Hillary Worship and the War Mongering Democrats



I know many Democrats who worship this woman. She can do no wrong. It’s all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Much like with Nobel Obama who can do no wrong.

The man who is handed a Nobel for nothing goes on to create “Terror Tuesdays,” Military Age Males strategy, gets nicknamed “the Drone Ranger,” all but invades and causes the downfall of Yemen and it’s government after propping them up, supportsSaudi Arabia and kisses the ass of the House of Saud, has assassinated four US Citizens overseas on his authority alone…zero due process, gave guns to drug lords for purposes that only he and his idiot AG could discern and believe, gave weapons and other equipment to Qaddafi’s enemies even after Qaddafi had all but stepped down from power, has armed several Sunni Islamic groups in and around Syria leading directly to the rise of ISIS and I could go on and on and on.

But none of that is his fault. It’s all the fault of Bush and Cheney.

Democrats hate any war that isn’t their own.

They called Bush a war monger. They call Republicans war mongers.

They maintain steady silence on Obama’s wars and inept strategies and tactics.

American participation in the two World Wars were presided over by Democrats Wilson and FDR. Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, Truman bungled us into Korea and the Cold War. LBJ got us into Vietnam.

But Reagan was a warmonger. lol

Ike ended Korea. Nixon ended Vietnam.

Barack Obama tried to end Iraq but just made it worse and doubled down by arming the worst Islamic militias in the history of the world.

But Democrats want peace. Hillary can be trusted. Sanders just wants to give us “free” stuff.

If it weren’t such a tragedy, it would be funny.

Politicians and Lies


It’s probably something that millions of others have pondered.

Why do we allow politicians to lie to us?

Time after time politicians look us in the eye.  In person.  On national TV.  They look at us.  They calculate.  That calculation includes the prediction that come election day, we, the American public, will forget and forgive.

Now New Taxes!

Read my lips!

Sequestration did not originate with the White House.

I can not recall.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Remember the Maine!

Tonkin Gulf.

It seems that no President in my life time has been truthful with the American Public.  They take for granted that we will forgive them their trespasses.

Why?  Why do we forgive them when they constantly lie to us.

The Patriot Act and Obamacare are two examples of Stalinistic BIG LIES that have forever altered the lives of millions of American citizens.  The War on Drugs has ruined lives in the multitudes.  Yet, it is based upon a carefully packaged set of lies designed wholly and from the outset to deceive the American public.

The office of the President and the various offices of Congress are supposed to be servants of the people.  How can these people serve us if they feel that they must constantly lie to us.  FOR OUR OWN GOOD!  As if we are all too stupid to understand.

Now, it is a given that some of us are too ignorant.  Too superstitious.  Too uneducated.  By and large, this is a product of the systems emplaced by that very Congress and the lesser State Congresses.

No Child Left Behind is an example of the heinous programs set upon us by the Federal Government when it has usurped the power of the States and encroached upon the power of the people.  This worthless act nearly guarantees that children will, educationally speaking, be left behind.  It forces teachers and administrators to teach to a test.  It stifles learning and critical thinking.  It solved nothing but, instead, added a new layer of bureaucracy upon many more stale layers of bureaucracy that had been laid in the decades preceding.

No Child Left Behind is a lie.

VAWA is another lie.  The Violence Against Women Act originated by Bill Clinton.  It is a bill crafted to give monies to certain organizations that support the Democratic National Party.  It is a terrible example of cronyism and the spoils system.  It solves nothing and adds layers of bureaucracy to a bureaucracy laden system.  It inculcates a notion of guilty until proven innocent into our “justice” system.   Under this bill, thousands are treated as if they are guilty, they’re rights abused simply because a woman accuses a man.  That man must not be found guilty to have his life destroyed.  If the man is found to be innocent of the charges arrayed against him, it is too late.  He has already been violated.

This is VAWA.  This is Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s vision of justice.  Guilty until proven innocent.  It is almost Islamic in it’s outlook.  Shariah law writ large upon the American justice system.

If a woman becomes angered at a man because he cheated on her or if they argue over finances, that woman can scream “domestic abuse.”  Her victim, for he is a victim in these cases, is forever stained and forever scarred by the system put in place by VAWA.  I have seen it in action.  This is no theory.   A woman beats a man.  That man defends himself merely by holding up his arms and then grabbing the woman to stop her from hitting him with a whiskey bottle.  The police are called in.  The man is taken away in hand cuffs for defending himself.  The woman is left free to terrorize others.

In that case and others like it, the police apologized repeatedly to the man.  “We have no choice. In cases of domestic abuse, we must take the man into custody.”

This man was then demonized by others who did not know the truth.

The pity of it was that he loved her and could not bring himself to do the right thing and leave her.

He was arrested several times over the course of two years until he was finally able to make the decision to leave her.

They had children.  The courts, not being able to fully believe that a man could be a victim and that the woman could be the perpetrator, awarded full custody to the alcoholic mother.

This is VAWA in action.

This is the BIG LIE that the Left tells us when they pass laws such as VAWA.

Then they wonder why people are against such egregious acts in defense of “victims.”

The left has victimitis.  They feel that the only cure is more government or, rather, more Federal Government.

Which leads us to another political lie told by both Republicans and Democrats.  They rip the Constitution to threads and tell us that it is for our own good.  They usurp powers from the State in the name of Security, Health and Welfare.

Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator.  He was also a great liar.  When he wanted the States to pass legislation placing the age of consumption of Alcohol to 21 from 18 years, Reagan pushed the States to pass those laws.  This was in keeping with his State’s Rights Small Government stance.

However, what he did not advertise was that he bullied the States into passing his legislation.  Men can be sent off to war at age 18.  However, they are not to be trusted with the consumption of alcohol.  This was a Reagan policy.  The man of the people.

In order to force the State Legislatures to pass his Alcohol Consumption law, Reagan threatened to withhold interstate highway funds from all States that did not pass his law.

Reagan.  Not so States Rights oriented when he wanted to get his way.  The way of the tyrant.  The spoiled brat who will get his way or else.

Another lie.

Reagan was also the author of the Iran-Contra Affair.  I find it hard to believe that a President did not know of a program of such possible detriment to his administration.  I believe that Reagan lied here as well.  Bush probably lied about it as well.  They let Ollie North be their fall guy and they paid him well for it.

There are more examples of our government and their perpetual lies.  All Presidents lie to us.  Regardless of their party affiliation.  Only fools believe that one party is more or less guilty than the other.

The question is:  When will be begin to hold these Parties and their Candidates accountable for their words and deeds?

I believe that Presidents should be liable for their actions up to their deaths.  When scandals arise, apolitical action should be taken.  If George Bush knowingly lied about WMD, let him be judged.  If Obama lied about Benghazi or his Mexican Drug Gun deals, let him pay the price.  Let them all be judged.

We need to set a precedent.

The precedent needs to be set for the good of the country.  Not for the good of a political party.

Presidential ties to organizations such as Goldman Sachs should be carefully investigated.  Any and all Presidents with too close ties to Goldman Sachs and who have profited off of their scandalous deals and their corruption should be tried in open hearing before the public.

A message needs to be sent.  We will no longer excuse your lies.  Give us the truth or we will give you your just desserts.

Wishful thinking, I know.  The general public is addicted to US Weekly, the Kardashians, The Voice and Survivor.

What is the health of the Republic compared to being brainlessly entertained by celebrities?

anigov.001 copy

Health Care, Socialism, Democracy and President Obama


Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterized by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. [1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Forerunners of communist ideas existed in antiquity and particularly in the 18th and early 19th century France, with thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more radical Gracchus Babeuf. Radical egalitarianism then emerged as a significant political power in the first half of 19th century in Western Europe. In the world shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, the newly established political left included many various political and intellectual movements, which are the direct ancestors of today’s communism and socialism – these two then newly minted words were almost interchangeable at the time – and of anarchism or anarcho-communism.

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), “popular government”,[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), “people” and κράτος (krátos), meaning “power” in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom.[4] These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power.[5] Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.[6][7]

Technically, Obama was/is engaging in a socialist act when he purchased majority shares of several organizations (banks, car manufacturing, etc).  We shall see in due time whether that was a wise act or something less.  It may have been the action that put the economy back on chart.  It may have been wasted money.  Time will reveal it’s truths.

Many in America are comparing a Political Theory with an Economic Theory.  It’s apples and oranges.  One can be both Socialist and Democratic.  One can be both Capitalist and Democratic.  One can not be a pure Socialist and engage in Capitalism or vice versa.  Though China is proving that one can be both Communist and Capitalist right before our eyes or perhaps they are simply oligarchic capitalists.

When someone states that Obama is Socialist that does not preclude him from being Democratic in political system preference.

President Obama is more Socialist than say Forbes or Reagan (perhaps).  He’s no more Socialist than Bush in my opinion.  Bush approved/extended a few programs that many might consider Socialist and if he had been able to sit for a third term, I believe, he would have acted much as did Obama.

On the question of health care, The United States must care for it’s citizens in our post-Industrial age.  The economy and capitalism is not going to do this nor are they designed in theory to do so.  Companies are attempting to cut back on expenses to improve the bottom line.  Canceling health care benefits.  Canceling pensions.  And so on and so forth.  If the United States is going to be a Nation of values and humanity going forward, it must care for it’s citizens.  Health Care is an important part of that plan.  In my opinion.  If America is truly a Nation of, by and for the people, then Health Care is and must be a priority.

It will likely mean heavier taxes.  Personally, I think some of those taxes should come from the businesses that benefit from American Capitalism, the Federal Government and from our military protectionist adventures around the world.  Some must come from the citizens themselves.

Additionally, I think in order for citizens to qualify for said health care, they should be willing to serve in some capacity the country that provides these benefits and “entitlements.”  “To whom much is given, much is expected” after all.  Some want much and expect to give nothing in return.

Welfare as we know it should be heavily reformed as a means to cut spending.  To qualify for welfare, I believe, that one should show that one is working towards something such as higher education or some sort of self improvement.  Welfare should be a graduated system rather than an all or nothing system.  If recipients are not working towards some goal, they should be willing to work in some service category such as working for an NGO or volunteer work or community service of some sort.  I’m completely against giving anyone’s tax dollars away for nothing for all or a great many years of one’s life.  Disability and ill-health should be taken into consideration, of course.  I know too many people back home in Kentucky who have never worked a day in their trailer park livin’, mayonnaise sandwich eatin’ lives.  Yet, they sit and collect tax dollars in the form of food stamps and other forms of social services.  Some of these folks sell drugs on the side or engage in other illicit activity.  Many do not.

Corporate welfare and other handouts should face heavy scrutiny as well.  Why are we giving corporations and other entities these moneys or tax breaks.  Foreign aid and foreign military support should be scrutinized in the same manner.  Why do we still have forces in Europe?  Korea?  Japan?  It’s time to pull out of these places.  Those forces could be better deployed elsewhere or home.  Why are we funding despots when we should be pressuring them to reform.  If they haven’t reformed by now, it’s not going to happen in most cases.  We have carrots with no sticks following on.

Socialism and Democracy can co-exist and America has proven this to a more or less limited degree over the past 70 or so years.  Sweden is rated the most democratic country in the world according to the links below.  It also engages heavily in social welfare.  I don’t know if larger countries can maintain that same model.  But, perhaps, it is worth the chance.






Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard


by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
April 18, 2007

With war drums beating louder, senior military commanders in Tehran miss few opportunities to warn the government against plunging the country into an unequal fight with the United States and its allies.

One such warning came last month from the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRCG) General Rahim Safavi.

In an unusually frank assessment of the situation, he told an audience of guardsmen that the country lacked the necessary means to defend its extensive land and sea borders. He insisted that everything be done to avoid an “unhappy episode”.

In Tehran’s military circles, the phrase “unhappy episode” is a codeword for the only direct military clash that has so far taken place between the Islamic Republic and the United States.

The clash came on April 18, 1988, exactly 19 years ago today.

At the time, the Islamic Republic censored all news of the event so that most Iranians do not even know that it happened at all. For their part, the Americans also “managed” the flow of information about the clash to prevent its strategic importance from becoming apparent at the time.

Nevertheless, the clash between the navy of the Islamic Republic and a US naval task force led by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, was subsequently classed as one of the five naval battles of historic importance that established American sup-remacy at sea.


The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding.

The battle

The battle, nicknamed by the US “Operation Praying Mantis”, was followed in July by a tragic accident when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air jetliner by mistake, killing all 290 passengers and crew.

Khomeini interpreted the accident as a deliberate escalation by the US and feared that his regime was in danger. Rafsanjani and other advisers used that fear to persuade the ayatollah to end the war with Iraq, something he had adamantly refused for eight years.

A broken Khomeini appeared on TV to announce that he was “drinking the chalice of poison” by accepting a UN-ordered ceasefire. He was no longer going to Karbala on his way to Jerusalem.

In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.

The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. “This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes,” he said.

Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.

Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe


I was not aware that this had occurred. Interesting to note. If we were to retaliate against Iran in the near future, I think this is the way to go. Get in. Destroy the regime. Leave it behind. Let the Iranian people pick up the pieces on their own.

Lastly, leave a promise in the air. Act well or We Shall Return.


This is the only kind of deal you are likely to get from the Iranian Government.   Yet, Barack Obama wants “dialogue.”

Dec 2011 ~  Iran playing games again in the Straits of Hormuz.  Will there be a repeat?

Obama has failed in every endeavor as regards Iran.