By James Shott

"It's official: 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States,” according to a statement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as reported by Scientific American.

The weather seems to be good with us these days, without question. For that matter the leather jacket made a comeback into my outfits and also the red color. So today I have a black & red combo, spiced up by this printed blouse. The whole look seems to be a little bit rocky, a little bit Balmain, don't you think?



                                                                               Leather jacket: Rezrekshn/ option Here
                                                                               Jeans: Mango/ similar Here
                                                                               Blouse: thanks to Sheinside/ Here
                                                                               Booties: Daniblack/ Here
                                                                               Bag: vintage
                                                                               Ring: Banana Republic
                                                                               Sunglasses: Ray Ban/ Here 



                                                                             

Once More Into The Breach!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************
If you have been visiting the moon recently and have been out of touch with the goings on here in America, do not be surprised to learn that Americans are arming themselves to the teeth with any thing that will shoot.

Firearms are flying off the shelves of gun shops and being carted off by customers at gun shows. 

Weapons most in demand are civilian versions of military weapons.  Ammunition has been stripped from the shelves of stores and warehouses and back orders abound at ammo manufacturers.

Gun owners are cleaning their weapons and taking inventory of their ammo supplies and re-stocking when necessary.  This time, however, they are buying crates of ammo instead of boxes.

What's going on?  Are we being invaded?

Not exactly.

Americans have become convinced, according to Ben Crystal in a piece entitled:  "Guns And Obama: The Stand"  Mr. Crystal says it's because America has:   “A criminal President who actually believes he’s above the law and the Constitution, a Democratic Party bent on subjugation of the people and an electorate willing to trade freedom for perceived security.”  http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/10/guns-and-obama-the-stand/

Simply put -- Americans believe their government has gone rogue on them and they are preparing for action to set it aright again. 

A restoration of constitutional government in the United States is in order Americans believe -- or a possible parting of the ways by the states and the federal government ... again. 

The tipping point was the government's tromping on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is, arguably, the single most important amendment within the Bill of Rights. It is the protector of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Americans have become convinced, by the words and actions of the federal government recently, that it intends to violate that amendment and strip even more freedom and liberty from the American people and they have drawn a line in the sand.

The American gun owners are telling the government -- as plainly as they can -- that IF the government comes after their guns they will stand and fight.  Should that happen, there is no doubt civil unrest will spread like wildfire across the nation and within days the country will be at war with its government.  That, by definition is a REVOLUTION.

Let me attempt to clear something up -- the DIFFERENCE between a revolution and a civil war.  There is a HUGE difference.  The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war.  Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-revolution-and-civil-war/#ixzz2Haq4C7KW

It IS possible to wage both sorts of conflicts simultaneously, or for a revolution to transform into a civil war.  

Remember:  A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state.  Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-revolution-and-civil-war/#ixzz2HaroWkpB

Think:  Gun owners against gun grabbers = "CIVIL WAR."

Think:  2nd Amendment constitutionalists against a government bent on "infringing" rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment = REVOLUTION." 

There is no war as ferocious and savage as a revolution/civil war. But that is exactly where America is headed as surely as a Martin flies to its gourd. 

Believe me when I tell you, if you think the so-called "Arab Spring" was vicious, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Before you accuse me of over-reacting to a POSSIBLE confiscation of guns by the US government -- remember -- the American Revolution BEGAN when the British moved to confiscate arms at Concord. The American colonists responded and met them WITH PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS!  And the war was on!

America abounds with millions of military veterans trained by the world's finest military.  Those men and women took an oath to protect the constitution against ALL enemies DOMESTIC and foreign and it had/has no expiration date.  Even without an oath, those veterans are patriots and they will not, they cannot, stand by and watch their country being enslaved.

They will take up arms to defend the constitution -- the very foundation of their country.

Look.  There is no more dangerous animal on the face of the earth than a pi**ed-off American with a weapon.  At this writing, their are several million outraged, angry, just plain MAD as hell Americans cleaning their weapons and preparing for anyone approaching their door with the intent of confiscating their guns. 

We warned in recent scribbling(s) that when this moment came it would be down and dirty  -- and extremely fast.  That may turn out to be an understatement.

My primary concern has been, all along, that Obama would use the power of the Executive Order against gun owners.  Now, the Executive Branch is threatening just that.  Consider the following:  “The president is going to act,” said Biden. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”  SOURCE:  http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/10/a-gun-control-news-roundup/

Even though the US House of Representatives holds the power of the purse in the US government, and can simply cut off the funds for a particular activity of a government agency, or shut off funds for that agency, altogether, thereby all but abolishing the agency,  I see no great ground swell of support for cutting off funds for BATFE, DHS, and TSA to name but a few US federal agencies that we feel would be directly involved with confiscating the weapons of American gun owners.

The plain truth is -- gun owning constitutionalists may find they have no sympathizers (or very little) in the US Congress and may, indeed, be on their own.  In which case, they may be expected to press their states to secede. 

Another question is whether or not US military commanders will refuse the orders of the Commander-in-Chief -- especially if ordered to violate the "posse comitatus law". (posse comitatus refers to the military enforcement of civilian laws. Read more at:  http://hnn.us/articles/16616.html)

How WILL the Joint Chiefs act -- or refuse to act under such circumstances?  The fact is -- the posse comitatus act is so full of legal loopholes that it is nearly worthless and will be quickly overcome by a bull-headed Commander-in-Chief. 

We may also expect the President to federalize the National Guard -- of all states -- to prevent the governors of the states from using the guard to protect the citizens of the states from federal agents or federal troops. Again, more pressure for states to secede.  (As a Southerner, I find it a bit ironic that the US Army now is reverting back to the blue uniforms it wore during the War Between the States.  Is somebody scripting this ?)

Once Obama sets the nation on this course, there will be no turning back.  America will never again be whole.

So.  It would appear that Americans are preparing to exercise the 2nd Amendment for  exactly the reason it was placed in the Bill of Rights by our Founding Fathers -- to save the constitution -- and the country -- from a tyrannical government.  Now, what could be more American than that?

As sad as it is to think such a thing might happen here in America, one must remember that it has already happened -- not once, but twice before.  

Let me be clear:  I am not advocating a revolution or a civil war. I am WARNING that either one or the other -- or BOTH -- are quite possible in the prevailing atmosphere of hate and distrust blanketing America today.

The gun grabbers will have to penetrate a patriotic phalanx to "infringe" the 2nd Amendment.  A very, very, angry and very, very,  committed phalanx.
  

© J. D. Longstreet

Before I jump into a recap of my weekend, let me first say a big 'thank you' for all of your comments on Friday's post. You are good eggs, each and every last one of you. And if I could, I'd hug you all. And I'm a good hugger. Just ask around. I'm kind of a big deal amongst high powered hugging circles. So thank you.

Now the weekend. It was sunny and warm. There was shopping involved and pretty dresses. Not too shabby at all.

I've got a new upholstery project waiting for me.


Had a great day with Client F where we scored many many goodies. I'll have to take proper pictures with a real camera, but here is a ReStore score/project in the making.


Brainstorming some ideas on how to work with this tile combo.


And came home Sunday afternoon to find this masterpiece ON my doorway.


Creativity seeps out of every member of the little black door household. We are unstoppable.

How was your weekend? Enjoy any good food, company or entertainment? What did you think of the Globes? Was Jodie Foster supposed to make sense? She rambles more than I do! And Tommy Lee Jones - lighten up. No one shot your dog. It's a party. Live a little.

Stolen from Maggie's Notebook with permission by Findalis

In August 2011 I posted an article titled Academia Normalizing Pedophiles With Minor-Attracted Persons: Hebephile, Ephebophiles and Pedophiles. The Hebes and the Ephebs were new to me. “Hebe” was the goddess of youth and cupbearer for the gods; Epheb, also from Greek mythology, and generally referring to an adolescent, but who knew this ancient mythololgy could legitimize the abuse of our children in the 21st Century. I missed most talk radio this week, but a reader emailed and told me Rush Limbaugh was talking about Academia and Pedophilia and their attempts to drag it into accepted mainstream thinking, and the reader kindly mentioned my 2011 article. You see, if your are one of these three “philes,” Ped, Epheb or Hebe, it is simply your sexual orientation, (certainly not a crime except in the eyes of the unreasonable). (See and Update below)

Normalizing Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia

Stacey McCain responded to Rush’s conversation this week by quoting his own article in The Washington Times in April 2002:

Promoting pedophilia
Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A new book that says child molesters are not a major peril to children is part of a larger movement within academia to promote “free sexual expression of children.”

The movement to legitimize sex between adults and children is “gathering steam,” warns Stephanie Dallam, researcher for the Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice and the Media in Philadelphia, an organization that deals with prevention and treatment of child abuse.

“Some people view children as the next sexual frontier,” Ms. Dallam says.

Feminist writer Judith Levine’s book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex” has been condemned by those who say she excuses sexual abuse of children – a charge she strongly denies.

Ms. Levine says she was “misunderstood” after a news article last month quoted her saying a boy’s sexual experience with a priest “conceivably” could be positive.

From McCain’s article dated January 11, 2013, referring to Judith Levine’s book referenced above:

[Levine] said, “The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young – even quite young – people can have a positive sexual experience with an adult. That’s what the research shows.”

Featuring a foreword by Clinton administration Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Ms. Levine’s book endorses a Dutch law, passed in 1990, that effectively lowered the age of consent to 12. Ms. Levine cites research about “happy consensual sex among kids under 12,” and writes: “America’s drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them.” Read more…

Hebephilias are those who have a sexual preference for children in the early years of puberty, ages 10-14.  Ephebophilias prefer children in the later years of adolescence. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children. At this conference, there will be an effort to establish whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder.  Put them all together and this group is known as paraphilias.

My 2011 article centered around an August 2011 conference to exchange ideas WITH “minor-attracted persons,” sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of paraphilia activists. The American Psychiatric Association stated that it is important to have “accurate and complete scientific information” on the Ped, the Hebes and the Ephebs. Are the three a mental disorder, or are they not (note that Ephebophilia, attraction to older adolescents, is not considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association).

At the 2011 conference, Dr John Z. Sadler, a professo of Medical Ethics and Psychiatry, spoke on “Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts – Pedophilia as an Example.” His time at the podium examined this:

(2) If Pedophilia and related categories are to be preserved as legitimate,&nbsp nonmorally value-laden disorders, then they require a preponderance of nonmorally-value-laden diagnostic descriptors in their diagnostic criteria.

B4U-ACT makes it clear that being sexually attracted to minors is an attraction the adult does not choose to have. It just happens. We don’t know why diagnostically, and/or the person is a victim of a mental disorder, but Dr. Fred Berlin, quoted on the B4U-ACT website, clearly normalizes child predators:

Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so.

Fred Berlin, M.D.
National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma

The key here is Dr. John Sadler’s quest to put paraphilias into a “nonmorally value-laden disorder,” and to achieve that goal, we need “nonmorally-value-laden diagnostic descriptors” to properly put the paraphilia into a normal sexual orientation.

Rush Limbaugh explains a Guardian (UK) article:

The argument being made in the piece is that the desire for sex with children is a natural part of the human condition.  And, in fact, if we acknowledge it, and encourage it, we can actually somehow better protect children.  That’s in the story, too.  It’s the same thinking, if you remember back in the nineties, when we were told that kids are going to have sex, you can’t stop them.  And that’s why we needed to give away condoms in the schools.

Remember we had stories from Long Island about parents who said that they willingly let their daughters’ boyfriends spend the night because it was better if their daughter was gonna have sex in a clean bedroom rather than the backseat of a car.  Well, same thing here.  We can better protect children if we know that they’re having sex with adults rather than it being done on the sly…

In fact, the article in the Guardian actually quotes some academics. (For those of you in Rio Linda, that’s college professor types.  These are the people you see that have leather arm patches on their sport coats.)  Academics are quoted in the Guardian piece saying that sex with adults does not hurt children.  Normalization.  So Jon Henley decided he’d write a whole piece on this, normalizing pedophilia, where he quotes extensively and looks into it and finds out what this is all about.  Read more at Rush Limbaugh 

“Normalization” has to be great news, offering hope to pedophile priests and pastors across the globe, fathers who have abused their own children in this heinous way, female teachers who rape their young adolescent male students, and as Rush says, Jerry Sandusky. Once “nonmorally value-laden descriptors” are decided upon, published and sanctioned with the help of the American Psychiatric Association, The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) can crawl back out of their dark hole…oh but wait, maybe they didn’t make it all the way underground. The NAMBLA website, with childish colors and a sweet print of two young boys smeared with mud from playtime, lounging on a log near a seaport, greets visitors.
From Boston Magazine May 2001:

Boys flocked to the three-story, wood-shingled house on Mountain Avenue in Revere for the teenage version of the Holy Grail: an endless supply of beer and weed. Being drunk and stoned made everything-from the air hockey to the movie watching-significantly more enjoyable. There was also money to be had. The pocket cash came from the local men, who especially liked it when the local boys (hustlers, gay teens, straight teens) lounged around the house with their shirts off.

Then there were smiles all around.

There was also sex. The boys had sex with each other. The boys had sex with the men. All of this was done quietly, because neighbors would later say that they didn’t see or hear anything unusual coming from the house. There were no naked boys loitering in the doorway, no drunken men stumbling in the back yard, no obvious signs of depravity. It was a normal house, the neighbors thought, until they learned that it wasn’t.

In June 1977, police arrested the house’s owner and announced that it was the national headquarters of a sordid, pornographic sex ring. It was a stretch to call it a “ring,” but Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne declared that the arrests were just “the tip of the iceberg.” There had to be other perverted people in other wood-shingled houses. And Byrne had a way to catch them: A hotline people could call with anonymous tips about molesters…

Everybody was talking about the case, which led to the indictments of 24 men. During an interview on a Boston television station, poet and outspoken boy-lover Allen Ginsberg joked about the scandal. “I had sex when I was 8 with a man in the back of my grandfather’s candy store in Revere, and I turned out okay,” Ginsberg declared before being hurried off-stage as the station cut to a commercial…

The story wraps up what you need to know:

Could NAMBLA’s founders have had any idea that they would become America’s symbol of organized depravity? That a group founded mostly by eccentric, boy-loving leftists would come to be considered Public Enemy Number One in the nation’s battle against child sexual abuse?

NAMBLA for Obama

UPDATE 10:36 pm: The photo above is unattributed. A reader found it some time ago but cannot remember where.

Brings back rude memories of Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School Czar, doesn’t it? Or ACLU President for 16 years, Nadine Strossen who kept convicted felon Steven C. Cunningham by her side, as as her Chief Aide (Strossen left the ACLU in 2008):

Steven C. Cunningham was convicted of the murky charge of Child Endangerment in the State of New Jersey. What is child endangerment? Did he fail to buckle a child’s seatbelt? Did he leave a small child at home, unattended? Did he go shopping with a child and let the child wander away? Did he allow a child to assault another child – endangering the assaulted? Did he let a child play with a medicine bottle?

No, that’s not what he did. He had three online chats with a boy that he believed was 12 years old, but was actually a police officer. According to charges filed, the phone calls were lewdly graphic and he attempted to meet “the child” somewhere. Cunningham was permanently disbarred in the State of New Jersey, but it appears that he is still licensed to practice in the State of New York and continues in the position of Chief Aide to ACLU President Nadine Strossen.

Since Strossen’s office will not confirm or deny Cunningham’s important position as her Chief Aide, why do I think he is still, indeed, with the ACLU? Here’s why: A search of New York State Unified Court System eCourts site confirms that Steven Christie Cunningham is licensed to practice in New York. Is Steven Christie Cunningham the same convicted Steven C. Cunningham? I think so. After this morning’s “no comment” from Strossen’s office, I called the phone number for Steven Christie Cunningham given on eCourts website. That call was answered by the New York Law School voicemail. When I selected Cunningham’s name from the list offered, the call was answered by Nadine Strossen’s office – the same young man who took my first call this a.m. and refused comment.

So much for the ACLU’s interest in your civil liberties or mine…our right to know if a man convicted of child endangerment is an integral part of the ACLU daily operations.

The New York State Unified Court System page today says Steven Christie Cunningham “resigned from bar – disciplinary reason” but fails to give a date. The ACLU, at the highest level, ‘normalized’ pedophilia.

As Rush said: Don’t pooh-pooh the Left’s push to normalize Pedophilia. Graphic courtesy of Wizbang

********************************************************************

The agenda of the Left is to destroy the morals of the people of the United States.  First destroy marriage and chastity.  Then accept Infanticide (aka Abortion) as a normal alternative to birth control.  Then accept homosexuality as just "Another lifestyle choice".  And now to accept the raping of our children.

In the Netherlands this is already acceptable.  The age of consent is 12.  A former Surgeon General and leading Doctors in this country endorse the idea.  They cry we should allow children to be raped indoctrinated into the "joys" of sex at a young age.  And the ACLU is gearing up to destroy our children in the name of "Civil Rights".

What justice will there be for our children when this becomes legal and we are forced to turn our precious children over to the local molester for indoctrination?

America Loses Another War!
More Mediocrity!!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
***************************
Cut it anyway you want, parse it anyway you choose, and the plain truth remains -- America has lost the war in Afghanistan.  This loss comes right on the heels of the lost war in Iraq.

Here's the President's mealy mouthed "apology " for cutting and running in Afghanistan:  "So, you know, I think that, have we achieved everything that some might have imagined us achieving in the best of scenarios? Probably not. You know, there's a human enterprise, and you know, you fall short of the ideal,"

Well, now.  I suppose it just makes everything all right for those veterans permanently injured from that war, right?

Look.  The war in Afghanistan was mismanaged almost from the beginning.  I say "almost" because the public intent of the invasion of Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban and a disrupt AL-Qaeda (in Afghanistan) so they could no longer train and mount attacks on the US from Afghan soil.  Personally, I was OK with that.  I felt it needed to be done.

BUT.  Then it became something else entirely.  It became a mission in "Nation Building" at which the US absolutely sucks!

As you may have gathered, if you regularly follow this scribe's ranting, I hate the idea of nation building -- especially when it is done by the US military whose mission should ALWAYS be to kill people and break things.  And when they are NOT killing people and breaking things they ought to be training to kill people and break things so as to maintain their edge, to be sharp and leaning forward, ready to bring America's hammer down on any enemy, or would be enemy, at a moment's notice.

I do not think the war in Afghanistan has been prosecuted as aggressively as it should (or could) have been.  I don’t think we used anywhere near the force we could have used and I have no love for “winning the hearts and minds” of an enemy, any enemy.   I fault the Commanders-in-Chief(s) for that. 

When a nation goes to war,  the intent should be to bring as much "hell" down on the enemy as it is possible to deliver without Satan's active participation.  You level the country, destroy the infrastructure, and kill as many of the enemy, and the enemies civilian population, as it requires until he loses the wherewithal and the motivation (the will) to continue the fight.  You make him understand that the cost of warring against the United States is so very costly, it should NEVER, ever,  be contemplated again. This should be done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Dealing death to the enemy in such a manner will preserve the lives and limbs of American soldiers and will force\ the enemy to sacrifice the lives of HIS soldiers in great numbers.
After the war is CLEARLY won and a surrender is formally signed, THEN and ONLY then should ANY form of "nation RE-building" begin -- and even then -- it should be done with NGO's (non-government organizations)

If you've never seen the old movie entitled "The Mouse That Roared" by all means treat your self and enjoy it.  But do not miss the lesson in the movie for America.  A capsule synopsis:  A tiny little nation, finding itself broke and on the skids to oblivion, hits upon the idea of declaring war on the US so the US will invade and do what we call today "nation building" and, of course, rebuild their country AND finance their government for decades to come. It will REALLY get you thinking about the possibility of that scenario playing out today -- especially in an Asian country where the people are starving because the country hasn't enough money to build nuclear bombs and missiles and feed its people, too.

But I digress.

Had the US invaded Afghanistan and totally destroyed it (we undeniably have the military capacity to do just that) and killed as many of the Taliban -- and members of AL-Qaeda -- as we could get our hands on, and turned the entire place into a smoldering ash heap, THEN it would be time to pull the troops out and come home.  

But we didn't do that.  We had something called "mission creep,"  and "mission change," and godawful rules of engagement, etc.  The instant the mission began to change was the exact moment the US lost the war in Afghanistan!

The "Islamo-terrorists" will be singing the praises of THEIR victory in Afghanistan.  Their propaganda will , of course, be that THEY drove the US military from the field proving the US is "beatable."   And all their crowing and posturing and firing their weapons into the air WILL BE EFFECTIVE and their ranks will swell and their outreach into other vulnerable parts of the world will expand and there will be more killing, more war, more destruction, and yes, more terrorism on a global scale.

In remarks with Afghan president Hamid Karzai at the White House Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama asked:  "Did we achieve our central goal?"  I would answer by saying:  I don't know.  Did we?  It might have helped had we known what the hell our central goal was/is in Afghanistan -- and  had we employed maximum effort toward achieving that goal.  But we DID NOT!

Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT Vietnam.  We can't just walk away from THIS enemy.  This enemy with which we are engaged does not simply want to occupy Afghanistan (and Iraq)  as the North Vietnamese wanted to occupy South Vietnam.  The enemy with which we are engaged today wants (and intends) to OCCUPY THE ENTIRE WORLD! They already hold vast portions of it even today.  They are the largest religion on the planet! A tenant of their faith says America MUST die. They will not be swayed from their goal of overrunning America and setting up that worldwide caliphate. And… do not kid yourself… the ONLY thing standing in their way is AMERICA! They will keep coming as long as even one them draws breath! They are within our borders, even now, plotting death and destruction here in America.

The Islamo-terrorists are CERTAIN of their central goal.  They KNOW what they want and they KNOW what to do to attain it.  They are determined to do whatever it takes to reach their goal and win absolute victory -- and enslave the world.

So.  This is the new normal, huh?  America can't win a war.  Embarrassingly, the US military's  "loss" column is now longer than the "win" column (if one goes back only to the beginning of the 20th century.)  But it IS clear that you don't win wars by running away as we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and now in Afghanistan.

EVERYONE KNOWS that within weeks or months (possibly even DAYS), Afghanistan will revert right back into the hands of the Taliban and AL-Qaeda negating whatever progress we THOUGHT we had made in that area.

So what do we say to the veterans who must contend with broken bodies and broken minds for the remainder of their lives?  "Thanks for your service?"  That seems so damned inadequate. And it is.

It is said that war is diplomacy by "other" means.  Maybe so.  But it seems to me that a responsible President, our military's Commander-in-Chief, ought to know, going into a war in which he/she is sending Americans into a struggle in which their very lives are at stake, what, exactly, the central goal actually IS, be able to articulate that goal to the American people, and commit America to a war in which we intend to do everything necessary to win.  When America commits to a war it should be a war in which the rules of engagement are very simple -- to do whatever it takes to win absolute victory.
One final thing:  The American people ought to demand that the constitution be followed when committing America to any war.  There should be a formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. Otherwise -- no war.

Show me a "good loser" -- and I will show you a "loser!"  

I am tired of "losing."  But, hey!  This is that "mediocrity" under a socialist/Marxist leader we warned so vehemently about. So -- get used to it. The US is going to lose a heck of a lot more than a war before the socialists/Marxists in charge of the US government are finished with us.

Naomi R. Wolf, American author and former political consultant, said:  "The great dictators learn from one another what was essentially a blueprint for closing down an open society; and then it became clear to me that this blueprint is simple. It consists of ten steps. Ten clear steps. Then what became chillingly clear to me is that these ten steps are in place in America today."  SOURCE: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294790/quotes 

What are the ten steps Ms. Wolf refers to:  "1. Invoke an internal and external threat 2. Secret prisons where torture takes place 3. Develop a paramilitary force 4. Surveil ordinary citizens 5. Infiltrate citizens' groups 6. Detain and release ordinary citizens 7. Target key individuals 8. Restrict the press 9. Recast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason 10. Subvert the rule of law.

Chilling?  You bet!

Is it time, yet,  for Americans to reclaim their birthright?  If not now -- when?

© J. D. Longstreet