Friday, December 16, 2011

Obama wants Republicans Email Addresses for Campaign Prank, or Campaign Subterfuge?

Barack Obama

I'm no campaign strategist, but I think this little ploy by the Obama campaign is more sinister as it seems. There is a donation page up that asks you to have a little holiday fun at the expense of one of your Republican friends. When you donate, you input their name and email address and they will send them email saying how you(the recipient)inspired your friend to donate to Barack Obama's campaign for re-election.

Seems like it could be a funny holiday joke to play on your conservative friends. It's also a great way for the Obama campaign to get a hold of a large mailing list of Republican voters that they could later use to commit some campaign subterfuge. How about mass mailers from a fake conservative group begging all good conservatives to vote for Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. Why would they do that?? Simple, to sabotage Mitt Romney's campaign. The Obama campaign is scared of a Mitt Romney nomination. If Romney gets the Republican nod, he is seen as a real threat to Obama's re-election chances. Maybe they'll be super sneaky and get everyone to vote for Ron Paul. Nah, that might backfire.

This could all be a lighthearted stunt, but with Democrats I refuse to take chances. If you must talk with your liberal friends this holiday season, get a throw-away email address. The only thing I hate more than spam, is welfare loving,big money spending, apologist, race baiting, two-faced, blame the other guy Democrat spam. Please don't send me anymore postcards in the mail, it leads to more Global Warming.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Ron Paul Surging in the Polls

Ron Paul
Photo by:Gage Skidmore


While the race for the Presidency is still too volatile to really make a call on who will get the nomination, it is becoming clear that the American people are getting pretty tired of the same old candidates talking about the same old politics. Herman Cain was a runaway train until he was derailed by a string of sexual harassment
and marital infidelity charges. He was popular because he was an outsider with different ideas and a far different angle on politics than most of his peers in the debates. Despite his effort, the MSM was effective at removing a real threat to the Obama regime.

What came next was predictable and expected. The only person who wasn't Mitt Romney began surging in the polls. Newt Gingrich has name recognition and he is a smooth talker. He kept his comfortable lead despite attack ads and his GOP opponents hurling bombs at him. Despite all of this, he refused to employ the same tactics, giving him the sense of being an honorable man. In some respects I don't doubt that he is. What I do know for sure is, he has repeatedly touted fresh sounding conservative ideals, all the while taking positions with, and publicly supporting bad policy decisions by Democrats and Republicans alike. He's a flip-flopper and a charlatan. I think the American people are starting to realize this.(God knows his ex-wives sure do.)

Something else the American people are starting to realize is that Ron Paul has been saying the things they have wanted a presidential candidate to say, without the sheen of a polished professional politician(that was not intentional, but it was funny.)They have heard him say it before, unfortunately they went with the same tired schtick and got shafted when their choice for POTUS got stomped flat by Barack Obama. The same man who would in three years do more damage and spend more money than the last three presidents combined(The total amount of deficit is far greater than all the presidents combined.) As things continue to sink, people have finally hit rock bottom and are finally opening their eyes.

Ron Paul was in the far back corner of the room looking mopey and sad, unable to reach double digits in the polls. His last couple of showings at the debates have, however had a dramatic effect on his numbers. He is now surging in Iowa, running just one point behind Gingrich in the most recent straw poll there. He has won the Cedar Valley Tea Party Presidential Straw Poll, and in Florida he had an overwhelming victory in Pasco County's first Republican Party straw poll. Drake University's first student straw poll saw Ron Paul winning with 35% of the vote, and Ron Paul won an Oklahoma straw poll a few days ago. I think it's safe to say people are noticing the man, even if the media continues to ignore and marginalize him.

With Paul within a point of Gingrich this close to the Iowa Caucus, and Iowans cooling to the Newtinator, Ron Paul may just pull a rabbit out of his hat and shove upset into the faces to the GOP poster boys. What about New Hampshire? Does he stand a chance, or will it go to the man with perfect hair, Mitt Romney. Perhaps Gingrich will sweep in and knock them both out with his flabby cheeks. Don't worry, that nightmarish image of Newt Gingrich slapping people with his fat guy cheeks will fade with time.

The real question though, is this...even if Ron Paul aces some of these caucuses and primaries, will the GOP still ignore him and go with one of their face first all-stars, or will they grow a pair and actually listen to the American people instead of ignoring their wishes and continually telling them what's best for them with another craptastical candidate who will lose to Barack Obama the same way John"Count Chocula" McCain did in 2008.


Thursday, December 8, 2011

Republikid Android App


The Official Republikid Android App is now available for download. You can get it here:
Republikid Android App


Tuesday, December 6, 2011

National Defense Authorization Act Controversy

There has been a lot of controversy over the latest version of the NDAA(National Defense Authorization Act)H.R. 1540/S.1867. Two parts of this bill seem to stick out in many peoples minds, and with good reason. The first is Section(s) 1031 and 1032 which cover the use of military force and the detention of terrorist suspects. The controversy comes over some very vague wordings which could, it seems, be used to detain American Citizens indefinitely in a place like Guantanamo.

The bill is being hailed by many as the suspension of our constitutional rights. I don't think it's as bad as it's being made out to be, but at the same time we have seen to many abuses of power from our government and law enforcement over the last few years,to be at the very least worried that someone might take this out of context and abuse the vague wording.
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General – Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons – A covered person under this section is any person as follow:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War – The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress – The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War -
(1) IN GENERAL – Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS – The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR – For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY – The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens -
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

The bill also repeals a former military ban on sodomy. There is a problem with this one, the definition of sodomy also includes sex with animals. So now, if you are in the military you can have sex with another man, or that man's dog if you so choose.

"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
This part of the bill has been repealed, effectively allowing Gay men to engage in consensual sex(a nice accent to the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy)But it also allows them to engage in coitus with livestock if they see fit. Kinda creepy if you ask me.

It is also bashed for limiting the Commander in Chief's ability to stop terrorists and will do more harm than good in the long term.

Only 7 of our elected senators voted against this bill, despite the widespread criticism of it by the general public. Many in the government have opposed this bill as well, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, the CIA, the military, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, the Director of National Intelligence, etc.