Posterior to the shooting in Oregon, President Obama called for more gun control. Republicans accused the President of politicizing the shooting. As you can see here, I agreed with Republicans: https://libertyeconomics.com/president-obama-politicizes-the-oregon-shooting/ Republicans are so right.
We all need to be much more positive and bipartisan in our approach to solving the issues of our day. It seems like any thoughtful answer to violent crime should consider bipartisan solutions. The apolitical answer would be to have an eclectic combination of both gun control and a domestic torture program. President Obama, showing his weakness on tackling important issues, didn’t say one word about implementing a domestic torture program.
Dick Cheney says torture works, so it must. We all know the government never gets anything wrong. If torture works to curtail terrorism from abroad, then why wouldn’t torture work to curtail crime right here at home? I believe Republicans are much more capable of explaining why torture works and how the Fifth Amendment undermines our security than I am.
As I had time to reflect on the issues of our day, I came to the conclusion that it’s time for a bipartisan solution to violent crime that doesn’t just jettison the Second Amendment, but also the Fifth Amendment. That means I’ve been inverting the reasons why we need divided government. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I’ve been far too negative.
The positive way of calling for divided government is this: It’s a shame that Republicans say they want to oppress women by questioning the practice of tearing apart babies for profit from taxpayer money. Republicans also claim to support the Second Amendment. For those reasons, we can’t permit Republicans to take over the entire government. What a shame it is that Democrats don’t like waterboarding. Like Michael Savage says, that’s treason to support the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Democrats shouldn’t be able to control the entire government either.
Just a few years ago, Michele Fiore refused to sign the tax pledge and explicitly stated she was open to raising taxes. That’s a definite plus. What has happened to her in the intervening years is anybody’s guess, but I won’t hold it against her. After all, there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for Fiore’s metamorphosis into an apparent advocate of liberty on some issues.
It’s very possible that politicians will vote the pro liberty way if it’s a popular position that will help buttress their poll numbers, so long as the vote is inconsequential (i.e. not a determinant vote). In that case, Fiore can’t really be faulted for abandoning her statist positions. Just think about how Fiore could get elected to the House and vote to audit the Fed knowing full well that the audit is DOA in the Senate, and then claim accolades for being so friendly to the Ron Paul movement.
Fiore has used her recently established conservative credentials to support great candidates like Adam Laxalt and Joe Heck. Laxalt was endorsed by Dick Cheney which is a definite plus. Joe Heck has been supported by people like John Bolton and Jeb Bush. Fiore has also been endorsed by Brian Sandoval when running for the Assembly. This tells me that Fiore must be very strong on wanting to jettison the Fifth Amendment, which would make her very appealing to a lot of neoconservative voters. These are indicators she would be a reliable yes vote for large increases in military spending, which is just what we need in juxtaposition with large increases in Planned Parenthood funding. Whatever it takes to promote abortion and war is all good.
I believe Joe Heck has some issues which might make him inferior compared to a Democrat alternative. Heck seems like he might be weak on women’s rights by not calling for large increases in Planned Parenthood funding. I haven’t heard Joe Heck say much about wanting to jettison the Second Amendment. These are reasons I believe Fiore was mistaken in her endorsement of Joe Heck’s bid, as I prefer a Democrat over Joe Heck in the Senate.
But I have no reason to doubt that Heck supports torture and isn’t a huge fan of habeas corpus. If Fiore supported Heck and Laxalt, she must be really solid on wanting to jettison the Fifth Amendment. I know Fiore has portrayed herself as very weak on wanting to jettison Second Amendment rights for neoconservatives. The beautiful thing about Fiore’s opposition to the Fifth Amendment is that undermining the Fifth will help undermine the Second. Not only that, if the Democrats take over the Senate, their support for jettisoning the Second Amendment can offset Republican support for the Second Amendment in the House. Conversely, Republican support for jettisoning the Fifth Amendment in the House will offset Democrat support for the Fifth Amendment in the Senate.
I believe Michele Fiore is the most qualified candidate to smuggle the neoconservative agenda past the electorate by amalgamating it with fragments of a liberty platform. There are few candidates who would be as capable at explaining why we need to jettison the Fifth Amendment vis-à-vis support for torture and the demolition of habeas corpus as Michele Fiore. I believe Fiore has an inner Dick Cheney just waiting to explain why the Fifth Amendment undermines our security, and that’s why she’s my pick for House in Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District.