2016 GOP Candidates: Ego or Passion?

The demolition derby for the Republican Party’s 2016 Presidential Nomination is about to begin and list of potential entries in the contest is increasing every moment.  Right now,I would say there is a 90% probability the following nine candidates will run.

Former Two Term Florida Governor Jeb Bush,
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee,
First-Term US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul,First-Term US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz,
Second-Term Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum,
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson,
Second-Term Texas Governor Rick Perry,
Second-Term New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Beyond that, there are also varying degrees of chance that some of the following will run:

First-Term US Senator from Florida Marco Rubio,
Second-Term New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez,
Ninth-Term US Representative from Wisconsin Paul Ryan,
Second-Term Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal,
Second-Term South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,
Second-Term Ohio Governor John Kasich,
Former US Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown

The strong field of amazingly talented public officials will (hopefully) prevent too many mediocre candidates from getting in the race.
The strong field of amazingly talented public officials will (hopefully) prevent too many mediocre candidates from getting in the race.

One thing that immediately stands in these 16 names is the lack of mediocrity.  The only Representative to make the list is Paul Ryan and he’s a former Vice Presidential candidate.  Ben Carson is the only real joke candidate on the list.  But there’s one thing that separates some of these candidates from others.


Some of these candidates are candidates only because their current offices in life aren’t big enough for their egos.  I won’t call anyone out yet because it is way too soon, but you’re going to be able to tell the passionate conservatives versus the egotistical conservatives very easily when the race gets started.

The Passionate names on that list are running because they have a very strong passion for their specific platform and they honestly see themselves as the best messenger for that platform.  The egotistical conservative may or may not have a specific platform and they also see themselves as the best messenger for that platform… wait, that sounds almost exactly the same.  You’re going to be able to tell them apart after the race gets going.  Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have very identical platforms.  Ben Carson and Rand Paul have very identical platforms.  Rick Perry and Ted Cruz have very identical platforms.  At some point between August and October of 2015, one of the two of them is going to emerge as the better messenger of their conservative platform.  If the other does not bow out of the race before the end of the year, you’re going to know he or she is in it for themselves and not their conservative ideology.

I have my suspicions about who is doing it for the wrong reasons and who is doing it for the right reasons.  Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section of this post or by contacting me personally.

terrorists kill 28 kenyan civilians who aren't muslim

Al-Shabab Islamists Slaughter 28 non-Muslims in Kenya, US Response is Bullshit

The victims of the latest al-Shabab terror attack in Kenya were pulled off a bus and shot in the back only because they were not Muslims.
The victims of the latest al-Shabab terror attack in Kenya were pulled off a bus and shot in the back only because they were not Muslims.

On Saturday, radical Islamic terrorists belonging to al-Shabab, a terror group working out of Somalia, hijacked a bus, forced all the non-Muslims off the bus and made them lay face down on the ground before two shooters killed 28 men, women, and children, including 17 teachers.  One man miraculously survived to tell the story after the two terrorists both thought the other shot the man who was laying perfectly still until the terrorists left.

The United States responded through National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan:

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s horrific attack in Kenya by the terrorist group al-Shabab against innocent civilians.”

No the United States does not condemn this in the strongest terms.

To condemn something in the strongest terms looks like this:


That is a condemnation in the strongest terms.  Unfortunately, the United States government under the “leadership” of President Barack Obama does not condemn terrorism by groups like al-Shabab in the strongest terms.  In fact, it’s rare we get a condemnation in even weak terms.  Most of the time, the condemnations of terrorism are more like critiques filled with empty rhetoric spoken by habitual liars.  In other words, our response to terrorism today is utter bullshit.

“We will be very, very angry with you.  And we write you a letter telling you how angry we are.”

(not for those with sensitive ears)

For what it’s worth, Kenya DID respond by condemning the terrorist attack in the “strongest terms.” They launched airstrikes against al-Shabab targets in Somalia almost immediately upon learning of this evil terrorist attack.

Bernadette Meehan continued later in her statement by saying:

“The United States stands with our Kenyan partners in the effort to counter the threat of terrorism and affirms our ongoing commitment to working with all Kenyans to combat these atrocities.”

It is no secret that Al-Shabab has access to better weapons than the Kenyan police thanks to al-Qaida's smuggling network that the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye towards.
It is no secret that Al-Shabab has access to better weapons than the Kenyan police thanks to al-Qaida’s smuggling network that the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye towards.

Except the Kenyan police are regularly complaining that Al-Shabab has access to more sophisticated and better weaponry than they have.  Again, if you’re going to condemn al-Shabab in the strongest terms and work with the Kenyans to combat these terrorist atrocities, you have to at the very least ensure they have the tools necessary to combat terrorists.  While giving grade A weapons to the Kenyans (or any African country for that matter) may not be a great plan, we have to figure out some way to provide weapons that are at least as good as the ones al-Qaida and al-Shabab are using against them.

Again, the Obama Administration’s response to this terrorist attack and every other has been complete and total bullshit.  If we keep it up, we’re not going to have a lot of allies in the world.


Pro-Life Conservatives Stabbed in the Back by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy

Pro-Life protesters took to the streets of Madrid to protest the Prime Minister abandoning campaign promises to defend life.
Pro-Life protesters took to the streets of Madrid to protest the Prime Minister abandoning campaign promises to defend life.

Tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, took to the streets of Madrid, Spain to protest the conservative government’s plans to scrap its pro-life agenda.  The Spanish Popular Party (stupid name) won the past elections in Spain by promising to restrict abortions to cases of rape or health risks to the mothers.  It won the Popular Party a lot of support from the country’s conservatives and helped them win the majority needed for Mariano Rajoy to build a government in Spain’s parliament.  Unfortunately, now in office, the Mariano Rajoy is backing away from the promise made to the very large pro-life community in Spain… and now they’re upset.  Very upset.

Why is this a big deal?  For the same reason it’s a big deal in the United States.

madrid-protest-prolife1The demonstrators in Spain are vowing not to vote for the Popular Party in the 2015 national elections if they abandon their promise.  And well they should.   Forming a unity government in Parliamentary Systems makes it a lot easier to build coalitions.  One political party doesn’t have to be all things to all people, like we have here.  There are multiple parties with a smaller, single or dual issue focus.  As a result, if you win an election and get to form a government, you are expected by your voters to fulfill your promises or at least make an effort to look like you’re representing their concerns as you promised.

While breaking promises to voters is common in the United States, it’s far less acceptable in Parliamentary systems of government.  Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has done the unthinkable by backing away from the pro-life platform his party SUCCESSFULLY ran on.  He is stabbing his supporters in the back.

So, if a pro-life conservative KNOWS he or she cannot trust Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy or the Popular Party to work on their behalf, they’re going to take their support elsewhere.  The consequences of doing this in a Parliamentary system are far less dire than doing in the system we have here.  Ideally, it will force the Popular Party to form a coalition government with another smaller but more

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy took a play from United States President Barack Obama by stabbing voters in the back.
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy took a play from United States President Barack Obama by stabbing voters in the back.  Unfortunately for Mariano Rajoy, he didn’t bother to look to see what Americans think of Obama’s job performance.

conservative party; which will then threaten to pull its support and strip the Popular Party of its leadership if their pro-life agenda isn’t addressed.

WTF, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy?  I mean seriously.


“Free The Nipple” and Why Modern Feminism Isn’t Really Feminism

There’s a new feminist documentary coming out in a few weeks called “Free the Nipple.”    As you might have guessed, it’s a feminist film protesting how men can go topless but women, at least in most states, cannot.  I’m sure most of us have heart the argument before, it’s not exactly a revolutionary idea.  In fact, it’s probably in the political manifesto of just about every teenage boy that hot girls should be able to go topless whenever and wherever they want.

Now before you think this is a sexy post, here is an uncensored topless photo of a former US Senator.


So let it be said first and foremost that it should be a law that some people NEED to wear shirts.  However, because it is illegal to direct laws at some people rather than others, we have to settle with laws for all people.  Now, the feminists behind the Free The Nipple documentary and the topless movement in general will argue that the laws DO target some people but not others… they target women and not men.

AGREED!  Men should have to wear shirts.

What about at beaches?  I think we had it right many years ago.


In an age where parents buy bikinis for their daughters, men are wearing thongs, and feminists believe they should go around major cities topless, modesty has become politically incorrect.  Sadly, modesty is the new shocking.  Modesty is oppressive.

What’s really REALLY sad about this “Free The Nipple” thing and modern feminism in general is that it’s not empowering women at all.  In fact, as I’ve eluded to above, it’s giving teenage boys and perverted men EXACTLY what they want.  “Sexually liberated women” means that it’s easier for a guy to get laid with no consequences or serious commitment.  Freeing the nipple and encouraging women to go topless saves someone from even having to use his imagination.  There’s nothing “liberating” about this for women.  As a result, women are LESS human and MORE object in the eyes of society.

Just think about it for a moment.  Who is honestly going to watch this movie (which is going to be uncensored when it is released).  Women?  Bullshit.  Teenage boys and perverted old men are going to be watching it.  And when they get the DVD, they’re going to hit the pause button every time they see a topless naked booby.  This isn’t feminism, this is making women exactly what men want them to be.  Sexual objects.

no-shirtNo, women shouldn’t be going around topless.  Neither should men for that matter.  And while we’re on the subject of dress code, a man’s pants should fully cover his underpants.  That’s why they’re called UNDERpants.  They’re meant to be worn UNDER your PANTS.


Obama delivers statement on Ukraine from the White House

Will GOP Lawsuit Lead To Effort to Impeach Obama?

House Republicans lead by Speaker John Boehner have filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration for their illegal and unconstitutional changes to Obamacare laws.
House Republicans led by Speaker John Boehner have filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration for their illegal and unconstitutional changes to Obamacare laws.

The House Republicans are suing the Obama Administration over a series of executive orders that radically changed the implementation of President Obama’s only real accomplishment, the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.   As you may recall, very few Democrats in Congress actually bothered to “read the bill” before shoving it down our throats through unprecedented and unethical means. As a result, they ended up signing a bill that would have punished union members with “Cadillac health insurance plans” and would need to be implemented before the 2012 re-election campaign of the President and many of the Senate Democrats desperately clinging to their majority.

However, Obama couldn’t go to the Congress to change the law.  By the time anyone actually read the entire law, Republicans already swept the 2010 mid-term elections in the House and drastically cut the Democrat majority in the US Senate.  Any attempt to change the law would have resulted in the House Republicans gutting it and a bitter fight in the US Senate; which would involve further changes unwanted by the Obama administration.  So, to avoid a second round with Republicans over the still unpopular Obamacare law in 2011 and 2012, Obama decided to change the law himself multiple times through executive orders, bypassing the US Congress.

An Inconvenient Truth...
An Inconvenient Truth…

There’s just one problem.  The United States Constitution.

The US Constitution declares Congress the legislative branch in charge of making laws and the Presidency and his administration as the executive branch in charge of executing those laws.  The judicial branch, or the courts, are the ones who are supposed to interpret the laws.

Now, three things are happening.

1. President Obama is criminally overstepping his authority to change laws without the legislature.

2. President Obama is criminally not fulfilling his duty as the leader of the executive branch by not carrying out the laws made by Congress.

3. President Obama is ignorantly overstepping his authority to interpret laws without the judiciary.

This case is going to make its way up to the Supreme Court just because of its high-profile and the politics of the Court; where I have to believe the Republicans will hold a slight advantage, even though Chief Justice Roberts kind of screwed us early on to make a smartass comment that the unconstitutional fines in Obamacare were actually taxes.

So, if it is determined that the Obama Administration acted in a way that violates the US Constitution, the question then becomes whether House Republicans will vote to impeach Obama.  I’ve written earlier that any decision to try to impeach Obama would be doomed to failure and incredibly stupid, even though it has never been more justified.

In 2011, Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas skipped the State of the Union in protest to President Obama's disrespectful remarks about the Supreme Court and recent decisions.
In 2011, Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas skipped the State of the Union in protest to President Obama’s disrespectful remarks about the Supreme Court and recent decisions.

Although it might, the timing of this lawsuit suggests it won’t happen.  It can take many YEARS before a case will make its way to the Supreme Court.   I think the record is only a few months when they decided to uphold the election laws and procedures in the State of Florida in Bush v. Gore; which officially made George W. Bush the President-elect.  I’m no expert on the courts, but I suspect the fastest Republicans can hope the Supreme Court hears this case is 12 months.  That means the motion to begin impeachment procedures would begin very close to Obama’s last year in office.

And then there’s the trouble of the United States Senate.  If the House Republicans impeach Obama, Senate Republicans would need a 2/3rds majority to vote Obama out of office and appoint Joe Biden in his stead.  Chief Justice Roberts would preside over the hearings; but would not have a vote.  So Republicans would have to have a unanimous vote from their 53 Senators and then get 14 Democrats to cross over and vote against Obama to get 67.  That’s a tall order.

For trying to impeach Obama, Republicans will forever be branded as the party of impeachers and the party that tried to impeach the first black President.

I suspect the lawsuit serves three purposes.  First of all, Republicans aren’t going to be able to repeal the ACA before Obama is out of office.  So the legal battle is designed to satisfy Republican grassroots that their majority in Congress is doing SOMETHING against Obamacare that’s actionable and possibly could be cause to impeach Obama, even if the timeline doesn’t appear as though it will allow it.

WagonCircleSecondly, the lawsuit is going to force Democrats to circle the wagons to defend Obama at a time when most Democrats would prefer to distance themselves from the President.  This will also cause Democrats further damage by forcing them to the defense of the hugely unpopular Obamacare law.  This could play an enormous role in the 2016 Congressional Elections as Republicans are going to be desperate to hold onto some tough Senate seats they won in the 2010 election cycle to keep their majority.

Thirdly, although this seems like political hardball that will only increase the partisan divide, it may have the opposite effect.  Although Republicans would be tarnished for their effort to impeach Obama, the first black President; it would also tarnish the legacy of Barack Obama the way Monica Lewinsky tarnished Bill Clinton’s legacy.  Only instead of infidelity, Obama would be known for taking a huge crap on the Constitution.  With that as leverage, Obama might actually be convinced to work with a Republican Congress to get the basic needs of the country met… but Obama seems more geared towards escalating civil unrest in the United States than doing anything for the common good, so I wouldn’t hold my breath that this tree will bear any fruit.

obama-neroThe self-inflicted damage to the Republican Party if they were to impeach Obama would be far more consequential to the conservative movement in this country compared to the legacy of one man who appears ready and willing to let the United States burn.

One thing I would personally love to see is a similar lawsuit forcing Obama to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.  Sadly, the big-business powers that be would never endorse such a lawsuit.


Entertaining, Informative, and Usually Sarcastic

I'll send a FREE copy of The MSPaint Comic to the troops for each copy you buy until Christmas!