ObamaBomb

After the Supreme Court’s 2015 King v. Burwell ruling, an emboldened President Obama reminded people that the Affordable Care Act is “now helping tens of millions of Americans.” Not only that, he said he’s heard that the health law has “changed their lives for the better.”

A new National Public Radio/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that only 15 percent say they’ve personally benefitted, however.

They all vote Democrat… 🙂

While 56 percent of Americans said the law hasn’t directly affected them, among those who have been affected by it, more people said it has done greater harm than good.

I was effected by it. But that’s because I pay attention to my increases n Health Care costs.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
And the Liberal Media is obsessed with Racial Division and other distractions.

Via The Hill:

Twenty-six percent of U.S. adults say they have been personally harmed by the healthcare law since its passage — a fraction that likely reflects those in the poll who said they have noticed rising healthcare costs in the last several years. 

And while the majority of adults said they believed their healthcare costs were “reasonable,” many said those costs were becoming less affordable over time. […]

Twenty-six percent of Americans say the cost of healthcare has been a serious strain on their finances in the last two years. About 40 percent of those facing financial struggles because of their medical bills said they have spent all or most of their savings accounts on large bills. About one in five people said they’ve been forced to forgo prescriptions because they can’t afford them. 

The national poll included 1,002 responses and has a margin of error of 3.8.

But will they blame Obama and The Democrats. I highly doubt it.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
My sentiments exactly.

Ya Think?

They seem to have reversed course on that issue once they realized that some people would use free speech to disagree with them. Hey, we never said they were perceptive.

  • Nadine Strossen said support for robust free speech is sadly “declining among liberals.”

A former president of the American Civil Liberties Union claims that declining support for free speech on college campuses is the fault of liberal faculties that promote censorship.

Nadine Strossen, a New York School of Law professor who served as president of the ACLU for 17 years, strongly endorsed Purdue University’s commitment to free speech Monday in an interview with The Lafayette Journal & Courier, pointing out that support for the First Amendment has become “controversial” at most other schools.

“Sadly, support for robust free speech is declining among liberals…”

“Sadly, support for robust free speech is declining among liberals as it’s ascending among conservatives,” she noted, adding that “faculties typically are dominated by liberals.”

Strossen shared her insights into the state of free speech on college campuses while at Purdue preparing for a Tuesday night lecture on “Freedom for the Thought that We Hate,” during which she will address the importance of protecting all forms of expression, including those that can be considered offensive.

“I’m going to be talking about the concept of offensive speech, in general, because so many students and others seem to assume that you have a right not to be offended and a right to be shielded from any unwelcome speech,” she told the Journal & Courier. “We see too many campuses catering to students … and shielding them from it. I want to dispel the assumption that that is a good strategy.”

Citing surveys that show “very tepid support and, in some cases opposition, to cardinal free speech principles,” Strossen asserted that the trend “really appalls me … because censorship is the most damaging thing to anybody who lacks political power or espousing a minority position.”

What sets Purdue apart from most campuses, she said, is the “ Commitment to Freedom of Expression” that was adopted last year, which draws largely from the “Chicago Statement” pioneered by the University of Chicago.

“I’m completely supportive of the Chicago principles and applaud Purdue,” Strossen stated, explaining that while “they are not doing anything other than giving concrete details of what their constitutional obligations are under the First Amendment in the context of a public university … the climate on most campuses is such that—somewhat not surprising, though it’s shocking—it’s controversial.”

During her lecture Tuesday night, Strossen noted that she expects to encounter questions concerning a recent challenge to Purdue’s free speech commitment that arose after a pro-life student group posted flyers with statistics on abortion in the African-American community.

The posters generated a backlash against the pro-life students, most notably in the form of comments on social media from dance accompanist Jamie Newman. After referring to the student group as “vile” and “racist” on its Facebook page, Newman proceeded to make statements on a pro-life website in which he discussed raping the female relatives of another commenter.

Purdue declined to take disciplinary action against Newman, saying that while his statements were “reprehensible,” they were also protected by the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the school demanded a full apology from Newman, who not only refused to provide one, but tendered his resignation, as well.

Econ 101

America’s 18- to 34-year-old “millennials” have been tutored in group-think schools that extol socialism. Now they lionize Bernie Sanders, whose class-warfare prescriptions include taxing away all but maybe 1% of the nation’s 0.0001% billionaires’ wealth, then going after Wall Street, Big Business, millionaires and upper middle classes – and giving the “revenue” to those who “need” or “deserve” it more.

The entire process revolves around three central questions. Which ruling class elites get to determine who loses, who wins, by how much? Who grants them the power to do so, and holds them accountable? And what happens when the inevitable discontent over their autocratic decisions boils over?

Interestingly, many of the same generation have flocked to see films that glorify individual liberty and defiance of centralized government control. InThe Hunger Games, a few small gestures of disobedience grew into a revolution against Capital elites who lived well and ruled imperiously, while subjugated masses in the Districts starved in poverty and sent their children to die in televised “hunting games.”

In Divergent, a Faction system preserves a society that primarily benefits the ruling Erudites by stifling individuality. The heroes and heroines refuse to confine their lives and ambitions to only one of the other four factions in which they were placed at age sixteen. Again, the ruling class lives far better than the ruled masses. (Ponder the politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists in counties around Washington, DC.)

Are so many millennials really willing to let ruling classes confiscate wealth, impose penalties, determine appropriate welfare payments, and dole out favors? Has their “education” made them incapable of understanding the blessings of liberty, free enterprise capitalism, reliable and affordable fossil fuel energy, and entrepreneurial opportunities? Have instructors so brilliantly presented socialism through rose-colored glasses that young voters are blissfully unaware of its abject failures and horrid excesses?

Are millennials perhaps a little schizophrenic – loving liberty in theory and celluloid, but content to live reality in the Districts, among the Amity and Abnegation Factions, while enjoying the bread and circuses (welfare payments and show trials for humbled banker and corporate bigwigs) bestowed upon them? Or perhaps they simply assume they will be among the Capital’s Erudite and Candor classes, governing the rest of America, in the name of justice, fairness, diversity and equality?

They clearly view free or low-cost college tuition, child care, healthcare, food and housing – along with “living wages” of $15 per hour for entry-level jobs … and six-figure incomes after college – as “constitutional rights.” But when they “feel the Bern,” have they pondered how this system must necessarily work in the Real World, where they will feel the actual burn?

As the late Southern Baptist pastor and author Adrian Pierce Rogers succinctly explained, the hard reality is that “government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving.”

That is precisely what Senator Sanders’ wealth taxation and redistribution scheme proposes to do. The problem, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher astutely observed, “is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Even in the wealthy United States, “eventually” would come quickly, because socialism destroys the incentive to work, innovate, invest, take risks and create new wealth.

Ultimately, nations are left with a large and growing population of have-nots who demand more – when there is no “more” to be had. That is whatItaly, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist, populist, egalitarian paradises are now discovering.

They used to provide all kinds of free stuff. Today they are basket cases – struggling with anemic growth, recession and bankruptcy. Their government bonds have turned to “junk” that no sane investor wants.

Today, 59% of young Greeks are unemployed. Youth unemployment is 56% in Spain, 42% in Italy, 38% in Portugal. In Brazil, electricity rates soared 51% last year, food prices rose 15% and overall inflation stood at 11% – a vast improvement over its 5000% annual inflation rate (!) in the early 1990s but still awful. In all of Latin America, only Argentina at 27% and Venezuela at 200% had worse inflation.

American students are immersed in “sustainability” studies and projects, mostly based on still persistent notions that we are running out of essential resources and destroying Planet Earth. Those ideas are the foundation of policies and regulations that perpetuate what really is unsustainable: unemployment, government spending, anti-growth policies, and the anger and unrest they cause.

It may be, as Winston Churchill once observed, that “the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.” However, he continued, “the inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery and scarcity.” Unfortunately, simple, basic truths like this are rarely taught in our schools.

Students today want equality of outcomes, rather than of opportunities that yield positive outcomes by dint of hard work. If millennials applied their socialist principle to grades – with all scores on exams and projects averaged out among smart and less talented, hard-working and deadbeat students – shiftless classmates would be happy to coast along, once ambitious scholars would exert far less effort, and all would soon flounder in a sea of F’s.

Similarly, socialist policies stifle the innovation, economic growth and job creation that young people need if they are to get beyond minimum-wage service jobs, and out of their parents’ basements.

Free tuition? City University of New York had that for awhile, until 1976, when it ran out of money and the city nearly went bankrupt. Even Sanders admits his plan would cost some $750 billion over ten years. But perhaps it would work if half of the administrative positions were eliminated, faculty salaries got a 25 or 35% trimming, and sabbaticals came just once a decade.

Surely the “progressives” who rule our campuses – and try to ban and silence speakers like Ben Shapiro – would support this “pro-free-stuff” approach. Surely, the next generation of Erudite and Candor classes in The Capital would be content with salaries that are no higher than those of the masses they govern.

Moreover, the bills must eventually be paid. Millennials may get free stuff today. But they and their children and grandchildren will pay for their freebies many times over, through higher taxes, increasing control over their lives, higher inflation, fewer jobs at reduced salaries, and lower living standards.

Then there is the matter of accountability. Government is very good at fining and jailing citizens and businessmen for violating any of the thousands of regulations that carry criminal sanctions, even if the “perpetrator” did not intend to violate the rule or had no clue that such a rule could possibly exist. But government expects and demands that its own incompetent or criminal actions be ignored.

Thus a rancher is prosecuted for “terrorism” for accidentally burning 139 acres of national forests, but government officials get off scot free when they torch 160,000 acres a couple miles away. Citizens go to prison for inadvertently “impacting” a wetland, but EPA bureaucrats receive “get out of jail free” cards when they deliberately open an abandoned mine and unleash 3,000,000 gallons of toxic sludge. IRS directors simply “take the Fifth” after targeting conservative groups, an OPM director resigns rather than testify before Congress about her screw-ups, and VA incompetence is ignored – while private citizens are hounded and threatened until they cave in or run out of money to defend themselves.

The more government control and socialist wealth redistribution we get, the worse these abuses become. Will the Bernie Sanders voters demand accountability? Or do they simply not care when ruling elites and fellow socialists violate laws and abuse their public trust, to advance agendas or protect themselves?

All these questions would make for very interesting discussions with socialist candidates and voters. (Townhall)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Dear Dumbasses

I keep forgetting that I’m doing my blogs after work… 🙂

 

Dear Whiners who want the government to have more power so you feel “safer,”

Idiots like you who simply fall for whatever line you’ve been fed are jeopardizing our freedoms. All of our freedoms. Because you’re wimps. Allow me to explain.

 

Today I was looking at a HuffPo article about the Apple vs. FBI debacle. The article tries desperately to pass itself off as reasonable. Problem is it’s HuffPo, so I wasn’t fooled. The article opens with this:

Apple’s decision to challenge a federal court order to help the FBI “hack” into a shooting suspect’s iPhone 5C is drawing into focus a battle which has been brewing for the past several years.

The way this debate has been shaped thus far is, as follows: which do we value more, privacy or security?

Firstly, let’s talk some facts about the incident in question. The government FUBARed what happened in San Bernardino. We’ve already documented a lot of it, so lemme break it down here: terrorists were allowed into the country. They killed 14 people. The local authorities got access to the iPhone belonging to Farook. They effed it up by trying to access it, thereby resetting the phone. Now the FBI is demanding Apple write software which will undermine the security of all iPhones to get into “that specific phone.” And if you believe the FBI will only use that new software to access that one phone, you were born in a land before toilet paper.

Before you nuclear turd bombs say “But, but, the FBI needs access for US TO BE SAFE…”

 

ManCryingwithMascarra

Don’t. Spare me your spineless, weak, desperate attempts to sound intelligent. You’re a wimp. If you’re a man and you are siding with the government over this iPhone debacle, you’re without testicles. Which is convenient for your skinny jean-wearing ways. If you’re a woman, you’re probably a feminist. There’s no hope for either of you. I’m merely writing this post to expose just how pathetic you are. Trigger-warning: comparisons to bodily functions abound.

Here’s the deal: Yes, the government has a responsibility to keep the nation safe. But when it comes to the FBI vs. Apple, we’re well past safety. The government did not keep us safe. Proof? The terrorists were let into the country in the first place and they killed people. Also, our borders are as effective as a strainer is at holding water. If you think gaining access to all iPhones is the best solution to keep the country safe…

Here’s where all of you butt wiping-ninnies are missing the point: You think it’s about a phone. Wrong.

This is about a much bigger issue that begins with privacy and ends with freedom, the phone is just the vehicle. Let me try to illustrate my point. Your phone is an extension of you. Yes, this might sound silly, but bear with me for a second. Your smart phone has more than your photos. It has your financial information. It may have an app for your bank. It contains personal conversations with your friends, family, co-workers. It is a map giving you directions. It knows where you have been and where you are going. It can track your health, it reminds you of your tasks, it contains a schedule of your life. It knows who you call, who you have called, who you plan on calling. Your phone is an extension of you.

What the FBI wants is the ability to access that phone, which Apple built to be secure. If you’re dumb enough to say “well don’t keep anything on your phone you don’t want shared with the world…”

Maybe, but I'm not that far off.

I volunteer you as tribute. Why stop at just the phone? Just let them into your house. If you don’t want the world seeing embarrassing things, don’t keep them in your house. You never know, one day the FBI might need to come in without a warrant. Your freedom, your privacy, is subject to the safety of the collective…as deemed by you.

That’s the real, bigger issue here. Safety vs. Freedom. It’s sadly a point that is lost on many who focus on a problem that isn’t the actual problem.

Are you seeing the bigger picture or you trying to figure out if the trees are poplars or pine?

You see, having freedom doesn’t always mean having safety. Yes, sometimes the world is a scary place. Sometimes when the government fails at what it’s required to do, like keep the nation safe from other nations or, in this case, terrorists who seek to do us harm, it’s easy to give up your rights in hopes you can sleep safely at night. But that’s how we lose our freedom. It’s been done countless times before, just ask any ten year old who’s been patted down by the TSA.

Balls

Having freedom, having privacy, requires personal responsibility. Sometimes that means you protect yourself. That’s why we at LwC love our Second Amendment rights. Which, incidentally, plenty of liberals also say we need to give up for the “safety of the collective.”

Sometimes you are not only responsible for your own finances, but your own safety. The government, after all, is just a collection of elected officials who employ other people and talk to the public with the use of a teleprompter. The government is people like a corporation is people. Except the government people take from the corporate people to finance their crap. Sorry, going down a bunny trail there…

They’re not better at life than you are. Surrendering a little bit of your freedom to these elected officials for a little more safety is insane. Also, “safety” is rarely defined. Put that in your pipe and smoke it before a liberal demands to stop smoking it because it affects them.

Here’s a mental exercise for you to bear in mind if you’re cheering on the FBI vs. Apple: Where’s the line? At what point do you say the government does not have a right to sacrifice your freedom for safety? Today it’s an iPhone, but what will it be tomorrow? Where is your personal line? If you think it’s okay for the government to have a backdoor entrance to iPhones, for terrorists or for you, you must have a personal line in the sand. So what is it? Think about it. For by the time the government has crossed the iPhone line, they’ll queue up to cross your personal line. If you’re willing to let go of freedom now for security later, you’ve already bought into the scam.

I’ll close with this quotation from our Founding Father Benjamin Franklin (often misatributed to Thomas Jefferson): “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

ClappingGroup GIF

~Written by Courtney Kirchoff.

bernie the pied Piper

Freedom is Slavery

Brown University. You know, the place where students are whining that they are failing their classes because they are protesting so much…

Fall 2015: “The right to free speech is a protection against the abuse of power, not a guarantee of a platform for all ideas,” a group of students wrote in an op-ed for the Brown Daily Herald.

We are taught to extol the virtues of free speech. White people in particular are taught that our voices are always worth being heard. When we believe in free speech, we do so because it works in our favor. The problem is that freedom of speech is not a universal reality. Free speech assumes a level playing field among speakers that does not exist. Power always affects interactions and what people can and do say in the context of a given relationship, institution or society. In this case, at an elite, predominantly white university, race and class are inseparable from any social interaction, let alone the curation of content in an established campus publication.

These arguments for free speech are often deployed to silence voices of color. Colonial histories of civility aside, calling for “civil discourse” implies that expressions of pain and anger by people of color are not civil and have no place in the conversation.

Censorship is the exercise of power to suppress challenges to the status quo. People of color calling attention to racism does not constitute an overbearing power structure that will limit free speech. The oppressed by definition cannot censor their oppressor. (Brown U)

This is your future. Idiocy as “sensitive” “moral” “standards”. Ignorance as Strength.

Isn’t it just grand. 🙂

Far more pernicious is the self-censorship that is promoted at many campuses that may fear ending up in the media spotlight should students protest. For instance, after Brown University students prevented former New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly from speaking, many other campuses may simply decide that it is not worth the trouble to bring a speaker to campus who is associated with controversial police practices (in Kelly’s case, “stop and frisk”). This silent fear is potentially crippling free speech.

“Free expression for me but not for you” is simple hypocrisy. However, deeper forces are also at work. (USA Today)

Last fall, the student groups held an outdoor event displaying posters with examples of expression that had been censored on campuses across the country. Three other students filed formal complaints, claiming that some of the posters were “offensive” and “triggering.” In response, USC served Abbott with a “Notice of Charge” letter and launched an investigation for “discrimination,” threatening him with punishment up to and including expulsion for his protected speech.

Abbott and the campus chapters of YAL and the College Libertarians are now suing USC for violating their free speech rights.

The University of South Carolina is so intolerant of free speech that students can’t even talk about free speech,” said Catherine Sevcenko, FIRE’s director of litigation. “Ironically, the university’s current marketing campaign features the slogan ‘No Limits.’ But as Ross and his fellow students learned, that does not extend to their free speech rights.”.

The Futures so Bright I have to wear a muzzle. 🙂

The Zombie Apocolypse

4 years ago I did a blog on Democrats as Zombie and I think it’s time to revisit it.

For all you Republicans and Independents who say “I will never vote for____” because they aren’t pure enough for you consider the alternative.

The Zombie Apocalypse.

The mindless, brainless, all devouring Democrats who will eat your brain and your soul to satisfy their appetite for power in the name of “equality”, “fairness” and “diversity”.

And surely you can’t be against that now can you? 🙂

And they will keep coming like a Zombie Hoard.

Even if someone other than Hillary or Bernie wins The Hoard (including the Media) will keep coming. They will keep pressing. All the evils of the world will be laid at the feet of the Republican. They will take NO responsibility for anything. NOTHING. EVER.

It was all YOUR fault, and always was and always will be. In 2016 it’s still Bush’s fault that Obama (and the RINOs) spent $9 Trillion+ in debt. Though Obama recently blaming it on not passing Universal Government Run Healthcare just shows you how much a Zombie Hoard they are.

They waited 90 years for ObamaCare. They will never let it go. Even if the Republican nullifies it, they will bring it up again at any and ever chance.

They don’t care what you think. They only care what they think. They only care about making you do or think what they want.

Period.

The Zombie Hoard doesn’t care. It wants what it wants when it want and because it wants. End of Story.

And 4 years from now if they lose this year expect to see even more hyperbole about how bad things are no matter how they are. If the Democrats are not in total control of everything and everyone it’s “bad” by universally agreed Zombie groupthink. Reality is not a concept they understand or care about. Perception is reality.

They’ve been at this for decades. They were trying to destroy Reagan when the economy was booming because they got no benefit from that.

It’s all about them.

That’s why they are a Zombie Hoard.

Single-minded to the point of a zombie obsession.

They want Brains. Your Brains. They want them all. And Forever.

There is no reasoning with a Zombie.

Do you think if Hillary gets indicted that the Hillary Zombies will care for even 1/10000000000000th of a second?

Nope.

It’s all a Republican “witch hunt”.

There is compromising with a Zombie. You just get eaten more slowly.

You get a RINO Virus that devours you from the insider. 🙂

They have to be beaten. Then 2 years from now they have to beaten again. And 2 years after that, and 2 years after that, ad infinitum.

Freedom from the Zombie Hoard is eternal vigilance.

And you can’t do that if you let pettiness or pride get in the way. They will just eat you alive.

Pride goeth before a fall.

Look at all the poor schmucks who refused to vote for McCain (who was a lousy candidate and a Major RINO to boot) and thought they’d “teach” the Republican Establishment a lesson or two and we’d get a better candidate in 2012.

We Got Obama, Boehner, and Mitt Romney instead.

The virus was eating you alive.

Then you came back for 2nds in 2012. Mitt wasn’t good enough so you stayed home and Obama won again because the Zombie Media Hoard covered for him.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

Did the Republican Establishment??

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2016 will they go away?

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days, and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

Now you face the real prospect that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.

I’m not a fan of Trump. But compared to the other two Socialists I will bet on that risky horse over the evil I do know.

So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

So you’re either with The Hoard, or Not. There is no in-between. No squish. No compromise.

The fate of The Supreme Court rests on this election. The next 40 years of The Constitution rests on defeating the Zombie Hoard.

The Zombie Hoard certainly will give you NO quarter. They are relentless. They are ruthless. They are unrelenting. And Forever.

Previous Blog : https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-zombie-hoard/

“[…]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”–Rush Limbaugh (2012)

Choose Wisely.

 

 

 

RINO Rubio

The Establishment Candidate, Marco Rubio. Their Last Great Hope for NO Change.

John Hawkins: Marco Rubio may not be a squish on most issues, but it doesn’t change the fact that his Gang-of-8 Amnesty Bill is unforgivable. 

I know I haven’t forgiven him for it. Or forgotten.

You want a Minority and Conservative, Ted Cruz is your guy. Not this Pseudo-When-I-Need-to-Get-Elected one.

Nobody would be campaigning harder against Marco Rubio today than Marco Rubio back in 2010 when he desperately needed to convince Tea Partiers he was tough on immigration to get elected. You could write a whole article on how bad Rubio’s bill was (In fact, I did), but let me cut to the chase for you.

A)Rubio’s sell-out on immigration was the biggest betrayal of conservatives since George Bush’s dad said, “Read my lips, no new taxes” and then raised taxes. How do you trust Rubio on any issue after he so blatantly lied on immigration? Rubio running for President today is like Benedict Arnold running for President in 1788.

California has 605,000 Illegal Voters!! Just in California. They are Illegal because the Liberals gave them Driver’s Licenses. And what do you need to Vote? And gee, weho are they going to vote for??

Now spread that Nationwide!

You get what I’ve been saying for years about Illegal Immigration.

B) The Gang-of-8 Bill was little more than a Democrat wish list with a couple of bells and whistles slapped on to give cover for squishy Republicans to support it as well. The bill legalized illegals before adding in any kind of security and despite Rubio’s dishonest hype, it would have done little to secure the border. Between giving citizenship to illegal aliens and massive increases in legal immigration, Rubio’s bill would have demographically marginalized conservatism in America.

If Rubio becomes President and implements something like his Gang-of-8 Bill, then liberals will be destined to win in the future on every issue that matters. I’m not someone who believes you win in politics by losing, but it’s entirely possible that 4-8 years of Hillary Clinton decimating the country and stacking the Supreme Court would do far less damage to the country than the immigration plan Marco Rubio would likely implement if he becomes President.

C) Rubio’s excuses for his betrayal are ridiculous. Oh, we have ISIS now; so we have to secure the border. Well, we had Al-Qaeda then. Stopping that terrorist organization from getting across the border wasn’t important? Rubio also claims that he gave the Democrats almost everything they wanted in hopes that the House would improve the bill. In other words, Rubio was willing to turn the Senate bill into little more than Barack Obama’s wish list in hopes that John Boehner of all people would negotiate a tough conservative plan? You’d have to be dumber than Meghan McCain to believe that the same guy who caved every time he went up against Obama was going to come up with a great bill after Rubio made him negotiate from a position of weakness. In actuality, Rubio was hoping the pro-amnesty leadership of the House would ignore the Hastert rule and would push an immigration bill through with a few moderate Republicans and all the Democrats helping out. When a guy shoves a knife in your back that deeply and won’t even come clean about it, how do you trust him?

D) Even today, Rubio fully admits that he wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens – and that’s during a Presidential race. You really think that sounds like someone who is going to get tough on illegal immigration or build a wall if he gets elected? Keep in mind that if Rubio becomes President and is perfect in every other way, but is lying on illegal immigration again, it means the end of the conservative movement in America. Choosing him as our nominee would be like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber.

Of course, the Republicans in the establishment are happy to play that game and have decided that “Lil Jeb” is their chosen candidate.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
So it’s onto Marco.
MARCO!
RINO!
MARCO!
RINO!

In large part, that’s because they expect him to betray conservatives on amnesty again, but it’s also because they don’t believe Rubio will shake things up too much.

He won’t. He’ll be passive aggressive with the Democrats and give them alot of what they want because he doesn’t want to rock the boat too much, like most RINOs.

They don’t think he’ll roll back Obamacare, they don’t think he’ll kick any connected consultants off the gravy train, they don’t believe he’ll listen to those “wackobirds” that John McCain hates so much. After the most radical President in American history has stomped all over the Constitution for 8 years to drag the country to the Left, is it worth risking the country on someone backed by the establishment Republicans because they believe he’s a go-along-to-get-along status quo candidate?

 HELL NO!

Oh, but the establishment Republicans say Rubio is the most electable candidate. Of course, that’s what they always say about whoever their golden boy happens to be. It’s what they said about Dole, McCain and Romney. They were wrong about them and they’re wrong about Rubio, too.

“electable” is code word for acceptable loss.

Don’t get the wrong idea. Rubio could certainly win, but he probably wouldn’t be as electable as Cruz or God help us all, even Kasich despite his solid head-to-head numbers against Hillary.

Or even Trump.

Why?

Keep in mind that Rubio can’t win a general election unless he gets the support of the 30-35% of GOP voters that currently support Donald Trump. Do you really think that after supporting Trump for months, those voters are going to fall in line behind an establishment candidate who is best known for betraying the people who supported him to push amnesty and open borders?

The Establishment thinks so.

Moreover, consider the fact that 60% of GOP voters have consistently been going for the outsider candidates (Trump, Cruz and Carson). Do you really think all those people are going to shrug off this entire crazy primary season and eat the same old crap sandwich from the establishment again?

Nope. But that’s an acceptable loss if The Establishment keeps it’s power.

Beyond that, although Rubio is generally a solid debater, he turned in one of the worst debate performances anyone has seen with his “Robot Rubio” performance. What if it happens again in a general election debate? He’s also generally very scripted, inauthentic and his pathetic non-response to every genuine attack on his record is , “That’s a lie.” Furthermore, maybe we should consider the fact that a candidate who wants the NSA to snoop on our phone records, showed terrible judgment in supporting the overthrow of Libya and who comes off like he can’t wait to get in another ground war in the Middle East isn’t going to be wildly popular with the American electorate in 2016.

It has been an unpredictable election season and we still don’t know who the GOP nominee will be. However, if it turns out to be a guy who did the same thing to conservatives on immigration that Jane Fonda did to the troops during Vietnam, the Republican Party will richly deserve to lose.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez