Category Archives: Agitprop

Spite

Posted on by

I was busy yesterday, running around Missouri delivering flyers for next month’s gun rally (see yesterday’s post.) My travels gave me ample opportunity to listen to the radio, mostly Rush and Hannity, but a few others, too.

The topic yesterday was Netanyahu’s big win in the Israeli elections—and Obama’s reaction. You see, Obama sent teams to Israel, teams paid for by US tax dollars, to defeat Netanyahu. They failed.

Obama Frowning AP Photo_0This, of course, enraged Obama. Obama, has congratulated numerous election winners around the world. Many, most maybe, were dictators or our avowed enemies. Obama did not congratulate Bibi Netanyahu. Instead, he is pursuing a path to harm Israel.

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

By John Hudson, Colum Lynch, March 18, 201

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.

The move follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election Tuesday after the incumbent publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state — the basis of more than 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts — and promised to continue the construction of settlements on occupied territory. The development also reflects deepening pessimism over the prospect of U.S.-brokered negotiations delivering peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Nothing is so spiteful as a narcissist scorned. Obama is showing his true nature. I can understand why Obama hates Netanyahu. Bibi is everything Obama is not. When Netanyahu last spoke before Congress, he received a warmer welcome than Obama did at his State of the Union speech.

 

Facebook

All the news the MSM is afraid to report

Posted on by

There was a murder in Chapel Hill, NC, recently. A man, his wife and his wife’s sister were killed. All three were muslims. The MSM and Al Jazeera had a field day. It wasn’t long until a suspect was in custody.

Then, suddenly, the story dropped from the news! If it weren’t for the British and Israeli press, the story would have completely disappeared. Why? The suspect wasn’t a bible thumpin’, gun-totin’, red-neck Tea Partier. No, he was a liberal, atheist whose favorite news outlet was MSNBC and his favorite news-reader was Rachel Maddow.

By-the-way, if the FCC has its way, you wouldn’t be able to find news in the foreign press. The FCC wants the internet to be ‘equal’, read controlled and censored.

***

I’ve been writing this blog since 2008. I’ve ruffled the fur of politicos from my local city council, a couple of county office holders, some state Representatives and Senators, and I have a running battle with the RINOs in Washington and my local Congresswoman. Obama has a solution. It just appeared on the Drudge Report.

Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

By Rudy Takala, February 11, 2015 – 10:15 AM

(CNSNews.com) — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.

Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined total of $46,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, and $70,800 to federal political action committees and parties.

Individuals are no longer restricted by aggregate limits, which Chief Justice John Roberts said “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities’.”

They may now “contribute up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC [political action committee],” according to the FEC.

The commission, which consists of three Republican and three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005. However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties, and PACs.

This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of spending caps in restricting political speech.

The article continues at the website. You can read it all, here.

What the FEC and FCC wants is to plant commissars in every newsroom, every TV station and to license all news outlets. It would effectively kill independent bloggers like me. Shades of the KBG and the Soviet Union. This is what the liberals and the democrats want. After all, Joe Stalin was such a great leader and brought Russia out of feudalism…by starving millions of people in the Ukraine when he collectivized agriculture. He murdered more across the former Soviet Union and in his subjugated East European countries. In fact Russia, Putin, is still killing anyone who opposes him and in the Ukraine. You won’t hear about that from the MSM, either.

***

If you do a bit of research, you will also find that the Cold War has returned. Obama and the democrats ignore the signs but they are there.

WEST: NORAD Head Says Russia Increasing Arctic Long Range Air Patrols

By:
http://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/f22s-intercept-Bear.jpg?resize=625%2C469

US Air Force F-22 Raptor escorting a Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber. US Air Force Photo

SAN DIEGO, CALIF. – While Russian military aircraft have stepped up their activity everywhere from the North Sea to the Baltic to the Black Sea in the last year they have also been spotted more frequently closer to the U.S. territory in the Arctic, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) told USNI News on Tuesday.

In particular – flights of Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ Bombers have increased recently NORTHCOM’s Adm. Bill Gortney said.

“They’ve been very aggressive – under my NORAD hat – for us in the Arctic,” he said to USNI News following a keynote address at the WEST 2015 conference.
“Aggressive in the amount of flights, not aggressive in how they fly.”

Since the March seizure of the Ukrainian region of Crimea by Russian forces Moscow has significantly stepped up air patrols in Europe, Asia and near the Americas.

The flights extend as far North as the edge of American air space near Alaska and as far South as U.S. holdings in Guam.

In December, two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets intercepted a two Bears near the Beaufort Sea entering a U.S. and Canadian Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear 'H' off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo.

NATO interdicted a record number of Russian flights in 2014 and the Russians claim likewise the U.S. has stepped up its own flights near Russian territory.

During the Cold War, Russian long-range aircraft routinely patrolled the edges of U.S. and Canadian airspace probing NORAD defenses, but largely stopped after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As for the current round of patrols, the bomber flights are being used as a “messaging tool,” Gortney said.
“Obviously it’s pretty clear that they’re doing that. So they’re flying in places… where they’ve never flown before.”

At the height of the Cold War, Americans stationed in Moscow were continuously harassed by the KGB. Embassy employees sometimes were sequestered on the Embassy grounds for their protection. Non-governmental Americans, news reporters and others, were assigned a ‘minder’ to insure they neither saw nor reported anything contrary to the official Soviet agenda.

Those times are returning. This time it’s Putin’s Federal Security Service disguised as the Russian mob who are targeting Americans.

Report: Crime, Anti-American Harassment in Russia Grows

New Security Dangers Follow Moscow’s Annexation of Crimea

BY: ,

Anti-American sentiment and criminal activities have increased in Moscow since Russian forces took over Ukraine’s Crimea and continue to destabilize eastern Ukraine, a recent State Department security report reveals.

Security threats in Moscow and Russia include petty crime, physical attacks, activities by organized crime groups, corrupt law enforcement and security officials, widespread cyber crime, and economic espionage, according to the Feb. 6 report produced by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), a State Department group that supports American businesses abroad.

“The social and political unrest in Ukraine has led to increasing political tensions between the Russian Federation and the U.S. and other Western nations,” the report, based on reports from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, said. “As a result, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment appears to be increasing, especially in certain media outlets.”

A copy of the internal report was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The report said U.S.-Russia ties were “greatly strained” after Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

Embassy reports indicate a number of Americans were verbally harassed and physically assaulted in the last part of 2014, but the report said so far no major campaign of targeted attacks against Americans was detected.

“Immediately following the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia by the U.S. and Europe, some American ‘iconic brand’ companies were heavily scrutinized by the Russian authorities, and in some cases, closed, if only temporarily,” the report said.

The report concluded that Russia’s political, economic, and social climate “changed markedly as a result of the country’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, ongoing support for military separatists in eastern Ukraine, U.S./Western economic sanctions, and a dramatic drop in the price of oil that significantly weakened the value of the Russian ruble.”

On cyber threats, the report said: “The cybercrime threat is acute. The risk of infection, compromise, and theft via malware, spam email, sophisticated spear phishing, and social engineering attacks is significant.”

The report warned all U.S. businesses and citizens to exercise caution and adhere to all cyber security best practices.

The report also said Russian economic espionage and theft of intellectual property poses a threat to Americans.

“American businesses are susceptible to economic and industrial espionage,” the report said. “Information theft, especially from insufficiently protected computer networks, is common. It is recommended that businesses employ counter-surveillance techniques, such as video monitoring devices, alarm systems, and computer network protection programs.”

Russia’s Federal Security Service also can take action against Americans doing business with the Russian military-industrial complex.

“Any misunderstanding or dispute in such transactions can attract the involvement of the security services and lead to investigation or prosecution for espionage,” the report said.

In a section on Russian government surveillance, the report said, “OSAC constituents have no expectation of privacy.”

All telephone and electronic communications are subject to monitoring and surveillance, something that “can potentially compromise sensitive information.”

“The Russian System for Operational-Investigative Activities (SORM) permits authorities to monitor and record all data that traverses Russia’s networks lawfully,” the report said. “Travelers should assume all communications are monitored.”

The article continues here.

The rot in Washington extends much further than allowing a massive influx of illegal aliens bent on usurping citizen’s rights and money. It extends to purposely alienating long-term allies all the while intentionally ignoring real threats to our national security.

It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. It’s unfortunate the rest of us have to endure that same government along with the sycophants.

Facebook

It’s Fridaayyy!

Posted on by

Yes, I’m sure it’s Friday, I double checked.

After stepping into a large pile of brown and stinky, I bet Governor Jay Nixon wishes today was Saturday. Unfortunately for him, Nixon created that large pile on his own. His mouth made a bad situation worse and he has no one to blame except for himself.

What did Nixon do? He publicly called for the “vigorous prosecution” of Officer Darren Wilson before the investigation was complete. Then, when evidence began to appear that showed Wilson killed Brown in self-defense, Nixon compounded the problem by refusing to recant his earlier statement. Instead of supporting the law and legal process, Nixon sided with the mob for nothing more than personal political gain.

Missouri Governor under fire after calling for ‘vigorous prosecution’ of cop who shot dead Michael Brown but grand jury won’t make decision until OCTOBER

  • Governor Jay Nixon said on Tuesday ‘a vigorous prosecution must be pursued’ after Ferguson officer Darren Wilson shot dead teen Michael Brown

  • The governor called for the prosecution of Wilson comes ahead of the grand jury meeting today to see if the officer will even be charged

  • Officer Wilson, a six-year veteran of the Ferguson force with a clean record, has not been arrested or charged with any crime

  • Missouri’s Lt. Governor criticized Nixon saying he had ‘prejudged the case’ 

By Louise Boyle for MailOnline and Associated Press, Published: 10:31 EST, 20 August 2014 | Updated: 16:39 EST, 20 August 2014

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has come under fire after calling for the ‘vigorous prosecution’ of the Ferguson police officer who shot dead unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

The Democrat governor released a five-minute video on Tuesday, where he said: ‘A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.’

His statement began: ‘Ten days ago, a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown in broad daylight. The world has watched as a community has been engulfed in grief, anger, fear, at times violence.’

The governor then called upon Attorney-General Eric Holder and St Louis county prosecutor Bob McCulloch to ‘meet expectations’ by finding justice for Michael Brown and his family ‘thoroughly, promptly and correctly’. 

Governor Nixon’s call for the prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson comes ahead of any decisions by the grand jury who are meeting today to see if the 28-year-old will be charged.

St Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said on Wednesday that he estimated it would be the middle of October before the grand jury reached a decision on whether Officer Wilson will face charges over Michael Brown’s death.

Nixon made his statement before some FACTS came to light—the video of the convenience store robbery, the video of the confrontation with the background voices confirming Officer Wilson’s account, the recantation of the statement by Dorian Johnson, Brown’s accomplice, that said Wilson shot Brown in the back, the independent autopsy that showed Brown was shot from the front, two dozen or more eye-witness statements that said Brown charged Officer Wilson before being fatally shot. Nixon ignored all this real evidence deciding it was a good opportunity to gain political points at the expense of Wilson’s life and reputation.

Nixon prejudgment ignored the accumulating evidence. The Grand Jury, empaneled in May 2014, won’t release its results until October. So why did Nixon attempt to politically lynch Officer Wilson?

Maybe because Nixon has further political ambitions. One rumor is that he would be Hillary’s Veep in 2016. I don’t think that will happen now. Nixon’s bungling attempt to gain liberal creds from the black community failed. Instead he’s now being held in ridicule by nearly everyone including members of his own party.

But probably the worse cut of all comes not from a news item or a reporter but from a cartoonist. Michael Ramirez posted this cartoon and it cuts directly to the issue.

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-082214-lynching-IBD-COLOR-FINAL-147.gif.cms

Facebook

Is it time?

Posted on by

Washington, DC, and the nation abounds with rumors of impeachment for Obama. Everyone also knows that any impeachment bill that gets out of the House will be killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

Or, will it? Dems, mainly those in the House and Senate imperiled at the polls by Obama’s dictatorial Executive Orders, may, in fear of their positions, agree to impeachment and the Senate trial.

Paul Ryan has declared Obama has not committed any ‘high crime’ sufficient for impeachment. He and others equate ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors‘ as it is written in the Constitution, with civil crimes, like theft, murder and extortion committed by the Hoi Polloi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpgNot so, Mr. Ryan. For impeachment, ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors‘ means whatever the Congress says it is. President Andrew Johnson was nearly impeached for firing one of his cabinet secretaries. Congress can use almost any issue to impeach a President. All they need are the votes. In Obama’s case, his failure to uphold his oath of office by failing to secure our borders, is sufficient for impeachment.

The possible charges against Obama are many. Some accuse him of failing to uphold his oath of office. Failing to secure our borders is one example. His flagrant use of Executive Orders, many designed specifically to by-pass Congressional approval, is another. His attempts to infringe upon religious freedom in violation of the 1st Amendment adds to the list of acts that could be used for impeachment.

A number of years ago, I posted some notes I’d made from Thomas Wood’s book, “33 Questions about American History You’re not Supposed to Ask.” In Wood ‘s book, one chapter was about the rise of the Imperial Presidency. The method used by presidents to create that Imperial Presidency was Executive Orders.

We can thank Teddy Roosevelt for the proliferation of Executive Orders.

What is an Execute Order? An Executive Order is a directive to those departments of the Executive branch of government. Initially, it was the act of implementing legislation passed by Congress. However, in some cases, Orders were written that were not supported by preceding acts of Congress. During the early years of our republic, those orders were submitted to Congress requesting concurrence, i.e., ex post facto Congressional approval of the Executive Order. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Presidents were extremely reluctant to issue an Executive Order being cognizant that Congress could subsequently reverse and not approve the order. This trend continued through the Civil War until the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt.

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a governing style among American chief executives. Many Americans rightly howled during the 1990s when Clinton aid Paul Begala famously said of executive orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the century.

…

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield issued none. Arthur issued 3, Grover Cleveland (first term) 6, Benjamin Harrison 4, Cleveland (second term) 71, McKinley 51. TR issued 1,006.— Crucis’ Court, July 21, 2009.

The current push for impeachment is Obama’s excesses in issuing Executive Orders that violate the Constitution by by-passing Congress. The use of Executive Orders by Obama, or EOs as some call them, is the usurpation of power granted solely to Congress, not the Executive branch of our government.

Ted Cruz, according to a Washington Post article, says the illegal use of EOs to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is sufficient to impeach Obama.

Cruz: It’s about executive power – WaPo: “The fate of a Republican proposal to address a brewing immigration crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border was cast into doubt Wednesday after a tea party senator lobbied against it to House members. The effort by Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who made his pitch to a group of House Republicans in a closed-door evening meeting, marked another direct shot at attempts by Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants arriving from Central America…’The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop Obama’s amnesty,’ Cruz said in a statement. ‘It is disappointing the border security legislation unveiled today does not include language to end Obama’s amnesty. Congress cannot hope to solve this problem without addressing the fundamental cause of it.’” — FOXNewsletter, July 31, 2014.

But just who is it that is talking the most about impeachment? It is the democrats. They are using impeachment as a fundraising tool.

THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT
“You bet we’re going to run on a Congress that is just obsessed with lawsuits, suing the President, talking about impeaching him, instead of solutions for the middle class, talking about jobs and infrastructure. You bet that we’re going to ask people to support us based on that contrast.” – DCCC Chairman Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y. told CNN Wednesday To wit – Washington Examiner: “Just as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stepped onto the House floor to blast the lawsuit as ‘another Republican effort to pander to the most radical right-wing voters at taxpayer expense,’ the House fundraising arm sent out an email from Pelosi asking for donations ranging from $5 to $250 or more, to ‘support the president.’” Ummmm… – Daily Caller: “In a speech on the floor of the House Wednesday, Texas U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee claimed that Democrats never sought to impeach President George W. Bush. Not only is that claim false, but Jackson-Lee actually co-sponsored a 2008 bill to do just that and spoke in at least one House committee hearing in support of the effort.” — FOXNewsletter, July 31, 2014.

The most telling quote came from Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all.” It is time to end government by decree. Taking back the entire Congress in 2014 if the first step.

Facebook

A whiff of secession

Posted on by

The subject of secession has been popular since the election. I think there is a secession petition filed on the White House website from every state. Several states, like Texas, have reached that magic 25,000 signatures.

Does that mean Texas will secede? No. The petitions are meaningless gestures. There are others, however, who are serious about secession. Catalonia, for example…a segment of Spain.

Separatists winning in Catalonia, Spain: early results

BARCELONA, Spain | Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:43pm EST

(Reuters) – Four separatist parties in Spain’s Catalonia looked set to win a majority in regional elections on Sunday, partial results showed, but the main one was on course to lose some seats, possibly undermining its bid to call an independence referendum.

With half of votes counted, the ruling Convergence and Union alliance, or CiU, was winning 48 seats in the 135-seat local parliament, well down from its current 62 seats.

The separatist Republican Left, or ERC, was winning 20 seats, with two other smaller separatist parties taking a total of 16 seats, giving the four parties 60 percent between them.

Regional President Artur Mas, of CiU, had campaigned on a pledge to hold a referendum on independence, in response to a resurgent separatist movement among Catalans who are frustrated with Spain in a deep economic crisis.

Opinion polls had forecast that CiU would retain 62 or more seats in the local Parliament and that all four separatist parties would have more than two-thirds of the seats. Neither of those projections was met as the results began to come in.

Without the psychological backing of a two-thirds majority, analysts have said, it may be hard for Mas to defy the constitution and the central government in Madrid and try to hold a referendum.

Our experiment with secession failed 150 years ago. Other attempts around the world such as the Ukraine and Belarus has succeeded, albeit not without some blood being shed.

The talk in the US about secession has been just that—talk. The state of the nation, the economy, federal interference, the overall feeling of governmental tyranny, hasn’t yet reached the level where secession is being seriously discussed.

Yet.

There are some opinions that it could be done…by Texas, for instance. Texas has always had an independent streak. It, and California, were Republics before merging with the United States. The Republic of California was a joke. A side show, really, by a few Americans at the beginning of the War with Mexico in 1846. The Republic of Texas, however, existed for a number of years before succumbing to debt and internal divisions.

There are some today who think Texas could bring it off this time.

Secession, y’all: Why Texas can pull it off

Bob Smiley, Author, “Don’t Mess with Travis”

When Thomas Dunne published Don’t Mess with Travis in May — my comedic political novel about a freewheeling Texas governor who becomes fed up with a Constitution-stomping president and decides to secede — I knew I had landed on something relevant. I didn’t know it was this relevant.

As of writing, the Texas petition to peacefully “withdraw” from the United States via the White House’s open petition webpage is up to 62,481 signatures, on its way to tripling the required names needed to trigger a response from the Obama administration. No doubt Texas’s desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off.

Here’s why:

–Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95% of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.

–The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the thirteenth-highest GDP in the world, just behind Canada and Russia. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.

–Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.

–Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.

–History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination.

Yes, Texas could make a go of it as an independent nation…if the U.S. would let it go peacefully. But let’s be realistic. That won’t happen. Obama and the libs need Texas. They need the taxes from Texas and they cannot allow the precedent of secession to be successful. Alone, Texas cannot withstand the power of the federal government.

Yes, there has been a number of pieces of fiction where secession succeeded. A more likely outcome would be something like that in Tom Kratman’s A State of Disobedience. The scenario at the beginning of Kratman’s book is eerily like that we find ourselves today.

If secession is to succeed, it must be by a coalition of states. Single states would not have sufficient power and defensive forces to win against the FedGov.

Like I said above, we’re not at that state yet and I pray we never find ourselves with that choice as our only option. The United States will not dissolve peacefully.

Why, then, are we discussing it? Because the credible threat of secession may force changes within the FedGov to resolve some of the differences between us, who revere the constitution and personal liberty and the statists who lust for power of government over people. Secession, then, is a tool—a last resort tool to be used to coerce the government to mend its ways and to restore some of our freedom.

It is a dangerous tactic. If secession is threatened, our options limited to two choices if we don’t get the concessions we demand: knuckle under to the FedGov or secede. Know then that with secession comes civil war because the FedGov needs us more than we need them.

When you hear talk of secession or participate in it, be aware of what you truly mean. There are consequences of such actions.

Facebook

OK People! Listen up!

Posted on by

We are less than two months from the election and what do I hear? Romney is gonna lose. Akin is gonna lose. The ‘Pub establishment, FOX, and the MSM says we’re gonna lose. Everywhere I turn it’s the same.

We’re all losers!!!

That’s exactly what the dems and libs want you to think.

Well, lissen up! It’s time to stop the temper-tantrums. It’s time to pull up your big-boy pants and grow up. I know Ron Paul didn’t get the ‘Pub nomination. No, it wasn’t stolen from him. He wasn’t even close to being in the running.  His aim was to influence the party platform and he was successful.

I also know that Romney is the nominated candidate. Yes, he’s a Mormon. I’m tired of all the bigotry—from our own side, claiming they won’t vote for a Mormon.  Even faintly veiled bigotry is still bigotry. I don’t agree with Mormon doctrine. But even with our disagreements, Mormonism is miles better than the atheism and humanistic socialism preached by Obama and the dems.

I belong to a number of Facebook and e-mail groups. I constantly read about how someone isn’t going to vote for Romney because he isn’t conservative enough. I suspect some of you aren’t conservative enough to suit me either. So what are you going to do? Vote for some third-party candidate? Not vote? Leave the President box unchecked?

If you think a third-party is the answer for President, you’re about a decade too late.  There’s been several attempts at a 3rd-party run for President from George Wallace in 1968 through John Anderson and Ross Perot. Every single one of them failed.  For a 3rd-party to be successful it has to build from the bottom up—win local elections, county elections, state elections and when your 3rd party has won and controlled several states, then have your perfect candidate run for President.

A decade of infrastructure building may be insufficient. It may take longer. Until that time, you’ll lose and just waste our time and resources.

Do you hate the ‘Pub establishment so much you’d rather have Obama elected for another four years than vote for Romney? Would you allow Obama to win a second term just to spite the ‘Pub establishment? Because electing Obama for another tern is exactly what will happen if you don’t vote for Romney. And if Obgama wins you’ll blame the ‘Pub establishment, Mormons, RINOs, everyone and everything except yourself—you who didn’t vote for Romney.

Let’s be clear here. No, Romney isn’t all that we’d like. Neither is Paul Ryan. He’s screwed up some congressional votes too. No one, certainly not Romney nor Ryan, is perfect.

The point is to remove Obama. Send him back to his $2.5million dollar mansion in crime-ridden Chicago. Let him be an activist among the gangs and druglords. He should feel at home. Vote for ABO, Anyone But Obama if you find Romney so distasteful.

I don’t care if you hate the ‘Pubs because they’re not conservative enough to suit you. Do you hate them enough to put Obama back in the White House? If so, then you’re no conservative and we can do without you. If you are that unbalanced, you’d not be an asset for conservatism anyway.

We have fifty-six days left if I’ve counted correctly. Get to work! When the pollsters call, answer and tell them the truth. Show how badly Obama really fares. An if you still hate the ‘Pub establishment, send a big donation to Todd Akin and poke a finger in Karl Rove‘s and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus‘ eye.  You’ll feel better for donating and you’ll help remove Obama from OUR White House.

Facebook

Thieves in the night…

Posted on by

There are a sundry of news items on the ‘net today. Although it’s not getting much press with the State Media, the political news is that Ron Paul says he’s not going to spend anymore money trying to win votes and delegates in the remaining primaries.

No, Ron Paul has another plan. What he can’t get through the ballot box, i.e., delegates to the ‘Pub convention this summer, he’ll use his supporters to seize in state conventions what he couldn’t win in the local caucuses.  This tactic was exposed in recent news items out of Iowa.

“I think we’re going to spend money and campaign time in Iowa making sure that we have ID’d every single delegate to the state convention and that we turn out all of our delegates to the Iowa state convention to make sure that they vote and get their voices heard,” Benton says.

The man who was elected chairman of the Iowa GOP in February is a Ron Paul supporter and former campaign aide. Ron Paul supporters now hold a majority of seats on the Iowa Republican Party’s state central committee.

“We want to get our people involved in the process,” Benton says, “and we want our people in positions of influence.” — Radio Iowa.

Ron Paul came in a distant third after Romney and Santorum in Iowa. That doesn’t matter to the Ron Paul controlled Iowa state ‘Pub committee. No, they’ll use parliamentary procedures to “pack” the convention. Apparently the plan is to disenfranchise the Romney and Santorum local delegates in favor of those who will toe the Paul party line.

We have seen such tactics here in Missouri. Ron Paul partisans seized control of a number of Missouri county caucuses in Jackson, Boone, St. Charles and other counties.  In the district caucuses, Ron Paul partisans attempted to seize control as well.  They failed. Across Missouri, Romney, followed by Santorum won most of the delegates with Ron Paul getting four and Gingrich one. 

The remaining Missouri delegates will be chosen next month at the state convention. I am already hearing rumbles that Ron Paul partisans will attempt a power play to gain more delegates. Unlike Iowa, the Missouri central committee tilts toward Romney the last I heard. But…the same delegates that attended the District Caucuses will likely attend the state convention. And, those counties controlled by Ron Paul have large delegations. There is still a chance for an ambush by the Paulbots.

Ron Paul knows he has no chance of winning anything via the ballot box. But, like any wannabe tyrant, he’ll not let such a technicality to be an obstacle. What he can’t achieve in the light of day, he’ll try to take “like a thief in the night.”

I don’t know what Paul thinks he’ll achieve. Even if he is successful, he still won’t have enough delegates to win the party nomination.  Pundits speculate that Paul wants concessions—selecting his son Rand Paul for Veep, adding items to the party plank such as an audit of the Federal Reserve or perhaps a cabinet position (Treasury?) for Paul.

Whatever the reason, his tactics, such as his supporters heckling Romney’s son in Arizona, are reminiscent of some 3rd-world dictator. Here is a quote from a Paul supporter in Arizona. Perhaps this quote is more telling about Paul’s tactics and goals than my speculation.

Paul supporters hope to disrupt conventions across the country. Their intent is to force a second vote at the national convention, in which they are not bound to Romney who won delegates in the primaries.

One young woman told the Paul supporters that they must not value the democratic process because they are trying to subvert the will of the people who mostly supported Romney. Mitt Romney won 47 percent and Ron Paul won 8.6 percent of the vote in Arizona’s primary vote. The remainder of the vote was divided between Gingrich and Santorum. — Arizona Daily Independent.

Facebook