How To Beat Hillary And Put A Republican Back In The White House

 

 

“Is that you, Jesus? My bad-brain-bleed-thingie makes it hard for me to see and to reason. What’s that? Wear more pantsuits? OK, Jesus.”

Originally posted at The Ancient & Noble Order of The Gormogons.

 

Hillary Clinton will surely be America’s next president, to hear media tell it. There’s no need for a general election, much less a messy Democrat primary. Accept your destiny, America, and move on.

Yet ‘Puter’s noticed the media’s tiny, black hearts aren’t fully in selling the lie. Media liberals were pleased to see Bernie Sanders enter the race,* hypothesizing his presence will pull Mrs. Clinton to the Left, where much of media dwells.**

Regardless, Mrs. Clinton is the odds on favorite to win the Democrats’ nomination, and thus Republicans must determine how best to beat her. Here are a few helpful suggestions, in case there’s anyone in the Republican party interested in retaking the White House.

Nominate someone who at least appears reasonable. This lets out Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and any and all human beings sporting the name Huckabee. Viable candidates include: Bush (hate him, but he’s viable), Walker and Rubio. Candidates that may have a chance include: Fiorina and Christie. Candidates that are dead on arrival: Graham and Palin.*** Your mileage may vary, but in ‘Puter’s experience, America will not elect a hard core conservative candidate. Quit your bitching and accept reality.

If You Want Real “Social Justice,” Support Free Markets and Small Government

Originally posted at Mitchell’s blog International Liberty.

 

Since almost everybody wants a society that is just, that presumably means we all favor “social justice.”

But in the American political system, the phrase has been adopted by those who favor bigger government and more intervention. Sort of the way “solidarity” and “social” are code words for statism in Europe.

Leftists think that this phrase gives them the moral high ground, but shouldn’t we judge “social justice” by outcomes rather than intentions?

Is statism really compassionate if it actually winds up lining the pockets of wealthy insiders?

Is statism really compassionate when it gives people an excuse to be stingy, as we see in Europe?

Is statism really compassionate when it means less long-run growth and lower living standards for ordinary people?

The answers to those questions probably depend on one’s definition of a just society.

Massie Amendment Prevents ATF from Banning Bullets

bullets

It’s become increasingly clear that we shouldn’t trust President Obama’s friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Earlier this year, the ATF proposed a rule that would have banned commonly used rifle ammunition. In an attempt to scare the American public, the ATF claimed that “armor piercing (AP)” ammunition was being used to kill police officers and should be banned. In reality, the specific ammo in question—M855 5.56x45mm NATO—is just an average sporting rifle cartridge used by sportsmen, hobbyists, and firearm enthusiasts alike. It turned out that the ATF had no basis for its cop-killing claims.

Fortunately, freedom-loving Americans pushed back. Over 310,000 comments were submitted to the ATF about this backdoor attempt to unilaterally ban M855. Realizing that Congress wouldn’t allow the ban to stand, the ATF backed down.

However, the ATF left the door open to banning the ammunition in the future.

Enter Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), a staunch defender of our Second Amendment rights, Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus, and a strict adherent to the U.S. Constitution. Sensing that the ATF may attempt a similar ban in the future, he decided to propose an amendment that would prevent similar ploys to restrict our ammo options.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted the Congressman’s amendment – House Amendment 341– to H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

The language of the Amendment reads as follows:

At Altar of Diversity, “PC” Means “Plane Crashes”

FAA

 

We live today in a world saturated with the groupthink of political correctness. Ideas, beliefs, and traditions that were just a few years ago non-controversial because, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, they were “self-evident”, can now bring upon you heaping condemnations, boycotts, and even lawsuits for their mere utterance. Merely disagreeing with those that have parted ways with tradition can brand you as a “denier”, a bigot, homophobe, racist, or worst.

We have become a nation where the wisdom of generations of collective understanding, and human experience, has been replaced by the shiny new novelty of “enlightened” thinking, which tells us that there is no difference in the sexes, that gender is a social construct that can be chosen or changed at will, rather than a biological characteristic inherent at birth. This same groupthink elevates “diversity” as the Holy Grail of social engineering, a goal to be pursued at the expense of common sense, fairness (actual fairness, based on merit, not the redistributionist fairness of “social justice”), and achievement.

Red State: Obama’s better than Rand Paul on security

randdove

Not content to let Rand Paul have his minor, temporary Patriot Act sunset victory, conservative blogger and video auteur Ben Howe took to Red State just minutes before the expiration of the act’s surveillance powers to proclaim the Kentucky senator and presidential candidate worse than Obama on national security.

As far as I’m concerned, Rand Paul’s view of ISIS and our role in “creating” them is pretty much a deal breaker. It shows such an uninformed and naive view of radical Islam that it makes me expect President Paul to be as dangerous as a President Obama in this regard. In fact I’ve reached the point where I question whether Obama might actually keep us safer than Rand Paul would.

Howe joins a crescendoing chorus of Republicans who might have a hard decision to make come November 2016 if Rand Paul is indeed the party’s nominee. I predicted this intra-party schism almost two years ago, but I’m stunned by the accelerated timeline. I expected Republicans hawks to flip to Hillary if Rand was the nominee. I didn’t expect them to all but do so 8 months before any primary votes are cast.

Whether or not you think it’s outrageous for Rand to have said “hawks in our party” “created” ISIS, let’s review the evidence. (Because that’s what thinking people do. We don’t just hear something that sounds outrageous, gasp, and shun the speaker.)

Poll Shows Rand Paul and Marco Rubio Best Positioned Against Hillary

ran marco

Yes, it’s 18 months until the 2016 election, so head-to-head matchup polls don’t really matter right now. But over the next 8 months, Republicans have to decide who will face Hillary Clinton. They’re primarily deciding that question on ideological grounds, but electability should be a big factor too, and today we have a new national poll that suggests Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have the best shot.

Thursday’s release from Quinnippiac University shows that not only does Paul get the most support of any Republican in a general election contest with Clinton, but he also holds her own support down to 46%. However, Marco Rubio holds her even lower, 45%, but his own support is also lower than Paul’s in that matchup, 41%. Both are within the 3.8% margin of error for the Republican-only questions.

Rand

Rubio

A second question reinforces why both Paul and Rubio’s already strong support within striking distance of Hillary is only likely to grow. Hillary has a -2 favorability rating, with only 8% having no opinion or response. That means that 45% of voters like her, 47% don’t, and there’s almost no one else left to make up their mind. She’s been a national figure for more than 30 years. Everyone knows who she is and already has an opinion of her. Her support is capped.

The Giant GOP Field is Proof of American Exceptionalism

GOP2016field

Libertarians and conservatives have this strange need sometimes to kvetch loudly about how the many scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton, and the unabashed narcissism of our current Commander in Chief, and the look-the-other-way tendency of the mid-level bureaucratic leaders like the ones heading up the turmoil that is Baltimore, are the worst things ever. This is not, they argue, the country the founders had in mind when they wrote, inarguably, some of the most brilliant guiding documents in the history of mankind.

But that’s a load of malarkey. All of this is exactly what the founders had in mind because it is the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They knew it well and wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to counter what was the native tendency of man: strife, dishonesty, unwarranted power grabs, unethical leadership, meaningless strategies designed to weaken rather than strengthen. Read the Federalist Papers. It’s all about countering human nature to get to something finer, something better, something never before tried.

American Exceptionalism. That’s what it means.

That’s why this article, arguing that the gigantic GOP field is actually a sign of very good things, is so refreshing.

With all the media concern-trolling about the swarming GOP presidential field, it should not escape our attention that you’re getting exactly what you asked for. Voters incessantly complain about the lack of choices in politics. Well, for the first time in a long time, nearly every faction of the American Right is represented in an open primary.

The Straw that Broke the Federalist Camel’s Back

Recently when discussing with a friend Tammy Duckworth’s new proposal for breastfeeding rooms to be installed in all airports, I suggested that while it might be a worthy goal, it has no business being a nationally mandated policy. Fortunately, my friend did not retort aghast that I was against privacy, breastfeeding, or women, as is so often the case in debates with our leftward neighbors:

Bastiat

Instead, my progressive friend responded that the federal government already controls airports, and this one additional mandate would hardly be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.” Though the federal control of airports itself is dubious, it occured to me that, while not much of a logical argument in favor of this particular example, this is actually the perfect metaphor for federal regulation as a whole.

No, one additional piece of straw on the back of a camel will not break it. But how would one place straw on a camel’s back anyway? With the hump(s), it would likely roll right off to the ground and not weigh down the camel at all, at least after a certain amount of straw. Similarly, any one single regulation is not likely to make any regulated private business, organization, or individual unsustainable.

Hillary Clinton’s Obtuse Pot Policy Exposes the Dubious Right-Left Dichotomy of Every Issue

-

The Daily Beast has a bit this week about Hillary Clinton’s upcoming donor clash over marijuana policy. Her position as recently as last year is that marijuana is a gateway drug and would be legalized, even medicinally, at great risk to society.

“I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states,” she told KPCC radio last July.

This is at odds with big donors she’s meeting in California soon, as well as the general public, which supports legalizing it completely. That, of course, means that Hillary’s position on the issue will almost certainly “evolve” before 2016 gets too much closer. But if she doesn’t, she could end up to the “right” of her Republican challenger here.

That raises the question of whether marijuana prohibition is even a cause of the right or the left to begin with. Currently it’s assumed to be a liberal issue, and polls support that by showing huge majorities of Democrats favoring legalization but much smaller numbers of Republicans.

Amazing Admission from New York Times Columnist on How Feminist Economic Policies Hurt Women

This was originally posted at Mitchell’s blog International Liberty.

smash patriarchy

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.