I watched the second Republican debates. I saw most of the main debate, and maybe 30 minutes of the smaller debate, but I wanted to discuss the issues, briefly.
First of all, there are no candidates which line up completely with my views, but I’ll list those who are closest, and those who are farthest. Or in other words, the best and the worst.
The Best: Donald Trump (obviously), Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal.
Huckabee, Carson, and Paul had the best tax plans (consumption tax for Huckabee, and flat tax for the other two). I wish those tax plans would be implemented, but I have to say, immigration is the number one issue, and if the border is not secured, then none of the other issues will matter.
The Worst: Lindsey Graham (obviously), Pataki, Bush, and of course Kasich. I think the term RINO is too soft. The guys I didn’t mention are RINOS, these guys can only be described as cuckservatives. When Graham and Pataki talk, I feel myself dying on the inside a little. These guys are largely unprincipled (save for the sentiments they share with full fledged SJW’s), who’s main goal is to win at any cost. Bobby Jindal was spot on when he said that if the Republican party isn’t going to do it’s job/stand up for it’s principals then it’s useless. Of course Graham argued with this, but really if the Republicans don’t stop the Democrats they are useless, and for the most part they only slow the Democrats down. They stop some things, but the march to the left always continues, albeit at a slower pace.
So I would like to go through some of the issues, and give my take on them, as there were no candidates that got anything 100% right:
I find it disturbing that so many candidates think it’s a good idea to depose Asad, or that Asad is a serious enemy of the US. Why is he an enemy? Did he fly the planes that hit us on 9/11? Did he pump millions of drugs and illegals into our country? No.
When we are talking about the Middle East, it’s important to realize that the best kind of governments one can hope for in that place are secular dictatorships. Guys like Bashar Assad, Muammar Ghadaffi, and Saddam Hussein were actually just agnostics or atheists pretending to be Muslims. If you think they were Muslims you need only look at how they dress, how their wives looked, and their policies to see otherwise.
The secular dictators did not enforce Shariah, and did the most to protect the Christian minorities. I really don’t care if Assad bombed or gassed some Muslim terrorists. I only care about the Christian minorities. Whenever they have an election in Muslim countries people vote for the most savage Muslim candidates, and the Christians end up getting jacked. Also, we’ve seen that when the US deposes a secular dictatorship the craziest Muslims take over. Either way, things end up going bad for the Christians.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with us in the US if one group of Muslims decides to kill another, or if an atheist dictator decides to kill some terrorists. I have no sympathy for people who cheered for the terrorists on 9/11, for people who think they will literally get points in Heaven for killing me, for people who spread their religion through forceful conversion, kidnap women of other religions and force them to marry, or people who have no respect for voluntary association.
Homosexuality and the Supreme Court:
Of course the issue of the Supreme Court ruling on “gay marriage” came up. While I don’t think the Constitutional Republic is the best model for government, the reality of the situation is that TECHNICALLY the Constitution is the law here (even if it’s not followed). Under the Constitution the Supreme Court does not have the power to legislate or re-write laws, and the Federal Government does not have the power to define or redefine marriage. According to the 10th amendment, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the STATES. The Feds have no jurisdiction over marriage.
And when it comes to that clerk who refused to issue “gay marriage” certificates, she was completely in the right not to do so. The Constitution was created to PROTECT religious freedom, not trample it so that sexual deviants could feel better about themselves.
Everyone knows that homosexuality was not considered normal, or a positive moral value, by the Founders. It is completely dishonest to say that “gay marriage” is a Constitutionally protected behavior. They probably never anticipated that our ruling class would develop a fetish for sexual deviance, but they DID anticipate that the government might try to crack down on freedom of religion, which was why they made the 1st ammendment.
The point is, I don’t want to hear someone say “it’s the law of the land.” If the law of the land doesn’t protect religious freedom or freedom of association then it’s absolutely useless. Actually, the law of the land does, but the law isn’t being followed.
The cold war is over, and Russia is no longer communist. In fact, at this point Russia is less left-wing than the US and Western Europe. Russia is not the number one enemy, or really even an enemy at all.
Islam is the #1 foreign enemy, followed by the UN next. Mexico is also a foreign enemy. It doesn’t matter at all if the US government has some treaties with the Mexican government, if there are trade deals, or if there has been any formal declaration of war. There is a war going on with Mexico. They are invading our country. Rome was not destroyed by formal declarations of war, but by large scale mass migrations of men, women, and children belonging to Germanic tribes, which either became the majority or became such a significant minority that they were able to take control.
The average European American (as well as Asian Americans), has more in common with Russians than they do with the majority of people south of the Rio Grande.
It makes no sense for Europe and the US to buy oil from hostile Muslims, who have been at war with our civilization, people, and way of life for over 1000 years, when we can mine it ourselves or buy it from our fellow Europeans.
“But there will be strings attached!”
And you don’t think there are strings attached with Saudi Oil? Why do you think our government took down Saddam Hussein and wants to take down Assad? A Sunni hand is jerking those strings.
It makes more sense to deal with people who are more like us, and with which we share common roots, civilization, history, and common struggles, than to deal with people who have been trying to kill us for over 1000 years and still have our deaths on their list of things to do.
Russia is an ally, Islam is the enemy. Let’s buy our oil from Russia, stop buying from the Saudis, and stop taking in Muslim immigrants. They can’t pressure us to take immigrants without the threat of cutting off our oil.
Who cares if Crimea wants to join Russia? After the breakup of the Soviet Union the borders were drawn arbitrarily through areas where Russians lived. It makes sense for them to want to be part of Russia. A nation is not a government or a geographic area, it’s a people group. If democracy is really something that western governments valued then why would they not respect how the Crimeans voted? This world is messed up. Maybe they just don’t like secession because they are afraid it might happen in other countries as well, thus cutting into their tax base?
I am especially concerned when I see politicians advocating for a war, or taking aggressive action, against a country which could utterly destroy us. I have a better idea, how about if we not fight? There is no politician who’s feelings are worth taking a nuke for.
It’s time for us to adopt a healthy balance of tribalism and voluntary association, rather than all this nonsense about democracy and multiculturalism.
A wall absolutely has to be built. If the border is allowed to remain open, then everything conservatives care about will be lost. When Mexicans become the majority, the Democrats will win every single election, and undo whatever positive policy changes or tax breaks the Republicans create. 70% of Mexicans vote for the Democrats. Mexico has a one party system.
No one asked me if I wanted to be submerged into Mexico. Most people don’t, because the average person has absolutely nothing to gain from it, and everything to lose. Not only will it be a loss of jobs, but also a loss of the two party system, our way of life, and safe living conditions for the poor and middle class. The wealthy will still be able to live in safe, gated communities, which is probably why the politicians don’t mind throwing the rest of us under the bus.
Trump is right, only about 30% of Mexicans are culturally compatible with our civilization, and most of the people who come from there to here are no good. Best case scenario, most of those people are people who couldn’t make it in their own country. They don’t do so well here either, but when they come here they get free stuff. Our current policy literally encourages mass immigration of the worst kind of 3rd worlders.
I’m sure there are more than 11 million illegals here, and the illegals aren’t even the only problem. I’m not interested in hearing how there is nothing that can be done about the illegals, or how it is too expensive. If it’s expensive then let’s slash all the foreign aid (which should be slashed anyways), let’s slash welfare (especially to the illegals), and let’s start downsizing government until we can afford it. Whatever the cost of building a wall, it’s nothing compared with the long term costs of allowing the US to become Mexico.
Immigration Part 2: Blaming it on Asians
I’ve heard a couple candidates try to shift the blame for illegal immigration onto Asians. Jeb Bush was one of them. I have no patience for that. The overwhelming bulk of illegal immigration is from Mexico and some of those countries further to the south.
They are trying to blame Asians to distract us from the Mesoamericanization of the US. If I had a choice between being submerged in Asians vs. Mexicans, it would be a no brainer. But that choice isn’t anywhere in the mix.
The Democrats want to make Mexicans the majority so that they can have a one party system. Some of the Republicans are willing to facilitate this, because they are so stupid they think they can win those people over later. They think the Mesoamerican majority is inevitable, because it’s on the Democrat’s to-do list, so they are now trying to compete with the Democrats for votes from the potential future majority.
Bringing up Asians is a total red-herring fallacy. and the only reason they do it is because Asians are a small group which neither party really needs to appeal to in order to win. In other words, they are an expendable scapegoat, but only if people are stupid enough to believe those lies.
That is all I have to say on this matter.