Rubio + Jeb Bush + Christie = Death of the Republican Party

OK, listen up people. The Republican party has never been nor will we ever be successful with triangulation, compassion, moderation, or being just like the Democrats (which is what the above stands for; you young 'uns probably have no idea what this is all about, so Google “Rockefeller Republican” - some of us old farts have fought this battle before). We will never succeed just by pointing out how awful the other guy is. We have tried this all before, and have had our heads handed back to us on a golden platter. We must give people a reason to be with us.

What It Means To Be A True Conservative

1. Liberty, freedom, and privacy trumps the efficiency of law enforcement (no, I am not talking about that rich guy with a dead squirrel on his head, but rather a reference to a card game; Google it).
2. We want everyone to be rich, fat and happy. Smile: life is to be enjoyed, rather than fretted over.
3. Personal integrity. Be frugal and honest. Do not spend money that you do not have. The ends do not justify the means. Do not tell lies. Fulfill your obligations. Put money into the “poor box”.
4. The less power the government has, the more power you and I have. “Power to the people” is quite apropos.
5. The US Constitution is not a “living document” that tilts at the latest sociological whimsy. It concretely states timeless, unchanging truth. We misinterpret same at our peril.

What It Means To Be A Pseudo Conservative

1. Pandering. Several Republicans have been elected President, but none have done so by catering to the whims of special interest groups, and this includes ethnic minorities
2. Government charity. Waiting for your check on the first of each month is not on the road to wealth. See #2 above.
3. Environmentalism. Even advocates are not believers: witness the name change of their holy crusade from “global warming” to “climate change” (hint: climate always changes, whether mankind exists or not). The original “hockey stick graphs”, upon which Kyoto and other global environmental treaties have been based, have now been proven to be fabricated out of whole cloth. Unsurprisingly, followers thereof are not fazed.
4. You enjoy telling other people what to do, because they are making the wrong choices, and, besides, you know better.
5. Second Amendment? Bah, humbug.

In Conclusion

Conservatives wish to elevate all people to the next level. Liberals wish to keep them under control, forcing them to color between the lines.

   

Iranian Election...Is a Crock; Who Cares?

The Iranian “election” for President was “won” by Hassan Rohani, touted as being a “moderate”. The lunkheads in the press are swallowing this horse hockey, hook, line, and sinker. To wit:

Iran's Rohani hopes all will seize chance of friendly ties (Reuters)
Hassan Rohani pledges transparency on nuclear issue (Financial Times)
Hassan Rohani, a moderate cleric, wins Iran vote (Wall Street Journal)
Iranians, Observers Wonder How Rohani Was Allowed To Win (Radio Free Europe)
Rohani vows to reset Iran's relations with the world (Christian Science Monitor)
Rohani’s Victory, the World’s Opportunity (Bloomberg)

The important part that these journalists miss is that The Great Leader (Khamenei) is much smarter than they are. There is an old joke: a “moderate” Muslim is a radical one who has run out of bullets.

The Truth

The Great Leader is in complete control of all things. Nothing happens in Iran without his express approval. He chooses the winner of the election. The “president” is nothing more than a sock puppet. The real question is: why did he choose Rohani? Easy: he is more silver- tongued, and therefore more likely to fool the West, than either Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad. Make no mistake: regardless of what Rohani says, Iran's drive to develop a nuclear bomb will proceed at full speed. Likewise, he will do everything in his power to support Syria's Assad.

Why NSA Spying is Indefensible

Mr. Snowden (whether hero or traitor is a subject for another day, but I remind you about Daniel Ellsberg – Google him) has blown the NSA's cover: they are indiscriminately gathering phone records on all Americans. Over the weekend, I heard several defenses and justifications for same, to wit:

1. it is being closely monitored by all 3 branches of government
2. the authorizing law has all sorts of safeguards built in
3. the wiretaps are listened to only when there is reason to be suspicious
4. it is a very effective tool for ferreting out the bad guys

All, perhaps, are true, but they beg the question. The issue is not about a carefully crafted law or its utility, but rather: should it be allowed in the first place? To all those (liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat) who spouted one or more of the above, I have these snippy retorts:

1. in the same manner that the West Wing is carefully monitoring the IRS to ensure professional and objective behavior by all IRS employees in the Exempt Organizations Unit?
2. So did the Titanic and the Hindenburg
3. It is OK for me to take videos of your wife/husband showering, as long as I do not look at them?
4. Unless of course you are brothers from Chechnya whose last name is Tsarnaev, whose danger was previously communicated to you by the NKVD (or whatever they are calling themselves these days)

I quote from the US Constitution (follow along in your pocket copy of the Constitution; you do have one, don't you?):

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I remember a quote from Henry Kissinger, SecState to Nixon and Ford, who said in 1975:

The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.

Then thou art congruent with Machiavelli that the ends justify the means (to answer your next question: the principle comes fromThe Prince, but he does not use these exact words)? Yes, I am looking at you, Senators Kyle and Feinstein.  

the NSA is Violating the 4th Amendment

From the US Constitution:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From a newswire story:

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-aclu-cleared-big-hurdle-challenging-secret-102222967.html

“It is hereby ordered that the custodian of records [of Verizon Business Services] shall produce to the National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this order, and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order, unless otherwise ordered by the court, an electronic copy of the following tangible things: all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls….This authorization expires on the 19th day of July, 2013…”

– Order signed by Roger Vinson, a judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on April 25, in the text leaked to The Guardian newspaper and published by it on June 5.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I submit to you: is the latter permitted under the former? I believe the answer to be sufficiently obvious as to not require elaboration.

The NSA's defense is that the content of said calls were not monitored, only its existence. I do not see an exception listed in Amendment IV that seizure is OK, as long as its contents are not read, do you? I also wish to point out that, since the NSA operates under an umbrella of total secrecy for “national security”, other Constitutional violations could easily be occurring, Congressional oversight not withstanding.  

Mixed-Gender Armed Forces Are A Mistake

By now, you have heard the nauseating stories of rape in the US armed forces: female soldiers afraid to report same because they fear retaliation, those who did report and suffered retaliation, and CO's who do not take the subject seriously. There is one obvious, foolproof solution: all military units must be segregated according to gender and never mixed. Further, female forces should never serve on the front lines.

By now, you should be pounding the table and shouting: no, no, that's wrong. How old-fashion, backward, and foolish can you get? Women can do anything a man can, maybe sometimes better. That's not fair: they will be held back, and not able to fulfill their full potential. You are punishing them because of their gender.

Well, perhaps you are correct. In that case, you have a choice: status quo, mixed gender military units, and accept that rapes will always occur no matter what you do or how many soldiers and officers you court martial; or, keep the boys and girls far, far away from each other.

See, this is not such an easy problem to solve. (Insert your smart alecky retort here).

Look, people, there are some things about human nature that you cannot change, no matter how much you wish it to be so. No amount of “sensitivity training” will prevent a male (especially a young one) from occasionally getting an erection when close to a female (especially a young one); at that point, you are counting on his chivalry, not always a good bet.  

Why Republicans Will Lose In 2014

Alas and alack, it is time for that time-honored, biennial Republican tradition: shooting itself in the foot (or the crotch, depending on whether or not the pistol is properly holstered). The party this time celebrates the 2014 mid-term elections. Moderate Republicans have divided voters into blocks:

• women
• under 30
• LGBT
• Mexican
• poor

The GOP lost these blocks last time 'round. According to their analysis, if we pander to them, they will switch to our side. Since these are supposedly one-issue voters, all we have to do is pass their pet legislation and they will be with us. This time, I think they are calling it "reaching out" or some such thing. 

What nonsense. Republicans have tried that several times before, and got their butts royally kicked each and every time.

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID

There is one issue that all will agree to: jobs. Unemployment is still painfully high and stubbornly persistent. Above all else, the so-called voting blocks above want jobs: full-time, and at a decent wage. All the GOP has to do is come up with a solid, workable plan to fix the economy and create jobs, and not only should they pick up the toss-up states, but a few blue ones as well. This should be especially easy, since “BO” does not have one. This is how Reagan did it (twice), and how “BO” did it the first time around.

LOSERS

Sadly, I see no evidence that Republicans have become a sentient race any more than last time. That is why we will lose.

Let butt kickin' begin.  

Obama Is Paranoid, Secretive, And Dishonest

1. Fast 'N Furious
2. IRS bullying
3. Benghazi Consulate Attack
4. Spying on Fox News, AP
5. NSA Spying On All Citizens

These are but some of the more popular scandals dogging “BO”.

I have seen any number of Presidents in actions, all with rather different personalities. I have noticed that the latter has a tremendous influence on the former. As such, the very behavior of a presidential administration is prone to the personality of the CIC. “BO” is no different.

PARANOIA

nos 4 & 5 are testimony to this. There is no earthly reason for these. The proper execution of national security has nothing to do with these. The only justification for these is that CIC is paranoid about what other people are thinking or saying about him behind his back. How vain and paranoid can you get.

SECRETIVE

Yes, the scope of the number of secret projects undertaken (#1-5) is breathtaking compared to the previous occupants of the Oval Office. You can observe for yourself that “BO” becomes madder than a hornet when one of his secrets is leaked to the press.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE

In the case of nos 2 & 4, “BO” feigned ignorance about same. He claimed that the first time he heard of these was from the newspapers and websites. What a big fat lie. That is not how information flows through the Oval Office. Not only was “BO” fully briefed on same, he probably gave the initial orders to create same.