Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
As usual, Bill Whittle nails it:
…he is right that she really shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it… but; I suspect she will. ◄Dave►
If we are lucky enough for the Obamanation to actually leave office at the end of his current term, the Lame-Stream-Media are determined to replace him with fellow pathological liar Hillary Clinton.
I listened to part of her lie fest yesterday and the reasons she gave for her illegal actions regarding her official email would have been comical if coming from someone less likely to become “leader” of the somewhat free world.
For instance, she used a single email account for both personal and official communications because she did not want to deal with multiple devices. As if a given computing device is tied to one, and only one, email account. Not even a clever lie.
She admits to deleting over 30,000 emails from her account. These included some unknown number concerning yoga routines. Is she insane enough to think anyone believes that this old hag with a butt the size of Texas does yoga? An even less clever lie.
She claims to have complied with the rules by turning over some 55,000 printed pages of emails. How transparent. Not only are all the routing signatures not available on printed copies, these emails cannot be processed by electronic means without re-digitizing them – something that will take weeks or months to accomplish with some unknown introduction of translation errors. This was indeed, clever. If your have something to hide.
Then there is the apparent gap in the emails around the time of the Benghazi fiasco. How convenient.
In a no doubt associated matter, there are those huge monetary contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign people and governments which have no business “buying” influence with a cabinet officer who may well become POTUS. But, what should we expect from the wife of an ex president who sold US military secrets to the Chinese. Have you seen photos of their stealth aircraft? Clearly built directly from US plans and specifications.
It is obvious that the Clintons are part of a ruling class in this nation who are above the law. Witness the crimes committed by Bill which, besides the treason with the Chinese, included confessed-to perjury, and probable multiple rapes.
Any nation whose people not only put up with such behavior but encourage it by electing and re-electing the perpetrators deserve the inevitable outcome.
Citizens of an honest nation would be taking to the streets to demand justice. Instead, we allow the criminals and traitors to become rich and treat them like celebrities.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
Worth watching and pondering:
If you don’t know Trevor Loudon, you should:
We tend to be myopically focused on Islam these days; but I reckon it is a mistake to ignore this message. When one thinks about it, whether the Obamessiah is or is not a Muslim, the evidence from reading his own autobiographies overwhelmingly suggests he is a committed Marxist. As Loudon points out, he could not get a security clearance to clean the toilets on an American military base! Joe McCarthy must be spinning in his grave… ◄Dave►
I can’t think of anything that needs to be added to this indictment:
…but I sure wish college students could be required to watch and absorb it. ◄Dave►
…he might look a bit like 12-year-old C. J. Pearson:
…but, then, looks can sometimes be deceiving.
Thanks, C. J., for giving an old man a glimmer of hope for the future of America. ◄Dave►
It seems like half of the PC arguments these days are over what we should or should not say in regards to uncivilized violence by angry young men screaming “Allahu Akbar.” Whether the Jihadi interpretation of the holy writs of their Islamic religion is correct or not, seems rather immaterial to me. They proudly claim they are acting as righteous martyrs on behalf of their god, as directed by their revered prophet Mohammed. Having done a bit of study of the Qur’an and Hadith, I am inclined to accept that they fervently believe that.
I have encountered countless Christians who believe their Holy Bible is the unerring literal word of their God. That modern enlightened Christians can accept that Earth is exceedingly more than ~6,000-years-old, and that “Creation” didn’t quite go down precisely as written, doesn’t change the fact that untold millions still think the fable is unassailable history. Which of the two camps would have the better claim of authority to proclaim the other is ‘misinterpreting’ Genesis? Now, ask the same of the Muslim Jihadis vs. the so-called ‘Islam is the Religion of Peace’ moderates.
CAIR has just condemned as “Hate Rhetoric” an American politician referring to ISIS as “Islamic Savages” on Twitter, and is demanding an apology. What exactly are we supposed to call barbarians shouting “Allahu Akbar” while decapitating a bound non-combatant prisoner, or immolating alive a helplessly caged POW? How about these rather militant Muslims, who prefer shooting their bound civilian captives:
…are they just misinformed about their glorious religion of peace? How unfortunate for the Infidels they encounter. Savage is too kind a word for these barbarous Islamic marauders. It is often preceded by ‘noble,’ as in ‘noble savage,’ and however they delude themselves, or are cheered on by their coreligionists, there is nothing in the slightest noble about these despicable miscreants.
The term ‘Hate Speech’ has always been curious to me. I think of ‘hate’ as more or less the opposite of ‘love,’ yet intertwined by a close connection of some sort. Generally, one can only conjure the emotion of hate for someone one first loved, or at least knew and cared for in some way. If someone says, “I hate you!” it can only hurt if one somehow values their opinion, and wished otherwise. One can easily be prejudiced against a group or individual, with or without just cause, without hating them. It is perfectly reasonable and rational, to ‘profile’ others and decide one is entirely indifferent to what they may think, and conclude that one has no interest in interacting with them in any way, for whatever reason.
Those considering this view bigoted, are precisely those PC busybodies who rant against ‘Hate Speech.’ I am as indifferent to their condemnation as I am to the outspoken defenders of Islam. Why should I care what they think, when they are so incompetent at it? I could care less what Muslims do to each other in their Middle East sandbox, and frankly I am weary of expending American blood and treasure trying to ‘save’ them from their irrational sectarian squabbles. We should ship them all the guns and ammunition they want, and get out of their way so they can efficiently kill each other, while we are busy turning shale into oil, fracking, building pipelines, and drilling in ANWAR.
I have no reason to hate them; but I damn sure despise Jihadists and their primitive religion. As a Natural Born American, it is my unalienable right to say so, PC be damned. Meanwhile, those Muslims wishing to immigrate here need to understand that we have our own culture, which we like just fine, and a constitutional secular government that is, and forever will be, alien to Sharia law. We don’t intend to change either to accommodate your religious preferences. Assimilate or go find a better country. This one is taken. ◄Dave►
Troy has suggested we engage in a discussion of Islam. To set the tone, I suggest we take the lead from our old friend Pat Condell:
It doesn’t get much straighter, fearless, & frank than that… ◄Dave►
As those of you who still bother to follow this blog well know, I was once one of the most active contributors. But, no more. Why? Is it because I have nothing more to say? Is it because there is nothing new to say? Is it because I am becoming too senile to express myself? Perhaps a little of these.
Mostly, I am pretty quiet these days because my level of disgust with my fellow citizens is becoming so great that I have trouble expressing myself in socially-acceptable language.
It is so very hard to sit by quietly while we literally fritter away the most prosperous, most individually free nation that the earth has ever known. And why? In the main because we have, as a people, become worthless. To the extent that it is increasingly hard to justify the space that we occupy and the resources we squander.
Does this seem a bit harsh? If you don’t bother to think, I’m sure it does. But, if you make just the slightest scratch upon the surface of our reality, it actually might seem a bit mild if not understated.
Just what am I talking about, some of you may be wondering by this point… what can have put this doddering old fool on such a rant? The answer is ever so simple – I simply pay attention to the world around me and actually try to process what I am seeing. And, what I see and understand disgusts me.
For instance, I regularly watch Bill O’Reilly on TV. At least weekly he has a segment called Watters’ World where a young reporter named Jesse Watters goes out and interviews “normal” individuals about the issues of the day. In almost all cases, the individuals in question are dumber than rocks. They don’t know anything! And worst yet, many of them are proud of their ignorance and laugh about it as well. So do most of the show’s audience.
Sorry but this sickens me. How can anyone find humor in the fact that so many of our people know nothing about our history, nothing about our government, nothing about our economy, nothing about world events… while these are the very people who are expected to go to the polls and select those who will lead us onto better paths. And we dare to wonder why so many sorry bums get elected and re-elected!
We are quickly approaching another election in which several national seats (for the Senate and the House) will be decided by voter fraud of various types (ballot box stuffing, illegal votes by the dead and by non-citizens, multiple votes, etc.). And there is NO national outcry! NO demand that those who won by fraud be made to give up their seats. NO demand that the guilty be sent off to prison. Indeed, our federal Justice Department actually fights against the few attempts at reform by some of the States!
Meanwhile, our president seems to be begging to be impeached through constant lying, blatant refusal to obey the constitution, the Congress or orders from the Courts, ruling by decree, making decision after decision that is harmful to the nation.
The conduct of foreign affairs is such that the administration – or, at least the president – might actually be convicted of high treason should our representatives and justices somehow magically develop some sense of honor, duty, loyalty and the backbone to assert them.
This last may seem especially harsh until one analyzes the totality of our foreign policy, especially as regards Islam and jihad. So many of the actions taken seem downright impossible to explain until one asks the simple question “what if they/he are/is on the other side”. Then things suddenly make perfect sense in the most frightening way. Yet again, there is no outcry, Even FOX, which is, otherwise somewhat more critical of the administration than the rest of the media, seem blind to this obvious possibility. And, well they should be if they want to continue broadcasting.
(One may well wonder how I think I can get by with such observations? It is simply because nobody cares what I have to say and there may be more value in letting folks like me make apparent fools of ourselves.)
In summary, our society, in general, has become so corrupt, so greedy, so stupid, so lazy and so individually self-focused that our continued existence is somewhat amazing.
So, I rave on foolishly while far to many of my peers sit there (very) fat, (very) dumb and (somewhat) happy while our once-great nation slowly fades away. Thankfully, none of us will live to see what history has to say about our folly. I somehow doubt it will “do us proud”.
Think about it,
Troy L Robinson
As should be clear to anyone paying even the slightest attention, our “reigning” president’s behavior seems to become ever more bizarre, irresponsible, unconstitutional, and detrimental to the nation, possibly to the entire world. Of course, there are various attempts in the media and in political circles to explain this behavior.
Among the explanations frequently offered, we hear that Obama is disengaged, that he is incompetent, that he is bored (being the head of the greatest nation in history is SO beneath his capabilities as the story goes), etc., ad nauseam.
Any and/or all of these may be true, at least so some extent. However, I sincerely doubt that they actually explain the motivation for Obama’s behavior.
On the one hand, I ask you to think back over all the cruel and ugly stereotypes blacks, especially black males, have had to endure in our nation– that they are lazy, shiftless, dishonest, unreliable and, worst of all, prone to operate outside established law. Now, consider Obama’s behavior in office. At various times, he seems to have gone out of his way to act in accordance with every one of these stereotypes. Why?
Add to this his continuing attempts to grab power that is constitutionally allotted to the other 2 branches of government. Why?
Then, not only does he grab power that rightly belongs to Congress, he goes out of his way to ridicule and humiliate members of Congress in the process. Why?
Obama seems never to pass up an opportunity to encourage political and ethnic disharmony among the people he presumes to lead. Why?
As we approach a mid-term election in which pollsters predict the opposition party will take control of the Senate, while keeping control of the House of Representatives, his behavior seems to become even more bizarre. Why?
Allow me to offer a possible answer to all these “Whys”. I suspect Obama and his cohorts are intentionally trying to provoke the American people into demanding action against him by the Congress – probably in the form of impeachment.
It is obvious that, so long as Harry Reid and the Democrats are able to control the Senate, no impeachment charge could possibly achieve a conviction, ergo the GOP leadership in the House know better than to embarrass themselves by trying. But, in early 2015, with GOP control of the entire Congress and with an increasing number of voters demanding that something be done, the GOP may well feel themselves compelled to risk an impeachment.
IMHO, that is exactly what Obama and company are hoping for. Why? This time the answer is very simple. Any serious attempt to remove Obama from office would almost assuredly trigger massive riots in most or our major cities. This, in turn, would present that long sought-after condition for a declaration of martial law nationwide. Once said declaration is in effect, we will have become a dictatorship, plain and simple. Most probably, some manner of civil war would soon follow – a civil war in which freedom-loving Americans would stand little chance of prevailing.
No doubt some of you who have agreed, to whatever extent, with my analysis so far will dispute this last assessment. My response is that your should never underestimate the corrupting power of the promise of power and wealth, even when that promise is actually false.
The only other possible outcome of ongoing events is that the Congress and the Courts simply continue to allow Obama’s power to grow, unchecked. In this case, he becomes dictator by default. Same outcome as above, only without the riots and the martial law.
You may further note that this analysis contains no suggestion of a response on our part. This is because I consider the situation too far gone for any effective action.
Consider that, despite several years of Obama acting as a pseudo dictator, with most of our international respect gone, with much of our military might intentionally forfeited, with our economy in shambles, nearly half of our citizens still approve of Obama’s job performance.
Can you spell “hopeless”?
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
E-cigarettes have been much in the news lately, both pro and con. While they are clearly a healthier way of consuming nicotine than inhaling tobacco smoke, there is concern that they legitimize smoking, and kids are drinking the refills. The Progressive PC control freaks are starting to ban their use in many circumstances and locales. What if an electronic substitute for smoking were available, which never needs refilling and would be considered PC to the most radical fanatic?
I have been smoke free for almost 5 months now. Nicotine itself no longer has a hold on me; but there are psychological triggers that still cause me to miss lighting up occasionally. Stress and/or anger is a big one. In the past, I have managed to quit for several months, only to blow it over a quarrel with a woman! Fortunately, no woman has such power in my life anymore, so that won’t be a problem this time.
Other triggers are circumstances which habitually induced me to light up in the past. Something as simple as being interrupted by phone call, can cause me to recall that I used to light up at such times. A classic example has surfaced since I recently reacquired my dog. Because I never smoked in my vehicles, every time I stopped to allow her to run around, sniffing and eliminating, I naturally lit a cigarette. The length of her potty break was the time it took for my smoke break.
Read the rest of this entry »
I am having blog-withdrawal problems and must contribute something – however, continuing to point out the myriad wrongdoings of the Obamanation and his administration is boring and repetitive. Add to that the fact that I have lost nearly all passion for things political and I am left with the nearly overwhelming need to say something despite having nothing very inteeresting to say.
Then, voila, last evening I found a subject – although nothing really earth shaking. Congressman Paul Ryan was commenting that after several decades and trillions of dollars spent, US government programs to help those in poverty had not worked. (Imagine that!)
Finally, something to dispute, and from a conservative mouth to boot!
Read the rest of this entry »
In political discussions, I generally identify myself as a small (el) libertarian, since it is too time consuming to explain what I mean, when I say I am an objectivist. There are, however, profound differences between some of the various schools of libertarianism, and the specific philosophy of Ayn Rand, which she named objectivism. This will serve as a succinct introduction to the subject, to which I can link in future discussions here and elsewhere.
The Ayn Rand Institute has some superb interactive online courses. They just added a short 15 minute introductory course on objectivism, narrated by Ayn Rand herself. It is very well done, and I highly recommend it. However, although it is free of charge, one must enroll in their online university to watch it. While safe and painless, few would probably bother to do so. Thus, the following is the transcript of Ayn Rand’s voice-over, without the visuals:
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did, as follows:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
Read the rest of this entry »
I am well aware that we are rapidly approaching the demise of America. If the last five years have not inspired the ruling class to do something to prevent the coming total crash of our economy and bankruptcy of the Federal government, nothing will. It is only a matter of (a short) time before we devolve into civil war/revolution (same thing) and the chances of holding it together until the mid-term election in ’14, much less the chance for a reset in ’16, are almost nil. Thus, wasting any time on anything other than preparing for the inevitable martial law looming on the horizon, is precisely that – a waste of time.
However, I am as prepared as I need to be at my age, so permit me to waste some time (as if we had a viable future), on a rather insignificant issue. On the other hand, if pondering it causes others, who may not be as psychologically prepared for what is coming as I am, to grasp the implications of Obama’s promised ‘civilian security force,’ then perhaps it is not such a waste of time, or so insignificant. I would like to suggest that we start a movement to totally defund and eliminate the National Park Service (NPS).
I am by no means the only one who has been outraged at these wanabe petty tyrants. The obvious relish with which they have been executing their egregious orders, to ‘make it hurt’ the taxpaying citizens, during the quasi-shutdown of the Federal government for the past couple of weeks, is truly disgusting. Somehow, they have lost sight of the fact that our national parks belong to the people, who are only paying them as caretakers and janitors to keep them tidy.
Read the rest of this entry »
After some fruitful discussion on my “Natural Rights Explained” essay, posted here and elsewhere, my blogging partner, Troy, posted his “Natural Rights Refuted” post, neatly dismissing the whole concept. This is my rebuttal to that.
We may be twisting ourselves into semantic knots here, Troy. Suggesting there is no “such thing,” comports with the understanding we had already developed, which suggested that natural rights are ideas, akin to opportunities, rather than things. Yet, as Chris pointed out, ideas are ‘things’ too.
I had been working on the notion that it was sovereignty itself, which was the primary, and the concept of natural rights were mere corollaries of that proposition. Then, the Enlightenment era treatise by Quesnay, suggested that it was the right to pursue one’s own pleasure, which was fundamental and gave rise to the notion of sovereignty, and the other so-called natural rights.
In any case, I entirely agree with your assessment of the intention of Jefferson, et al. That was precisely the point I was making in my original “Sovereign Rights” essay back in ’07, when I interpreted and restated his most famous line about self-evident truths, in the Declaration of Independence, thusly:
“We freeborn Americans are sovereign individuals, each on par with King George III himself, with the inalienable right to live our lives as freemen, pursuing our own happiness, subservient to no one.”
Do natural rights exist? As ideas, they most certainly do. The meaning, validity, and/or effect of those ideas can certainly be fairly challenged; but their existence cannot, and more importantly, probably should not. I think we need to back up and look at the big picture, to assess the whole point of this discussion.
Read the rest of this entry »
A typical comment directed at me elsewhere, inspired some cogitation resulting in the following explanation of ‘natural rights':
“What is the point of the constitutional phrase right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you can murder babies in the womb? We only have a right to life if we are already born? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”
That phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and it was part of the sentence declaring the equality and natural rights of all ‘men,’ not babies, or children, and certainly not fetuses. In our Founder’s time, it probably did not even include women, and for an embarrassingly significant percentage of them, it excluded the entire negro race. Allow me to offer another way to look at this business of natural rights, which may help you make some sense of them.
When Enlightenment thinkers developed the philosophical concept of natural rights, it was in the context of individual sovereignty. The extant paradigm for Western civilization at that time, was that one was necessarily born into servitude, to the sovereign potentate claiming dominion over the territory in which one was born. There were different classes in society, enjoying differing levels of privileges; but all were born subjects of their king, whether serf or gentry. Supported by the clergy, the king had the divine right to rule over his subjects. He could order a subject’s head detached on a whim, and a serf was not permitted to relocate or change occupations without permission.
Read the rest of this entry »
I am involved in an interesting discussion on a conservative site frequented by Christian fundamentalists. This morning, a fellow named Rich made a comment suggesting that the Left is waging a “war against Christians,” and that political activism by the religious Right, is “most always” to counter that. It inspired me to share a unique perspective I have, as a non-combatant in the culture war raging across our land, who has communicated extensively with participants in both camps. I think it is worth sharing with a wider audience, so it follows:
The tragedy, Rich, is that most of those on the Left think they too, are playing defense. I spent a couple of years back in ’07 and ’08, frequenting freethinker forums, which were mostly populated with insufferable ACLU type atheist activists. There, I essentially played the opposite role that I have here. I referred to myself as a godless redneck heathen, and defended the traditional American culture extant in flyover country. I was as much an enigma there as I am here.
Here, my patriotism and more or less conservative political views, generally resonate; but my lack of faith, and unabashed willingness to challenge Christian dogma, is confusing and consternating to most. There, I passed their godless test; but my unabashed willingness to defend Judeo-Christian culture, and challenge their equally dogmatic Politically Correct ideology, drove them nuts. Thus, I can report with some authority, that they are irrationally afraid of the Piously Correct agenda.
While flawed in their support of government coercion, for the purposes of redistributing wealth for ‘social justice,’ they are fulsome in their support for civil rights for all mankind, and adamant in their insistence that government stay the hell out of their personal lives. In this, I was in full agreement, although I took pains to point out their inconsistencies, and insist that I wanted government to also stay out of my personal pocketbook.
Read the rest of this entry »
In the ridiculous “debate” now going on between various factions in what passes for a government in this sad Republic (if I may be so bold as to still name it such), regarding our potential intervention in the civil war currently raging in Syria, much seems to hinge on the method by which the victims of that war are wounded or killed.
Indeed, and for some years now, it has been United States policy to cause all manner of international uproar over the fact that nations, other than our own, might have and –shudder– actually use a WMD – otherwise known as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
In the first place, there is one thing has never been defined to my understanding or satisfaction; that is, how large must a singular act of destruction be in order to qualify as “mass”?
In the second place, by what logic is it somehow worse for destruction to be caused by a singular act that meets the mysterious criteria of “mass” versus the same net amount of destruction being caused by repeated application of WID (Weapons of Incremental Destruction)? After all, did not our very Republic introduce the use of such WMD to end WWII in Asia under the theory that a couple of massive acts of destruction would, in the long run, result in less total damage than the continued application of WID? (Please note that I use the word destruction to describe the destruction of both people and objects.)
Read the rest of this entry »
Saturday evening, we attended a presentation regarding a relatively new, grassroots effort to reinstate our Constitutional Republic using a bottoms-up approach. Details can be found at reinstatenow.org. I will share more regarding this as I learn more (a local group is holding weekly lectures to teach us how we can each participate.) In the meantime, please check out the website and offer your own opinions. From what I can tell so far, this group is focused on actions that can be taken now and by folk like us.
Note that this effort is being led by a number of people who have my respect, including Tom Woods (Nullification and others); G Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island and others; “Sheriff” Richard Mack (founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and author of a number of books dealing with the role of the sheriff under our Constitution, gun control, and similar issues).
Troy L Robinson
(As promised (threatened?) in a previous article, I intend to submit a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution that, in my own judgment, would help restore a Constitutional Republic in our nation. Some of these are my own, some are based on Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and some have been suggested by others).
Repeal of the 25th Amendment
The 25th amendment the the United States Constitution is hereby repealed. All legislation and regulation implemented under the authority of the 25th amendment is likewise rendered null and void.
The 25th amendment was implemented to allow appointment of a Vice President, when such office shall become vacant, rather than rely on the order of succession originally established by our Constitution. The main impetus for the 25th Amendment was that the then Speaker of the House (Carl Albert) was totally unwilling to succeed to the Presidency.
The 25th Amendment has already given us an “appointed President” (Gerald Ford). It also gave us an “appointed Vice President” in the form of Nelson Rockefeller, a person who had repeatedly been rejected by the people in his own attempts to win his party’s nomination for President. Given the assassination attempt on President Ford, the Republic was very nearly subjected to a situation where a person repeatedly rejected by the people would, nevertheless, have gained the Presidency.
Please offer constructive comments as you see fit.
Troy L Robinson