Pot Heads and Hypocrites for Gary Johnson

October 12, 2012

Notice the sweet Che shirt…. Duuuude!

Like…. Gary Johnson is the man, ya know? I mean he … he gets what really … like matters. Ahhhh- Haaaa-Haaaa. We need to stand up for rights, man… else the man will lock us all up, ya know? All our country’s problems would be… like “Up In Smoke” aaaaaah, aaaaah, get it? If we could just get Gary in … the election, ya know? Man, am I the only one who is like… hungry?

Ah, Libertarians, champions of societal drain and degradation. Gary Johnson is taking his shot at election spoiler and keeping the hopes of pot heads … high.Pot heads want to come “out of the shadows” (perhaps the same shadows as the illegal aliens?) and be able to engage in legal commerce with the dealer of their choice. It is freedom, man. Oh, and we need to legalize it so we can tax and regulate it!

Photo from: http://www.cracked.com/funny-4852-pot-heads/ Read the rest of this entry »


Ignore Your Candidate’s Flip-Flops

July 4, 2012

Happy Independence Day! That seems to be harder to proclaim as each year passes and our electorate sinks deeper into the abyss of dependence. Perhaps we are celebrating a good run, now irretrievably gone.

Independence Day isn’t the subject of this post, however. I follow some proggie dingbats on Twitter (some of which are Obama campaign staff) and I couldn’t help but notice how they are on the attack over Mitt Romney’s shifting positions on Obamatax and its associated mandate. In the interest of honesty, I should point out that I am sympathetic with their position to a degree. The premise that Mitt Romney and his ardent supporters are flopping and flipping  (and flailing) like John Heinz-Kerry’s Rhode Island docked (for tax-avoidance purposes) yacht caught in a violent storm out at sea, seems to be sadly and sickeningly accurate. The Obamorons are all a-Twitter… but something is missing. Read the rest of this entry »


Women and Victim Politics: Democrats Think You Are Stupid

June 6, 2012

Democrat dingle-berries want you women to know that they are there for you! Of course, there are a few disclaimers that should be attached in fine print at or near the bottom of their official declaration that their opposition is at war with you:

  1. We reserve the right to pivot to a different priority victim group at any time due current events real or manufactured in order to best enhance our standing with the preferred victim group of the moment.
  2. We are indeed insinuating that you are too stupid to think logically and unable to thrive without our omnipotent intervention in your daily lives.
  3. We reserve the right to demonize our political opponents and those nasty proprietors of private business (something which, with your blind support, we can drive from our land) by accusing them of the inequities that exist in our very own staffs.
  4. We do indeed believe that there is no limit to the potential beneficent intrusion of the  federal government in states, private companies, and individual lives, but we require you to believe that it will not adversely affect you as we are on your side.
  5. Any woman who does not believe that her life and livelihood depends solely on the magnanimous action of our federal government is not to be considered a real woman. (Refer to our contract with black people for evidence that we treat dissenters the same regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.)
  6. The DNC, OFA, NARAL Emily’s List, NAACP, SEIU, Planned Parenthood, FFT, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, NOW, Huffington Post, NBC, CBS, and AFSCME reserve the right to modify this agreement at any time if  polling indicates that greater electoral benefit can be attained by changing direction. This includes but is not limited to changes of 180 degrees if political gain is deemed sufficient. Read the rest of this entry »

Dearest Democrats, Re: Campaign Finance

June 3, 2012

Dearest Democrats,

I am a former Republican who will be voting Republican in the 2012 Presidential Election only due to the magnitude of the damage which may be done at the hands of our first composite President if he gets a second term. (Not that I would ever consider voting for a modern Democrat, but would love to vote for a more honest, constitutionally correct alternative to one of the two primary sources of our nation’s woes.) I shudder to think what the product of no parents, communist indoctrination, and brainwashing at the hands of 60’s hippy terrorists like mentor Bill Ayers might do with the type of “flexibility” he promised Putin. Our nation is not what it was intended to be, but I’ll be damned if Barack Obama is satisfied with the level of statism and government intrusion that we already endure.

I don’t want to get too far off topic, so I will get to it. Your party seems to make a lot of noise regarding campaign finance. Oh, I know there are squishy, “moderate” McCain Republicans who can’t help but to think like Democrats on such matters, as well. Your advocacy for constricting the the supply of campaign cash and in-kind support for your opponents (a.k.a. those who are more likely to follow the Constitution) through federal law and regulation is somewhat disgusting and disingenuous. That is, unless you are open and honest about the fact that you seek to allow unfettered in-kind donations to your candidates while using the federal government to choke off the support of more liberty-minded candidates. Read the rest of this entry »


Republicans and Libertarians Enlist in the War on Faith

March 24, 2012

Do you go to church and/or read a bible? If you do, but don’t necessarily believe what is said during the services or what you read on the pages, you may be in good shape. In fact, if you want a future in politics, going to church for the sake of appearances may be electorally expedient. On the other hand, if you have strong religious convictions which you do not care to hide, you better avoid running for office… at least a national office.

If you are a person with a strong faith and a mind to be involved in civic activities, you sir, are a potential theocrat! You should have the common sense to at least shroud your beliefs from public view. If you do not, if you dare offer honest responses to questions, well… you must be crazy enough to want to impose your beliefs on the largest number of people you can. You must be kept from high office, as a theocracy would result from your election.

Sound ridiculous? Of course, it does. In politics, the ridiculous can become the mainstream. If you don’t believe so, I offer the following as evidence: Barack Obama won the presidency. Still don’t believe it? The Republicans are going to nominate the father of Obamacare to oppose Obama in what they portray as the most crucial election of our history… at least until 2016, when we have the next most critical election in our history. Perhaps there is crazy genius at work in the selection of Mitt Romney to lead the Republican ticket. Republicans and those who oppose Obama are expected to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, so they can be dismissed. The genius is that Romney can appeal to some of those who like Obamacare… and are maybe mad at Obama for some other reason? Regardless, it is genius. Read the rest of this entry »


Are “Women and Independents” Really as Bad as They Are Portrayed?

March 11, 2012

Whether it is the media, operatives pushing “moderate” candidates, or liberal Democrats (wait, I already mentioned the media) helping their own, “women and independents are sure getting a bad rap. On one hand, the two groups are built up as critical voting blocks to which appeals must be made if one wishes electoral success. On the other hand, they are portrayed as immoral, foolish voters who seek diminished liberty and abolition of individual responsibility. It is a shame that what seems to be an overwhelming majority of those with a platform have been able to paint “women and independents” in such an unflattering manner.

I realize that it is necessary for political actors to create groups, formulate polls, and fabricate narratives in the interest of their candidates or causes. Are “women” a voting block? Are “independents” all of like mind? If so, how the hell are they “independent?” Can women also be independent and if they are, does that mean that all women and all independents are expected to vote the same way? Stupid question, you say? I agree, but then again, I am not the one pretending that “women and independents” are the way they are being portrayed.

Given the recent shaping of the news to deflect critical examination of President Obama’s successes (not failures, as evidenced by his disdain for his country), “women and independents” are taking center stage. What is so bad about the presentation of these all-important deciders of the future? Read the rest of this entry »


Neo-proggies Plead the Tenth

March 10, 2012

Let me be clear (not intending to quote Dear Reader, Chairman Obama), just to answer the proggy troll assertion before it is spewed. This is not an attack on or an argument against federalism or the tenth amendment. I know the playbook calls for the troll to feign indignation and lob accusations of selectively supporting state’s rights and being a hypocrite in regard to the Constitution. Call an audible. The complaints against tyrannical moves on the state level are not calls for federal government intervention. One does not have to approve of the actions of proggies and neo-proggies in their various states simply because they are exercising “state’s rights.”

Is it a contradiction to support state rights and not support politicians who have executed acts of government intrusion in their respective states? Absolutely not, and one would have to be somewhat warped to make that determination. Further, it is ridiculous that a certain establishment choice for the presidential nomination would expect liberty-minded citizens to celebrate his statist exercise as a “state’s rights” triumph. Of course, as seems to be the case with most of the candidates supported by the party elite, contortions unrivaled by any human pretzel must be executed to even present the illusion of a limited government conservative. Read the rest of this entry »