Pot Heads and Hypocrites for Gary Johnson

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/

In Honor of Our President on NECD 2012

I cannot imagine a more appropriate way to recognize our glorious leader than to have National Empty Chair Day! I was fortunate to have inherited a pile of junk that was once part of the local bowling alley when I bought my house. Who knew that the pile would contain a fitting tribute to our very own Dear Reader?

I hope our nation has not descended to such unfathomable depths of depravity, jealousy, and ignorance that on November 6, 2012 Mitt Romney cannot receive enough votes to overcome the fraudulent votes and 5,000 attorneys employed by the Obama Campaign to assure our damnation. (Remember the word’s of Obama’s “spiritual guide,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who so eloquently spewed: “Not God bless America! Naw! Naw! Naw! God damn America! That’s in The Bible!”)

If we can overcome the deceptive  and unethical practices employed by Democrat operatives this November, I suggest we continue this remembrance every year. Let the other president’s have President’s Day but reserve National Empty Chair Day for President Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama. We will need a reminder of what is perhaps the worst mistake such a large portion of the electorate has ever made. The images need to remain fresh in our minds such that we do not sentence our children to repeat this sort of disaster.

Ignore Your Candidate’s Flip-Flops

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.

Women and Victim Politics: Democrats Think You Are Stupid

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.

Dearest Democrats, Re: Campaign Finance

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.

The Choice of Julia

A few weeks ago, most of us heard about Julia, a composite character created by the campaign of our composite president (the man is something of a political chameleon, being anything at any time as long as his handlers think it can get a block of votes). Julia’s purpose was to illustrate the benefits of big government inserted into the major stages a woman’s life. Of course, the campaign had to assume that women, or at least those who might be influenced by Julia, are stupid.

Being a composite Obama supporter, one could assume that Julia is “pro-choice.” One could also assume, from reading about Julia, that she never married. No marriage was mentioned in her story, but this could be because marriage does not in itself create the apparent need for big government intervention. Best that Julia keep her options open in today’s squalid society. (Or as a Misfit Politics video tells it, Julia may want to enjoy a same-sex marriage in our brave new world.)

At the age of 31:

Where are Sharpton and Jackson on the Rooney “Token” Rule in the NFL?

Are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson going to let a high profile opportunity for Race-Bait Incorporated pass? Perhaps they believe that President Obama benefits more from racial division cultivated by exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin than he would from an issue with the NFL. I do think creative race-hustlers could combine the fabricated outrage from the Martin case with NFL team hoodies to sort of cross-promote.

Could there be a spike in the sales of Saints hoodies on the horizon? If CBSSports.com resident race-baiter, Mike Freeman, and former Jets and Chiefs coach, Herman Edwards can get enough people to go along, they might be needed for a protest. The biggest problem Freeman and Edwards might face in ginning up racial outrage for their cause is the contradictory nature of their demand.

Republicans and Libertarians Enlist in the War on Faith

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.

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

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?

Catholics For Choice: Disgracefully Dishonest or Impertinent Imbeciles?

“Catholics For Choice” is a positive-sounding name for an organization. Or, it would be if the word, “choice” had not been perverted by the left to the point where it is often a kinder/gentler synonym for “abortion.” So, the name doesn’t sound very positive once their meaning of the word “choice” is realized… assuming the audience is indeed a Catholic. (No, I do not fancy myself to be the arbiter of what is or is not a Catholic. I do, however, find it hard to imagine that one can practice a faith opposed to Catholicism and consider oneself to be Catholic.)

Given the Obama Administration’s most recent and extremely vicious assault on faith and individual morality, I wondered how the topic organization would be dealing with the matter. A cursory glance at the website of “Catholics For Choice” leaves no doubt that they are armed for this battle. It also leaves no doubt which colors they are wearing. I am not sure disappointment is the correct word to describe what one finds there, as any thinking person knows the premise upon which the group named itself. A Catholic visitor might be disappointed, but should not be surprised at what he reads.

Are the members of “Catholics For Choice” for “choice?” The answer to that question goes a long way toward answering the question posed in the title of this piece.