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 »

The Choice of Julia

May 20, 2012

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: Read the rest of this entry »

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

April 4, 2012

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 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. 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 »

Bowling for Infanticide

March 18, 2012

I admit I am not the most enlightened or sophisticated of men. My wife and I are so backward, we did not pay to have our children killed before they could be born. Still, I think we are better off for the lives we nurtured as opposed to taking the enlightened , sophisticated, Planned Parenthood (or the inaccurately named, Hope Clinic in Granite City, IL) profit building approach to pregnancy. I suppose my lack of sophistication is to blame for the shock I experienced when I saw a tweet advertising the “National Abortion Access Bowl-A-Thon.” I suppose when I followed someone on twitter whose picture reads “I am Dr. Tiller,” I should not be surprised by the depths of depravity I see.

One may learn of this bowl-a-thon and think that it is better that they raise private funds to pay for the slaughter of the innocent than to expect wealth seized from taxpayers to fund the carnage. Of course, those who advocate for abortion “rights” would never think of not seeking the federal government to seize the labor of good people and divert it toward their evil ends. 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 »