Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

What We Learned in the New Benghazi Report

Posted by Troy on 29th June 2016 in Current Events, Political

Per the media:  “Nothing new to see here,” or “No bombshell regarding Clinton.”

Here’s what we already knew:

She (either personally or those under her) did not give them the extra security they requested, even when every other country was pulling people out.

She knew it was a terrorist attack and continued to lie to us and to the families of those who died, claiming it was about a video.

What does this mean?  Well, it means that she has poor judgement and administrative skills.  It also means that she put her prestige over the safety of Americans.  It also means that she was more concerned about the presidential campaigns of 2012 and 2016 than telling us the truth.  It also means she thought she was smarter/slicker than Americans and would get away with it.  It also means that she believes the press has her back.  And they do, so yeah, I can see that.

Here’s the new things we learned:

The Secretary of Defense ordered the military to help.  And someone reversed that order.

The troops were ready to go, but the higher-ups were more concerned about how the troops would appear and had them change in and out of uniform 3 times as they were concerned that it would look too much like an invasion.

While our people were fighting for our lives, they were already looking to spin the attack and blame the video.

What does this mean?  Dear God, what does this mean?  That they are out of touch?  That they are cold and calculating?  No.  Originally, I thought that the reason they didn’t try to rescue them was because they were afraid of making the death toll higher.  Or that they might ruin our reputation in that part of the world.  But it’s worse than even that!  What it means is that they didn’t engage because they were too busy spinning it.  The story was more important than the reality.  They are more concerned about their personal reputation than American lives.

What don’t we know?

Who reversed the order to help?  They refuse to answer that question, and that is the most important question of all.

Of course, it had to be Obama.  Maybe, possibly, Clinton might have bullied her way, but Obama is my bet.

God help us if she’s elected…

Long Live the Constitution

The Death of the Republican Party

Posted by Troy on 2nd March 2016 in Current Events, Political

The Republican party is talking about how they can keep Trump from becoming the nominee.  This is basically “by hook or by crook.”  They want to be sure that they can have a brokered convention.  When that happens, they will give the nominee to Rubio or Romney or someone more suitable.  If they do this, the Republican Party is DEAD.  It would appear that close to half of Republicans want Trump.  If they give it to someone else when he legitimately won the nomination, these voters will be pissed.  They will feel utterly disenfranchised, and they will go third party.  The Republican Party will never be a national party again.  Hopefully, it would be replaced with the Libertarian party, but it’s entirely possible that the result will actually be a more nationalist party.  While I don’t think that there is a problem with nationalism, nationalistic parties never really work well.  Although, I would actually like to see our government more concerned about America than “America’s place in this world” or “our position at the table of nations” or any other such dumb concepts.  As though the rest of the world is thinking, “I wonder what we could do to improve the plight of children in Detroit.”

If the Republicans want to defeat Trump, they need to convince everyone but Cruz to drop.  If Cruz drops, at least 25% of his supporters go to Trump and Trump wins.  Get it down to a two man race, and let the best man win.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hillary’s Lying Ass

Posted by Troy on 22nd October 2015 in Current Events, Political

I don’t often go into that language, but she disgusts me.  In fact, the entire Left disgusts me today.  Remember when Bill gave the “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” answer?  Well, that was Hillary today–occasionally smirking with that “I’m getting away with it,” smirk.  That smirk that screams, “I think I’m better than everyone else.”  That smirk is also part of the reason she is so dreadfully unlikable and why Bernie Sanders is going to beat her out.  What’s even more disgusting is that the Left is so thrilled that she’s going to “get away with it.”  Here is one undeniable fact:

She lied.  They knew it was a terrorist attack, and for over a month, they blamed a video.  Why?  Was it a matter of national security?  No.  It was to save Obama’s campaign.  How would it have looked if a terrorist attack happened on his watch in his “success story” of Libya on 9/11 after hundreds of request for additional security?  It would have sunk him.  So they rounded the wagons, and the people in the media protected him.  They withheld military intervention to keep the scale of the event as small as possible, hoping the whole thing would just pass over and everyone wouldn’t question anything.  You can’t tell me the news would have treated McCain or Bush with such kid gloves.

If you still support Hillary, there can be only one interpretation for your stance, “Look, sometimes it’s important that our politicians lie to us.  They are smarter than us, and if they have to mislead us ‘for the greater good,’ then that’s okay.  Most people are too stupid to understand things, so they should just say whatever they need to say because the ends justify the means.”  I disagree.  The world that has to be saved on a lie isn’t worth saving.

Seriously, what other interpretation can there be?  They knowingly and openly lied.  If you do not demand justice and accountability, you are for tyranny.  You just want a tyrant you agree with.

How could ANYONE trust Hillary Clinton after watching her bend the truth to the point of making it into a pretzel?

Long Live the Constitution!

Where the Republicans went wrong

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2013 in Current Events, Political

I’ve been thinking about why the Democrats have continued to beat Republicans despite the fact that the majority of their platform is contrary to the majority of Americans.  I think I finally figured out the answer.  It is because the Democratic party is the grab bag of passionate causes.

You want to help the environment?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to ban guns/end gun violence?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to women’s right?  The Democrats

Gay rights?  Democrats

Animal rights?  Democrats

Pornography?  Democrats

Legalized _______?  Democrats

Socialism?  Democrats

So forth so forth.  What do Republicans offer in exchange?  Low taxes?  Fiscal responsibility?  Personal responsibility?  Those aren’t sexy at all, are they?  There’s no “hot button” issue that the Republicans can lay claim to.  If you are for strong immigration control or traditional marriage, you get tarred and feathered as a racist or hate monger.  If you’re for a strong national defense, war monger.  If you’re against the Law of the Sea Treaty, fish monger.  So many mongers out there.  If you’re in for the whole bag, I guess you’re a mongrel monger.

I think that’s why you are starting to see a rise in the interest of Libertarianism.   Liberty is something you can be passionate about.  While I’m extremely passionate about the Constitution, it’s hard to get the young people to be passionate about it…until they comprehend that it is the truest path to real Liberty.  If the Republicans are to have any future, they will have to embrace this part of of their constituency.  Only a Libertarian can carry a national election (such as Ron or Rand Paul).  They need to run Conservatives in the South and Libertarians elsewhere if they are to have a shot.

Many would claim that Libertarians can exist on both sides of the aisle.  These people are fooling themselves.  A Libertarian can pull people that typically vote Democrat or Republican, but a Libertarian must, by definition, hate nearly every part of the Democratic agenda.  The Democratic Party is by nature a big government party.  They are for higher taxes, taking a bigger and bigger portion of the overall economy.  In exchange for this, more goods and services will be offered for “free” to the public.  The price of these “free” products is never ending servitude to the party as they can always take it away from you.  Once you’ve become dependent on these “benefits,” it’s very hard to give them up.  As such, you’ve become a little more than a slave.

Long Live the Constitution!

Voter Fraud – Dude, it’s tooootally not a big deal

Posted by Troy on 2nd October 2012 in Current Events, Political

We are told that there is next to no voter fraud.

How can you tell?  I mean, if you don’t confirm the people voting, how would you know if there was any voter fraud?

They base their statistic on the number of voter fraud convictions.  Okay, how many of these people are actually caught?  Again, you’re not verifying people at the polls.  If they don’t go blabbing, they’re not going to get caught.  If they don’t get caught, they won’t get convicted, right?  That’s usually how it works.

Even if they were caught, I should imagine they only prosecute people for massive voter fraud, such as a party leader organizing the effort.  James Smith who votes three times in different districts property get off for free.  Our prisons are overflowing.  Would you rather prosecute the child molester or the guy who cast two ballots?

They say that voter id laws is about suppressing the vote.  What are these people doing with their lives?  You need photo id in order to: fly, buy alcohol or cigarettes, open a bank account, cash a check, use a credit card, drive a car, get into any secure installation, and get government benefits.  What proportion of voters (the ones that are actually alive, unlike the dead who cast their votes) don’t have an id?  People fought the British over their right to elect their own representation.  Is it really too much to ask that people get a free voter id card?

Long Live the Constitution!

Sex Selected Abortions

Posted by Troy on 30th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

For a longer discussion on the topic of abortion, see the following link to an earlier rant.

Now Congress is trying to pass a law which will make it illegal to choose to have an abortion based only on the sex of the baby.  First of all, let’s just go ahead and admit that this law is going to be found unconstitutional.  The act is protected by the Constitution per Roe vs. Wade.  Love it or Hate it, that’s the way it is, people.

The interesting thing is that this makes everyone involved hypocrites.  It’s rather spectacular.

For Democrats, who have been claiming that there is a war on women by Republicans, they have to take a pro-China stance and say that being a girl is a crime punishable by death.   They have to simultaneously condemn that this is happening and say that it’s the right of the woman to have the abortion anyway.  The unspoken side of this argument is that they find sex selected abortions abhorrent, but all other abortions are cool.  Query, what if it was a sex selected abortion because it was a boy?  Would that be okay?  Is it abhorrent to choose to have an abortion over sex in either direction, but it’s cool for any other reason?  This is like coming across two puppies in the pound, one cute, one ugly.  According to the Democrats, you should have both put down instead of killing one and adopting the other on mere physical attractiveness.

For the Republicans, passing this law makes the odd argument that abortions for any reason other than sex selection is okay.  Of course, their position is a little more consistent than that of Democrats.  At least Republicans are against any abortions (with few exceptions such as perhaps incest, rape, or endangerment to the life of the mother).  Their position to try to stop a certain kind of abortion is at least trying to stop some abortions.  However, there is an unintended consequence that they probably do not realize.  Suppose a woman wants a son but having a child would be a great hardship.  She is pregnant, and she wants to have an abortion unless it is a son.  The doctor tells her that he cannot tell her if it is a boy or a girl and do the abortion.  Not willing to take the risk, she has the abortion without finding out the sex.  It turns out the fetus was actually a boy that would have lived had she had been told it was a boy.  Oooooops.  So, the Republican take is that you have to either take both puppies or kill both puppies, but not one or the other.

This law is ridiculous because it assumes that people are stupid.  Let’s take the woman in the Republican example.  She goes to a clinic, and the doctor says he cannot tell her the sex.  Don’t you think that she will figure out that she can go to a different doctor, have a sonogram, find out the sex, and then go to the abortion clinic and have an abortion anyway?

Long Live the Constitution!

Odds are Lugar’s Defeat is None of Your Business

Posted by Troy on 16th May 2012 in Political

Poor Lugar.  Defeated unjustly!  Oh, how foolish of Republicans to bow to the Tea Party.  This surely means that the Republicans will lose everything.

Isn’t it funny how people who are not Republicans are so concerned about the future of the Republican party?

Why is it so important that Republicans have people that reach across the aisle, but it’s okay if Democrats do not compromise?

The fact of the matter is that most of this criticism is coming from outside of Indiana.  As such, they have no business in who the Indiana Senator is.  I despise Nancy Pelosi for so many different reasons, but she is a good Representative of her people.  They adore her.  I can only assume that her district is as wacked out as she is, but she represents THEM, not ME.  Ergo, she should continue to win re-election.

Obviously, Lugar was not representing the Republicans of his district, and thus he was defeated.  It could have been his vote banning “assault” (really cool looking) weapons, his vote for the Brady Bill, his vote for gun lock requirements, his vote to hold gun manufactures responsible for gun deaths, his vote against concealed weapon laws, his vote for amnesty, his vote for the Dream Act, his vote to allow illegal workers the right to receive Social Security, his confirmation of Ginsburg (who believes South Africa’s Constitution is great and ours is a relic) or Sotomayer (who is a proponent of judicial activism and social justice through the court system) or Kagan (who was Obama’s Solicitor General), his votes for unreasonable energy standards (as though you can legislate technological advances) which will cost American companies fortunes in R&D that might not pan out and cause our products to be more expensive, his commitment of climate change (which many do not believe is man-made), his support of cap and trade (which is a method of global socialism more than anything),  his votes for TARP or the auto bailouts, his insane START treaty support, his support of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or his refusal to repeal Obamacare.  I don’t know.  I’m sure they have their reasons.

Senators do not have tenure.  They don’t get to keep their job regardless of their actions and votes.  He voted for these things, and he was held accountable.  Maybe Mourdock will win, maybe he will lose.  Personally, I see no point in electing someone who is willing to sell out our national sovereignty to international organizations.  I don’t think the Democrat could be much worse.  Regardless, once a Senator or Representative stops representing the interest of his people, it is time for them to be replaced.

Long Live the Constitution!


Posted by Troy on 28th November 2011 in Current Events, Political

Being bored, I checked out some political cartoons on Slate.  I would estimate a quarter of the ones I looked at were against both parties, ten percent were against the Democrats, and the bulk of them were against the Republicans for not going along with whatever Obama wants to do.  Herein, I will debunk this:

The economy was bad when he got elected, right?  So, why didn’t Obama concentrate on getting jobs back then?  Instead, he was more prone to concentrate on the Health Care Bill.

This President has single handedly destroyed jobs in the oil industry while at the same time loaning our tax dollars to help other countries drill off our coastline.  Of course, when you hurt one job sector, you hurt all the jobs in the area as there are less customers.  I should imagine that he will also destroy insurance jobs as companies start to crash and burn under the Health Care Act.

To my knowlege, this new jobs bill is basically another stimulus bill just like the massive one before it.  Why is it that we think that we can solve the problem with more spending when the first spending had no effect?  Stopping someone from throwing gasoline on a fire when they say that liquid is what is needed to put out the flame isn’t being obstructionist…it’s being rational.

You can claim the Republicans only want to protect the wealthy, but the fact of the matter is that even if you take 100% of the wealthy’s income, it still would not be enough to cover Social Security, federal/state pensions, and Medicare/Medicaid (let alone Obamacare) by the 2020′s.  Just like in the real world, it’s not what you make, it’s what you spend.  There are people living on $25,000 that can put money away and there are people making millions that will go bankrupt in short order.  It’s not what you make.  It’s what you spend.

Finally, government meddling is why were are in the mess we are in because they pretend that humans will do exactly what are expected of them.  The reason why the sub-prime mortgages caused a crisis was because they brought in physicists to devise the mechanics of the derivatives.  What these complex mathematical computations failed to consider is that humans are not like physics.  There are no set laws.  People are governed by self-interest and will act accordingly.  Economists would have been better since that’s their supposed speciality.  However, there are two major branches of economists: Keynesian and Supply Side.  All Republicans view Keynesians as partisan hacks, and all Democrats view Supply Siders as partisan hacks.  I believe in Supply Side, but I admit that economic theory is close to religious beliefs as it is generally impossible to isolate variables when dealing with macroeconomics.

Long Live the Constitution!

Super-committee fails

Posted by Troy on 21st November 2011 in Current Events, Political

The Super-Committee failed. 

On one hand:  Thank God.  The Constitution does not allow for a “Super-Committee” to enter into a binding contract in which not all fifty states have an opportunity at representation. 

On Obama saying that he will not allow the Congress to by pass the mandatory cuts:  It depends on what he means by that.  I agree that holding their feet to the fire is the only way to get something done.  However, are they allowed to continue to work, as an entire Congress, towards getting the cuts necessary?  If so, then I approve of his tactic.  If he is saying that the mandatory cuts can no way be avoided, then I believe he is actively trying to destroy America, and there can be no other interpretation (unless you want to say that he’s an ideological idiot).

On the cuts, should they happen:  It’s a dark day that it’s come to this.  This is what happens when people don’t take responsibility and do what needs to be done. 

I should note that the Democrats get whatever they want.  If the Republicans cave, they get tax hikes.  If nothing gets done, they get large cuts in the defense budget.  In either case, the Republicans lose!  What a deal!  It also dovetails into Obama’s narrative that Republicans are a “Do Nothing Congress.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Debt Ceiling

Posted by Troy on 31st May 2011 in Current Events, Political

The President has called for a straight up and down vote for the debt ceiling.  The Republicans are calling his bluff and said that they would give it to him.  In other words, they have tallied the votes, and they have the votes to shoot it down.  I agree with the Republicans holding out for raising the debt ceiling in exchange for drastic cuts.  Obama has said that they need to vote for the debt ceiling and then they will deal with with cuts as a separate matter.  No married person alive would fall for that trick.  You never cast off your sole bargaining chip without securing a deal.