The Nature of the Bear..


 

Anyone who has read my April 13th, 2014 article “Cold War Part II : The Return of the Dancing Bear” will take it as a condemnation of the Russian people..  You would be right..

In Recent news there have been many stories that point to the Russians  lack of change, or smarts.

After the fall of the Soviet Union most of the regions that had been held under the yoke of Russian domination decided it was their chance to make a break..

Things appeared to be going well  The Russians, for a couple of years, tried to fit in with the rest of the world.  This was an effort that did not really last very long..

Recent Russian actions  in the Ukraine and even the Georgia Republic, not the state just north of Florida, take us back to the old days of a Soviet Union..    The Russian might like to make everyone think they have changed but, as Popeye the Sailor would say “I am what I am, and that’s all that I am” they keep showing just what they are.

There are very good reason why a number of ex-Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join NATO, and  good reasons why NATO wanted them to join..

For years Europe was divided between the western countries, and the eastern bloc , or Warsaw Pact countries.  It wasn’t until the Soviet Union outspent itself, and fell apart that a divided Germany could be reunited, and other countries would try to join NATO tp protect themselves from just what we are seeing now, a resurgent Russia.

Some people have said that East Germany was better off under the rule of the Soviet Union, Anybody who thinks that should look at the pictures of East Berlin at the time the wall fell,  and compare it with the same area just after WWII…  The is very little difference with large swaths of the area still showing devastation from the war, while on the other side of the wall West Germany, with the aid of the United States, Britain, France and Canada, had been able to rebuild and move forward..  Of course the biggest clue to what these countries are trying to avoid is the wall itself..

Anyone who wonders how much control the Soviets had over the Warsaw Pact countries has to look no further than Czechoslovakia in 1969..  It was a time that is refereed to as the Prague Spring…  a time when the Czechoslovakian government was actually trying to introduce a more open society.  The Soviets did not approve and so on the night of 20–21 August 1968, Eastern Bloc armies from five Warsaw Pact countries – the Soviet Union, the GDR, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary—invaded the ČSSR.  The Soviet Yoke was re-installed, and the Czechoslovakian people would not get another chance until the Soviets fell..

Yes, the Cold War seems to be back on, and as a Freedom Loving people we need to understand that the Russians are trying to get back their former glory, and that they see anyone who is not under their control as an enemy…    One of the things we NEED to do is offer support, and protection, to those nations that are under threat by the Dancing Bear.

 

Thank,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

 

Cold War Part II? Return of the Dancing Bear..


 

English: The Cold War Русский: Холодная война ...
English: The Cold War Русский: Холодная война 中文: 冷战 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yes, the Russian Bear of old has returned to the dance floor and the left is once again falling over it’s  feet to show the world they are not afraid to dance with the Bear…

Round One  was like the old Dance Marathons of old with the Western countries, the United States taking the lead, dancing  till the Eastern Countries dropped.  The Soviet Union so exhausted it fell apart.

When the Soviet Union fell apart some years ago most nations breathed a sigh of relief and thought the Cold War was over and that Russia was going to join the rest of the world in “Peace and Harmony”…  This was a vision that had NO foundation in the real world…

All anyone has to do is look at the history of the Soviet Union…

During WWI the Russians were trying, at one point, to decide on whether to continue the fight or go for peace..  The Germans smuggled Lenin from Switzerland into Russia….*That is another thing we can blame on the Germans – the cold war*  where the new communist government took over the country by killing the Czar, the entire family and all the servants..     This would be a kind of trend..

Some years later the Russians would get together with the Germans to divide up Europe.  Together they invaded Poland and kicked off what would escalate into WWII.  The only reason we would be Allies with the Russians is because several months before the United States got into the war Russia was attacked by it’s ALLIES the Germans.

Over the years I have heard so much about the suffering of the Russian people.  How the faced so much deprivation during WWII.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the idea that if the Russian people not been so paranoid about the rest of the world, they obviously saw the rest of the word as being like them, they would have supported the rest of Europe and helped put down German aggression AT THE START, which would have eliminated the German’s later attack that almost defeated the Russians.  This would have saved many European lives as well as Russian.  Then again the Russian mindset is one that involves humanitarian principles…  Look at this : While Adolf Hitler is responsible for the death of 6,000,000, or so people, Stalin is credited with,  depending on where you read it, between 40,000,000 and 60,000,000 people.

Sure the Russians helped the Germans invade Poland because they, so they say, wanted a buffer between them and the hostile west..

A west that was hostile to actions of the Russians..   Here is an interesting article from the U. S. State Department office of the Historian.   Read this page and then tell me why their recent actions are a surprise?

Yes, the Bear is back and up to his old dance tricks.

Thank you,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Party Platform? Is that anyway to vote?


Official photo of Florida Governor Charlie Crist
Official photo of Florida Governor Charlie Crist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I remember the old voting booths where there were a series of lever that you flipped over to denote who you wanted to vote for..  I also remember that there was, in the general election, a lever that you could use to vote for a strict party vote..

A candidates party affiliation is good for getting an idea of what the candidates views are.  If you agree with that candidate you should vote for them.  I just happen to believe that when you vote, your vote should be for the person you believe will be the best fit for that job.

So, what am I trying to say here?  Let me put it to you this way.

For the last several years it seem that the American budget talks are getting held hostage by party interest.  At one point they formed a 12 person committee that met with the President to decide what to do…  The committee came up with a number of suggestion and put a bill together that, with the agreement of President Obama, sailed through the House and died in the Senate when Harry Reid refused to bring it up for a vote…  He said the Republicans were to blame for him not even bringing it up for consideration, even though a Democrat President Obama had helped in its formation.

There are times like this when you can see that our politicians, who are supposed to Represent our interest, care less about the people than they do their party..

A couple of years ago, during the Florida Governor debates, Bill McCollum pretty much called Rick Scott a crook.  Then, once Scott had won the primary McCollum, cam out and endorsed him….  Did McCollum not believe Scott was a crook, or was he more interested in putting PARTY FIRST.

When the politicians are more interested in their parties agenda we have to remember that WE, the American People, are the ones that get screwed…..  If these people were more interested in doing what was right for the country, and not just their party, we would have a budget done EVERY year.

What WE need to do is get leaders into office and NOT PARTY FLUNKIES.

We are a Democracy because we elect our own crooks.  We are a Republic because we elect people who are supposed to represent OUR interest…  What we have been doing for a number of years seem to be putting the Party Flunkies into power.

We had a governor who was not afraid to side with the Democrats when he thought they were right.  The Republicans said he was not Republican enough, as he did not vote along strict party lines, and so he became an independent, and then a Democrat.  By some accounts Charlie Crist was an even more popular Governor than Jeb Bush.  As a Presently Registered Republican I would vote for Charlie Crist if he runs again.

What we need to do is find and nurture the kind of people who are willing to put the interest of the American people over the interest of their Party, and get rid of the PARTY FLUNKIES who have not been doing a good job of representing US.

Obamascare : Is it really part of the Left’s Secret War on America?


Sure, I pick on the Left..  I will go so far as to say that I am not happy with either the left or the right, and wish that their politics did not just seem to be a smokescreen to hide the fact they are screwing all of us..

Now for the subject of the day..  Obamascare…  and the “it is not a penalty, it is a TAX” joke..

The Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause of the constitution did not allow the government to force people to join health care programs.  Then they went and said that the Government could tax you (a penalty?) for not joining something they had no authority to force you to join….

Think of it this way..  The next time a state, or even the federal, government announces another execution don’t think of it as a “death penalty” think of it as the new “Death Tax”.

The most taxing thing I see about this is their logic…  Then again they are lawyers and therefor not really normal..

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

 

What are Our Needs? is that the same as Our Rights?


Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789
Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789 (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

 

 

 

As we debate the issue of what the 2nd Amendment really means, and who it really applies to, we are also debating the rights associated with 9 other amendments that also form th Bill of Rights.

 

Here is a nice link to the Bill of Rights Institute, which not only give a text of the Bill of Rights but, some information about the rational for the Bill itself..

 

Here is a portion that has given so many people a lot of confusion…

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Now, this is where some of the confusion came from…  For years the militia part was interpreted to mean the amendment applied to the federal government, and not the individual citizen.  They took the “well regulated militia” to mean the Military, even though most of our founding fathers did not seem to envision a standing army.

 

So, what is a militia?  Look here for a good definition of a Militia.  The courts have held, recently, that the 2nd amendment really did apply to the states, and the people.  It would be kind of hard to explain how one amendment would only apply to the federal government while the other nine applied to the “the people” mentioned in the 2nd…

 

We are really lucky that the Federalist did not get their way.  They were sure that our rights were obvious and that we did not need to delineate them in the Constitution.  We have a Bill of Rights written into the Constitution and we are still arguing about what they mean…  So what do you think would have happened if we did NOT have the Bill of Rights?  The Antifederalist wanted a list of rights, the federalist did not, they compromised and gave us a short list, with the understanding that any close decisions was to be decided on behalf of the Citizen.

 

Ok.. Most people will tell you that we have the right to bear arms, some reluctantly.  Some people will tell you that we do not need high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic weapons (for the liberal news people who might be reading this the semi-automatic means that it only fires one shot each time you pull the trigger, and the name is not interchangeable with automatic weapon), or even the right to carry (again for you liberal news people that means to carry).

 

No, I don’t need a 30 round magazine.  Most of the time I don’t even need a firearm but, needing and having are two different things…  I don’t normally need a fire extinguisher, but sometime I might, so it would be nice to have one on hand.  The question, which so many of the rabbit want to ignore, is not about if we need to bear arms the fact is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

 

in·fringe from reference.com

 

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

 

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

 

Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2  + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

 

If you, or anyone, wants to limit our rights to what we need then you will have to see the constitution as just another piece of papers….  which can be ignored at will..

 

Without people who believe in it the U.S. Constitution it is just an old piece of parchment  to be thrown out when it becomes inconvenient. such as when it is no longer NEEDED..

 

We have choices..  We always have choices.  One is that we can abide by the Constitution, another is we can ignore it, kind of like the “gun” control people seem to want, or we can change it..

 

The first two do not seem like viable options, since a number of people are determined to ignore it, so that leaves us with the idea of change..  Yes, the constitution has been changed in the past.  We have added more amendments, and done away with at least one, remember prohibition?

 

Then again, does anyone remember the Articles of Confederation?  It brought the states together but, did not give the central government the power to make the states behave.  So they decided to “revise” the Articles of Confederation to give the central government more power, and to make bills easier to pass.

 

Thus it was, in just a few years” replaced.  Never voted out, the new Constitution was just voted in..  Would we really want to risk that?

 

Lets go back to the idea of NEEDS..  What do we really need..  and if we don’t need something who will decide if we need it..  I know we already have people who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment by saying you can’t have more than a certain number of rounds in a magazine, it is NOT A CLIP,

 

We have been told that you don’t need to tell lies about other people(slander or libel), unless you are a politician, or yell “fire” in a crowed theater unless there really is a fire.

 

Just think of the “Bill of Rights” and consider how many of them you really “NEED” on a given day..  For those of you who don’t get arrested, for example, you won’t “NEED” the right to have a lawyer present, or the “right to remain silent”.  There are a number of “rights” that we have and yet don’t need on a daily basis so, who is going to decide which of the “rights” you “need” and when you need them….  Will there be a secret court, such as the now famous FISA court, where they will decide if you even “need” a trial by your peers, or will they just pronounce you guilty, and the first thing you hear about it is when they take you to serve your sentence?

 

One last thought for the day:  for those of you who say that our founding father’s did not anticipate high capacity magazine, or even weapon that could fire more than one shot, I say, look at how the world has changed, since then and understand that they did not anticipate the internet, the phone system, telegrams, and many other wonders we have.  Wonders that the Supreme Court has been called upon to apply our rights to.  What if it had been decided that, since they had only envisioned the mail, that he telegraph, your phone, your cell phone, or the internet did not come under those items protected by the Constitution.  Any of those things could then be open without probable cause, and you would have no electronic privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta