GOP Motivations

57 Views

Donald Trump does have an ego. But he is not driven to the presidency by power. Donald Trump, as a private citizen, has far more power and avenues of additional power by remaining out of the White House than he will get being in it.

His motivation come from the same as many in the Tea Party movement. He wants to have America back on top again. So his children and grandchildren can have a better life and are able to pass on that legacy to their own children.

Donald Trump never wanted to be involved in politics like he is now. But he had to do something and becoming President is the only hope he can see for future generations of Americans.

The Tea Party movement is about ordinary citizens taking back their government. And Donald Trump has seen the light after playing both sides and trying to stay in the middle for so long. It wasn’t working any more. Too many politicians.

Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are cut from the same cloth. They want to be President because it is “their turn.” Ted Cruz was born, raised, and groomed to be President. Like a prized racehorse. Rafael Cruz, Ted’s father saw to it that his son would one day run and become President of the United States. They are motivated, not by concern of others, but by power.

Ted Cruz has spent the majority of his career in public service. Honing the skills of a master debater. A skill that is necessary to confront the Clinton machine in conventional politics.

Ted Cruz has a proven track record of being deceitful. Yet his supporters will deny any such statements as false. And they claim that supporters of Donald Trump are cultists.

So the true difference between the top GOP candidates is character. Ted Cruz is hungry for power and follows his fathers advice. To win the presidency at all costs. While Donald Trump is concerned for the future of America and for future generations of Americans. He doesn’t need the stress and powers that come from being the President.

You must decide which is right for our Republic, our future, and our children’s future.

3rd Party Runs

75 Views

This is going to be the year of 3rd Party runs. Something no one predicted going into this race for the White House.

One the progressive side we have Hillary Clinton as the front-runner and possible nominee of the Democratic Party. There is enough grassroots support for Bernie Sanders to be a write-in or 3rd Party candidate if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Likewise on the conservative side we have Donald Trump as the front-runner and possible nominee of the Republican Party. There are deep rifts in the GOP and the candidates are all backing out of their pledge to support the nominee.

There is talk among the Ted Cruz supporters for a 3rd Party run or possible write-in campaign. Even John Kasich isn’t ruling out such a move.

This could turn out to be a very interesting race once the nominees are chosen. Maybe even the US House could end up electing the US President in 2016.

New Generation of Gamers

83 Views

During the Easter holiday I had the opportunity to introduce the concept of Role-playing games to my 11 year old niece.

Sad to say that she didn’t quite get it. She did take a little bit of interest but then decided she would rather play games on her phone instead.

I’ll try again around Christmas time. To see if I can get her going into this great hobby of gaming.

I’ll continue to use the D6/WEG version of the Star Wars RPG since she, like me, is a Star Wars fan.

Who Watches the iWatch-men?

91 Views

It was a battle of two heavyweights. In the blue corner, the United States government. In the, well, equally blue corner, Apple. And the tech world couldn’t microwave popcorn fast enough to keep up with the exciting twists and turns.

For those of you who haven’t heard, the FBI wanted Apple to break into an iPhone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, stating they wanted the information from the phone in case there was news about impending terrorist attacks. Geez, everyone knows that sort of thing gets sent into the Cloud these days…

Anyway, Apple refused, citing their belief the government would use whatever they created to hack into one iPhone as a “skeleton key” for other iPhones. As a result, the government sued Apple. Then, miracle of miracles, the government figured out a way to get into the iPhone (i.e. they got a 4 year old to do it) and suddenly dropped the suit against Apple. So, win-win, right?

Not so much. On the one hand, Apple still has the proprietary technology used in iPhones, but now they know the government has figured out a way to circumvent that technology. And, surprise surprise, the government isn’t going to let Apple have information on the security flaws with the iPhone.

On the other hand, the federal government attempted to force a major company to help them with a terrorism investigation. At first, it was a request, but once the government lawyered up, it turned into an attempt at forced compliance. But as long as it was for national security, it makes it okay, right?

Wellllll…that’s where the problem lies for me. After 9/11, government found a new excuse to take more tax dollars to fund pet projects by slapping a “national security issue” sticker on proposed spending. Want your local First Responders to have a Sherman Tank for weekends? It’s national security! Want to bail out the airline industry, which was already failing before 9/11? It’s national security! Heck, I’m surprised the National Endowment for the Arts didn’t try to get more funding for itself by claiming bad art is linked to national security.

Regardless, the Apple standoff showed us there is a fine line between freedom and security. I’m not a big fan of getting attacked by terrorists, but I’m also not a big fan of government using the threat of a terrorist attack to justify further overreach into our freedoms. Especially when it’s clear the government may not have needed Apple’s cooperation in the first place. So, why did the government go through the motions of this Kabuki theater?

Control.

Once you give the government a little bit of control, they aren’t too keen on giving it back. That’s why it’s important to use some critical thinking when a situation like what happened to Apple arises. What happens from here is dependent upon the morals and ethics of the government.

In other words, we’re screwed.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

93 Views

Greetings one and all, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week!

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you go big or you go home. Or you go big and go home. Or maybe you go to Big’s home…oh, you get the idea! This week’s dip into the Leftist Lexicon is one of the Big Kahunas of the Leftist world.

The f-word. (No, not that f-word, you naughty little monkeys!) This f-word:

Feminism

What the Left says it means: economic, social, and political equality between men and women (Essentially, a definition so vanilla it is poisonous to humans in its pure form.)

What it really means: a movement that believes men suck, but should still have to pay for everything

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, current feminist dogma believes all men (including the men who support current feminist dogma) are scum. In fact, SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) happens to be a real group that some feminists agree with! Wow. We’ve gone from burning bras to burning men over an open spit within a few decades.

But surely not all feminists are that extreme, right? Nah. The ones who want to cut up men are few and far between. Of course, there are feminists who want to kill, enslave, or put men in camps away from women. Whew! And I was afraid we wouldn’t find any reasonable feminists!

Granted, these are extreme examples. Most current feminists, especially those who believe in what is called “Third Wave Feminism”, don’t go as far as SCUM does. They do, however, find men to be as useful as Cliff’s Notes for a drug test. Oh, sure, they’ll use men to get ahead, but they don’t actually consider them to be equals or anything! That would be sexist because it would give in to the patriarchy!

Let that sink in for a moment. Considering men to be equals is sexist because it gives men power, which according to current feminist dogma they already have all of to start with. That’s like…oh, I don’t know…saying Black Lives Matter isn’t racist, but saying All Lives Matter is. Good thing we don’t have anybody who believes that, right?

(Don’t worry. I plan to tackle patriarchy in a future edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.)

A facet of modern feminism is a desire to control everything so the truth doesn’t get out about just how screwed up feminism has become. Not to mention, if they control everything, they get to dictate how others should live their lives. Of course, they would need to get a handle on what they actually believe outside of “We want to control everything.”

Two great examples of just how screwed up current feminist dogma is can be found in two seemingly unrelated subjects: Slut Walks and video games. The former is a movement supported by feminists to take back “slut” and make it empowering instead of insulting. The latter has many of the same feminists who support Slut Walks howling in disgust at how women are portrayed in video games. Often this disgust is boiled down to video game women being scantily-dressed or without any real defining characteristics to make them seem real.

In other words, feminists love sluts marching in public, but not scrolling across television screens in video games (which, by the way, I’m sure they don’t really play that much). And nobody within the feminist movement today sees the contradiction. But that’s what feminism has become: one mass of man-disdaining contradictions.

Kinda reminds me of a couple of old girlfriends I had…

PACs Debunked

60 Views

Don’t be fooled by those in the media who state that their favored candidate doesn’t know or doesn’t have any control over what a supporting PAC does or says. This is a lie.

“Officially” they aren’t connected but in the reality of politics they most certainly are connected. And the candidate who is being supported by a PAC is kept in the loop and can and does make suggestions. They don’t have total control but they do have some control of the PAC.

Having been involved in the political workings for years. I have seen this first hand in action. Sometimes the PAC will go against the advice of the candidate and create an advert that harms rather than helps. Other times it’s just the opposite.

So those thinking that Ted Cruz knew nothing of the advert by it’s SuperPAC against Donald Trump’s wife. Think again. He knew full well what was going on. Or one of his senior staff members knew it.

The true question is did he or anyone in his staff object to that advert. That is the question one should ask of a Christian.

Time to Coalesce

83 Views

The evangelical insiders are calling for a third party alternative to run against the 2 potential nominees of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. According to reports it’s an 80% majority who would support such a move.

This is wrong. At the very beginning of this political campaign season the evangelicals were calling for a coalescing of GOP supporters to their favored candidate before a single vote was cast.

Now a good majority of the primary/caucus votes have been cast. Now is the time to coalesce. But not around the candidate who is constantly coming in 3rd or 4th place in these votes. It is time to coalesce around Donald Trump.

Love him or hate him. He is the only chance the GOP has of defeating Hillary Clinton in November.

If an evangelical third party were to get on the ballot who would be it’s nominee? It can’t be Ted Cruz. He made a promise to support the GOP nominee even if it was Donald Trump. He would be a liar if he were to be a 3rd party candidate.

No third party candidate has ever won the White House. In our system it is a wasted vote. And usually one that favors the liberal progressive Democrat who is running for President.

All a third party candidate has ever done is to take votes away from the primary parties. And in this case it would be taking votes away from Donald Trump. And allowing Hillary Clinton to win the White House.

And staying home and not voting has the same result of voting third party. Four years of Hillary Clinton. Four years of more failed progressive socialist doctrine. Four years of more pushing the country further left. Four years of more assaults on liberty and Christian beliefs.

It has been rumored that if Hillary Clinton is elected President. She will nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. Do you REALLY want that to happen?

So now is the time to coalesce unless your goal is to see Hillary Clinton elected as President of the United States. And if that happens it will be even harder four or eight years down the road to elect a conservative to any office again.

A New Feature!

98 Views

For those of you who enjoy my musings (and even for those of you who think I’m the worst hack since Lizzie Borden), I am happy to announce a new (hopefully) weekly feature.

Have you been confused by some of the new words coming from the Left? Do you wish there was a way to learn about these new words without having to delve into the world of microaggressions, white privilege, and gender fluidity? Well, now you can, thanks to your humble correspondent. Starting soon, you will see the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week. Not only will you get the definition of the word, but you will also get what it really means as well as a brief commentary about the word.

Be watching this site, and as always, keep your feet on the ground and your head on top of your neck!

Mr. Obama Goes to Cuba

66 Views

As I write this, President Obama is in Cuba as a part of his Administration’s attempts to normalize relations with the island country. And with this Administration’s track record in dealing with foreign countries with a history of hating America, what could go wrong?

Well, plenty, actually.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Our relationship with Cuba is Ike and Tina Turner level bad, and no amount of good will on our part will change that. Why? Because Cuba hasn’t changed yet. It’s still being ruled by a Castro, Raul to be precise. And Raul is just as reluctant to give up communism as his brother Fidel was. That means there is a natural tension between the US and Cuba. After all, we took down communism in the form of the USSR in the 80s, and some things don’t just fade away. There are still plenty of leaders willing to try to fill in the gaps left by the absence of the Soviet Union, including the current dictator…I’m sorry, leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin. You know, the guy who still thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea and refuses to be swayed by pesky things like facts and history?

And that’s not counting China, North Korea, and much of the Middle East, all of whom have not just a beef with us, but an entire cattle ranch.

On the other side of the equation, we have America, a country that has fallen pretty far down the world rankings in the past couple of decades. Our leader is a man who isn’t geopolitically savvy by any stretch of the imagination making the third worst foreign policy decision in his Presidency. (The first and second being making Hillary Clinton and John Kerry Secretary of State, although they flip-flop positions like…well, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.) The Iran Deal was bad. The Cuba trip has all the makings of Bay of Pigs II: Electric Boogaloo because there really is no logic behind it, just President Obama’s decision to make it so.

To put it another way, our enemies get a foothold 90 miles off our mainland, and we get…photo ops with Obama standing in front of a giant Che Guevara mural. With Photoshop and Twitter, we could have accomplished the same thing under Obama’s “hashtag diplomacy” strategy and without having to add to Obama’s carbon footprint. Then again, maybe he’s getting some cigars out of the deal and didn’t want the hassle of trying to go through Customs with illegal contraband.

Either way, normalizing relations with Cuba just doesn’t sit well with me because we’re not getting much out of the deal. Just like our attempts to normalize relations with China under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton by ignoring their human rights violations and giving them Most Favored Nation status, I see Obama’s efforts with Cuba winding up as a big blunder that is quickly forgotten by both sides.

Social Media

70 Views

There are a ton of social media sites out on the internet now days. We have Pinterest, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Flickr, DeviantArt, Foursquare, Google+, Identi.ca, Instagram, and MySpace, just to name a few. There are many more than these.

Some are designed and targeted to specific interest groups while others are more generalized. Some have apps and file sharing while others are just text based. And everything in between.

I have accounts on several of the sites I listed above. Some are very inactive accounts as I haven’t looked at them or updated anything on them in years. And some social media sites I just visit without being a member and browse the postings without leaving any of my own.

The goal of social media is to have virtual interactions like we would have in real life. One-on-one or in groups settings. Be it games, general chit-chat, or business collaboration. Even blogs like this one are a form of social media as they encourage interaction between users and visitors.

The most common complaints against today’s social media sites are on the topics of privacy/security, censorship, and content ownership. And sometimes they are just a time suck. Facebook is hit quite often with these types of complaints.

But there are alternatives to these social media sites where the issues of privacy/security, censorship, and content ownership are greatly reduced. And these alternatives have been around far longer than the term “social media”. In fact social media has really been around since the infancy of the internet. And many of these ancient alternative social media forms are still in use today. Even by you right now.

E-mail (electronic mail) is the oldest form of social media. One-on-one and group conversations are all possible. Files can be shared, edited, and re-shared again. And it is generally very private. You don’t have to worry about another friend who wasn’t included accidentally seeing your e-mail post.

IRC (internet relay chat) is also an early form of social media. And like e-mail it’s still very much around. Even if you currently participate in some fancy web-based text chatroom it might be IRC driving it behind the scenes. With IRC you have a lot of control on who you let into your chat and who you do not.

Both IRC and e-mail predate webpages. There was no world wide web on the internet when people started with e-mail and they were chatting on IRC. The last early form of social media had it’s birth after the web came into being. It was the start of the internet as we know it today. These are online forums. With forums groups could interact with one another and individuals could also have private conversations as well. Pictures, documents, and other files could also be shared and downloaded just as they are today. And forum administrators could setup private boards that only it’s users could see.

So social media has been around for a long time. From the very birth of the internet. It’s outward forms have changed over the years but many of the oldest are still around. I am a member of a couple of online forums that date back more than 10 years. And they are still going on today. If you don’t care for the current incarnations of social media try the grandparents that started it all.