrett did play "Commander-in-Chief," exceeding her authority (as defined by law), then she needs to be held FULLY accountable for her actions.
     I don't know what's worse. A President who cannot make A FUCKING DECISION without a poll supporting him (It took him 16 hours to decide to kill Osama Bin Laden) or an unauthorized, unqualified person making that decision for him.
     I honestly cannot see how anyone can have faith in Obama's leadership.
    The "Benghazi Four" are silent reminders of what happens when you misplace your faith.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Abusing the greatest freedom in the Bill of Rights

     At lunch, couple co-workers and I were talking. In time, the conversation went to politics and how our rights are being stripped away slowly.
     One thing we all agreed upon; they have to move slowly. If they outright banned free speech or the right to keep and bear arms--any politicians and bureaucrats involved with the rape of our rights would be swinging from a lamppost pretty fast.
     Then one of the "new guys" said there was a freedom in the Bill of Rights that was NOT written down.
     The freedom NOT to, or partially exercise your rights.
     If a person wants to keep their head in the sand and let Obama step forward behind them...that's their right to be stupid. If a person wants to read and be "awake," that's their right.
     The Bill of Rights tells us what rights are given to the government, what rights belong to the state and what rights belong to the people.
     But yet it does not say you MUST exercise those rights.
     Therefore millions of people go glassy-eyed and slack jawed at the thought of having to vote. Millions decide they don't want to own a firearm. The list goes on.
     The politicians, particularly Democrats and the "Rinos" (Republicans In Name Only) feel the need to remove a couple of those rights to better subjugate lead and govern the people.
     Political freedom can be compared to muscles. If you don't use them, you lose them. And that is the greatest abuse of the Bill of Rights. 

Friday, August 2, 2013

Why NSA-gate pisses me off

     I'll keep this brief so my blood pressure doesn't make my eyeballs explode.
     I hate the NSA and all the BS that has come to light from information provided by Eric Snowden.
     The problem is that it's "legal" under the ever-expanding definition of "legal."
     The Patriot Act was supposed to work like this:
     CIA agent in Terrorist-stan wiretapping a local terrorist learns a phone call was made from the USA. CIA is forbidden to spy on American citizens (by charter) and sends the information to the FBI/NSA.
     FBI/NSA does the subpoena thingy, gets phone records. They learn that the dialer reversed two numbers, got a wrong number, hung up, dialed again. They contact CIA to check on the new number. New number has no links to terrorism? Ok, wrong number, end of story.
    OR the FBI/NSA does the subpoena thingy, gets records, finds the US number calls Terrorist-stan number pretty often. Time to expand and see who else that guy calls. When the time is right, arrest them.
     Meanwhile, nobody else's phone records, metadata, etc., are even looked at.
     "We're not looking at all this collected data..we're just looking for 'patterns' and such. Trust us. Your metadata is secure with us!" The check is in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning, and I promise to keep it a secret.
     Defenders of the NSA say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
     Everyone has something to hide. Bet Obama doesn't want us looking at who HE calls or what websites he goes to. Would you feel comfy letting NSA know (for EXAMPLE) you like going to an fringe alternative-sex site? Would you feel comfy knowing the NSA knows who you called, when you called, who you texted, what was texted, etc? Do you have a close friend of the opposite sex you can REALLY talk to that your current partner knows nothing about? Do you want the NSA to hold that over your head when the time to blackmail him comes?
     We have "privacy" settings on internet accounts to avoid unneccessary hassle, SPAM and that we don't want to share EVERYTHING with EVERYONE.
     I say to the defenders those who have nothing to hide, "Give me your password to your internet and social networking sites. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right? I'm a good guy."

Why Democrats AND Republicans FEAR the Tea Party

     Have you ever wondered why many in the "Mainstream" Democrat and Republican parties FEAR the Tea Party?
     For what it's worth, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said this about the Tea Party:
     “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” said Christie, sitting on a panel with other Republican governors at the Aspen Institute.
     They're scared of us. Not to the "fill their pants scared S**tless" level the majority need to be, but butt-cheeks are puckering.
     They get richer while we get poorer. I have no objection to making money. I have no objection to someone enriching themselves financially AS LONG AS IT IS DONE LEGALLY AND MORALLY. For instance, Obama sold two books. He makes royalties off them. Though I hate Obama and all he stands for, I cannot begrudge him the money he makes from the books. That is capitalism.
     I hope to sell my works someday and make lots of money and hopefully run into a wild, double-jointed redheaded literary groupie....I'm drifting...back to topic.
     If Obama invested the money properly and lives on his salary, his financial future is pretty secure.
     If a politician lives within his means, invests his money wisely, I have no problem with that.
     I do have a problem with politicians who use their office and use their political influence to make money. These slimeballs were NOT sent to DC to do that.
     I do have a problem with politicians who get the "Cadillac" retirement programs none of us can have. For instance, Anthony "Let me whip this out and photograph" Weiner gets about $20,000 a year from his retirement fund.
     That's more than most servicemembers retire with.
     Something wrong with that picture.
     The Tea Party's influence is growing--in BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties.
     The Democrats, particularly those who rely upon government cheese (welfare, Obamacare, free stuff) to keep their voters happy don't like the thought that holding public office is a DUTY that should be done well, not just an opportunity for self-enrichment. The few remaining die-hard Democrats (once known as "Reagan Democrats" or "Conservative Democrats) are not happy with the "Government Saves All" mentality of the reigning Liberal elite.
     Many of the "Country Club" Republicans don't like the thought of the Tea Party holding their feet to the fire on the issues. Many  "compromise" on key issues in the name of "bipartisanship" and use the unspoken incumbent advantage (If you elect the new guy, you're not electing a veteran politician) well.
     Tea Party members do NOT want to turn back the clock to the 1700's, enslave everyone, etc.
     We believe in:
    The smallest government needed for the job.
     Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.
     Welfare is a "hand UP" not a "hand OUT.)
     All laws should be Constitutional and apply to ALL citizens of the USA, not just "selected portions." There certainly should be NO EXEMPTIONS from the law.
     Taxation should be done efficiently and FAIRLY.
     Those are just a few of the beliefs I've noticed other members share since becoming a Tea Party member.
    Governor Christie, why is FREEDOM/LIBERTY a dangerous thing?
     I'd like to see you answer that one at the March on DC 9-9-13.