Foreign Policy

The Ominous Republican Hold on Congress

More war and rumors of war?

|

As we face the new year, the biggest concern for peace lovers is Republican control of the U.S. Senate. While Republican votes don't reach the key number 60, members of the GOP will still be in a strong position to push their belligerent global agenda.

I don't mean to overstate the danger. After all, the Democrats were hardly better. But those who abhor war will awaken each day knowing that hawkish Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (SC), Ted Cruz (Tex.), and their ilk are in control.

Peacemongers haven't had much to cheer about during the Obama years. Barack Obama has gone back to war in Iraq and is conducting airstrikes in Syria, while leaving thousands of military personnel in Afghanistan, continuing murder by drone war in several countries, and maintaining the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Yet there have been a few glimmers of hope. Obama has pursued negotiations with Iran over its never-was and still-is-not nuclear-weapons program. The Iranian regime would like to return to the world economy by freeing itself from harsh U.S.-led sanctions, so it is bending over backward to assure the world that it wants no nuclear weapons. (The Supreme Leader years ago issued a fatwa against them.)

But the Obama administration, under pressure from Israel's supporters in the United States, seems determined to push Iran further than it could possibly go regarding its ability to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. Moreover, Obama is at best ambiguous about whether all sanctions against Iran would ever be lifted, and the Republican Congress can be expected to obstruct any efforts in that direction. These two factors have turned optimists about the negotiations into pessimists.

If Obama blows this chance to normalize relations with Iran, which includes a large educated middle class friendly to America, it will be a tragedy of immense proportions. There is no way to justify the cruel consequences that U.S. sanctions have inflicted on the Iranian people. If a foreign power were doing this to Americans, the war cries would be deafening.

The American-Israeli-Saudi opponents of U.S.-Iranian reconciliation should be ashamed of themselves. Their cynical political concerns deserve no consideration whatever. If the regimes in Israel and Saudi Arabia fear they will be less important in a Middle East that does not feature a U.S.-Iranian cold war, let them get over it. Peace trumps petty politics. And if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that without his bête noir, Iran, his systematic abuse of the Palestinians might get closer American scrutiny, all I can say is: let's hope so. Republicans of course will back Netanyahu.

The congressional Republicans can also be expected to block Obama's proposal to normalize relations with Cuba. Republicans like to portray themselves as advocates of strictly limited government, but somehow those limits include the power to reform the Cuban government. How can that be? If they believe this is a matter of national security, as Ted Cruz says, then it shows how ridiculous his party is. How exactly does Cuba pose a threat to the American people — if indeed that's what "national security" is supposed to mean.

Finally, the Republicans undoubtedly will try to stop Obama from deferring the deportations of some five million people who are in this country without government permission. Here again the Republicans show their lack of intellectual integrity. Why should anyone need government permission to be here? Aren't rights possessed by all people, not just Americans? U.S. immigration controls condemn millions of people to a grinding poverty that no American could imagine. Perpetuation of that cruelty is simply unconscionable.

Obama's stopgap approach to immigration is hardly ideal. Remember, he's only deferreddeportation, and he hasn't done it for everyone who faces the threat. But it's progress. Because of his executive order, millions of families will not be broken up by the U.S. government. That is something to celebrate, not obstruct.

The national-security state is rotten to the core, having inflicted incalculable death and misery on many foreign populations. Much hard work has to be done to free the world of this monster. In the near term, fortunately, some good things can be done at the margin — if the new Republican majority doesn't get in the way.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

NEXT: On The Independents: The Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Plus Katherine Mangu-Ward, John Tierney, Michael Weiss, Tim Carney, Driverless Cars, Green Nukes, Pot PSAs, and a New Enemy of Freedom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can libertarians explain to me what you’re stance on immigration is? Is it open borders? Slightly regulated, but mostly open borders? Is legal immigration not in line with libertarianism? Immigration is one of the big issues that makes me wonder if I’m more conservative than libertarian.

    1. (disclaimer i am an anarcho-capitalist)
      Immigration isn’t really an issue with most libertarians, they tend to favor mostly open boarders.

      I do not believe in boarders period, but that is at the behest of not believing in the legitimacy of any governance other than my own set of moral standards

      to compromise with the statists who believe in boarders and government i would champion for open boarders only if they abolished the welfare system, if i am forced to pay taxes i want not a fucking cent to be spent on keeping boarders closed or providing welfare for anyone

    2. Another view on this was advanced (IIRC) by Hoppe, who if I understand correctly takes the view that it would be up to private property owners (which is the only legitimate kind of property owner).

      Libertarians, like everybody else, find ourselves arguing between what is right and what is possible. Open borders would plainly be much less of a problem if we didn’t have the State stealing so much of our wealth and giving it to immigrants in order to buy votes. But getting politicians to stop this scam seems impossible short of hanging the bastards.

        1. Yeah, I have trouble getting Hoppe on a lot of things.

    3. Reason is unapologetically open border and pro amnesty. I would not say that is necessarlity the universal libertarian view. Libertarianism is not anarchy so there are definately differning viewpoints about immigration enforcment. As has been pointed out, the welfare state is a big issue to many as it relates to open borders and immigration law. I would say that being against all immigration under all cercumstances would generally not be a libertarian position. Nor would being against contracting or hiring foreign labor ie work visas under all circumstances.

      1. I general the more free the better. But total adherance to dogmatism isn’t required. At least by me:)

        1. I guess I’m confused as to whether I can call myself a libertarian if I believe we should have a process to allow immigrants who want to work, and not game the welfare system, to come in and keep the rest out.

          Is that wrong?

          1. No, but the process for getting a work permit shouldn’t be any harder than getting a passport. Right now, the ridiculous process is what causes many to ignore the law.

            1. After we amend the constitution or reinterpreted it to end anchor babies.

          2. Do you think people should be free to make their own choices as long as tbey are not actually harming anyone else even if you disagreewith those decisions. Like what they put in their bodies whether its drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, trans fats. Should they be allowed to have consesual adult sex with whomever as many people as they want regardless of sex. Should they be allowed to engage in trade with whomever they want without prohibitive licensing and fees. Should there constitutional rights trump the cops desire to catch bad guys. Should we tell the nannys who want to disnefy the country and the internet cause their too lazy to watch their kids to go fuck themselves. If the answer is yes to most of these questions your probably a libertarian.

            1. Keep in mind that it is not enough for you to want to be left alone. You have to be willing to leave others alone even if you think they are really stupid and immoral.

              1. You have to also reject all these collectivist arguments for interfering with other peoples choices.

                1. And you have to solemly swear that Nicole is the worst.

          3. Libertarians disagree on all kinds of things including abortion. The key term is Liberty. All government is force backed by violence. If you are going to argue for a law think whether or not you would be willing to stick a gun in someones face to force them to comply with it or pay for it. Because that is what laws are. Feel free to disagree with anyone here on any issue, we all do, just remember that bar I just discribed though.

            1. Well that was easy. My answer to all those questions is yes. Now my only question is is it ok to like Star Trek? (Not the new crap that’s been spewed out, but the older shows and movies)

    4. Generally, they believe countries have no right to regulate who comes into the Country and trashes it. It’s the single dumbest idea in the Libertarian arsenal. On almost everything else, they have it right – but they blow it on immigration. No American should take seriously any Libertarian who espouses this ass-backwards philosophy.

      Applied to their personal lives, I know of none who would offer to open up their homes to anyone who wants to wander in. But when it comes to their Country, they seem incapable of understanding that there are a LOT of people who could come here, WOULD come here, and make this Country LESS than it is.

      Why otherwise (reasonably) intelligent people can’t get that is a mystery.

      1. It just seems like this whole immigration issue is biased towards Hispanics rather than ALL immigrants. I don’t see my former (thank God or whoever or whatever is that higher power) home state of California placing ads on billboards and buses and wherever else in Mandarin or Japanese (plenty of FOBs from those countries, not to mention Hmongs, Laos, and Fillipinos) or other minority’s dialect. Just Spanish. It just looks to me as letting millions of Hispanics come and stay in for shits and giggles, while other minorities are barely mentioned at all, never mind lobbied for. Of course that just may be the half-white/half-Chinese in me talking…

  2. So tell me again why Iran needs weapons-grade enrichment?

    1. for their baby milk factories!

    2. No one “needs” a 7-round nuclear factory!

    3. That would be for the Iranians to answer. It is no business of the U.S. government.

      1. Sorry but, when their President is telling the world that they plan to use that Uranium to wipe our allies off the face of the earth, it becomes our business.

        France has nuclear weapons, the UK has nukes, Russia has nukes, China has nukes and no one gives a shit. We only give a shit that Iran is trying to get them because they have made it clear they plan to use them to do the world and us harm.

        You guys never have any problems believing the evil NEOCONs and the US means the world harm. Why the hell do you find it so difficult to believe a bunch of total religious fanatics who think nothing of murdering their own people mean the world harm, especially when they say at every opportunity they do?

        1. Point to me where exactly in the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has the authority to tell sovereign nations whether or not they can enrich uranium? Oh right I’m being an “extremist”, the Constitution isn’t a “suicide pact”, etc.

          Actually conservatives DO give a shit that Russia and China have nukes. They’ve just decided to be realistic about it. Eventually they’ll have to make that decision about Iran too.

          Come on: how exactly is the U.S. government going to stop Iran from enriching uranium? Do you propose invasion?

          1. Last I looked the Federal Government has the right to regulate international trade. They also have the exclusive right to conduct foreign policy. And declare war if they choose to do so.

            How in the hell can you conclude that they don’t have the right to choose not to trade with a country they view as a threat? They have the right to regulate trade don’t they? The federal government could ban all international trade consistent with the Constitution. And they could also declare war and carpet bomb all of Iran consistent with the Constitution. So how in the hell do they no have the power to ban trade with Iran, which is all sanctions are?

            If you don’t like that, too bad. Get another Constitution.

            1. “How in the hell can you conclude that they don’t have the right to choose not to trade with a country they view as a threat? ”

              He didn’t, that’s your shitty reading comprehension/straw man fetish.

              “They have the right to regulate trade don’t they?”

              Compare this with what he actually wrote

              “Point to me where exactly in the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has the authority to tell sovereign nations whether or not they can enrich uranium?

              John, you’re obviously stupid.

            2. “How in the hell can you conclude that they don’t have the right to choose not to trade with a country they view as a threat?”

              Uh… no, you collectivist half-wit, the government doesn’t have rights. Only individuals have rights. I as an individual have a right to peacefully associate and trade with whomever the hell I want.

              The constitution merely gives the government the power to impede upon that individual right.

            3. The authority to regulate foreign commerce is not at all the same thing as dictating the internal policy of a sovereign nation. Granted, the government has been allowed to get away with doing that, just as they have been allowed to get away with the Super Dooper Magical Elastic Interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause. But that doesn’t make it constitutional.

              Yes, they have the power to carpet bomb Iran. They have the power to do many things which they don’t have rightful authority to do. I don’t expect that to change, especially with people like you and Tony cheering them on.

              1. The authority to regulate foreign commerce is not at all the same thing as dictating the internal policy of a sovereign nation.

                That can’t be right, because the authority to regulate interstate commerce is the same thing as dictating the internal policy of individual states. Because Commerce Clause allows the fedgov to do anything it wants.

          2. The government has the right to defend our country from it’s enemies. Iran is one of our enemies and when they get nuclear weapons it will be a disaster for us and the rest of the free world.

        2. Iran will never nuke Israel because Israel will retaliate immediately and totally.

          Iran wants nukes to regain hegemonic status in the region. It doesn’t have the oil to do that so it wants nukes instead.

          1. Iran wants nukes

            Prove it.

            1. I can’t I can only presume. If they do want them then that’s why I believe it would want them. If they want it for peaceful purposes all the better.

            2. There is no other reason for them to have a nuclear program whatsoever.

          2. Aside from retaliation, I am unconvinced that Iran–which is run by Muslims, last I heard–would nuke Jerusalem, which is holy to said Muslims.

            1. That’s just because of a geological formation that’s Islam’s version of seeing the Virgin Mary’s image on a piece of burnt toast.

        3. when their President is telling the world that they plan to use that Uranium to wipe our allies off the face of the earth

          And this never happened.

          1. ^^This.

            It never ceases to amaze me how the one “we don’t show Israel on maps” comment became daily declarations of genocidal mania.

          2. They’ve just done all they can to hurt Israel. Big difference. Not.

        4. Sorry but, when their President is telling the world that they plan to use that Uranium to wipe our allies off the face of the earth, it becomes our business.

          Perhaps our allies should defend themselves.

          1. They will.

            The US will become involved as the nuclear conflagration escalates.

            Israel will hit targets other than Iran if they are attacked. These other targets will cause an escalation.

            If Israel only destroys Iran the escalation is less likely.

        5. Iranian nukes aren’t a big deal. Israel has 300+ nuclear warheads AND the means to deliver them. I guess Iran could use camels to deliver nukes – or FEDEX. But since they don’t have an Air Force or anything like a ballistic missile system, Israel would seem to have the edge.

          As long as we’re not sticking our extraordinarily long nose into Iranian business, we aren’t of much interest to the clowns in the middle east. They’d much rather attack Israel.

          Israel can take care of itself.

          Imagine Iran launching a nuke at Israel. (I don’t know how. Maybe they build a catapult.) Israel responds in kind and turns every city in Iran with a population of 50,000 or more into a glass parking lot – eliminating nearly 60% of the population – while keeping 1/3 of their nukes in reserve.

          Now either Iran is stupid enough to pull a stunt like that (which would mean wiping out 40 million of them would be no great loss), or they DO know better and primarily what they’ll do is rattle their sabers.

          One item I’ve run across repeatedly in various articles is the belief of Iranians that the US only picks on non-nuclear countries. See if you follow the pattern: Iraq, Libya – no nukes. N. Korea – nukes (sort of). who does the US go after?

          And it’s all tied up with the Petrodollar. Iraq started taking gold for oil – invasion. Libya, gold for oil – cruise missiles.

          Iran is just another boogeyman the US government wants you to be afraid of so they can take more of whatever you have.

          1. Thanks to Tyrant Obama the Liar’s endless negotiations Iran is developing hundreds of nuclear weapons with ICBMs to launch them. Tyrant Obama the Liar blew the opportunity to overthrow the Mullahs in Tehran during the counter revolution in 2009. Now it will require war to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons and dominance over the middle east.

      2. It is no business of the U.S. government.

        Yes it is. Iran is a menace to the rights of Americans. The USG has a duty to eliminate this government.

        1. B.S. Iran is about as dangerous as N. Korea… and a lot less crazy.

          1. Iran is much more dangerous than NK. They have the oil wealth, military power and ties to terrorists. Furthermore, they are in the middle of the middle east where the world gets most of it’s oil from.

            The one thing that we could do to reduce their threat to the world without war is to provide a secure source of energy to Europe, Ukraine and Japan. Tyrant Obama the Liar has done everything possible to pander to the environmentally ill and make that impossible.

        2. How? It’s 10,000 miles away.

          1. They are developing ICBMs that could reach the USA in conjunction with North Korea.

    4. So tell me again why Iran needs weapons-grade enrichment?

      Tell me again when it has ever been shown that Iran has made, has tried to make, or desires to make weapons-grade uranium?

      1. Polonium has been detected in Iranian reactors. Only good for weapons. The notion that Iran’s nuclear program could possibly be peaceful is laughable.

    5. Because the U.S. might invade and overthrow their government otherwise? That is clearly the lesson they took from our actions in Iraq.

      1. Zactly!

        If you wish to remain an autonomous nation, free to run your country as you see fit, and not a US puppet regime…ya better have nukes.

        Gee, I wonder why so many nations hate us for our freedoms?

        1. They hate us for our freedoms because they have degenerate cultural beliefs fostered by governments.

          If you wish to remain an autonomous nation, free to run your country as you see fit, and not a US puppet regime…don’t fuck with America.

          1. They hate us for our freedoms because they have degenerate cultural beliefs fostered by governments.

            Which neither threatens America or is any of our concern.

          2. I think you’ve confused the fucker with the fuckee.

            Remember, the US overthrew Iran’s lawfully-elected government and installed the Shah.

            US interests are driven by oil and propping up the dollar.

      2. and our non-actions in North Korea.

  3. Ominderpous.

  4. Queue Darth Vader theme music!

  5. Tell me again what concessions Obama got from cancelling missile defense in Europe? Russian good behavior? Less Islamic threats to Western Europe?

    Think anyone is going to allowed to publish satire directed at Muslims when Iran has nuclear missiles?

    1. If we left Iran alone, within 20 years, it would be more westernized than you would believe. The median age of Iranians is about 26 years. For the US, the median is 37. Younger Iranians are a lot less concerned with the stodgy beliefs of their elders. They want the smart phones, computers, satellite TV and music of the West. The religious zealot gatekeepers are losing. Sort of like marijuana prohibition here. The problem with Americans who are afraid of Iran is that they’ve been listening to the Military-Industrial equivalent of “Reefer Madness”.

  6. Yeah, I fear it’s going to be SO much worse now.

    No. Meet the new boss, etc. This is troll bait, Sheldon. Yeah, they’ll rattle their sabers. It won’t be any “worse” than is was with Bush the Lesser and his progeny Bush the Obama so far. US foreign meddling has been horrible for a long time – I don’t see it getting measurably worse just because the RINO’s now control the Senate.

    1. I thought this article was satire, and then I saw it was Richman.

      1. I sorta did a double take also. Has he been awake for the last 6 years?

        1. He’s been retarded for the last 6 years and all the years before that.

  7. Also, FUCK YOU, Richman:

    Why should anyone need government permission to be here?

    Yeah, if this was so FUCKING important, why didn’t the Donkeys take care of it when they recently controlled BOTH houses AND the presidency? Fuck yourself up the ass for including this kind of derp, you intellectual midget*.

    * For the record, I note AGAIN that I have NO love for TEAM RED, and voted for neither TEAM’s candidates in the last nat’l election I voted in (some at the state/local level)

    1. They didn’t even need both houses and the Presidency. There are plenty of warboners on the right itching for another go around in the Middle East.

  8. Remember when the small-government Republicans held both Congress and the White House, and they cut government by passing Medicare Part D?

    1. Paradise, lost…

    2. Good thing we got rid of those guys so we could get a Congress that would give us Obamacare.

      1. Don’t look at me. I didn’t vote for any of those fuckers. I can accurately judge the outcome of an election by the inverse of my ballot.

  9. Richman, a gay man, thinks it is just terrible the US is trying to keep Iran, a country that would happily condemn Richman to a horrible death if it could, from getting nuclear weapons. I am sure that educated upper class in Iran would love Sheldon and throw him a gay wedding if they could. Sadly, they don’t run the country and if they ever try to run the country the people who do will respond by murdering them. Whatever you think of Iran, you have to be a first class moron to think that the the views of the people matter in a country that is effectively a theocratic dictatorship.

    1. You’re so right. I mean, the people of Iran totally deserve these sanctions because of the government that they have no control over. Ideally we should totally surround the country and starve the people to death. That will teach ’em.

      1. Then do nothing and let them have nukes. And if we end up in a nuclear war and turning the entire country into a parking lot thanks to the lunatics running the place, I am sure that will be great for the Iranian people.

        Regardless of what you want to do, you are fucking moron if you think the fact that some of the people in Iran like the US means anything. It doesn’t. The leaders don’t care about their own people or what they think.

        1. My point is that all sanctions do is punish the people. They don’t harm the leaders.

          1. All war does is punish people. Sometimes life is like that. Who said the world owes you a good choice? I would rather trade with Iran and live in peace with them. Sadly, the leaders of Iran get a vote in that. And at this point, I would rather them not get nuclear weapons and if we can do that via sanctions and not have to go to war with them, I will take that choice.

            1. Then do nothing and let them have nukes. And if we end up in a nuclear war and turning the entire country into a parking lot thanks to the lunatics running the place, I am sure that will be great for the Iranian people.

              Your premise is false. You presume that if Iran gets nukes, we will definitely be forced to fight fight a war with them. That is obviously bullshit.

              In the libertarian scenario, we will only be forced into action if Iran attacks us first. Why would they do that? Because they can? Show me one time in the history of the world, where a nuclear power waged a nuclear war simply because they can?

              The much more likely scenario is that Iran gets a nuke, Iran no longer feels threatened by preemptive US acts of aggression, the US minds its own business, Iran minds its own business…we all live happily ever after.

              Letting them get nukes is our BEST CHANCE for peace.

              1. Why would they do that? Because they can?

                Because they are lunatics and belligerent ones and have demonstrated this many times.

                The much more likely scenario is that Iran gets a nuke, Iran no longer feels threatened by preemptive US acts of aggression, the US minds its own business, Iran minds its own business…we all live happily ever after.

                Letting them get nukes is our BEST CHANCE for peace.

                You are completely fucking insane.

                1. Because they are lunatics and belligerent ones and have demonstrated this many times.

                  And I don’t care, so long as I’m not attacked.

                  You are completely fucking insane.

                  And you are an immoral, pearl clutching, war-mongering pussy that I find disgusting. You may not initiate force. Fuck off!

                  1. And you are an immoral, pearl clutching, war-mongering pussy that I find disgusting.

                    Well, he is Canadian.

                2. So, if Iran gets a nuke, and decides to attack the US, they’re going to what? Put it on a boat and sail to America?

                  And once they’re attacked us, we would, uh, just stand around with our thumbs up our asses? Or unleash a few dozen Minuteman IIIs and reduce the population of Iran by 20 million in 5 minutes?

              2. Strange… That reasoning is one of the reasons why I wrote an English paper detailing why nukes are good for us…

                I’m glad I’m not the only one. THAT would be awkward at dinner parties.

        2. If the leaders don’t care about the people, and sanctions hurt the people and not the leaders, then what is the purpose of sanctions?

          1. Because the sanctions take their money and limit their ability to build a bomb. Also, if things get bad enough, the people might finally turn on their leaders because the leaders will no longer have the money to buy them off.

            1. You know, the people are on course to “turn on their leaders” anyway. The only thing that might change that? What? Someone is attacking their country? Imposing sanctions? Well, we better all pull together to fight the Great Satan!

              Or, we could just back off, be reasonable, let the younger members of their society see us being reasonable, let them get big doses of western society and let them decide: Do they like the Rolling Stones and girls in bikinis more or less than Muslim chanting and women in burkas?

            2. Because overturning governments in the middle east has been so good recently.

          2. I am no collectivist but at some point it becomes their fault. As a country, they are getting the government they deserve.

            1. Wow. Just like Amerika!

        3. John sometimes you are such a shocking mental midget when it comes to this stuff.

          Do you really think Iran will put its status as an organized state at risk by nuking a country that will retaliate immediately and with equal if not greater ferocity? Never happen.

          Iran wants nukes to gain an edge over its neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia, to gain hegemonic status in the region. That’s it.

          Spouting off that letting Iran have nukes will lead to ermagerd death destruction holocaust and mayhem makes you sound like the progtards that said the same thing when Chicago and DC were forced to let people conceal carry.

          1. Aye, this. Plus, if North Korea is not insane enough to start a nuclear war, then nobody is.

        4. As with Hussein in Iraq, the Iranian leadership is concerned about self-preservation more than anything else. If they get nukes, MAD will ensure there will be no war.

      2. “Deserve”‘s got nothing to do with it.

        1. +1 Unforgiven.

      3. It is a fact of life that the citizens of a country suffer from the sins of their rulers. The German people suffered from Hitlers wars of conquest. The Soviets suffered from the Communists who murdered millions of them and destroyed their military just in time for the German invasion. Evil dictators can’t hide behind the skirts of their citizens or their suffering due tho their disastrous policies.

    2. Sheldon may be happy, but I didn’t know he was “gay” in the sexual sense. I thought he was married & had kids. What may confuse me is his sister; I have trouble keeping even my own family straight, let alone other people’s, so sometimes I’ll mix up siblings with spouses, etc.

      1. He is. He has a wife and three children, last I knew.

        Not sure when – if at all – he came out.

  10. Meanwhile, Peter King is standing on the bodies of some dead Frenchmen, baying NEEDZ MOAR TOTAL SECURITY STATE.

    Fuck politicians, one and all.

    1. Never let a crisis pass without taking the opportunity to increase state power and diminish liberty in the name of safety.

  11. It’s not just the war thing. Reminding me why I never vote for Republicans, or at all, they did what they always do. They campaigned on Obamacare and the economy and regulations, etc. but when they get into office what’s the first thing they do? Abortion. Of course.

    http://thehill.com/policy/heal…..rtion-push

    I mean, goddam, right out of the gate. Abortion.
    Thanks for proving how useless you are, Republicans.

    1. Jesus, what a bunch of fucking idiots.

      1. It’s not Teh Stupid Party for nothing!

    2. Technically this would be second after the pipeline.

      1. I would prefer tax reform and spending cuts be all they considered for the first year or so. Then they can appease some Socons with these meaningless gestures.

      2. And technically correct is the best kind! Or so I have heard…

      3. Well, you do have to lay the pipe before you can get an abortion. And, people say Republicans are stupid.

    3. To be fair, it’s two republicans that are starting this. But still stupid.

  12. I think the prevailing mood right now is a good indication I should buy stock in booze this year.

    1. The Vice Fund has never let me down.

  13. “As we face the new year, the biggest concern for peace lovers is Republican control of the U.S. Senate.”

    Hmmm. I look at Russia’s behavior in Ukraine, ISIL’s advance in the Middle East, Boko Haram and other such insurgencies in Africa plus China’s increasing belligerence and I wonder “what peace is this guy talking about?”

    I guess it’s only war if the USA does it.

    1. THIS. Peacenazis do not care about peace they just hate America.

  14. Republicans like to portray themselves as advocates of strictly limited government, but somehow those limits include the power to reform the Cuban government. How can that be?

    It might have to do with attempting to limit the Cuban gov’t. If one gov’t can limit another, that’s good. That was one of the points of the Federalist papers.

  15. “Here again the Republicans show their lack of intellectual integrity. Why should anyone need government permission to be here? Aren’t rights possessed by all people, not just Americans?”

    Well, no. Simply no. The Constitution grants some rights to Americans and only Americans (like voting).

    This fact seems to answer Sheldon’s previous question as well. Permission is needed to live here because *some* rights, costly ones, are indeed granted regardless of citizenship – (like education for minors and emergency care).

    The libertarian solution is to end those rights – and I agree with them – but it makes perfect sense to require permission. Similar to having requirements for food stamps or disability benefits.

  16. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  17. continuing murder by drone war in several countries

    It’s not murder.

    Yet there have been a few glimmers of hope. Obama has pursued negotiations with Iran over its never-was and still-is-not nuclear-weapons program. The Iranian regime would like to return to the world economy by freeing itself from harsh U.S.-led sanctions, so it is bending over backward to assure the world that it wants no nuclear weapons.

    Iran has done no such thing in the real world. Richman is a delusion retard.

  18. End the wars. Check.
    Stop banging on Iran. Check.
    Stop serving Saudi Arabia and Israel. Check.
    Normalize relations with Cuba. Check.
    Throw the doors open so America can be overrun by every piece of human garbage on the planet.

    WTF???

  19. Finally, the Republicans undoubtedly will try to stop Obama from deferring the deportations of some five million people who are in this country without government permission. Here again the Republicans show their lack of intellectual integrity. Why should anyone need government permission to be here? Aren’t rights possessed by all people, not just Americans? U.S. immigration controls condemn millions of people to a grinding poverty that no American could imagine. Perpetuation of that cruelty is simply unconscionable.

    The above extracted from the article.Every country in the world at least tries to exercise control over who and how many enter, all of which seems OK except for the U.S. to do. How come I wonder, why the difference?

    1. Every other country in the world is also more hostile to liberty than the US. That’s the difference.

  20. It’s not those who stand up to evil that cause wars. It’s those like you and Tyrant Obama the Liar who are afraid to resist that cause them.

  21. More war and rumors of war?… The Ominous Republican Hold on Congress

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.