Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category.

Most Wreckless National Security Officials Label Trump Wreckless

A group of 50 national security officials who served on Republican presidents from Nixon on to Bush 2 have signed a letter saying Trump “would be the most wreckless president in American history.”

I’m not delving into the names here, but I’d like to know the answers to the following questions.

  1. How many of these officials supported leaving the South Vietnamese to their own devices in the last two years of the Vietnam conflict?

  2. How many of these officials thought it was a great idea to put hundreds of marines into a indefensible location in Beirut where they could easily be wiped out by a single truck bomb as happened in 1983?

  3. How many of these officials actually thought it was a great idea to get involved with the evacuation of the PLO in the first place?

  4. How many of them supported the arms for hostages swap with the Iranians under Reagan?

  5. How many of them convinced George Bush to support Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war?

  6. How many of them turned on Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait?

  7. How many of them thought it was a great idea to not remove him from power the first time and stop the advance into Iraq outside of Baghdad?

  8. How many of them supported the sanctions regimes and no-fly zones which Saddam used to great propaganda effect during the 1990s?

  9. How many were absolutely certain that Saddam was pursuing a viable nuclear program and had bomb-making material?

  10. How many of them supported the North Korea agreement brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1994 that froze the NK nuclear program?

  11. How many were surprised when North Korea detonated a nuclear device in 2006?

  12. How many supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001?

  13. How many supported thought taking out Saddam once and for all was a great idea in 2003?

  14. How many of them consider the Saudis our allies – and aren’t on their payroll?

You see, I’m no expert, but when I look at American Foreign Policy over the past 40 years, years during which I’ve been alive and sentient of such things, I don’t see much that any “national security official” should be proud of.

In fact it’s quite the opposite. It is clear that we are today in the worst possible worlds, one where rogue states like North Korea and Iran have or soon will have the Bomb, where indigenous strong men we took out (Khaddafi, Saddam) once kept a lid on religious zealots that are now slashing women to death in the streets of London and gunning down gays in Miami. In fact, if I was an American national security official, I might be so embarrassed to call myself such, especially since I likely contributed to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq for what turns out was no purpose at all.

I supported the war and I feel duped. I feel like a patsy, but more importantly, I feel angry towards the very people who now have the audacity to crawl from their little hide-holes and spout their so-called “wisdom” once again.

If they want to sign a letter and print it in the Washington Post, they should print an apology to the families of those who died putting their ideas and strategies into place.

 

You Can’t Be Republican And Vote For Hillary

As a registered Republican I am supposed to vote for my party’s candidate regardless who it is. If you decide to vote for a Republican for one office but a Democrat for another office, you are no longer a Republican. You are an independent.

And if you actively solicit donations for Hillary as Meg Whitman is doing, you are actively undermining the Republican Party. And that makes you a Democrat in my book.

Friggin oligarchs…

A Coming Out Post

I’m sorry for saying all this by blog post but I think this is the best way and gives us time to think about it. I can assure you that I’ve thought long and hard about this decision and do not make it lightly. I realize that I have been living a lie, and each time I laugh along with others or make fun of those like me, a little piece of me dies inside.

I am writing this post to tell you that I support Donald Trump. It’s something that I have suspected for months but have only managed to accept over the last week or so. Since New Hampshire I have always known that something was different. After Scott Walker dropped out I moved to Rand Paul, and after he quit I moved on to Ted Cruz. It has just taken me so long to realize because let’s face it, admitting one is going to vote for Trump isn’t popular, and there remain several good reasons not to.

I know this is not a phase and is who I am meant to be. I would have admitted it sooner but you would have been just as confused as I was. I wouldn’t have been able to answer any questions you would have because I wouldn’t know the answers myself. At least now you will be able to see I have accepted it and I am happy this way. It may go against expectations people have of me such as voting Libertarian or perhaps even making the switch to support the bitch (Hillary) as PJ O’Rourke and many other Republicans I respect have done, but in my heart I recognize that would be a terrible mistake. I ask myself, “Which candidate infringes on my liberty less?” and the answer is Trump. He is not perfect and I still hope that he turns out to be better than expected or perhaps Ronald Reagan himself returns and guides the party to victory in November, but barring those miracles I am left with accepting Trump and myself for what we are. And it’s clear that in the end he is a better choice when it comes to freedom than Hillary. After 8 years of Obama we cannot afford 4 years of Hillary and her lies. I just don’t think the Republic can take much more.

I have not told you and other people for this reason, but the older I get the more matters such as picking Supreme Court nominees and rolling back laws restricting our freedom start being mentioned and eventually you would have found out anyway. It’s just better sooner rather than later.

You may have noticed that whenever anybody dissed Trump to me I had absolutely no reaction to it or I would just look at the floor or act like I wasn’t listening. I know that a Republican White House is something I’ve wanted and attacking Trump instead of Hillary is something I am not willing to spend my life doing just so others can be happy. This is who I am and if they cannot accept that then the problem is with them, not me. I can try and help you (and everybody else) understand who I am, it will only work if they allow it.

I’m sorry for saying all this by a blog post but it’s the only way to be sure that I actually will tell you. Know that I respect you, kind reader, and that this does not change who I am. I hope that you can be happy and continue respecting my opinions. I’m still the same person I always was, and will continue to respect yours.

The Peasants Are Revolting

Watching events unfold this election year is proof that the Chinese saying “May you live in interesting times,” is a curse. 2016 is an extremely interesting time in American politics, and with each passing day I’m convinced that once this election is over things will never be the same thanks to Donald Trump.

Trump’s success has spawned a cottage industry of political navel-gazers trying to figure out how this brash and egotistical real estate developer commandeered the grassroots of a major political party. Dan Balz of the Washington Post writes, “At the core of Donald Trump’s political success this year are the grievances of a sizable and now vocal block of disaffected voters, many of them white and working-class, and a Republican Party that has sought and benefited from their support while giving them almost nothing tangible in return.”

Funny how that happened. Starting in 1994 the GOP faithful elected a Congress who was supposed to implement a “Contract with America” to lower spending. Instead what they elected was a bunch of neophytes who immediately started acting like Democrats feeding from the trough, throwing a bone to the rank and file by attempting to impeach a sitting president over his infidelity to a woman they all hated anyway. In 2000 the GOP grassroots do what they are told and elect an establishment candidate – who then goes on to start a war that his father left unfinished, blowing a hole in the budget almost as wide as any crater in Iraq.

But they do as they are told and re-elect him in 2004. And they do as they are told again in 2008 before revolting in 2010 by electing a bunch of Tea Party firebrands who… sidle up to the trough just like their Contract with America forebears did 16 years previously. The party elites are professionals at co-opting rebels, and the GOP’s did absolutely nothing to improve the lot of the grassroots. Instead their economic prospects continued dwindling as the GOP majority cut deal after deal with the Democrat minority and their liberal president.

The GOP grassroots voted for GOP candidates and found the men and women they elected to Congress were Democrats in all but name. It’s as if the Democrats had controlled Congress as well as the presidency since 2008. The Democrats push to flood labor markets with illegal aliens to boost union membership and their own party’s roster, and the GOP - beholden to the same corporations bankrolling the Democrats needing cheap labor – agree. Meanwhile American citizens watch these illegals take their jobs and drive down the wages of those they don’t.

Now some of the GOP elite are claiming they are going to vote for Hillary instead of Trump, something they had warned Trump against doing when they hoped he would flare-out last Fall. Why this may seem shocking for them it’s no surprise to the Republican Party faithful; they understand the GOP elite has been Democrats all along. At the very least it undermines their past arguments that any Republican is better in the Oval Office than any Democrat.

The GOP peasants are revolting and they have chosen as their leader the only man willing to voice their concerns. For years they have sought a fighter who would take a punch from the Democrats and hit back twice as hard. They finally found him in of all places, Donald Trump. The New York Times reports, “The problem, for figures like Mr. Forbes and Mr. Romney, is that Mr. Trump’s supporters seem profoundly uninterested at the moment with the image, expectations or traditions of the Republican Party, according to interviews with more than three dozen voters, elected officials and operatives. They are, in many cases, hostile to it. “I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party,” said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, Miss.” Perhaps Mr. Romney would have won the election of 2012 had he hit Obama then as hard as he’s hitting Trump now.

The GOP elites are feeling the people’s pitchforks at their hindquarters, but the ultimate goal is for the champion of the grassroots to take power and represent their interests and address their concerns instead of serving the same Wall Street/Silicon Valley masters as the Democrats.

On the surface the Democrats are gleeful, watching their sworn enemies implode. But talk to a supporter of Bernie Sanders about how they feel about their candidate’s treatment by the DNC. See how they feel about being told to “get into line” and support Hillary Clinton, a woman whose income from a single speech to investment bankers puts her among the top 1% of Americans. A Bernie supporter must be feeling the Bern watching a known pathological liar like Clinton promise to redistribute the wealth from the very people who made her the wealthiest first lady in history. If Clinton sinks like Romney this Fall, perhaps 2020 will be the year the Democrat grass roots grab their pitchforks and unleash terror on their own party elite. But they have plenty of time to gloat until then.

Any party that treats its members as poorly as the Republican Party deserves revolution or death. In a healthy democracy people need to elect representatives who actually represent them. If a party cannot meet that demand, then it deserves oblivion. The GOP elite should be afraid, very afraid. It deserves to feel a bit what its rank and file have felt for decades.

Donald Trump: The Great Uniter

If Facebook posts are anything to go by, then Donald Trump is the great uniter of politics. There is little difference between the Trump posts of my Lefty/Democrat friends and my Conservative/Republican friends. Both groups hate him with equal fervor, though the Lefty/Democrats show more schadenfreude about it. A misplaced glee, if you ask me, given their candidate stands a good chance of FBI indictment.

Trump or Trompe-l’œil?

The more bad press on the Left and Right that Trump gets the more I like him. Mark Cunningham, writing at the New York Post, claims that Trump has found a new way to win.

Many other blue-collar folks struggle on OK. But they know they’ve got huge problems that just don’t get talked about — and anyone who does raise them gets denounced and then ignored.

Until Trump.

America hasn’t been great for the working class for decades — which is why “Make America Great Again” is a great slogan for a guy who’s talking tough on the problems that blue-collar Americans (and more than a few middle-class folks) see as killing them.

And getting attention — unbelievable attention — even as he breaks all the “establishment” rules.

As a registered Republican I hate the GOP establishment almost as much as my liberal friends do. I think the RNC and the RINOs in Congress and the Senate are happy to be the Loyal Opposition, trading the White House to the Democrats in exchange for their fiefdom on Capitol Hill. They don’t want to win; they don’t want to change anything in this country. They like the status quo, and don’t care whether their constituents are struggling to survive seeing their jobs shipped overseas while workers flood into the country to take those that remain, joining the Democrats in calling them red-necks and racists. Then every 4 years they’ll don their Kabuki masks and pretend about how the Democrats are so evil and every Republican must vote for the RINO they’ve selected to be their congress-critter, then put up the weakest candidate they can find to run for the White House to keep their Democratic friends happy.

Trump is like a rock thrown by the GOP grassroots through the Establishment’s window. Or maybe a grenade. Either way it was something that needed to be done. The divide between the party elite and the rank and file had grown too great.

Trompe-l’œil, French for “deceive the eye”, is a painting technique that displays a three dimensional scene on the flat surface of the canvas. Is Trump “deceiving the eye” with his new-found conservatism and bragged about leadership skills, or is he capable of being a decent president? Is he a true leader or an American Berlusconi who wants to throw bunga bunga parties with the jet-set crowd instead of govern? I really don’t know. But it’s fun to watch the GOP leadership squirm like a bag of weasels.

Why I Could Live With President Sanders

As a libertarian and registered Republican, to say I’m disappointed with the GOP’s current crop of presidential candidates is a mild understatement. I pretty much hate them all. My top choices were Gov. Scott Walker (first to drop out) and Sen. Rand Paul (latest casualty). If Trump or Cruz become the GOP candidate there is only one scenario in which I will vote for either of them:

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

I don’t have a long history of Hillary bashing the way some on the Right have. 8 years ago I even said some nice things about her. But the woman simply doesn’t know how to tell the truth. She’s a pathological liar, and one that deserves prison for her handling of top secret data on her unsecured server, and ostracism for her role in wrecking Libya and sentencing an ambassador and his security detail to death – and covering up with lies by blaming it on a video afterward. She also exemplifies the crony capitalist, taking millions from Wall Street banks including Goldman Sachs then portraying herself as being soulmates with Occupy Wall Street. As the British newspaper columnist Tim Stanley for the Daily Telegraph writes, “Her politics is the politics of identity, narrowed down to a very specific constituency: she’s selling herself as the hope of everyday rich white women who want to be president.”  There is only one thing worse than a Trump presidency in my view and that’s a Hillary presidency.

Which brings me to Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-avowed “democratic socialist”, a form of government more akin to those found in Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia than in the United States. Sanders has spent his entire life espousing socialism. He has not lied about it, nor has he hidden it the way Hillary has hidden her ties to Wall Street. Sanders is a socialist, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to vote for him.

While I don’t like his economic policies, especially now when I’m preparing to finalize my taxes whereby the Wife and I send an extremely large portion of our labor earnings to the Federal and State governments, I’m less averse to his social liberalism. If you want to revolutionize American economics, the Presidency is not the place to do it. Congress controls the country’s purse strings, and there is no way his socialist economic policies would see the light of day in a Congress dominated by Republicans.

It’s often said that Libertarians combine the fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party with the social liberalism of the Democrats, but it’s been a long time since either party came close to either stereotype. The Republicans under Bush spent like Democrats during their 8 years in power, 6 years of which they held control of Congress as well as the White House, and today’s Democratic Party is the party of censorship, gun confiscation, and state interference into the private lives of its citizenry.

It’s worth noting that until very recently Sanders wasn’t a member of the Democratic Party. His stances on social issues are much more libertarian-friendly than the woman appearing on Reason magazine’s cover next to the title, “Hail to the Censor! Hillary Clinton’s Long War on Free Speech.” Would a Sanders presidency be all that bad for libertarians?

Andrew Kirell, writing at The Daily Beast, doesn’t think so. In his piece The Libertarian Case for Bernie Kirell quotes Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie saying, “You could do worse than having Bernie Sanders in the White House,” he admitted. “The things that he would be able to direct in the White House would accord with libertarian values. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely to change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he’d be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform.” Gillespie later responded on Reason.com’s website, writing “Suffice it to say that noting you could do worse than Sanders is not an endorsement.”

Unfortunately libertarians don’t have many choices this round, but isn’t this pretty much the SNAFU case every 4 years? When’s the last time you absolutely loved either candidate? I don’t think I’ve ever felt the thrill up the leg that Chris Mathews felt for Obama in 2008. I’m suspicious of any candidate who inspires such emotional charge.

But the truth is I think America would be better off under a President Sanders than it would be under a President Clinton or Trump. At the very least it would give both parties time to shake out the crazies so that in 2020 America would have saner choices than those offered by either parties today.

Why I Hope Joe Biden Will Not Run for President

Update: And he’s gone...

Here is my sole reason for hoping Joe Biden will not run for President: He would likely win.

The GOP has been expecting Hillary to be the Democratic candidate since 2000, and the party is completely focused on taking Clinton down over the next 13 months. Her weaknesses are well known. Her record as Secretary of State is a shambles, stretching from the failed (and mistranslated by her own team) Reset Button with Russian, through Benghazi and culminating in the crossing of red lines in Syria by the Assad regime and the birth of ISIS on her watch. Clinton strikes the American public as being about as authentic as a cheap jewelry sold on late night cable, and her stands on the issue are about as changeable as an airport windsock.

The reason the GOP has some many candidates is not because Hillary is a strong candidate, it’s that so many Republicans see a once in a lifetime opportunity to reach the White House and create their own dynasties the way Bush and Clinton have done over the past 30 years.

Vice President Biden entering the race would change everything. One must remember that one reason Biden was added to Obama’s 2008 ticket was to provide “gravitas”, and to the average voter the VP still has that. While Clinton’s acolytes have done there best to portray Biden as a bumbling lightweight, the truth is that the only reason why they’ve gotten away with it is Biden has had no reason to fight it. A run for the White House would change that. Suddenly we would be reminded of his decades of experience in the Senate. Name a Senate committee and chances are he chaired it. Biden’s experience would make Hillary’s forgettable record as a senator and her contemptible record as secretary of state look like the disaster it is. Compared to the experience of the political lightweights of the GOP’s current crop of candidates Biden would tower above them all. Add in the sympathy factor for the recent loss of his son Beau to brain cancer, and Biden would present the GOP with a serious fight.

As a small “l” libertarian the GOP comes closest to matching my politics, and it’s in my best interest to see it win the presidency for one simply reason: the nomination of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and from supporting hate speech laws to repealing the 2nd Amendment the Democratic Party has gone beyond the “Insane Party” moniker used by the GOP to becoming the “Evil Party.” How else to characterize the Obama Administration’s repeal of due-process for male college students accused of on-campus rape and its goal to stop citizens from being able to protect themselves by criminalizing gun ownership, the Democrat Party’s drive to force Americans into a health care system that benefits no one but malpractice attorneys, government bureaucrats and insurance company profit margins, and the party’s support for open borders that drives down the wages of the working poor and middle class in its quest for a permanent majority?

Then there’s the idiotic policies Biden himself has championed. As Nick Gillespie at Reason.com points out in his article “Just How Bad Would Joe Biden Be as President? Really F*cking Bad,” a Biden presidency would be a disaster for those of us believing in individual liberty. Biden is a drug warrior who views marijuana as a “gateway drug,” and who masterminded the RAVE Act of 2003 that made concert promoters liable for drug use at their shows. Biden also co-sponsored the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which made it harder for debtors to declare bankruptcy and discharge their debts. This legislation was bought and paid for by the banking industry, a supporter of Biden since the economy of his home state of Delaware is dominated by the banking industry.

So what is libertarian about letting debtors escape their debts? My mother, a self-made woman who spent her life in direct sales, viewed bankruptcy as legalized theft. But what Biden’s reform did was to force the Federal Government to become the enforcement arm of the banking industry. Banks could lend with impunity without fear of losing their money because the State would use its monopoly on violence to guarantee that debt. Just another instance of the Democratic Party siding with Wall Street, although Biden’s not as well connected to Wall Street as the Clintons.

It is my belief that Hillary Clinton deserves jail time more than she deserves her party’s nomination for the presidency. It is therefore in the GOP’s best interest that she stays the Democrat frontrunner. VP Joe Biden’s entrance in the race would make a GOP loss more likely in 2016, and for that reason I am hoping that he stays out of the fray.

The Razor Celebrates 14 Years (of Disgust)

14 years ago I bought an available domain name for Occam’s Razor, created a few HTML pages in the Dreamweaver editor, and figured out how to upload them, all because I felt that I had to express myself. There was grief and anger from the World Trade Center site, still a smoking heap of rubble and ash, and while my anger flamed white hot for the men who murdered thousands of innocents, they were not the focus of my writing and were incidental characters in my first published essay, “Rohrschach Test for the Left.” Instead that essay, and The (Occam’s) Razor that I slowly built around it, was inspired by the self-delusion and self-hatred of the politically correct Left that justified the attacks in the days immediately after the attacks.

Coming of age in the 1980s I was subjected to PC dogma in college, and watched it infect the Left that I identified with at the time and gradually change the American Left from a grassroots labor-based ideology rooted in classical liberal thought into an elitist derived identity-based movement we find today. This Left had little to do with the government programs that kept my family alive during the Depression or helped my father find a job after the War, but the draft-dodging elites of the 1960s who had prospered in the Ivory Tower and become ascendant by educating an entire generation of policy makers derived not from the working class but from the Bourgeoisie.

There was no shared experience between working class leftists like me and the leftists that controlled the college campuses at the time. They saw me as a “Reagan Democrat” and I saw them as arrogant, narrow minded fools who had been cocooned for so long from reality that they had no concept what the real world was like. The jump from America’s college campuses to the government by this elitist-derived Left was first attempted in Howard Dean’s candidacy of 2004, and was resurrected by his takeover of the DNC the eventually lead to the election of Barack Obama.

Obama is one of them. He was picked from Academia and pushed into increasingly higher levels of power by academics or their powerful acolytes in government. Obama represented them completely. For a group that is nearly all white but ashamed of their skin color (known euphemistically as “white privilege”) he was a minority. But unlike minority politicians like Jesse Jackson he had been educated by them and shared their belief that America is the root of all evil in the world, and that our nation could only be saved by a repentant America apologizing to the world for our sins, embracing our enemies, and dropping our allies who supported our evil doing.

Starting with his Apology Tour in 2009 Obama did just that, following it up with the “reset button” with Russia, an extended hand to Iran and rude gestures towards American allies such as the UK and Israel. He then let Iraq fall into Iran’s hands and ignored what he once called the “good war” in Afghanistan. He put into practice exactly the foreign policy the elitist Left had been demanding for years, using the power the Constitution grants to the Executive to achieve its aims, but was stymied by domestic opponents from putting into place their domestic agenda.

Today they control not only America’s campuses but they control our government, and worse, our military. If America is the root of all the world’s problems, why are the problems getting worse without American involvement? Shouldn’t they be getting better?

America is not the root of all evil in the world no matter how many books Chomsky writes or how many professors say it is so. America created a prosperity and peace unseen in the world since Augustus Caesar ruled 2000 years ago. Pax Americana was not perfect, but it did create an order that allowed smaller nations to prosper. The ranks of the world’s middle class grew under Pax Americana in ways that the average ancient Roman, 95% of whom lived in abject poverty, would marvel at. It also allowed the freedom of an elite to coalesce around an idea that would eventually lead to its demise.

Today a morally and economically bankrupt Russia invades any territory it desires without consequence. In the US a wealthy elite rigs the economic system against small business and the working class. A group of jihadis too radical for al Qaeda now hold sway over the very territory purchased through American blood a decade ago. Red-lines crossed in Syria and a “leading from behind” effort in North Africa results in failed states, creating a tsunami of refugees in Europe.  China extends its territory and influence without constraint. A decade ago the sound of North Korea rattling its cage would have made the headlines. Today it barely warrants mentioning.

14 years ago I saw the enemy and it was us – or rather the Left that I had once considered myself part of. At the time I was determined but hopeful that 9-11 would shake the Left off of its anti-American foundation, but it didn’t. And the results are self-evident.

I’ll admit I am pissed. Leftist ideology was always so naive and lacking in detail. The world could have been so much better if we had kept the levers of power from them, but we failed and now everyone from the retiree living on a pittance thanks to near-zero interest rates to the Iraqi Christian trying to stay alive in her homeland pays the price.

Happy anniversary.

Quick Thoughts on GOP Debate #2, Sept 16, 2015

  1. Why has Scott Walker’s campaign sucked so far this year, and why hasn’t he done more to pull himself into the top tier candidates? Walker was my personal choice for 2016 after his stewardship of Wisconsin aka Sweden of the Midwest. His record as governor remains impressive, but you wouldn’t know it by his wall-flower debate performance. Truly disappointing.

  2. Huckabee is still in this? Really? If he was bumped off the debate platform would anyone notice, seriously?

  3. Trump was right about Fiorina’s experience running HP into the ground, but she would make a great VP. She has become the pit bull of the party and her comment about Clinton and Obama being forced to watch the Planned Parenthood videos reads the minds of those of us sickened by them.

  4. Trump a vaccine truther? Oh for Chrissakes does this guy embrace every possible wackadoodle extremist position just to piss people off or what?

  5. When will the GOP establishment get it through their soft skulls that we do not want Jeb Bush in 2016? We do not want Jeb Bush on a plane, we do not want Jeb Bush in the rain. We do not want him in the House, we do not want him with a mouse.

Hillary For Prison 2016

Bernie Sanders has surged to the lead in New Hampshire and is filling his venues to overflowing. The FBI has possession of Hillary Clinton’s email server and will presumably pull every last byte of email residue from its hard drives. They’ve already found extremely top secret satellite intelligence that is assumed to have fallen into Russian and Chinese hands. Remember, she has yet to give a full accounting as to why she operated a personal server in the first place which itself was against the law. Now highly classified intelligence was found on it, and worse, the server was completely open to the internet for 3 months.

Hillary Clinton should be done.

Now if only Jeb Bush was too…

 

Whole GOP Goes RINO

So a conservative Supreme Court justice saves a liberal president’s signature health care initiative not once but twice.

This happens days after the Republican majority in the House and Senate approves his signature trade initiative.

All the emails I get. All the phone solicitations. All the letters from the RNC and various PACs and candidates demonizing this president, and they go and do this.

Not a dime.

Not. one. dime.

The Grey Lady’s Onion Breath

Sen. Marco Rubio is not my favorite GOP presidential contender. I much prefer Scott Walker, who sits on a throne made of the skulls of his enemies, and Gov. Rick Perry, who can reprise the role of Reagan after Obama’s Jimmy Carter.  But the New York Times just can’t seem to stay away from the Senator.

Last week it published a hit piece handed to it by the liberal activist group American Bridge. This week it’s Rubio’s money troubles including, gasp, the fact he bought “$80,000 luxury speedboat” with proceeds from a book advance.

Now I don’t know much about boats because I learned when I was a kid from the experience of my electrician brother-in-law that BOAT stood for “bust out another thousand”. Boats to some people are like donuts are to others. They are irresistible but bad for you. And I immediately recognized that $80k won’t get you a luxury anything let alone a boat. And sure enough it turns out it wasn’t a luxury speedboat but a fishing boat.

Oh and he leased a $50,000 Audi. Note that he didn’t buy it, he leased it. Wow! Big spender who can afford a $400/month lease payment. Hillary Clinton could buy, not lease, 6 of those for a single speech at UCLA. Of course she doesn’t drive so she has no need for them.

The Onion regularly runs non-stories like “Dad Wants to Show You Where Fuse Box Is,” and “Longtime Coffee Shop Employee Thought Customers Would Care More About His Last Day.” By running stories that should be headlined “Marco Rubio’s Wife Has a Lead Foot,” and “Marco Rubio is Middle Class” the Grey Lady might want to consider popping a few Tic-Tacs to rid itself of onion breath.

Red Barchetta Coming to a Road – and Sky – Near You

Starbucks Race Together – Forgive me for not wanting to be lectured to by a company with an all-white board of directors and a billionaire white CEO, one without locations in poor neighborhoods including my own. I don’t ask the Dali Lama for Italian Roast whole bean, and so I don’t see why I should be forced to talk to a harried twenty-something coffee-slinger about anything beyond wanting my coffee black.

The ISIS Attack in Tunisia – How many people have to die before we start seeing these attacks for what they are? Religiously motivated hate crimes by adherents of the “religion of Peace.” Sure the machete wielding guy shot dead in New Orleans was a Jehovah Witness, but he wasn’t passing around copies of the WatchTower as he killed people, was he? Terrorist apologists just don’t get that there’s a difference between killing someone because you are nuts and killing someone because you are nuts IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. It’s the difference between a white guy gunning down a black guy and a white guy shouting “N****r” gunning down a black guy. I had plans to visit that museum in the near future, and although I haven’t torn those plans up, I am realizing that the “safe places to visit list” is getting smaller by the day.

Ted Cruz – Ted Cruz is courting the Christian wing of the GOP. That worked well for President Huckabee 4 years ago didn’t it?

Israel – The Obama administration demands Israel commit suicide while allying with its mortal enemy. No surprise given Ayatollah Khameini and President Obama’s shared hatred of both the US and Israel.

The UK’s Green Party – Leader of the Green’s Natalie Bennett is promising to demilitarize the UK and evidently lives on a different planet, one without a Vladimir Putin partitioning Ukraine. If she does win in May, it will make it easier for Downton Abbey fans in the US to mount an invasion, take over the island and force creator Julian Fellowes to write a seventh season – one where Mary awakens from a dream to find her sister Sybil and husband Matthew at her bedside. The fans should be able to take the place over with a few pointed jabs and threatening remarks, that is if Putin doesn’t get there first, which given the recent Russian overflights of the UK may be soon.

Germanwings crash – Humans make mistakes. They make far more mistakes than the control systems that fly the planes, and there’s only so much we can do to protect lives from a pilot who wants to become one with a mountain. Has the time come for pilotless planes? It’s going to take courage for the first cabinfull of passengers to fly without a pilot but in the end it’s going to be the norm. Ditto driverless trucks, trains and eventually cars. Would I trust a fully automated car over my 18 year old kid? Damn right I would. I love driving but I have had too many close calls myself, and recognize that an automated driving system would be a safer driver system, and when that happens driving will become illegal (hence the Rush reference in the title.) The Germanwings crash is going to accelerate the discussion on the technology that could revolutionize our worlds this century. It’s coming and the sooner the better. I think…

BBC firing Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear – Please forgive my descent into British English, but F*** the Beeb, the bunch of spineless lefty nanny-state loving tossers. They’ll protect a pedophile like Jimmy Savile but not Clarkson whose political views tended towards the right in the UK (which makes him a moderate Democrat here). It’s one thing to discipline him for his misbehavior; it’s another to dog him for his populist beliefs. Well, the sooner Bennett wins the election, the sooner my comrades and I can take over the country and rest assured, the BBC license will be the second item on our chopping block (after that driving on the wrong side of the road business.) Let them grovel like NPR does here.

Head Transplants – My favorite hard Left science magazine wasted 2,000 words on this “what if.” I say wasted because the success of such a surgery hinges on the ability to meld one spinal cord to another. If we can do that, we can cure paralysis – and to me that’s far more newsworthy than worrying about the ethics of something that may not even be possible.

 

 

Concensual Incest Puts Progressives on Slippery Slope

I support gay marriage on the principle that the Government should not be in the marriage business. To me marriage combines two unrelated components: a legal contract for asset accumulation/division plus a religious component that creates a moral contract between two people witnessed by the religious community. Marriage is one of the last vestiges where Religion and State are intertwined. The government controls marriage licensing, determining who can and cannot marry, and requires a religious ceremony to finalize the contract. While two atheists can have a completely secular marriage in which the religious ceremony is replaced by a Justice of the Peace witnessing the exchange of vows, the State will not recognize a completely religious ceremony, where vows are exchanged in a religious context but the newlyweds refuse to obtain a marriage license.

While Western countries have removed barriers to the issuing of marriage licenses to homosexuals, movement by religions to recognize such marriages has been glacial by comparison. The Roman Catholic Church, most Protestant sects, mainstream Jewish sects and all of Islam refuse to recognize gay marriage. Part of the success of the Gay Rights movement has been due to the equation of gay marriage to the American Civil Rights movement of the 20th century, particularly the state laws that prevented interracial marriage and the attitudes supporting those laws that the Civil Rights movement overturned through non-violent protest.

One of the arguments employed by supporters of traditional marriage was that by legalizing same-sex unions, Society is placed on a slippery slope whereby other non-traditional practices such as polygamy and incest become the next in line for legitimacy. Samantha Allen confronts this challenge in her piece “Consensual Incest is Rape.” In the article Allen, who supports gay marriage, takes issue with the attempt by those calling for the decriminalizing of incest between consenting adults to hitch their issue to the gay marriage movement in the same way the gay marriage movement attached itself to the civil rights movement. Referring to a pro-incest blogger, Allen writes, “Pullman tries to boost his marriage equality credentials by also promoting the legalization of same-sex marriage but a more apt description of affairs would be that he wants to hitch incest to the same-sex marriage wagon. In his post “Gay Marriage and Incest in the US,” he tries to link same-sex marriage with incestuous marriage by saying that both take place “between consenting adults,” they “don’t hurt anybody,” they are both “subject to discrimination,” and that there is “no rational reason” for their prohibition. “Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born,” he adds, in a staggering leap of logic.”

Unfortunately Allen’s argumentative skills are lacking in the piece. She is unable to muster a defense against writer Keith Pullman, whom Allen refers to as  “adult incest advocate” except by using the words “staggering leap of logic.” I have not visited Pullman’s website nor do I have any interest in his arguments advocating the legalization of incest, but I find it interesting to see supporters of gay marriage who base their arguments on civil rights squirm when the same arguments they used are turned against them to justify practices which they find as heinous as the religious find gay sex. Allen concludes her piece stating flatly, “Supporters of incest are not part of the marriage equality movement,” but does little to explain why that’s the case.

In her article Allen’s sole weapon that separates gay marriage from incest is power. She quotes incest survivor McKenzie Phillips, ““[T]here really is no such thing as consensual incest due to the inherent power a parent has over a child,” she said. “So I wouldn’t necessarily call it a consensual relationship at this time,” although a year earlier she described sex with her father John Phillips as just that on Oprah. Allen quotes psychotherapist Robi Ludwig on Phillips’ incest, “But you can’t say it’s consensual, because there’s always a power imbalance when it comes to a parent and child,” even when both parent and child are both adults.

It’s no surprise that Samantha Allen resorts to the issue of power, since Leftist thought is based on the assumption that the unequal distribution of power underlies all conflict. In fact the imbalance of power between the sexes is one reason why traditional Feminism has been opposed to marriage. Since men always had more power in our society it was impossible for women to be treated fairly in marriage. It’s only recently that feminism has evolved to accept marriage, and usually only within the context of gay marriage.

But power is a poor choice against incest. It fails to address the issue of incestuous siblings, for example, who lacked the “power imbalance when it comes to a parent and child,” yet I doubt that Allen would support incestuous marriage between adult brothers or a brother/sister pair with equal power. By using power imbalance to ban marriage between parent and child, the usage of the term implies that marriages require a balance of power. Since power can take many forms this opens up a whole new arena for restricting marriage.

Leaving aside the issue of the subjectivity of power (Who defines it? The State? The marrying parties themselves?) this usage of the power c0uld ban marriages between adults of differing financial backgrounds, since the wealthier party in a marriage would have more power than the poorer one. It would ban marriage between adults of different ages, since an older, more experienced partner would conceivably have more power than a younger less experienced one. Alternately the younger person in such a relationship could have more power since youth is valued more highly in our society than age, putting the older spouse at a disadvantage. Finally the imbalance of power would ban all marriages between whites and minorities since white privilege by definition gives the white person more power than the minority.

The result of this would be laws banning marriage between whites and non-whites, between social classes, and between those of different ages. Congratulations Ms. Allen, you’ve recreated the restrictions of Victorian England or the the American South prior to the 1970s.

The only way for a progressive to avoid the slippery slope that ends up undermining her argument supporting gay marriage is to give up on the concept of traditional marriage entirely and take the libertarian view. There any number of adults of varying sexes can have contracts, and the age of consent becomes the line at which a child is recognized as being old enough to be a partner in a binding legal contract. Religions are then free to continue to marry as they see fit. If a Mormon sect wants to marry one man to multiple women, so be it. Similarly if the Catholic Church refuses to marry two women it is free to do so because of religi0us freedom. The role of the State then becomes the enforcer of contracts, a role that it has had throughout history and one that does not come into conflict with religious and personal freedom.

The problem for progressives like Ms. Allen is that they seek to expand the role of the State in people’s lives, the opposite of libertarians. While a libertarian believes the government should be limited and as small as possible, the progressive views government as a tool to create a society based on progressive ideals. There is little difference between progressives on the Left and conservatives on the Right in this regard, since both see the State as a means to their different ends. This is why government ballooned under Reagan in the 1980s and Bush in the 2000s, just as it has grown under Obama over the past 6 years. It also explains why progressives have encouraged censorship and curtailed basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion under Obama just as the conservatives did under Reagan in the 1980s.

But keeping the government in the marriage business will present logical dilemmas such as incestuous marriage or polygamy, making sure the ground beneath the feet of progressives is icy and sloped. Advocates for such unpopular views simply need to follow in the footsteps of the progressives and wait for legal cases and popular opinion to swing their way. In the meantime those on the Right including libertarians such as myself will enjoy watching progressives like Allen rocket down the icy slope.