Posts Tagged ‘Democrat’

The Democrat Wave

Posted by Troy on 9th November 2017 in Political

In special election after special election, the media declared “This is referendum on Trump!”  Remember that?  In Kansas and Georgia and other red states?  The resistance was going to conquer Trump?  Remember the Trumpslayer Ossoff?  And each time, they failed.  It would appear that they learned their lesson.  So this time, they waited for the races to be in blue states, declare that it’s a referendum election, and when the Democrats won, say “See!  The Democrats are back!”  Because the Media is all about the narrative.  Unfortunately for them, they lost all their credibility in the last election because they kept peddling a narrative.  Once you lose that credibility, you lose your power to craft the narrative, especially when you have a President that really doesn’t care about you and your supposed power.  It’s like Trump has said to the Media “Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the [White House in the Swamp] to take back the [country] you have stolen,   For my will is as strong as yours, and my [voice] as great.  You have no power over me!”

This wasn’t a wave.  This was Democrats winning races that they were supposed to win.  Nothing more.  Maybe you’d like to predict that Democrats are going to win in California next?  Go ahead if it makes you feel good.

Long Live the Constitution!

Bernie Disappoints Me

Posted by Troy on 12th July 2016 in Current Events, Political

And let it be said of all false prophets.  He is a sellout as they all are.  I lost all respect for him.  Hillary Clinton is the poster child of government corruption and theft.  She is the poster child of selling influence, of being above the law, of bad trade deals and all the other things he claimed to be against.  But in the end, he tucked his tail between his legs and endorsed her.  In fairness, he may find Trump is worse, but there is a difference in endorsing someone and fighting someone.  If he wanted to take the position “We cannot allow Trump to become President,” then by all means, I could still have respect for him, but instead, he decided to laude praise on Clinton.  This is clearly him selling out.  We will never know what his price was, but he will be rewarded for “handing over” his followers.

I think that the Democrats have miscalculated, however.  These were not people that followed Bernie because they loved Bernie.  No, these were people who followed Bernie because he was speaking the things that they believed.  They loved how he took it to Clinton.  I should imagine that there will be a very sizable portion of his followers that will simply lose faith in Bernie and not blithely follow what he says.  I think Bernie is the Liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck.  He thinks he can dictate how people vote, and I think he is going to find out that people actually DO think for themselves sometimes.

Long Live the Constitution!

Why I will never vote for Michelle Nunn

Posted by Troy on 22nd October 2014 in Political

The main reason is: I don’t trust her.  Honestly, after the Healthcare passage, I have zero faith in any Democrat.  There were several Democrats that told their constituents that they would not vote for the Healthcare law.  When the party came a-knocking, they sided with the party, not their constituents.  That entire debacle has left the Democrat Party dead to me.  And yes, I have voted for Democrats before.  Never again.  I will either vote Republican or Libertarian (although I still prefer Libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul to avoid the 3rd party giving power to the Democrats).  In particular, she says that we need to scale back the the budget…of course, we need to use a scalpel, not an axe.  What this always translates to is “No attempt will be made to balance the budget.  No scalpel will be used.  We MAY use an ax on the military to fund our domestic agenda, but that’s the only spending cuts we are interested in.  Don’t worry.  We outspend every other country in the world on military.  It is obvious that we are wasting this money because we already have the best military, so why do we have to spend more than anyone else?”  Of course, this logic completely defies a few facts such as: 1) We have the best military because we have always invested so much into it.  2) We spend more than anyone else because everyone else has gutted their own militaries to pay for their social programs, leaving us as the lone force to hold back the bad players.  3)  “World’s greatest military” is a title that can be easily passed to another country.  4)  There has been RELATIVE world peace due to the fact that America is so strong.  If America was weak, China and Russia would be invading all over the place.  God bless the nuke.

Here is the way Democrats see the world: We need more taxes to pay for more stuff.  People cannot handle themselves.  We need to make things cheaper by taxing people and having the government subsidize food and education and healthcare and everything else.  Of course, when you have a third payer system, all you do is jack up the prices.  Take education.  First, we have turned our primary/high schools into daycare.  It used to be that not all students finished high school.  As such, a high school degree used to mean something.  Now it doesn’t.  Why?  Because we use it as day care to keep hoodlum teens off the street (temporarily anyway).  Even crappy students that cannot read or do basic math somehow get a diploma.  Why?  Because we’ve become a society that awards just showing up.  To the Democrats, education is accomplished as long as the student’s butt is in the seat.  It doesn’t.  Education only happens when the student is motivated from within to learn.  This is something that has to be instilled by parents.  No teacher can teach a student if the student really doesn’t care.  So when a high school diploma means nothing, kids are forced to go to college just to get standard jobs such a receptionist.  This is insanity.  We are making people take calculus and learn philosophy to pick up a damn phone?  Yes, that is insane.  Of course, when when everyone has to go to college just to get any old job, then you have to help the poor afford college.  This means that you have to offer subsidies and scholarships (or loans, but how dare you expect people to actually pay for their own education?).  This allows the schools to jack up tuition.  Go back and look at the charts for tuition rates and for the government programs paying for them.  You will find that pre-government payment plans, tuition costs were reasonable.  Afterwards?  It grew and multiples of the inflation rate.  This is not a co-incidence.  If you want to control tuition costs, the answer is simple: cut core classes and just let people take courses that are pertinent to their degrees.  You could cut the number of classes someone has to pay for by 75% easily.  It also gets them to the job market faster, earns more tax dollars for the government, and frees them for debt.  The Democrat’s solution?  “Student Loan Forgiveness.”  Why?  Basically so that all the stupid college kids will become Democrats.  The only strategy any Democrat has is to buy your vote.  Eventually, the wallet will dry up.  These programs will all fail, and then we will be in bad shape.

That is why I will never vote for Michelle Nunn or any other Democrat.

Long Live the Constitution!

Who should give charity?

Posted by Troy on 9th September 2012 in Human Nature

Catholics tend to support Democrats.  A Catholic asked me why this is.  The reason the church usually gives is that the Democratic party supports giving to the poor.  They overlook the whole abortion, gay marriage, and increased acceptance of divorce, but okay.  But here’s a question: Why do they support the Democrats for “giving to the poor?”  You see, the thing is that the only way the government can give to the poor is through coercion.  When the poor vote to take money from the rich to have it redistributed to the poor, they are not engaging in charity.  They are  engaging in theft.  Is it really any different than if men took a vote and ordered women to have sex with them?  People aren’t supposed to pay taxes as their form of “charity.”  They are supposed to give money to people, churches, and other charities.  I don’t think Jesus will say, “Good man!  You filed your 1040 and didn’t even claim some of your legitimate itemized deductions so that the government will have more money to support the poor!  Good going!  Welcome to Heaven!”  There are also some bad side effects to the government taking over charity.  Those receiving aid have no moral obligation to the giver of the aid.  When friends and neighbors help someone, the donee feels, typically, the need to live up to the help by trying to get to a point where they don’t need help.  No one has that feeling to the government.  Also, if the church is helping someone, that person has a greater chance to converting to that religion and maybe making positive changes to their lives.  Again, this does not happen with help from the government.  The government is also very inefficient with the money.  There is a lack of policing of the funds.  If you give your friend $100 and then catch him getting lap dances down at the strip club, you’re probably not going to give him any more money, are ya?  The government will.  Finally, the government taking over the role of charity provider degrades the moral fiber of society.  People start to think that the government will take care of people, and they will stop giving to charity themselves.  There is a reason why America far outpaces the rest of the world in charitable giving.  It is also a key reason why Republicans tend to give much more to charities than Democrats (statistically true).

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama is the Future!

Posted by Troy on 4th September 2012 in Current Events, Political

Well, thank God that…oh wait, I can’t say that.  The Democrat National Convention did their best to carve out any mention of God (outside of the opening 2 hours of Muslim prayer) from their program.  Okay…well, thank whatever then that this is cleared up: Obama is the Future, and Romney is the Past.  Great.  Now we have a…oh wait, no…There’s a problem with this argument…Obama isn’t the Future…He’s the Present.

Sooooooo…how does the Present stack up then?  A mired economy?  A monetary policy that will cause inflation and destroy the US dollar as the world’s currency?  Continual, unsustainable deficits?  Continued unemployment?  Nationalization of the health care system (endgame of Obamacare)?  A tax system that is actually based on “fairness” rather than maximizing revenues to the government?  More and more laws (they may call them regulations, but they’re laws) that are passed outside of the legislative process?  Additional reductions to our nuclear arsenal, making us weaker to our enemies?  Relinquishing our national sovereignty to the UN and other multi-national organizations?  Giving away citizenship to large swaths of illegal aliens, undermining our natural culture (immigration should be controlled to force assimilation)?

Of course, I suppose you could say that he is the Future, and this is the beginning…so, how does that stack up?  Let’s project trillion dollar deficits for the next four years?  Yikes.

As far as Romney being the Past, how many people would like to go back to the past?  The 1950′s were pretty nice in a societal context (minus the civil rights issues anyway).  Would you change this economy to the one from the 1980s or 1990s?   I could think of a lot of good things about the past.

And let me just take a few pot shots at Mayor Castro: This guy is not eloquent.  It IS about drive.  It is NOT about opportunity.  There is NOTHING that will hold someone back if they have the drive.  His drivel makes me sick.  He proposes (like the rest of the Democrats) that the economy rests upon the middle class.  That’s cute considering that this administration has done more to rape the middle class than any other administration in history.  He wants to talk about the opportunities of education?  Students did better in the past with far less “investment.”  Know why?  Because students were scared to death of their parents if they got F’s.  It’s about parenting.  A teacher cannot replace a parent.  I will be on an inner-city youth that is driven to succeed and supported by their parents over a rich kid that wants to party and doesn’t study and who’s parents don’t care.  He wants to say that it isn’t about you, it’s about your kids (the ones that aren’t aborted anyway).  The problem is that you have to do the best you can and raise your kids the best you can to give them that.  You have to have a good job and the drive to succeed to make your child’s life better.  It is not the taxpayers’ obligation to pay for their college.  If you want that for your kids, make it happen!  Make them study.  Valedictorians get scholarships.  And how DARE he invoke the Founding Fathers?  WHAT, WHAT in the Democratic platform would the founders approve of?  Getting rid of God altogether?  Adams would faint.  Inflationary monetary policy?  Hamilton would shoot  them.  Giving up our sovereignty?  Jefferson would be outraged.  Welfare?  Franklin would scoff.  Regulations over the legislative process?  Madison would be bewildered.  Cutting our national security?  Washington would curse.  Abortion?  That’s what they want to harp on…don’t you think any of them would be appalled?  I have NEVER heard a Democrat speak with any actual love for our Founding Fathers.  NEVER.  Have you?  I’m being serious here.  They may praise the First Amendment (excluding the Freedom of Religion anyway), but past that, they have no love for this country as it was founded.  The Constitution is something which is to be overcome, to be surpassed by something better–not amended, replaced.

The Democratic National Convention has shown me a few things so far.  1) Their values are outside what the majority of Americans believe.  They seem to believe that Americans wish to go secular.  They seem to think that Americans want additional debt.  They seem to think that Americans wish to punish the wealthy.  2) Their election is based upon class warfare.  Marx would be proud.  Remember, Obama was raised by Marxists.  They are trying to separate us and get us to attack the rich.  I don’t begrudge the rich for who they are.  I wouldn’t trade places with Bill Gates or Soros or Mitt Romney.  I love who I am.  I love the life I made for myself because it is MY life.  It reflects my values and my choices.  The fact of the matter is that we could all be rich…it just takes a single minded obsession to gain wealth and a certain amount of common sense.  Benjamin Franklin worked three jobs every day from sun up to sun down every single day of the week.  He became rich.  You make more than you spend, and you don’t waste.  Look at what you spend money on.  Most of it is crap you don’t need and really don’t want when you get right down to it.  3)  All they can do is demonize Mitt Romney.  I don’t even know where to begin with this.  4)  ”Hope and Change” has been replaced with “The Future!” or “Forward!”  Forward to bloody what?  Where could this possibly end that is positive?  Seriously, map it out!  Tell me what stupid policy of his is so positive?  Have any of his ideas actually worked out?  Nope?

LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!  LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!  LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-odonnell-rips-fake-libertarian-ron-paul-over-contraception-abortion/

NY-26 Kathy Hochul Wins: Medicare, are our Seniors Adult Enough to Handle the Truth?

Posted by Troy on 25th May 2011 in Current Events, Political

NY-26 went to a Democrat.  The news organizations are trying to say that this is the GOP’s watershed moment–that the American people have spoken and loudly proclaimed “Hands off our benefits!”

We’re broke, people.  That’s pure and simple.  No matter how you cut it, we are going to have to cut something.  We can cut defense, but ask yourselves, would you rather have a pitiful retirement plan in the form of Social Security and Medicare, or the world’s most kick-ass army?  The only reason Europe can afford all these social programs is that we are the world’s police force.  If we convert our defense money into benefit money, who is going to protect us?

Things have to change.  That’s all there is to it.  This next election is a turning point.  We are at a fork in the road right now.  We can move towards a welfare state or a freedom state.  A friend remarked to me today how he hasn’t heard anyone use the expression “Hey, it’s a free country,” in years.  That’s because, deep down, we realize that we’re not nearly as free as we used to be.  We live in a world where sending a joke tweet about suicide bombers can land a 13 year old boy in an interrogation room with the Secret Service.  This next election will determine if we want to face the truth and own up to what needs to be done or if we want to believe the lies we’re told and hide our heads in the sand.  If Obama wins re-election and (GOD FORBID) the Democrats take both houses again, we are done.  Period.

You must read 2084.  Everything I wrote about is happening faster than I predicted.  I will get it out this weekend.

Long Live the Constitution of the United States of America!

Dan Adler – Korean Jew

Posted by Troy on 13th May 2011 in Political

I couldn’t not post about this.  Even though it’s Entertainment Friday…

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gerq4GpHpKw

Dan Adler is running for Congress in California.  He is apparently reaching out to the Asian demographic.  The ad is laughable on several different levels.  However, I have some sympathy for the guy.  I have a feeling that his wife may have suggested the tactic, and I’m sure it was a well intentioned suggestion.

Sadly, this ad is very typical of the Democrat point of view.  The Democrats represent all the minorities and the minorities should vote Democrat simply because they are a minority.  This is called identity politics.  The sad thing about identity politics is that it erases the individual identity and treats everyone as though they are clones.

Never vote for an identity politic.  Vote for the person who best represents your views and beliefs.  If that is Democrat, fine.  If it’s Republican, fine.  But always vote based upon what you believe and not what a politician tells you that your group should believe.