Why The Hell Should Anyone Vote For The Republican Party?

by:  John Hawkins

The only answer anyone ever seems to be able to offer to that question these days is, "Because the Democrats are worse." However, the problem with being the lesser of two evils is that you're still an evil.

Well, what about the GOP's principles?

What about them?

Name something that the Republican Party stands for today.

Low taxes? We've won that battle so thoroughly that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes even though we have a trillion dollar deficit. Meanwhile, many of the richest Americans are comfortable enough with what they're paying to the government that they're supporting Democrats who are pledging to raise their taxes. In other words, we're a victim of our own success.

Law and order? Americans in bad neighborhoods who are suffering terribly because of gangs and drugs are apparently of no interest whatsoever to any Republicans in charge of anything judging by the amount of time they spend discussing this issue -- which is close to zero. Additionally, the biggest law and order issue on the table today is illegal immigration, where the Republican Party is working hand and glove with the Democrats to reward 11 million people who are here illegally with amnesty.

A strong defense? What good is being strong without being smart? Most of our military "allies" are nearly useless in a fight, we're giving hundreds of millions of dollars to nations that hate our guts, and the Bush Administration put us a in a terrible situation in Iraq by invading without having the slightest idea that our troops would end up policing the country for nearly a decade. Most Republicans in D.C. seem unfazed by those problems.

read more:


Views: 1048

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's not just one sided,we have two senators from this state (for my district) in washington d.c.,I sent them both a email letter and you guessed it,both returned an answer that said the very same thing,maybe came off the same printer,point is they all work for special interest groups now days because they have been there way to long "TERM LIMITS" is the way to stop that,and have a president that is VETTED by someone with ethics,not anyone in washington today has that qaulity!  

Third Party won't work as no media support as far as President and even for senate in most cases. The term limits problem is you will get a younger and more Socialist driven and even pro-Communist elect! Keep the good and toss out the bad by your vote!

What is really wrong with America? The Supreme Court, if we study why people lost or never were given their freedoms it was the Supreme Court. We need term limits on the Supreme Court and this is my proposal. In a Presidential elect year the President has 2 years to appoint. After that 2 years in a Congressional election, after the election, the Congress appoints Supreme Court positions for 2 years!

Term limits remove the good ones and take out the bad and not even by a vote! It is a dumb answer and gives us Putin as President or a Senator. I say that even though we have Levin in Michigan who should of never held office anywhere!

Virgil, I kinda like your Idea.  It has serious flaws but It's a good starting place.


Virgil: The Conservative Party understands that it won't be able to run any candidates for President or Gov or Senator for some time. That's why we're implementing Project Mayberry: looking for conservative candidates for down-ticket offices to build a political base so that we can run major races in the future.  

Project Mayberry 

I beg to differ, if we the Tea Party supported a third party candidate and we did not back down, media coverage would happen. This past election and the fear of Obama seemed to stop all third party candidates from getting any support, well that is how I pretty much saw it and we lost big.

The Article has many things in it which I have been saying for years, funny thing is I liked Gingrich and still do, even though I was pretty much a Paul supporter but Gingrich would have made me feel much better. Not sure Gingrich would have been a good president but IMHO would have been better than what we were offered. I also think he would have really had a better chance of winning against Obama but the establishment didn't like Gingrich and so many of what would have been his supporters back off of him. No one likes being on the loosing team but the way I see it, all of America is loosing right now. 

Term limits or third party

We need several parties like at lease 4. Term limits would be nice but do you really think that is going to happen! Congress is a bunch of thieves. Re elect no one one term at best I think but again that is not going to ever happen. Repeal the 17th Amendment would go along way in solving the problems. But again that is not going happen. We need to be ready for a real Civil War II.

We have more than 4 that want in. Media, again. The Left will only support 2 and many of our public do not know what these other parties support. We may think that 3rd Party, such as Paul ran with, but note the media was not on his side. One must be a borderline Communist to win! Look what was voted into our White House. He is full fledged and his policies prove it. Wait until the AARP members find out what the idiots of AARP got them into! Ha.

BUT THAT WASN"T THE SON, RAND,..Virgil!! RON PAUL, tanked because of his INTERNATIONAL policies!! NO GOOD!! He also wanted to legalise POT, and not just for medical reasons!! I voted for MIT, because he still is a GOD-FEARING,(Respectful), MAN!! Way more than I can say for KING OBAMA! MIT is the total POLARITY of KING OBAMA!!And I can say that about any of us!! I say, enough of the Political, nice-nice!! GLOVES OFF!! OBAMA isn't a nice guy!! But will do a photo op, at a drop, of a trillion dollars!! He is a DICTATOR!! ANd should be dragged out by his ear!! But, the libs, and so many people, are IN LOVE with him!! H is just over his head!! NOOOOOO!! He is following a playbook the best he can!! He is deliberately destroying our ,'WESTERN WAY OF LIFE!! Look at what HE has done in 5 years!! NO AMERICAN WOULD DO SUCH A THING!! LOL!! SEMPER-FI!! Larry K.Parent,Naples,FL.

Jor, I understand very well what you are saying.  I understand because I've been at this for over 60 years and still people wont listen.  The first rhing that myst be learned is that words, like Rush Limbaugh says, mean something.  Back during the Roosevedlt era his administraon had hired several hundred social and economic planners into the govermednt.  Congressional hearings exposed many of them to be communist. Those communists not exposed then began using the title liberal, which politically meant change.  They were for change. Changing our orm of governent to socialism.  When Sen. McCarthy (R) was exposing them later on he was censored.  Then Sen. Church (C) held hearing about FBI and CIA invesigation into commuinist activities and as a result, all investigations into suspected terrorist and subvedrsive acivities by commuinist stopped.  This is why some people felt that if these investigations had not been stopped, 9/11 never would have happened.  Having worked with the FBI I tend to agree.  So we know now the commuinist pose as liberals. So how many liberals are communists?  Liberals are for change. So how many liberals are communists? 

    Conservative means to preserve something.  The woerd consevative alone is arbitray, it needs a prefix to define its purpose, what it preserves.  Hitler preserved Natzism. Stalin preserve Communism. Mao preserved Communism. Mousolini preserved Faschism.  Ron Paul, Barry Goldwatedr, Ronald Reagan all wanted to preserve Constiturtionalism, making them Constitutional conseratives. Romny and Ryan, Gingrich, Rove, MacCain and many other congressmen have never defined themselves as Constitutional conservatives.  They have all been something less, wanting some kind of change. What?  I think they all want to preserve the socialist economic form of governmentment we have now but want to move to further changes that will bring us into total and complet socialsim.  There are Constitutional conservatives out there. We must grab onto them and hold them close. We need them, and those who are not Constitutional conservatives must be booted out of the Tea Party and into the gutter, like Newt Gingrich.  His purpose is to influence Tea Party members away from Constiturtional conservative by sounding like one, but never saying that he is. That is an act of subversion.  The Tea Party should have supported Ron Paul, not Gingrich or Romnedy. Why did they?

Maynard Merrell

Maynard, very well put, I have been saying the same thing for years but so many people believe the word conservative means something all together different. I sometimes wonder if the MSM knows the difference, we can only repeat and teach things as we know them ourselves.

McCain-Feingold shows exactly what people like McCain want to preserve--the good-old-boy country club political system where the only new blood allowed in has been well-vetted to ensure they support the progressive globalist agenda.  I agree with you 100% on Gingrich--he sold us out a long time ago, the fat leech, and it stuns me that so many people here who castigate Rand Paul for his vote on the Hagel nomination then hold up Gingrich as some sort of "ideal".  He stayed in the 2012 Presidential race just long enough to destroy Santorum and make sure Romney got the nomination, and when he pretends to be part of the Tea Party, it's only to lead us astray and weaken us.

I would assume most of the people here are Constitutional Conservatives, but even within that category there are many different nuances an points of view.  For example, I consider myself a Jeffersonian Constructionist, or alternatively an Originalist, which includes a rejection of the 3rd and 4th sections of the 14th Amendment (along with many other Amendments) as an affront to the originally intended independence of the states.  Others might be considered "Postbellum Conservatives", after the philosophy of Lincoln, who view the nation as an inseperable union with the states bound to the same Bill of Rights restrictions as the federal government.  Et cetera....

But no matter what our differences in philosophy or approach, we must remain bound together by our common belief in the Constitution in its current or earlier form as being the supreme law of the land, and by our belief that individual liberty is the heart and soul of America.




Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘The Real Second Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”

Murphy, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.

Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) said the Santa Fe High School attackers used a .38 revolver and a shotgun to carry out his heinous acts. Therefore, a ban on “assault rifles” would have done nothing to prevent the attack from occurring or the tragic loss of life from taking place.

It should be noted that Saturday was not the first time Sen. Murphy called the essence of the Second Amendment into question. On August 6, 2013, Breitbart News reported that Murphy told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

Murphy did not grapple with the words, “Shall not be infringed.”


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service