Beginning his Walk

141 Views

We have in Donald Trump a conservative convert from progressive liberalism. A small spark of light coming out of the darkness.

But instead of reacting with joy that a former progressive has opened his eyes. The majority of conservative leaders seek to extinguish this new light. When the movements most influential should be mentoring Donald Trump they instead ridicule him.

As he crawls his way of the darkness of his past. Instead of helping him up, they push him back down in the muck.

These conservative leaders attack everything Donald Trump does or says. They tell him and others that he is not really a conservative and never will be accepted.

Only those that are bold enough to challenge the leadership step forward to welcome Donald Trump to conservatism. These brave souls share their light with his. To help him grow in his understanding. As it should be when someone joins your cause.

And then the leaders of the movement scoff at those who come to help Donald on his walk. Stating that they are no longer conservatives and have lost all authority to speak for the movement. Yet they still help.

Why do these conservative leaders not lead? Why do these conservative leaders not want to bring someone out of liberalism?

It’s very simple. They fear the power and money of Donald Trump. They fear loosing their status of being a conservative leader when a brighter light begins to shine. They fear he will tip the balance and rock the boat.

They fear he could actually win and they would be out of power and out of their job of “holding down the principles” yet accomplishing nothing. They would have to act or be exposed as the frauds that they are just as Boehner was exposed. They are only interested in their own power. And Donald Trump is a threat to that power.

Abortion Penalties

156 Views

Donald Trump’s statement the other day wasn’t well thought out. It was just the beginning of an idea that he shared. And the reaction was typical of all parties. They all hate Trump and seek to destroy him even if they agree with him.

I have been around others in the pro-life movement who believe the very words that Donald Trump spoke. That if abortion was illegal and a woman received an illegal abortion, thus breaking the law, that she should be punished in some way.

The same goes for anyone violating any other law. Otherwise why do we even have laws if there is no punishment for breaking them?

But those in the pro-life movement wont speak up outside of their small intimate circles and defend Donald Trump. Because it isn’t Politically Correct to say such things. And since most are politicians or in the public eye. It’s bad press until they win the fight against abortion.

Are they and Donald Trump right? Should women who get an illegal abortion be punished?

That is a question that will need to be answered in the due course of time. And we can thank Donald Trump for bringing it out of the shadows and into the light of day.

Where Do We Go From Here?

201 Views

To say the 2016 election has been contentious wouldn’t be an understatement; it would be the Mother of All Understatements. Republicans going against Republicans, Democrats going after Democrats, Independents going out for pizza. This whole political season is insane!

But once both major parties decide on their candidates, everyone will be holding hands and singing campfire songs, right? Oooooooh, sor-ray. That’s going to be easier said than done for both the Elephant and the Donkey because they’ve decided the primary process is more of a bloodsport than a debate of ideas. And this is just the prelims, kids. Once Democrats and Republicans choose their respective candidates, it’s going to make the Hatfields and McCoys look like the Bradys and the Cleavers.

As someone on the outside looking in, I don’t see how the two major parties can reconcile completely. Both are struggling with a simple binary issue: winning vs. staying true to their core ideologies. The leadership (if you can call it that) from both sides is trying to make people believe it’s either-or when it’s not. You can win and stay true to the party’s core, but you need to have a candidate that is willing to do both instead of siding for one at the expense of the other.

We’ve been told it’s better to have someone who agrees with us 75% of the time win than to have someone who agrees with us 0% of the time win. In theory, it’s not a bad argument. In practice, however, sometimes the 75% with us candidates prove to be with us far less frequently. Remember when Republicans jumped for joy at John Boehner becoming Speaker of the House, wresting the gavel from Nancy “Botox Is Bad, Mkay?” Pelosi? Yeah, how’d that turn out again…oh yeah, Boehner rolled over like a submissive dog in a centrifuge. In fact, even the most seemingly conservative politicians occasionally get a case of Washingtonitis, a malady that makes principled people turn into jellyfish, but with less backbone.

Fortunately for the Republicans, Democrats have their own Washingtonitis epidemic to worry about. The very fact Bernie Sanders can garner more than 3 votes total shows me the Left is fragmenting even worse than projected. Say what you will about Sanders, but one thing you cannot say about him is he’s afraid to speak his mind. (Granted, his mind is filled with ideas that have gone the way of David Duke’s potential rap career, but at least he’s sticking up for them!) Yet, thanks to the power of the Super Delegates, Hillary Clinton is beating Sanders in the delegate count. Put simply, a Super Delegate is someone the Democrats pick to have additional voting power over the average person. And when you consider an absolute slug like Alan Grayson is a Super Delegate, you know it’s a stupid system.

At this rate, we may be seeing the end of the two-party stranglehold on the Presidency and moving towards a political system that is more confusing and segmented than the gender pronouns on Tumblr. If that happens, you will find me on a beach somewhere reenacting the final scenes from the original “Planet of the Apes” when Charlton Heston finds out he landed back on Earth.

And while we’re here, if there are any damn dirty apes reading this, keep your stinking paws off of me!

GOP Motivations

136 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

163 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

194 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?

235 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

218 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

140 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

171 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.