Category Archives: Conservatism

A Reluctant, but Conservative Argument for Trump…

I am disappointed.

The debate tonight was horrendous. If it wasn’t for all the fun I was having on Twitter I might even have shut it off.

It seemed very obvious to me who Fox wanted to look good. *cough* Bush *Cough*

But I guess I should have expected that out of them as they are literally the most establishment media source on the right.

What bugged me even more was how much I really enjoyed what Rubio had to say.

Someone has got to get that fool squared away on immigration so I can vote for him because I am sorry but that is a deal breaker.

And Ted… What the fuck Ted… What was that?

Not only did you whine like a bitch… But you acted like an arrogant fool.

YOU AREN’T DONALD TRUMP!

Thats why we all like you. You do not wear arrogance well. That was evident tonight…

Speaking of the Donald…

CZ20yDVWcAAA2eY

 

CAN YOU SAY NAILED IT!?

Well played DT… Well played indeed…

 

Here’s the deal folks:

 

I am about to lay some truth on you so listen up. It is a harsh truth. One I like no more than the rest of you.

TRUMP IS THE BEST CANDIDATE IF HE DOES WHAT HE TELLS US HE PLANS TO!

And that’s the gamble right?

He has a shady record for sure. He’s not a conservative by any means. But he is brilliant and he is a business man.

I don’t want any deals struck with Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer. I don’t want deals made with anyone.

What I want is someone like Cruzer who will get up and fight for my principles. But even now… A day and age I thought I’d never see if you had asked me in 2012… Where Ted Cruz is an actual front runner… WE MAY NOT HAVE THAT LUXURY.

 

Our country will not make it through the next presidential term no matter who the president is if we do not get our economy under control and our borders LOCKED THE FUCK UP!

Marco Rubio is soft on immigration = NOT AN OPTION

Ted Cruz not positive can beat Hillary = NOT AN OPTION

Which leaves us with who?

Donald Trump might be the worst president in the history of the United States when it comes to actual conservative principles. But he might be the handful of sand we need to win this boxing match.

I listened to Mark Levin speak all afternoon about how Trump is not a conservative and how low is favorability ratings are and blah blah blah blah blah

“Don’t give up on our guys now!” he says! “Never abandon your principles!” he says!

Yeah Mark… You are right. If nothing else our principles should be the one thing we hold dearest to our hearts and minds.

I should be willing to die for my principles. And I am…

But brother I ain’t in the business of dying.

Especially not when I think we might actually have a shot at turning this thing around. Even if that means voting for someone who is not as principled as we are in order to beat Hillary.

Ted Cruz – Not sure if he can win the primary let alone beat Hillary : NO GO

Donald Trump – Don’t know if I trust him but at least he can win : ….hmmm

A vote for Donald Trump may not be a vote for a principled America.

And it certainly isn’t a vote for a perfect America.

But it is a vote for a surviving America.

Every now and again you have got to throw a hand full of sand to win the fight even though it goes against your principles. Every now and then you have to go against your principles in order to save them.

Donald Trump may ruin this country.

But his tax plan and immigration policies alone will turn the economy around in the blink of an eye.

Can we trust him to follow through? I don’t know.

But in a country where to this day the majority of people in America DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO TED CRUZ IS!!!

…I’ll take my chances with the big name.

Advertisements

By Christians, For Christians… That’s right, I said it!

As a part of the libertarian community all to often I am subject to the whining that so many young/naive libertarians do about the separation of church and state.

The reason for the whining is obvious, and that is that most young people immaturely and naively hate being told what to do. This, in many cases, is what draws them towards libertarianism in the first place- Our belief that man should be free to do as he pleases to some extent.

In contrast with their naive attraction to libertarianism (which is fundamentally a good thing) is their attraction towards secularism (which is fundamentally a bad thing.)

Though I just jabbed a bit at the secular libertarians/conservatives for being secular (and I will continue to do so) this is not the topic I wish to discuss today.

All I wish to do is suggest that the passion that is exhibited by said heathens during discussion with their own side, in regards to the separation of church and states, is a bit unnecessary.

So hear me out.

Point number one:

Let’s speak strictly philosophically here for a moment shall we?

If we are to accept as a nation the nonexistence of God, we are also accepting the lack of any existence after death including that in which punishment takes place.

Now many of you secular libertarians maintain that if someone needs a higher power to scare you into doing “the right thing” then that someone is a piece of shit.

By that logic I am, and I wager most of you are (if you are intellectually honest with yourselves), pieces of shit.

I am someone that needs fear of punishment as motivation to be good. I happen to believe that this is a logical way of life. I believe you would be a moron to be “good” in the subjective moral world that exists without monotheism. But what does that matter?

The mere fact that I admit people like me exist, that is people who believe themselves to be evil in nature, should be enough to make you “morally superior, mature, intelligent, enlightened atheist libertarians” back off the separation of church and state issue.

The risk of societal collapse is far greater when its people fall to secularism. At the very least one must acknowledge the degree of barbarism in times of chaos is less intense in a monotheistic society when compared to that of a secular one. Don’t believe me? Just compare the French revolution to the American revolution.

Aren’t all of you libertarians fearful of economic collapse in the U.S?

Do you not look around at your peers who are “feeling the Bern” and wonder what is to come?

Why then do you choose to hammer on religious Christian conservatives so much?

I am a constitutionalist. I get it. I don’t want the church running the country either.

I get that you want your porn, your marijuana and your whore houses.

I understand that there are some small things that you and Christian conservatives disagree on,

but that’s exactly my point! They are small things, and in the meantime you tear our political party in two.

I know you folks are smart enough to realize that the “Social Justice Warrior” left is far more likely to regulate your lives than the Christian right.

Point number two:

Now here is a mind blowing thought. Are you ready?

This country was founded by Christians, for Christians.

Lol!

I can practically feel the collective rage of all you secular libertarians out there as I type!

If you are someone who read that last statement and is thinking:

“WE HAVE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! HOW DARE YOU SAY SUCH A THING! DO YOU NOT VALUE THE CONSTITUTION!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!”

Don’t, and riddle me this…

If all of our founding fathers were secular and did not want a country centered around God, why does our federal law reflect that of a Judeo-Christian people?

Have you ever stopped and considered for a moment that for all intents and purposes you are a Christian? Practically speaking, if you don’t murder, you don’t steal, you don’t leave your wife high and dry with kids to feed and no income then you are living as a Christian. At the fundamental level at least.

If you follow our laws, you generally speaking, are treating your neighbor as you would wish to be treated, and that is the golden rule in the eyes of Christ.

Those of us who don’t live as Christians in the United States  of America are jailed.

Whether you are an Atheist,  a Nihilist, a Satanist, a Muslim, or a Buddhist does not matter. In this land you are required to act in a way that does not conflict with the teachings (at a fundamental level) of a Jew or a Christian. This, also means that you are in fact living (on a fundamental level) as a Christian.

As I said before… By Christians, for Christians.

Did the founders want a secular government? Sure they did!

And so maybe Christians ought to lay off the nativity scenes on the lawns of federal buildings. But it should be clear enough to you libertarians out there that are secular that nativity scenes on the lawns of local governmental buildings should be a local decision. Why?

Because even if the founders wanted a secular government, they most certainly wanted a God centered society.

So stop acting like a bunch of fucking ten year olds when someone says “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance. At least they still say the fucking thing! I’d be surprised if most high school students knew it by heart!

And if you still don’t believe the founders were Christian, you should try reading some primary source documents penned at their hands instead of listening to your commie professor who is to arrogant to take Howard Zinn’s dick out of his mouth for a single second in order to teach some actual history.

At the very least check out Joshua Charles’ book Libery’s Secrets: The Lost Wisdom of America’s Founders

“Guns Aren’t Necessary Anymore” – A One Sided Conversation With a Friends Mother

A friend recently told me a story about a conversation she had with her mother about gun control.

My friend is an intelligent young lady who fancies herself a libertarian and, as such, supports the second amendment irregardless of the gun control debate.

She understands there are certain inevitable consequences associated with eliminating such a freedom.

That said however, the conversation with her mother didn’t go so hot.

It ended with her mother saying something along the lines of, “The second amendment was written a long time ago. Times have changed. Guns just aren’t necessary in the hands of the public anymore.”

I know I laughed out loud too!

We will see if she feels the same way when she finds out the harsh truth about the police.

What’s that harsh truth you ask? POLICE DON’T STOP VIOLENT CRIMES FROM HAPPENING. They show up afterwords to write reports and identify bodies.

I imagine her opinion on such a matter would change real quick if a rapist broke into her house tonight and she found out that the police are 2 minutes out, all the while the rapist is upstairs with her  sorority-aged daughter.

All that aside, it is possible to prove her viewpoint one of ignorance without the spontaneous appearance of a rapist in my friend’s bedroom… Thank God…

We all know the stats. There is not a single study out there that truly supports gun control in America. Yes there may be one or two that show positive findings as a result of gun control, but dig a little deeper and you will find that they are conducted in a very Paul Krugman like manner.

However, my friend’s mother mentioned nothing of the end goal or statistics. She only mentioned that she believes the second amendment is no longer necessary.

So… Here is how I would approach such a statement… 😈

First off I would like to know what she (my friend’s mother) believes the second amendment is for. The Constitution I think is very clear about its purpose being to provide the citizens of the good old U.S.A. a means of overthrowing a tyrannical government.

I doubt my friend’s opinionated mother has ever read the Constitution, however if she acknowledges this to be the case then I say to her…

Now if that is not her understanding of the second amendment as I expect, then what is it?

Does she believe it to have been written so that hunting might be possible? In that case, I say to her…

Why do you believe recreational hunting is not necessary? Is it because you don’t partake in the sport? Is it because people die in hunting accidents? What about recreational drinking? People die doing that all the time. And it’s funny now that you mention it, if guns are off the table then alcohol should be too. NO MORE WINE FOR YOU MAMACITA!

Or…

Does she believe the second amendment was written to provide citizens with the means to protect themselves personally from general harm? If that is her understanding of the second amendment then I say to her…

What in the hell is your definition of necessary? Why is personal protection no longer necessary? Because we have the police!?

If she answered yes I would refer her to my earlier statements about rapists and reports.

So far we are still just wasting our time with this conversation.

The reason being is that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. AND NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If they were people wouldn’t have a problem with the phrase constitutional republic, though that’s a discussion for another time.

In a constitutional republic mob rule does not dictate the outcome of every situation. A constitutional republic has a constitution (even more specifically a bill of rights) to lay down some ground rules. These ground rules touch on everything from gun control and slave labor, to women’s suffrage and freedom of speech.

The very purpose of our bill of rights (the first 10 amendments in case you didn’t know, Mrs. Friend’s Mom) is to protect inalienable human rights from those who disagree with them.

That said, if it’s a democracy you wish to live in rather than a constitutional republic that is fine…

Just know that if you come after my guns I am coming after your suffrage and right to open to your ignorant mouth.

Thoughts: The conversation we should be having…

For a long time I have been a fan of Glenn Beck.

I grew up watching him on the TV long before The Blaze.

Even when The Blaze began, I remember the early days when he discussed policy and politics. He still does this today but the primary meat of his show has changed.

When he made the change I wasn’t ready to accept it.

I called him a fool and I diverted my eyes for a while out of anger. Anger because I felt abondoned by someone who shared my frustration with the freedom snatching left.

I have begun to watch him again purely out of depression. With all of the darkness in our world, his network offers a slightly more positive viewing experience. Something I need if I am to be happy as I am morally obligated.

However I still hadn’t accepted his message. The notion that we need to be having a conversation about culture and faith rather than one about politics and policy.

That is until Monday.

As I watched the riots take place on the streets of Baltimore I thought to myself “when did America become a third world country.” I chuckled a bit at the fact that the riots were a perfect illustration of why leftist policies fail.

But then I thought a little bit harder.

I realized that the riots were not a result of the policies, but that the policies were a result of the riots.

In other words, the behavior seen in the streets of Baltimore last night is behavior that I personally do not believe would be seen anywhere that true Americans are present.

What I am about to tell you is a bit simplistic, and I realize that. Many of these issues are far more complicated than just culture v.s. policy. However for the sake of our efforts, as conservatives with an outreach mentality, maybe it would be beneficial to take a look at the simplistic concept.

I had a conversation earlier today with a fellow conservative. He’s a good friend of mine, and had responded to my last post via email.

We began to debate a little. This is something that we do often. However, usually one of us is playing devils advocate. Rarely ever do we actually disagree.

He believes that it is leftist policy that is solely responsible for the behavior of those in Baltimore. I believe it’s something deeper (and no it’s not skin color so don’t go calling Uncle Al just yet.)

Halfway through our debate I realized that the entire reason we disagreed lie in the fact that we had a miss communication due to the verbiage that I used in my post.

The verbiage you ask?

The word Americanism.

You see I believe that Americanism can be summed up by one simple compound word.

“Judeo-Christian”

The behavior seen in Baltimore lacks any Judeo-Christian backing. It’s as if those people do not have any values beyond hedonistic natural instinct.

Interestingly enough, leftist policy lacks a Judeo-Christian value backing as well.

And though us Judeo-Christians like to give the masses the benefit of the doubt so often in saying that “they just don’t get it!” I believe they do.

It does not take a rocket scientist or any deep level of thinking to see that leftist policies are not only ineffective, they are immoral.

I contend that the liberal masses know this, and do not care.

During our debate, my friend posed to me a question. First, he laid out a scenario that he believes to be a somewhat accurate representation of what life is like in Baltimore. He asked me if I honestly believed that I wouldn’t act violently towards the Gov. if put in a situation like this.

Now I have not given you all of the details that my friend provided me within his premise. I have given you one though, and if you have keen enough eyes you will see it.

I believe this to be a false analogy. And that one detail I provided is exactly the reason why.

He then described some of the circumstances that lead the people in that area to the mindset that they posses.

Things like horrifyingly bureaucratic public schools.

And fatherhood being crushed by government dependent.

I do not deny that any of these things exist. And I do believe that there is a case to be made in regards to these things perpetuating the sickness that is present in places like Baltimore.

However they did not cause the sickness.

In other words bad schools do not create bad/indoctrinated children.

Bad parents do.

Government dependency does not produce fatherless children.

Premarital sex and poor spouse selections do.

No-fault divorces do not produce evil women that screw their men over.

Evil women create things like no-fault divorces.

So while a case can be made in regards to the perpetuation of certain behaviors by government dependency and leftist policy, I wonder if this is the correct conversation to be having.

I find myself thinking that it is not.

Maybe GB is right. Maybe we don’t win this through elections or policy.

Maybe the the only way to win this is through evangelism (or things of that nature.)

I wrote last night about MLK’s intentions being made clear through his actions. I think that we can all agree, the action of those in Baltimore last night were made loud and clear.

Morality, and therefore Americanism were nowhere to be found.

Thoughts: Eww! Gross! He’s a… Republican…

I did not watch the Bruce Jenner interview… At first.

Not only does it creep me the hell out, but I figured anything important that was said in the interview would be talked about in the coming weeks.

I was right…

While reading the news this morning, I happened upon an article on The Blaze talking about the backlash that Jenner has faced now that he has come out as a Republican who believes in the Constitution.

Here is why this is important.

This man comes out and says “For all intents and purposes I am a woman” but “I’m not gay” and “I refer to myself as ‘we.'”

And what are people up in arms about? The fact that he’s a republican.

Young America finds that more disgusting, more confusing, and more embarrassing than anything else this disturbed man said…

What the hell are you parents out their doing?

When the weirdest thing about this man is the fact that he’s a republican… Conservatives are doing it wrong.

That is all.

To the American Right Wingers who hate the Ganja

There are many things to consider when discussing the legalization of marijuana. Things such as use behind the wheel and our new semi-socialized healthcare system.

But none of these things matter.

Pot does not matter.

There are far too many other important things to be discussing at the moment, such as the crisis in the middle east, the healthcare gov. monopoly, or even illegal immigration.

And yet all too often I find that the conservative mainstream media makes it a topic of discussion.

I find myself screaming at that pompous ass Bill O’reilly at least once a week because he does a segment on pot.

I understand that he is one of the most watched cable news figures, I also understand that the majority of his audience are those of 50 years or more.

However, just because young people aren’t tuning in to your show, doesn’t mean they don’t hear what you are saying. (Media Matters has Twit Game)

And the minute you crusade against pot, you effectively tear the right wing of America in half. Because while many, definitely not most but many, would agree with you Bill some don’t. And those who don’t we can’t afford to have turned against us.

I am not saying those who are fiscal conservatives and like to rip bongs are going to start subscribing to commie bull because you said you don’t like weed.

No, not at all…

What I am saying is there are stoner, libertarian, fiscally conservatives folks who have never given politics a thought at all until now, and we need their vote.

Pot has been around for a really long time, and legal or illegal, it’s here to stay. So please for the love of God, pull your head out of your old saggy ass and avoid the topic. Please.

In a perfect world, a Reagan America, we could afford to have these discussions, but not today.

If you think that bipartisanship is a good thing… You are a silly goose!

There was a time in this country when the constitution meant something.

A time when people valued the republic. 

A time when people had convictions.

A time when men and women worked hard and fought everyday for a better life for their offspring.

A time when men and women only gave up their freedom by way of a lead slug through flesh.

It was a time when debate took place in the political game.

This was a long long time ago, in a galaxy one could only assume was far away.

Unfortunately it wasn’t so far away. Only unfortunate in the sense that as a fact, that statement is an admission of our loss.

That time has not faded away. That value did not just disappear.

It was engineered out of the system entirely by progressives. (Satan’s army)

We live in a day and age where political debate does not exist. Instead, we have political war.

There is no longer any common ground to stand on in this country, and so by default civilized debate cannot take place.

We are a country of two, completely different, conflicting ideologies. Those who do, and those who want to thieve from those who do. We have those who want to be left alone, and those who want to control. We have ignorance and indoctrination.

No longer do we vote on social issues as was intended. No longer does the area immediately around you reflect your views as was intended. No longer does the federal government occupy three very specific duties and only those three specific duties as was intended.

We live in a democracy… A place where anything goes…

The Constitutional Republic we once lived in is gone…

And so when someone mentions bipartisanship to me, I redden with anger.

Bipartisanship is not a good thing, why on earth would I ever want someone representing me to compromise on any of the values I based my vote upon? Why on earth would I want him/her to reach across the isle?

I want the politician that throws the middle finger up all day everyday across that isle, and fights tooth and nail against every single thing that comes across his desk that is not constitutionally legal. I want the politician that stands up, sticks his finger in the chest of each progressive in the room, and makes them aware of their lack of soul.

I want a politician that make life on Capital Hill a living frigging hell every day of the week, so that I don’t have to myself.

Bipartisanship can kiss my CONSTITUTIONAL ASS!