Category Archives: Late Night Ramblings

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.


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

Speaking of the Donald…




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.


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.


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.


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.

Marriage v. Preferred Adult Relationships

I am typically not one to get into it over gay marriage. I don’t believe the state should be involved in marriage at all so whether or not it is legal for two men get hitched matters very little to me.

However, the redefinition of words… Now that pisses me off.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is documentation backing this statement that dates back to more than 2,000 years ago!

Anything besides one man and one woman is an “adult relationship.”

two men = adult relationship

two women = adult relationship

two men one woman = adult relationship

two women one man = adult relationship

two women and Hillary Clinton = one really f*cked up adult relationship

sexual relationships involving four people = adult relationships

Any sort of relationship that is not a union of sexually complimentary spouses is not a marriage.

Check this video out for some more insight into why equality is the most important thing to straight conservatives. I know it’s crazy right? We aren’t all evil! Who’d a thunk it!?

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.

Are politicians evil? Or are you just stupid?

The notion that politicians are evil is a notion I hate.

Politicians only tell you what you want to hear.

I pretty much try to remain as secular as possible on this blog because I know how it feels to be preached at. This topic however clearly demands for a definition of right and wrong.

First off, there is no such thing as right and wrong unless you can accept the existence of a higher power.

If you are willing to do so then okay, maybe there is an argument to be made for the corruption and the lying that goes on in politics. That is an absolutely pointless and ignorant conversation to have though.

The fact is that corruption and deceit exist, and they aren’t going anywhere any time soon.

So the next time you get it rammed up your ass by a politician, take a step back and think, “Why didn’t I see this coming?”


This means how they vote, who they talk to, who donates to them, and what their proposed policies are.


We have to critically analyze not only who are candidates are as people, but also the things they propose we do. Politicians want to be elected, so all of the things they say are going to be things that sound nice. Your job is to decide if the things they say make sense.

And when you fail to do so, you deserve the consequences.

Realize that all the warm and fuzzy lies they tell us, are a direct result of our ignorance and selfishness.

Tell me in the comments if you believe it is more complicated than that.

Problems of Diversion

I would like to say that this is a disease exclusive to those of the left wing mindset, but unfortunately, that isn’t so.

More often than not people fall for “problems of diversion” (as I call them).

Problems of diversion are provided by conservatives and liberals alike. Some with malicious motives, while others with good intentions, spread their ignorance.

This is something I battle in the classroom daily. During my years as an underclassman I had many teachers that maliciously tried to lead students astray from the truth by subliminally implanting things in their heads.

These days, to my relief (though only a slight relief), it seems to be done more often out of ignorance rather than malice.

When a debate strikes up in the classroom that involves the teacher, it pretty much all looks the same to the kids. Often they will make comments to me throughout the day such as “You kicked his ass man, good job!” and “Way to not let him push you around dude! He was totally wrong!”

When they say these things, what they don’t understand is that I don’t always disagree with what the teacher is saying, in fact more and more these days I don’t disagree with what the teacher is saying, but rather how he is saying it.

A perfect example of this came out of my economics class the just the other day.

My econ teacher is a pretty conservative dude (excluding his feelings about the Koch brothers). He is a capitalist and while he would never admit to it, he hates liberalism and the mentality that it creates when fully implemented in our schools (as it has been).

However, sometimes I believe he says things out of “emotionally motivated premature response”

What the hell is that you ask? I’ll give you an example.

Just last week our class somehow go onto the topic of pharmaceuticals (there is a whole lot of discussion in his  class, that’s how you know he is good). During this discussion the outrageous price of drugs got brought up.

Naturally, everybody in the room starts to think this thought, whether they are willing to admit it or not – “Big, evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies don’t care about my family”

This thought is a bad thing for prosperity…

So naturally I saw where this was going quick. Before the kids even knew that’s what they were thinking I had constructed a plan to reverse their mindset.

I asked out loud “Yes, drugs and healthcare in general is in fact outrageously expensive… but why?”

My teacher, (being a man whose mother, at some point in her life, was in fact at the mercy a cancer drug that he claimed cost upwards of 60k per shot) immediately spoke one word


Eerr! wrong answer son!

I told him he was one hundred percent incorrect. He responded “Oh yea RJ because I don’t know anything, right?”

This statement illustrated just how emotionally driven he was at the time that he spoke it. He later agreed with me, but out of pride, and embarrassment at his half thought out response, told me that I was only partially correct.

Basically I went on to explain that the reason that our drugs cost so much lies in government regulation, while greed (though a bad word for the motive) is irrelevant.

I could write a whole post on this itself, and I just might, but for the sake of time, I’ll move on…

As you can see, I don’t disagree with the fact that greed is there. I will even say that morally according to my God it MIGHT be a problem in some industries. However him saying that evil 5 letter word at that particular time was the worst possible thing he could have done for my cause… which just so happens to be his cause too…

I don’t blame him for this, we all make mistakes and struggle with our emotions affecting our actions. He steered kids in the wrong direction, towards death and misery, though ignorant to it at the time. And so I pointed out to him his non intentional “Problem of Diversion” and he at least half admitted that’s what it was.

But there are others out there with a more insidious approach…

Let me start by explaining to those of you who don’t know, what modern day language arts classes are about. Literature class in public school, literally has nothing to do with art. It is there with the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids with a code of ethics defined by progressive, academia loving, liberal, teachers.

So in my English class this week we were assigned a group assignment entitled “People Problems”. This is an assignment that coincides with the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley that we are currently reading.

The assignment was to as a group, come up with a general consensus as to how we define a “Person”

Luckily for me I was put in a group consisting of all boys, who also happened to all be Christians.

We decided all human beings are persons according to God, and human beings can currently be distinguished in biological terms.

The next part of the assignment was to read through a list of court cases provided by the teacher and to determine, based on our definition of a person, how the court case should be settled…

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

As you can see in part “c” we are “encouraged to revise your definition (of a person), Explain your revisions and why your revisions where necessary”

Now, if this doesn’t unsettle you, then you are a strange individual.

Case number one describes a situation in which a father decided to make the oh so difficult decision to pull the plug on his daughter who had been in a coma for three years after being in an automobile accident.

The family had to sell their house and a good deal of their other positions in order to pay the bills to keep their daughter/sister alive.



I don’t know the specifics of this case, but my teacher assured us all that it was in fact a real case and the first of it’s kind.

He maintains the opinion that legislators need to continue to redefine what a person is through “verbiage” in order to avoid problems like this.

This is a matter of right and wrong. There are no two ways around it. My teacher says that the legal definition of murder is “The pre thought-out taking of a persons life” and he assured me that he knew more on this topic because he went to law school. I am sure he is right, but for the record I have not checked on this.

I was called upon to present on this topic in class. I maintain that the question of whether someone is a person or not is completely invalid and does not matter. The state does not get to determine right from wrong (separation of church and state), only what is legal and what is not (based on our vote), therefore if murder is illegal, and pulling the plug is equivalent to murder, based on our definition of murder, then guess whose family is losing everything in order to pay for their daughter/sister.

He said I was sidestepping the issue, and belittled me by saying I just didn’t like to face reality and wanted to “skirt” the issue over and over and over again.

See the problem is we cannot define what a person is. The notion that legislators need to blur the line on what a person is for every unique case that arises is ludicrous and indeed EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

That kind of talk stinks of eugenics…

I maintained the opinion that either his definition of murder was incorrect, the situation could not be related to murder, or if in fact everything he said was true, that the family needed to pay, as we all do, in order to see the error in our ways of legislation.

I later found out from my father who is an LA County FireMAN that I was correct. The court currently does not look at such a situation as murder, due to various reasons.

My teacher lied, and he did it in order push his own agenda.

He either was so emotionally attached to the concept that he was teaching us that he couldn’t admit he was wrong (this happens to many literature teachers because in order to be happy they have to try and justify their own existence to themselves, when in reality they serve no purpose, excluding indoctrination, and are a waste of money in the school system), or he is a progressive who wishes to blur the line when it comes to the value of life (many examples he gave when he talked about defining a person were pathetic attempts to say that we are not really that different from other animals… I mean it was truly an embarrassingly, pathetic attempt when you consider how we humans have conquered not only the entire globe, but have survived also in F****** outer space!!!)

I call these cases “Problems of Diversion” because they are methods of taking your eyes off the root of the problem, and in turn aid those with selfish intentions in getting what they want.

We see this daily in matters such as that of gun control. Piers Morgan would say that Britain has fewer gun crimes every year than the United States and Britain has heavy gun control, so it must be the lack there of in the U.S. that causes so much gun violence.

When in reality  the problem really stems from immigration. In the U.S. we have ghetto gang bangers that take pop shots at folks like my dad on a daily basis. We also have a much larger population in general. We also have a lot of conflicting ideologies struggling to live side by side in one country.

But by presenting you with the argument stated above, he is able to divert the public from the root of the problem.

Problems of  Diversion

don’t fall for it…




Leaders At Heart

     Earlier in the week I saw a news story on Fox that discussed a movement from commie women like Jennifer Garner, to ban the word bossy. (WTF was Condoleeza doing in that video…)

Their argument is that girls are afraid to be called bossy so that is why they are less interested in leadership. By taking this stance they are in fact somewhat stating that society is oppressing women by calling them bossy.

We all know this is pretty much ludicrous, most little girls get called bossy because they are in fact, BOSSY! (I have a little sister, I know this stuff for a fact)

There is an obvious difference between motivated and bossy, and I believe it is usually pretty evident. (That being said, most of my experiences with so called “motivated girls” have been bad ones. I would pretty much say they were in fact all bossy, not because they were motivated, but because of they way they believed they were superior)

But let’s say for a minute that this is in fact true. Let’s say that girls are afraid to be called bossy, and in turn have avoided leadership positions. Why is this a bad thing?

There are a few exceptions to a rule I am about to make, but few they are.

I would say it takes a person who doesn’t care what others think to be a leader. I would say that a leader naturally rises to the top and leads, regardless of the circumstances, hence, us calling them a leader.

…see my point…