I have no use for Donald Trump, but, frankly, I'm unimpressed with the idea of
pledging loyalty to the GOP absolutely, under any circumstances, forever, etc.
My problem, you see, is this sort of thing only goes one way. It is easy to get
upset with Trump for not pledging his fealty to the Republican Party. Why? It
is said that, if one is a Republican, Then. S/he. Must. Support. The. And.
Vote. For. The. Party's. Nominee. Period.
how does that work when the loyalty shoe is put on the GOPe's foot? Must I really
cite the myriad of examples or can I just offer up the Party's 2008
presidential nominee as wholly and clearly illustrative?
July of 2013, the aging, bombastic, insulting, insincere, go-along-to-get-along
a/k/a 'crossing the aisle' a/k/a complete surrender and capitulation to the
Democrats Senator from the Great State of Arizona, one John Sidney McCain III,
was asked by the lefty mag, The New
Republic, for whom would he vote in 2016 if the presidential contest was
between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.
what did the alleged 'Reagan Republican' stalwart and one of the so-called
leaders of the GOP in Washington say in response?
'It’s gonna be a tough choice.'
Wait. Wut??? Where's the loyalty? If one is a
true Republican - in fact so much a Republican that he was given the Republican
nomination for President - how could one ever contemplate voting for the
disingenuous, corrupt, 'bimbo'-bashing (#WarOnWomen, indeed), achievement-less,
disastrous Progressive, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was to the left of Barack
Obama on many issues while in the Senate?
the establishment believes that all candidates must pledge all-encompassing loyalty
to the party and 'get behind' the eventual nominee, then why does that only
seem to apply to upstarts like (the buffoonish) Trump and (the brilliant) Cruz?
In other words, why shouldn't Senator McCain be forced to pledge to support the
eventual nominee? No. Matter. What.
admit that I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican (but I am certainly
not a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, but I repeat myself). The Party has the
absolute right to set its own rules and demands, but shouldn't those, in the
very least, be consistent?
am not a Trump supporter although I do like people who take it to the
Establishment. This whole loyalty oath brouhaha is emblematic of one of the
Republican Party's core problems: You will vote for our moderate candidate, who
will always choose pale pastels over bold colours. You will continue to support
us when we betray you. (Remember our promises to limit the size and scope of
government, cut taxes, reduce regulation, defund Obamacare and never fund
'President Obama's illegal and unconstitutional amnesty'? Well, never mind.
Keep cutting those cheques!)
that is exactly how we wind up with people like McCain, McConnell, Boehner,
etc. All hat and no cattle. Seriously, the bloody Iranians are better
negotiators than Boehner and Putin has a spine where the Majority Leader is
just another spineless, chinless, DC Corruptocrat, who buckles under as soon as
the bullies, Obama and Reid, hurl their opening salvos. They are weak and,
frankly, very different from their bases. They love Big Government...especially
when they supposedly control the levers of power...and even as they cede more
and more of that power to the Executive Branch...and the fourth branch of
government, The Regulatory State.
I heard a clip from a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee wherein
Senator Ted Cruz, in my opinion, completely eviscerated Secretary of State John
Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter
over President Obama's insanely reckless and delusional nuclear agreement with
the Iranian government, who are fanatical and apocalyptic.
to Obama's vile, crass, and, frankly, un-American assertion that, if one
objects to his beautiful deal (that rests almost exclusively on the bet that, in
a decade, the Iranian government will have moderated), s/he is making 'common
cause' with the hardliners in Iran, it is precisely the opposite.I hate to
break it to you, Mr President, but the hardliners in Iran ARE the 'Supreme
Leader' (as you insist on calling him) and the government. The moderates -
those with whom many of us, who oppose the Iranian deal, stood - were the ones
getting shot in the street in 2009 during the Green Revolution. President Obama
turned his back on the 'moderates' then.Out of ideology, a personal preference
for dictators over democrats, or political expediency (‘I cannot piss off the
hardliners 'cuz...my legacy!), who knows?
during this colloquy, Kerry asserted that he has never seen anything from
either the 'Supreme Leader' or the Iranian government that indicates a real
desire to 'wipe Israel off the map or destroy the United States'. Seriously.
days before, the Ayatollah Khamenei, as he has done for decades, led a frenzied
crowd in chanting'Death to America! Death to Israel!'while holding a
Kalashnikov. And, the supposedly 'moderate' President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani,
has explicitly stated in the past that he and his co-religionists would be
willing to sacrifice TWENTY MILLIONof theirOWNcountrymen in a nuclear exchange with Israel if such resulted in
the destruction of the Jewish State and its 6 million Jews (and 2 million
Arabs). As Senator Chuck Schumer said in
his eloquent essay on why he is voting against Obama’s nuclear sell-out ‘agreement’,
this deal is premised on the idea and ideal that treating Iran as an equal,
letting it back into the ‘community of nations’, and introducing Western ideas
into Iranian society through an opening of markets will result in either
moderation or regime change is a bet that is almost certainly not going to pay
off. I’m paraphrasing him here, but as
hard as it is to say, when he is right, he is right.
It is really indisputable – except to
ideologues, sycophants, and antiwar organisations like Code Pink, who do, in
fact, constantly make ‘common cause’ with the anti-Semitic, anti-American,
Holocaust-denying regime in Iran – that the moderates and real democrats in
that country are the very ones that had as much input into this ‘historic
accord’ as did Israel, which is to say,NONE.
Sixty – SIXTY! – percent (60%) of Iran’s population of 73 million is
under the age of 30.They have made it
clear that they do not want to live under theocratic rule.They are the people that should be encouraged
and enabled. Providing a path to nukes to the country’s nutters in government
doesn’t just present an existential threat to Israel and the world, it crushes
the moderates further under the iron fist of the 12th’ers, who want
nothing more than to impose Islam on the entire world and to bring about the
return of the Mahdi through bloodshed and chaos.Don’t take my word for it.Go read the ‘Supreme Leader’s’ book that was
published days after President Obama’s 'great gift to America, Israel and the
in light of the quite obvious reality with regard to Iran, the nuclear deal,
and his own hawkish national security positions, one would believe that Senator
McCain would have been silently cheering on Senator Ted Cruz as he deftly and
expertly interrogated Kerry, Carter, and Muniz. (There's a reason that the
liberal Alan Dershowitz has said that Cruz was his most brilliant student in 50
years and why he won 9 cases before the Supreme Court). But, of course, we are
talking about John McCain. So, instead of supporting or, at least, remaining
silent during Cruz's time, the self-proclaimed 'Reagan Republican', John
McCain, came to the rescue of his old buddy, Lurch Kerry, and cut off Cruz.
This isEXACTLYwhat you get when your party requires
absolute loyalty under any circumstance, but refuses to be loyal to you, their
constituents. With the GOP, there's always another hill to die on...Obamacare,
immigration, the IRS, the budget, debt/deficits, taxes, regulations, and even
the funding of Planned Butcherhood is just not that hill. Impeachment and using
the power of the purse have been taken off the table so the Republicans have no
leverage. If the country's Constitution, sovereignty, national defence, and unborn
aren't 'hills to die on', then, perhaps, the Republican Party just isn't that
in to you. Further, I would suggest, that you not continue to submit to the GOP
Establishment's loyalty demands. 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me,' Ronald Reagan once said. Perhaps, it is time for the 'Hobbits and Whacko-Birds' of the Republican Party to tell the Establishment, loudly, clearly, and once and for all, that:
'It's not me. It's YOU.'
If not now, when? After another Bush loses to another Clinton and cements permanently the 'fundamental transformation' of the United States of America into something that would have, in generations past, resulted in citizens taking up arms against their elitist rulers? We owe ourselves, our children, and generations unborn a better country led by better leaders. Trump isn't that guy, but neither is any spawn of the Bush-Dole-Romney wing of the Republican Party and the Washington Cartel.
PS: If you think
that I am unduly pessimistic, ‘extremist’, ‘warmongering’, and ‘partisan’ in my
contempt for the Iranian nuclear deal, then let me disabuse you of that notion
summarily and forthwith. I need only one
example to prove to how naïve and delusional that President Obama, Secretary
Kerry, and all of their colleagues and supporters. While President Obama grudgingly
was forced to admit that Iran ‘might’ use some of the billions of dollars
gained as a result of sanctions’ relief, he asserted that the Iranian
government will definitely use most of the money on ‘paying government pensions
and repairing crumbling infrastructure.’
I. Am. Not. Kidding.
Do you know what
happened immediately after the deal was announced?
the Commander of Iran’s elite, ruthless Quds Force, defied the sanctions and
flew to Moscow.
travel to Russia to get advice on pension funding and infrastructure
remediation from Vladimir Putin?
No, he was sent at
the behest of the ‘Supreme Leader’ to secure an arms deal.
So, just exactly
who is the delusional, naïve, extreme, and reckless one here?