palin-trump

Dear Sarah Palin, Stop Vilifying Our Veterans Like the Left…

I wrote a post back in April of 2014, after the attack on Fort Hood took place. I was incredibly angry over the response from those on the left side of the aisle, constantly blaming PTSD for the actions of Ivan Lopez. Below is an excerpt of that blog post:

“I’ve always hated the labels that redirect the responsibility of misdeeds from individual accountability to life circumstance. Sure we all go through struggles, but why does society categorize those who struggle as individuals who somehow deserve a permission slip? 

She had a child out of wedlock at 16 – Yeah, but she has Daddy issues….

He’s a drug addict – Yeah, but he didn’t have many friends…

She sleeps around – Yeah, but she’s a child of divorce…

He’s a rapist – Yeah, but he was sexually abused…

Continue reading

Rainbows

The Rainbow – Redefined

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for any of the 50 states not to recognize same-sex marriage, this act invalidated same-sex marriage bans. Describing the intricacies in this case is like making a delicate soufflé; if you hit the oven while dancing for joy in your rainbow pants, or get so caught up in your bible study that you leave it in the oven too long, it’s probably going to go flat. I’m planning on writing a few blog posts concerning this subject and its vast details, but for the sake of sanity I’m going to keep this one much shorter than it was when first written.

Before we get to the meat and potatoes, I’d like to offer a pallet cleanser. Eight of my dear friends on Facebook posted similar responses, examples below:

“If you aren’t crying rainbow tears of joy today, you should probably just go ahead and unfriend me.”

“If you didn’t smile every time you saw a rainbow today, you should unfriend me.”

“If your heart is not bursting with rainbows, you should unfriend me.”

First thought: Are you a Care Bear?

Second thought: Since when did I agree to do the work for you? I’m not going to unfriend you. Listen, I have unfriended six people in the last three years, four of them were doing the Argentine Tango with stalking, and the remaining were personal. I get up Monday – Friday and go to work, I drink coffee, I have a glass of wine at night. Respectfully, I have enough age under my belt that your opinions do not have the power to make me so unnerved that I deem it necessary to remove you from a social media page before marching off the playground with my hands on my hips. You’re not capable of driving me to psychotropic medications, nor is your opinion making me lose sleep. Alas, I’m not going to unfriend you. I can enjoy being your friend without agreeing with your every opinion. So why should I be the one to unfriend you? If you can’t respect the opinions of others then you have a choice to make. If you only want those who are close-minded towards opposing arguments in your timeline, then you have a choice to make – not me. I am very open-minded to the opinions of others, and would love for you to remain my Facebook friend.

Moving on –

Twitter proved to be an incredibly educational model of social interaction this week. For example, if you request that someone kill themselves you will more than likely be chastised for being a horrible person, and rightly so. However, if you give such a request under the right circumstances, e.g., use the hashtag “#LoveWins,” it is magically commendable.

Example #1: “Don’t like it? Kill yourself. #LoveWins” (Yes, this was an actual tweet.)

Recap:

Encouraging suicide = VERY BAD

Encouraging those who disagree with you on same-sex marriage to commit suicide = good

Example #2: “GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND ANY RELIGIOUS, BIGOTED A——S WHO DON’T LIKE IT CAN EAT S—T AND DIE #LoveWins”

I have no words for that one. None.

On top of the ever growing hashtag diplomacy is the fact that corporations and celebrities are cashing in on “love.” Opposing it is now considered an act of war by the masses. It is a sign of oppression of opinion – even if you speak against the ruling for reasons completely unrelated to the Bible – you are automatically labeled a hateful, bigoted ignoramus with absolutely zero wiggle room. There are only two options; the red pill leads to the Westboro Baptist Church, and the blue pill leads to high IQs, Starbucks Lattes, and refrigerators sold by a company that “bravely” added a rainbow filter to their AVI. A Newspaper even released a statement that any opinion piece submitted that expresses objections to the Supreme Court ruling will not be published. This is just the beginning, folks. The militantly colorful have convinced the United States that there are only two sides to this debate, the rational and the irrational, and any thought in-between is a crime against that adorable retired gay couple on the TV right now. Apparently “Hey kid, I have an adorable puppy in my large unmarked black van” is making a comeback, that’s the level of emotional enticement we have going on. And how dare you say, “Wait! I don’t care that you like puppies, but that van contains a lot of stuff that neither of us are going to like.”

*Raises hand* “So, what happens if I don’t pull out Bible verses that speak against your lifestyle, nor care if you get married, but I still have a problem with the ruling? It’s for completely unrelated rea…”

“You can just shut your stupid face.” (Sends you a cartoon mocking flyover states that portray an older you as a fossil holding a picket sign)

“But maybe you could hear me o….”

“No, you bigot!” (Sends photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies)

“That’s nice, but can’t we at least ta…”

“Your argument is irrelevant.” (Sends you a biased study done on a sampling of 100 people that concludes by labeling progressives as the more intelligent humans)

“But you haven’t heard it ye…”

“It doesn’t matter. Why don’t you go back to church and pray to your imaginary friend.”

And this is from the very people that label me close-minded. Irony. Do people not see how horribly hypocritical this is? “Keep your opinions to yourself! Unless of course I like your opinions…” This morning a football player by the name of Benjamin Watson released a beautiful statement on the matter, here’s an excerpt:

“Love truly IS the greatest gift of all. It never fails and covers a multitude of sins. Ultimately Love DOES Win. But Love wins us with compassion, not endorsement.”

His entire post was about loving each other without forcing the other to endorse opposing personal opinions. It didn’t take long before people were comparing him to a slave owner, calling him by atrocious names, and assuming without any evidence – whatsoever – that he is a hateful bigot. This is what we’ve become as a nation. Individuality be damned, you must fall in line and submit yourself to the gods of conformity and mirror the opinions of the rainbow masses holding their tar and feathers, waiting for you to say one word that contradicts their edict.

This hashtag, #LoveWins, has served to combine feeling of revenge into one lovely little location on Twitter, but it has also served to bring together the rejoicing masses under a false pretense. See, a legal marriage has nothing to do with love; it is a legally binding document that unites two parties for tax and benefit purposes. It also makes for entertaining court television, but that’s beside the point. “Love” should never be involved in a legal argument, yet we allowed the opposition to control the argument because we didn’t clarify this earlier on, instead we pulled out verses and tried to use them against those who don’t hold themselves accountable to the very Bible we’re reading from.

Rule of thumb: If you preach directly to those who are non-believers, keep it to the Gospel. They don’t care what your Bible says. It’s similar to when Catholics tell me what the Pope supports and I look at them cross eyed. I respect their right to be a practicing Catholic, but the Pope’s opinions matter about as much to me as Matt Lauer’s opinions. You can have your reasons to believe what you want to believe, and you can act on those beliefs with your votes, but trying to push for blanketed legislation because of what the Bible says is just as bad as leftists pushing for blanketed legislation because of how 2.5% of the nation feels when they look at the same sex. I mean, preach to them until the sun comes up about their sins if you so choose (Thanks, 1st Amendment!), but understand that when they say it should be legalized because they think it’s right, you have no right to counter that argument because you’re doing the same thing. Biblical marriage is between a man, a woman, and God. If that’s what you believe, your issue should not be how the state views it, but that the state is involved in the first place. That is why the argument turned from logic to “Love vs. Hate”… I hear a lot of Christians defend their position by saying, “As Christians we must remember that God defines marriage, not the courts.” Really mull that over. If that’s the case, why would you fight to keep marriage in the courts?

“Love is love” is not anywhere close to a valid, nor rational, argument. It’s not even in the same neighborhood. Like if rational arguments bumped into “love is love” at the grocery store, they wouldn’t even recognize each other. I get it, it gives you all the feels, but it still isn’t a rational argument. See, I want the government to get their dirty little hands out of the marriage industry. It’s a rather simple request: I want everyone to mind their own business. Sure, preach your word, say your opinion, wave your skittleishious flags and your church pamphlets, but at the end of the day, don’t try to use the government as your personal Frank Nitti. See, when you start suing bakeries, suing farmers that don’t let you get married on their property, forcing individuals you know have a different set of moral beliefs to bend to your stance – just out of spite – you’re not minding your own business. The group taking over the internet this week likes to use the tagline, “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” Thank you, oh obvious ones. The problem is that this militant movement is not demanding acceptance, it is demanding endorsement. “If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t get one.” That’s a fine saying, but if we’re being honest it only expresses a small part of the sentiment. The remaining portion is never put on a picket sign: “However, just so we’re clear, I get to be open about my beliefs, you do not. Oh, and I’m going to need you to make my wedding cake, allow me to marry on your property, and indoctrinate your kids. But make sure you keep your nose out of my life! #LoveWins”

“As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.” – Kennedy

I’m going to go ahead and file that under “Ideological Argument,” and keep it far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from “Legal Justification.”

“14th Amendment, B—–s! #LoveWins” (Once again…real tweet.)

*Taps microphone*  “The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.”

“What of it?”

“Well, there were 37 states in the union at that point, and homosexuality was a felony in every last one of them. So, those who passed it clearly didn’t have your rainbow AVI in mind.”

Now, suddenly those who adore the 14th Amendment start to go back to their old ways of not caring about the Constitution, suddenly it’s outdated again, or we’ve evolved and the 14th Amendment magically protects same-sex marriage. “Yeah, let’s go with the latter!”

Okay… So here’s the fact: The Constitution doesn’t protect same-sex marriage; it provides a way for the people to protect whatever they want. That’s key. If we don’t follow this specific set of rules, then voting becomes a rather large waste of time. If we allow a handful of unelected men and women to vote in accordance with their preference, well, that’s not a republic. The law already treated every person equally. Every person in the United States had the power to enter into a legally binding marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. The law treated everyone with equal respect, however, it did not treat every personal desire equally, nor should it. See Man/Boy Love Association as a reference. However, the Constitution gives us the power to, through the right steps, make specific changes.

Even as a changed nation in 1920, we still didn’t find that the 14th Amendment awarded women equal rights, so we amended the Constitution through the correct process and put in place the 19th Amendment, a specific amendment. Was it outlandish to think that women should not be allowed to vote? To think that men were of superior intelligence? (Perhaps, if they time traveled to a current day feminist rally.) It was indeed outlandish because they had no logical reason to keep women from voting. Now we look back and think, “Man, whoever was against that was clearly a sexist moron.” Yet we STILL went through the proper legal steps. In 1870 we didn’t sneak racial voting discrimination into the 14th Amendment, no, we passed the 15th Amendment. We make amendments because a vast number of disturbing things can be approved under the 14th Amendment, especially if we make marrying whomever you love a protected privilege. To clarify, if the state wishes to approve same-sex marriage, it’s specific to same-sex marriage, and it’s voted on by the majority. If the United States chooses to amend the Constitution as we’ve done in the past, it is up to the voting majority again to approve same-sex marriage, specifically. See, that’s the cool part of the U.S., we The People get to choose, or at least we did… Loosely translating the 14th Amendment as they did, however, attempts to legislate love.  What does all of this mean you ask? I want you to read the 14th Amendment and then give me a reason why the following scenarios aren’t covered under the Supreme Court’s reasoning as well:

“My son is 20, we’re in love. We have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else. Love is love.”

“These are my four husbands, given to me by God, we have just as much right to legally express our love as anyone else. Love is love.”

“I fell in love with my Father, you can’t choose who you love, our rights matter too.”

Are you going to give a moral reason against, say, Cody Brown legally marrying his four wives? That would be hypocritical, who are you to define love?

Well, that’s the door we’ve opened. Polygamists have already begun to speak out saying, “Wait a second, we’re covered under the 14th Amendment too!” See, if we amend the Constitution, or leave it to state choice, that doesn’t happen. Those issues may still arise, but state by state they can be shut down without claims of discrimination. However, now if the Supreme Court turns them down, it’s because the powers that be didn’t like the idea as much as they liked same-sex marriage. Hey, all of us who have a concealed carry license should be covered in states that don’t, according to the 2nd & 14th Amendment, right? Those Mormons that you considered to be religious sex addicts, well, they have a flawless argument under the 14th Amendment. You guys didn’t just vent the can, you yanked the lid off in overwhelming merriment, then you poured a can of Red Bull over all of the slumbering worms. Not going to lie, it’s actually going to be pretty fun to watch you attempt to shove them back into the can.

So when we say that you’ve fundamentally changed America, for the most part it’s not because we are waiting to baptize you in scripture, it’s because you’ve fundamentally changed the way our government works, and it’s going to be negative for both sides. Wait. I must correct myself – “You” did not change America, a handful of biased judges changed America without her people’s consent because it made them feel all fluffy inside. (FYI – You and you alone don’t qualify as majority consent.) The question was not if same-sex marriage was bad, the question was whether it was legally protected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court treated it as though it was the former, and in doing so opened up doors to various fights for legal protection over a lot of questionable things.

So now you’re left with two remaining options:

  1. Go advocate for all of those worms, or be a flaming hypocrite.
  2. Just kidding, you really only have one option. I suggest gun rights be the first. I feel bad when I can’t carry my gun in California, because I love my gun, and love is love.

Rainbows

Of Rubio, Republicans, and voting ‘right’

The political winds taunt some, depress others, and are a wonderful excuse to go do the dishes during commercial breaks for many. I, on the other hand, love nothing more than the sweet scent of political conflict in the air. It’s the breeze of responsible, the reminder that we can all make a difference in our world. I am ready for 18 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days of brutal campaigns, insults, and shouts of joy. That said, It’s only been a few weeks, and I’ve already experienced all of those things. I’m not one to shy away from opinions, nor one to defend someone to the death despite a clear difference in beliefs. I am, however, a realist…  Which brings me to the point of this post:

                                                              Who should you vote for?

 

WARNING: I’m about to discuss points and facts that I don’t, necessarily, even like. I’m about to tell you why some of my favorite people in politics can’t beat Hillary. I don’t like these facts, I despise many of them, yet I can’t get past them. So please don’t assume that I’m attacking your favorite candidate… Unless of course your favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton.

 

Despite the myriad reasons why Hillary shouldn’t be President, including the fact that if she were a Republican she’d more than likely be charged with a few crimes, she will most likely be the Democrat candidate of choice on the ballot in 2016. The woman could punch ducklings on live TV and still be worshipped by the left. They’re doing their best to make her seem human – “look, the elitist eats a burrito” – and they’ll succeed with those who really, really, really want her to be human…. Despite the fact that when she’s in public she looks like she’s either chronically constipated, or counting down the seconds before she is able to run to the nearest bottle of Germ-X so as to cleanse herself of commoner bacteria.

 

Hillary has a really good shot at the White House, because the average American voter is a glutton for punishment. They’re like an abused wife, captive to the idea that they won’t survive without a particular party in power. Yes, I compared the Democrat regime to an abusive husband. Luckily, for some of them, that’s a step up. Talking to you, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner… I digress. So follow me on this journey, let’s chat about what kind of competitor we need on our side to go up against the only “Feminist” to remain married to a womanizer and alleged rapist. I’m going to break down my reasons against/for the current candidates, as well as a few potentials.

 

Ted Cruz – Don’t you feel American when you listen to him? You feel good, you feel like he’s the second coming of Reagan. You just get the feeling like he belongs on a Presidential flashcard. Sometimes you might even accidently say “Ted Reagan” because it sounds fantastic. Wait… Is that just me? This man should have a soundtrack, and it should be Lee Greenwoods’ greatest hit on repeat. I’m pretty sure he smells like Apple Pie and baseball. I love this man, and I love what he stands for, and so do the handful, albeit large handful, of those in the country that land so far right they’ve got a poster of George Washington holding an AR-15 above their bed. So, what’s not to love about him? Well, quite simply, he’s not going to get the votes from the middle ground. If we lived in a sane America, filled with fiscally responsible adults, they’d see that he is the best chance for lowering the debt, elevating the lower class, etc…. Now, the Libertarians might not vote for Hillary, but they also won’t vote for him, they’ll either stay home, or they’ll vote for an Independent… And voting for an Independent is basically like casting your vote for the rich white chick in the pantsuit. If he wins the GOP ticket, I’ll slap a bumper sticker on my car and preach the good word, but he’s not my first choice.

 

Rand Paul – Oh, my heart. I love this man too. He’s a genuinely good person with a heart for his country. I really love the fact that he fights against the militarization of the police. He sees what I see, what many common sense individuals see; it shouldn’t be an us vs. them system, militarizing the police just damages the relationship they should have with the people of this nation. He believes that the warrior cop mentality is toxic. He believes in accountability, regardless of what uniform you wear. I have found myself siding with him on countless occasions where this is concerned. But there are staunch Republicans (I know many personally) that throw anyone who dares to stand for the rights of all people, not just the uniformed, under the bus. So while I may love him, many staunch Republicans will go full liberal and anti-rights if he says Andy Griffith can’t have a tank. That issue aside, I believe foreign policy is one of the most important issues in a Presidential candidate. I also believe that sometimes blood must be shed for the good of the innocent (WWI, WWII, ISIS, etc.), and I believe that America should defend the innocent. Hashtag diplomacy, well wishes, and minding our own business doesn’t always work. Understanding this is not Rand’s strong suit. He sounds like he’s changing his tune a bit on foreign policy, but with everything going on in this world, is it enough? On the plus side, most vehemently Republican voters will not like voting for Rand, but if he goes up against Hillary they’ll smarten up and vote for him because they’re still a step ahead of the Independents who really, really just want their weed, man. Unfortunately, he will garner very few votes from the minorities that Democrats have owned in the last 2 elections. Once again, I’ll buy a cap with his name on it if he makes the ticket, but he’s not my first choice.

 

Jeb Bush – No.

 

Chris Christie – No.

 

No. Stop it. 

 

Seriously? I should not have to explain the faults in either of those choices. Have we not learned our lesson with McCain and Romney? Do we need to revisit the rich white guy camp again to play games with what might be the most important election our generation will see? Stop making me hate you, GOP.  Stop it. Now. You need my generation, why are you bound and determined to push us away? 

 

Scott Walker – Alright, this one pains me… I’m a Wisconsinite, and a proud supporter of Walker. This election is going to require more, it’s going to require someone with a story, someone with charisma, someone that relates. I support most of what Walker has accomplished, including his fight against union thugs. But Walker does not have the story, and he doesn’t  have the charisma it will take to beat Hillary. True or not, her supporters will paint him as a “typical white Republican bully.” This election is going to be a difficult one, and we MUST learn from the past, or we’ll repeat it. If we run the same old campaigns of McCain and Romney, we’ll be listening to a concession speech by our candidate on election night.  If he ends up running against Hillary, once again, I’ll be the first in line to support him… but… Scott Walker is not my first choice. Ouch.

 

Marco Rubio – Ready? Rubio is my first choice. And below is just a peek at why I believe he should be yours too (I will include excerpts from his recent announcement):

 

He’s not an old rich white guy. TMZ once asked him the difference between Lil Wayne and Tupac, and he answered by detailing the difference between the two rappers. He quoted Jay-Z on the House floor. This may mean nothing to you, because it means nothing to me, but it means something to the millions of new voters who can relate. He’s relevant. I know Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and the likes don’t agree, but guess what… this country followed the lead of the Conservative leaders for long enough. We may agree with them, we may have the same opinions, we may own their books and tweet their quotes, but their choices have not given us results for quite a long time. Rubio is not Reagan, but I tend to believe that Reagan would have a difficult time getting elected these days.

 

“Here in America, my father became a bartender, my mother a cashier, a maid, a K-Mart stock clerk.” His parents had to budget, he had to budget. He just paid off his student loans in 2012. Do you know how long it’s been since Hillary Clinton had to worry about a budget? A loan payment? A very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very long time. She can stand in Chipotle until the cows come home, and it doesn’t change the fact that she is still going to walk away with a net worth that the majority of us will never see in a lifetime. This year alone, she’ll spend more on restaurants and clothes than I’ll ever spend on a house. She’s out of touch. Drastically out of touch. Her daughter is out of touch. And her husband needs reminders not to touch. This is where every other candidate fails to compare. Rubio can shoot Hillary’s class warfare back at her via cannon. He can paint her as an elitist who is completely out of touch with the rest of the world, including himself, and then he can drop a quote from Public Enemy and bury her, no other candidate can offer that, and if they tried they’d just look like that weird 50 year-old neighbor who has “JUICY” printed in glitter across the butt of her sweatpants. You don’t want to hear that, Conservatives, but buck up, Buttercup, it’s a fact.

 

“They’re busy looking backwards. So they do not see how jobs and prosperity today depend on our ability to compete in a global economy. And so our leaders put us at a disadvantage by taxing and borrowing and regulating like it was 1999.” In case you didn’t get the point, Marco Rubio is young and relevant. Hillary isn’t. McCain preached on how he could help you, Romney preached on how he could help you, Rubio is not speaking down to you, he is one of you.

 

“If we reform our tax code and reduce regulations and control spending and modernize our immigration laws and repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

Taxes – I love the opinion of Cruz concerning taxes, I also love the opinion of Paul concerning taxes, and Reagan, and Coolidge, and, and, the list goes on. Guess how much good those views do if Hillary is in the White House? Wishful thinking is grand, and I’ll be a flat tax supporter until I die. *wipes away single tear* However, we are dealing with the struggle of earning votes from individuals who will give their support to a candidate based off of clips of Presidential debates between Lady Gaga and Katy Perry songs on the radio. If you asked the majority of the people in this country what “flat tax” means, they’ll look at you like your finger is glowing and wonder if you need to “phone home.” If Rubio gets in the White House and tax cuts take place, jobs grow, and people see that their livelihood improves, he can then run on even more tax cuts, and other Republicans will have the ability to tout even more drastic ideas without the majority disregarding them. Did you know that in a recent poll, roughly 29% of Americans believe that less taxes on the wealthy will help the economy? That’s it. So, if you and that 29% (which includes myself) think you can magically win an election by touting tax breaks for the rich, then have it. We will have much better luck using someone like Rubio to get our foot in the door and soften opinions.

 

Immigration Laws – Uh oh. There are Conservatives who jumped head first into a rather silly pool of pandemonium the moment that Rubio suggested that a path to citizenship for illegals already in America is the right thing to do, while also saying that the current laws need to be upheld, and that control is needed at the borders. I’ll admit, I wasn’t thrilled myself, but at the time I failed to see how it would benefit him. While you have your breakdown and proclaim your refusal to support him, I’m just going to sit over here sipping my coffee and wonder how many voters the smooth talking Cuban Senator just stole from the Democrats by not fitting into the cold and calculated mold that the liberal narrative has built for Republicans. Go ahead. Pitch your fit, but ol’Marco gained votes that no one else in the GOP will ever touch, like a boss. Besides,  apart from a ‘wetback roundup’ (go ahead, support someone who pushes that ideal and pave the way for Hillary), giving established extended families a conditional chance at staying is almost the only tangible and conservative thing left to do. 

 

Obamacare – He wants to repeal it, most people hate it, and by the time 2016 rolls around even more people will hate it. I really don’t think more needs to be said on this. 

 

“I live in an exceptional country where the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams, and the same future as those who’ve come from power and privilege.” Oh snap. He went there. While popular Democrats have in recent year felt the need to remind us that without immigrants we wouldn’t have proper lawn care (no joke), and even our current President referred to them as “fruit pickers,” Marco Rubio is here to say that they can be President. 

 

He speaks fluent Spanish. “Not a big deal,” you might say? It’s a very big deal. Because while our President is calling immigrants “fruit pickers,” Rubio’s Cuban immigrant father came home from working as a bar tender after midnight most nights and told his son, in Spanish, that “In this country you will achieve all the things we never could.” That’s a substantial difference. “The final verdict on our generation will be written by Americans who have not yet been born. Let us make sure they record that we made the right choice. That in the early years of this century, thanks to the rapidly changing and uncertain world, our generation rose to face the great challenges of our time. And because we did — because we did there was still one place in the world where you — where who you come from does not determine how far you go.” This doesn’t move Ann Coulter, it doesn’t move Glenn Beck, it doesn’t move Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. but it does move the kid that grew up in Harlem, it resonates with the woman who grew up translating for her parents, it has the power to move the young voters who feel like the politicians and the media can’t relate to them. Scott Walker can attack the unions, Ted Cruz can tout the NRA and filibuster, and Rand Paul can support liberty like none other, and they all do an outstanding job, but not one of them can relate to the young minority vote in the way Marco Rubio can.

 

Other candidates tend to want to slide their arm across the table, knocking all of the dominoes down in one sweep, and in no particular order. I want to do the same, but what I want will not work. Rubio is very good at being strategic, he plants dominoes to fall at just the right time. We need that.

He’s being asked difficult questions and he answering them in ways that are making the MSM implode. For example, he was asked about Evolution (since he’s a Christian) and he responded with, “It’s a scientific theory that should be taught.” Another example: A reporter recently asked if 43 was old enough to be President, Rubio responded with, “I know 44 is, which is what I turn in May.” People feel that he is inexperienced, but I tend to wonder if those people have been paying attention to politics lately. That’s not going to hurt his chances in anyway whatsoever. Maybe someday when we are back on track we will live in a matured America where people do care about the experience of a Presidential candidate, but it’s time that we face the fact that today is not that day. The left is terrified of Rubio, not so much Cruz and Rand, and that is very evident, and it’s also something we should be watching. This tells us that they confidently have their arguments against Cruz and Rand locked and loaded, guarded by a trigger happy MSNBC lapdog. However, with Rubio they’re scrambling for something, anything!They’re shooting blind and hoping that something hits… And he’s just smooth enough to pull a Matrix and avoid any fatal shots. Unfortunately, many on the right are too busy applying their Ted Cruz bumper stickers to notice.  

Now, after noting all of the obvious pros, here are a few things that I would really like to see from Rubio:

The Republican party isn’t sexist, that’s a fact. I mean come on, the party labeling us as “sexist” has numerous affairs, alleged rapes, and a body count in the war on women (Thanks, Ted…). The important thing to remember is that with Hillary, we aren’t fighting facts, we are fighting a narrative. If Rubio wins the GOP ticket, he needs to pick a woman as his Vice. Nikki Haley, Suzanna Martinez, etc… He needs a calm, smart, and articulate woman who can speak to the importance of the most understated and misunderstood woman’s right; The right to carry.

Democrats are starting to come out of the woodwork concerning Marijuana legalization. They don’t care. Seriously, they don’t care. The only reason we are seeing this – most recently in Wisconsin – and will continue to see this, is because they want Conservative candidates to look old and distant. When questioned, Rubio should default to the Constitution. “It should be left to the states and has nothing to do with the Presidential election.” And then give the, “Why are you even asking me such a silly question” face. It won’t be long before marijuana is legalized nationwide, taking a hardline stance will only push the younger votes away.

When asked about women’s rights, I want him to speak to women. I want him to look at the media and say that he’s sick and tired of politicians and the media insulting the intelligence of women. That equality laws are on the books, and touting additional legislation, and pretending as though women can’t understand any of the real issues that have to do with the Presidential election, is an insult to women. Simply saying, “it’s already illegal to discriminate” only addresses the issue, it doesn’t address the stereotype that Republicans care little about women. We need to turn the tables. We need to show that they are attacking women by assuming that we will believe their nonsense. He needs to speak like an original Feminist. The original Feminists believed that women were an intellectual equal, and showed distain for those who thought we were self-indulged jackwagons that couldn’t handle the difficult topics. Well, we aren’t, and Rubio needs to fight on our behalf against that narrative. Rand Paul has started doing this, Rubio should take note.

I’ve heard the following since expressing my opinions of the above with numerous people: 

“You’re crazy! How can Hillary win with Benghazi in her past?” – How did Obama win reelection with Benghazi in his VERY recent past? Good rule of thumb: Don’t underestimate your enemy, and don’t overestimate the bleeding hearts of their voters. If Hillary Clinton went surfing on a pile of dead puppies, but was wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt, she’d still get a disturbingly large number of votes from those who claim to “care.” 

 

“How can Hillary win with Bill as her baggage?” – How was Ted Kennedy’s name mentioned at the 2012 DNC without the large feminist attendance all projectile vomiting as they went running towards the door? He let a woman die slowly in a sinking vehicle to hide his dirty little secret and avoided punishment, yet feminists still get joyfully verklempt when they get the chance to celebrate his glorious name. There really are stupid questions, and we need to stop asking them, and start embracing the truth. We need to all sit down and watch Karate Kid and learn to know the opponent. Embrace the enemy. Be the ignorant whiny underpaid contraceptiveless needy feminist with a degree in gender studies, Grasshopper. 

 

“How can Hillary possibly win with the server debacle?” – Because she has a vagina, and a (D) beside her title. No seriously, that’s why.

 

“Won’t people see her horrible foreign policy?” – This morning I read an article about the guy that served her a burrito at Chipotle, and it wasn’t satirical. The article is not important, hilarious, but not important. However, the existence of this article is important. This woman is a celebrity, and I guarantee you that the majority of the individuals that vote for her will know exactly what she prefers in her burritos, but they will have no idea if she even knows how to point to Iran on a map.

 

Now, we can listen to the Conservative voices that are praising every other candidate, and some are even throwing Rubio under the bus. We can pick one of the other candidates, and I’ll vote for them, support them, and even be positive about the fight… But I sincerely hope that people vote Rubio, because I believe he is our best shot. I hope we all research his position on issues without flying off the handle like we did on Amnesty. Heck, he may do something really stupid before November 2016, I doubt it, but crazier things have happened. If that’s the case, I’ll gladly sit down and cover my words in hot sauce before dining on them. I don’t know the future, and I may be forced to change my tune, but as of right now… well… Rubio has my vote, and he should have yours too. 


There. I think I covered everything. Wait. One more thing. Whatever you do, please don’t pick Bush or Christie, because if you do, this will be me during Hillary’s inauguration:






Birthday

Annie, Seriously… It’s time to get your gun.

First off, I must note that I understand that some men and women do not wish to own a gun. Some do not have the sudden urge to hug fluffy bunnies and spread world peace in a frivolous manner like I do when my fingers are wrapped around a Walther PPK, or when my hands are embracing an H&K VP9. This blog post is in no way an attack on them. Well, truth be known, I may not personally understand their reasoning, but I respect their choice. That said, I do believe that if you label yourself a feminist and fight against gun rights, you’re a blazing hypocrite. If you make the choice to forgo gun ownership, that’s fine… Heck, if you make the choice to arm yourself with a stuffed animal walrus named Peanut, I frankly do not care. However, if you want to say you believe in the equality of women, yet fight to remove the most successful way of making the fight for women’s safety a fair one, your ideals are antithetical and that’s when I care, because your opinions are no longer just making you look silly by carrying around Peanut, it’s putting me in danger too.

Before I get to the meat of the post, I’d like to address something that someone told me this week during a discussion about women and weapons. This kind liberal eluded to the idea that women can’t be trusted with guns… See, liberals might pretend like they think you’re equal, but in reality, you’re a 1920’s housewife pretending to play with grownups in their eyes. My liberal acquaintance then said, “You know, you didn’t strike me as the violent type.” This type of reaction always astounds me. I am gentle in nature, I don’t even hunt (yes, I still support hunters). I cried when my desperate attempts to live trap mice resulted in a reproduction catastrophe that required me to purchase kill traps. I’m not a violent person. I’m also not a stupid person. I know that while I might not be violent, those that might wish to harm me most likely are, and I’m pretty sure we possess contradicting convictions.

I have past blogs that have focused on the failures of gun control, as well as posts directed towards female empowerment, and how the left has destroyed true feminism. This post is like the love child of those previous posts. It is directed towards women, and the urge to write this came after reading quite a few disturbing stories this week, as well as some inspirational news concerning women who are finally standing up and saying that they’ve had enough of being patronized. In addition, after receiving heavy opposition, the Texas Senate approved a bill allowing licensed carriers on government property, including the state’s public college and university campuses. It’s about time. It’s also about time for the rest of us to not shy away from the fact that women should be concerned about gun rights even more so than men, and men who claim to support women should be shouting their support from the roof tops.

One of the disturbing stories that made the contents of my lunch hint at an evacuation was concerning a 17 year-old man who was being charged with kidnapping a 10 year-old girl. He was simply a friend of the family who had developed an unhealthy obsession with the girl, which was followed by stomach turning plans to sexually abuse her before snuffing out her life and photographing her body. Thankfully, the little girl was saved before he was able to finish what he had started. In another startling story, a woman was attacked and had her unborn child cut out of her body.

I bring these stories up because in the last week I have had 3 different conversations concerning women and guns. Fairly heated conversations, to be quite honest. I’m fairly passionate about this topic, and become infuriated when men try to tell me why women (and men, but today we are focusing on women) should not have the right to own a gun. My temper then receives a shot of caffeine when women and men tell me that arming women is somehow feeding a rape culture, that we need to teach men not to rape, not teach women how to protect themselves. They tell me that pens, mace, and using vomit or bodily fluids to “gross out” the offender is the answer; those options aren’t degrading at all, right?! But you see, the 10 year-old little girl in the story above was not the victim of rape culture, she was the victim of a psychopath. She was the victim of a selfish individual with a depraved mind. She was the victim of proclivities that were born in the darkest corners that are located near the pit of hell. She was not the victim of “rape culture,” she was the victim of a certain breed of subhuman that has existed since the dawn of time. She was the victim of a young man that shares a commonality with the monsters that we find in horror movies and nightmares. No, this young 10 year-old girl could not protect herself with a gun, but the point is that the idea that we can purge depraved individuals from society by “teaching them not to rape” is an ideal based in a land born of fairy tales and children’s books.

Bad people exist. Bad people will always exist.

Back in October of 2007, Amanda Collins was attacked in a parking garage after leaving class. This particular parking garage was chosen by a very careful Collins because she felt she would be safe. This garage housed the campus police cruisers, and the campus police were roughly 100 feet away. She was guarded and careful, stating that she had actually taken martial arts classes before attending college. She took every precaution, even down to approaching her car at an angle to ensure that no one was hiding beneath. Even after taking such precautions, she was brutally raped at gun point in that parking garage, and her attacker would go on to make national news after he was found guilty of the highly publicized rape and murder of 19 year-old Brianna Denison, who disappeared in January of 2008.  Denison was stolen as she slept on the couch in her friend’s home. Brianna’s body was found in February, she had been brutally raped and murdered then disposed of carelessly in a field, treated as garbage. During the trial, the defense argued against the death penalty due to the fact that before the crimes her attacker, James Biela, was a productive member of society.

     Side note: I’m left befuddled when people use the “once a productive member of society” excuse in such cases. If you steal a soda, feel free to claim that you were simply desperate and once a productive member of society, not when you kidnap, rape, and murder another human being.

Biela knew that what he was doing was wrong, just as the 17 year-old who had heinous plans for a 10 year-old knew that what he was doing was wrong. They did not broadcast their plans, they did not think themselves innocent of wrong doing. They didn’t stroll into homes saying, “Hey everyone, I’m going to go ahead and take your daughter. Cool?” They did not need to be taught not to rape, they did not need a lesson on why it’s bad to suffocate the life out of another human being, and they did not need to “learn” why it’s bad to pin a woman down and disregard her rights. Lessons on a woman’s worth would have fallen on deaf ears because the facts are, they’re bigger, and they’re more powerful, and well, they’re not playing with a full deck of cards. They did not need a speech on equal rights from Emma Watson, they weren’t simply guys who had failed to see that bureaucrats in their ivory towers protected by armed guards had signed a piece of paper that made laws protecting women against violence, they did not listen as celebrities preached on peace and love. They had evil intentions, and they preyed on those that aren’t guarded in the ivory towers, on those that don’t walk into a room protected by security guards. No, they preyed on women, like myself, who are left to protect themselves. Those of us that are smaller and weaker than the opposite sex, those of us who are not trained in combat techniques, those of us who are the target of sexual crimes over 90% of the time (and remember that the majority of sexual crimes on men happen via prison rape), we are the ones that watch our backs daily. Not the elitist celebs, not the bureaucrats, and not liberal men.

We have to be careful where we park at the mall. Is it by a light? Is it by a popular entrance?

We have to be careful when we leave work at night.

We wait for a large group of people to leave so that we aren’t alone.

We make sure that we are home from our walk or run before dark.

We are the ones that hear a class time and think, “where’s the safest place for me to park.”

We are the sex that walk into empty public bathrooms at night and rush, and that’s after scanning the area for nefarious individuals to begin with.

We are the ones that know a police car isn’t fast enough to stop a psychopath from ruining our lives.

Why? Because we have to, because we are the demographic most likely to be a victim. But there is one important part to the story of Amanda Collins and Brianna Denison that was left out of my rather brief synopsis. Amanda Collins had a handgun in her home that she was trained to use, actually, she was a CCW license holder. Brianna Denison was slaughtered, and Amanda Collins was brutally raped because Amanda Collins was a law abiding citizen and did not carry her weapon in a gun free zone. Amanda Collins was raped at gun point between two vehicles, 100 feet away from campus security, in a gun free zone. Biela went on to rape again, and also murder Denison when – quite possibly – his life and reign of terror could have been ended by a trained Amanda Collins in a parking garage. Amanda Collins was confident in saying that had she been armed, she would have had the opportunity to stop Biela, and Brianna could be alive today in a career, or starting a family, living the life that was stolen from her. Liberals are convincing you to vote for them under the guise that they can take you to some wonderland where birth control flows like a rushing river. A place where all psychopaths have a change of heart and see you as a person, and not as an item. A place where you are paid more than men, and the guy on the corner of the street pays attention to your brain and not the shape of your other features. But that wonderland does not exist, instead, they push agendas that leave Amanda Collins unprotected in a parking garage with a man that violates her, forever changing who she is.

Now, some might argue that in the United States we have a higher number of rapes, which contradicts the idea that guns save women a lifetime of trauma, or a lifetime lost. Then they’ll smugly sit back and act as though they have dealt the fatal blow to your argument. It is at this point that I encourage woman to fully understand the incredibly important differences between the US and the UK. Definitions. Our criminal system encompasses a large variation of crimes under broad descriptions. I actually had a discussion concerning the various criminal definitions on a Facebook thread a couple months ago and realized that I had never blogged about this little detail. So, in the US, you meet a drunk girl at the bar and take her home, if she doesn’t appreciate your savvy pick-up tactics during her inebriated state the next morning, it is defined as rape. If you are 18 and have consensual sex with a girl 1 year younger, and Daddy gets mad, it is rape, and you spend your life on a sexual offender registry. Crime definitions per country are vastly different, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate comparison. By far, the US has more blanketed definitions, which leads to our higher crime rate. Yes, we have a lot of crime, but it’s silly for people in the UK to look down on the US from some high horse, acting as though they live in a crime free utopia.

If you look under the UK legal definition, they are very strict on what they consider to be “rape,” yet the US – as mentioned above – has a much broader definition. I won’t go into incredibly graphic detail (you can research yourself), rape in the UK is defined by simply a forceful penetration of one person on another, the legal definition of rape in the US includes anyone who commits an unwanted sexual attack. This includes threats, coercion, picking up a drunk girl, sexual attack with an item, statutory, etc. If you tell a girl that you love her to coerce her into bed, you’ve committed rape in the US, and if she reports it, it goes in the stats even if you don’t face conviction. The UK has not evolved with other countries in this aspect. Additionally, it’s still difficult to calculate because the vast majority of sexual abuse goes unreported in both countries. Not only is the definition for rape different, so is the definition for murder. Homicides in the UK are calculated differently. Since 1967, the UK calculations exclude any cases that do not result in conviction, nor any cases prosecuted under the grounds of self-defense. We do. If Chicago alone – where MANY homicides go unsolved – were not calculated, we would not have as high of a number either. This goes for self-defense as well. They are both calculated into our numbers. Perspective: in 2012 we had 14,827 homicides, only 7,133 arrests were made for those homicides. The number of convictions are even less. SO, If we JUST went by that one change alone, our murder rate would be easily cut in half.

So you see, if we calculated rape and homicides in the same manner, our stats would be ridiculously lower. Now, consider the fact that the UK has a population of 64.1M, and the US has a population of 316.1M, and suddenly their figures look a lot scarier than ours. I’ve heard of stories where widows in the UK will not place obituaries in papers out of fear that it is basically an invitation for robbers that now know she is alone in a house or flat without a man to protect her. Guess what, I’m alone in my house most of the time, without a man, and I dare someone to disregard my ability to protect myself as they do to women in the UK. To the point, women face a higher risk in countries where guns are not the prime tool of protection. The numbers on paper only serve those who push an agenda, because we do not calculate crimes in the same fashion. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you could easily walk away with a handful of charges in the US, a handful of different crimes that you have committed. This is why our total crimes are higher, but their number of victims is much higher, and that’s just going with the numbers that they actually include in their statistics. Our crime rate has dropped drastically just in the last 30 years, it has been cut in half in some areas. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is at an all-time high. Women are getting smart, women are realizing that being trained with a weapon is what gives us the edge. Will it save every woman every time? Don’t be silly, no one claims that… But it will save most women most of the time considering sexual offenders themselves say that the very hint that a woman has a gun makes them seek out someone else. Guns are a darn good deterrent, which is reflected in the drop in crime. So why let bureaucrats dangle a fake utopia in front of your face while simultaneously trying to remove the one thing that IS working? It’s good to remember that we are surrounded by good people, but we should also be prepared for the bad…

Women should know the facts, we shouldn’t just smile and nod when someone puts a handy phone up on campus while they pretend like it’s going to do us any good, like women can just say, “Hold that thought, Jeffrey Dahmer, I need to go over there and use the phone that those swell administrators put up for moments like this.” Because we all know that those morally sound psychopaths normally give women a phone-a-friend before making them a statistic. We shouldn’t agree with a man that hands us a ballpoint pen to use as protection against an attacker, and we should ask if that man would give his own daughter a ballpoint pen as a means of protection. We as women should not sit idly by while bureaucrats legislate our safety and have the audacity to tell us to pee ourselves to deter potential rapists. And the women that push such degrading ideals onto other women should have to turn in their feminist card to be burned and buried, never to be resurrected.

Now, speaking to my fellow ladies, the fact that liberals can tell you that we just need to “teach men not to rape” and you believe them, well, it doesn’t speak well for our sex. We can’t be that disjointed from reality, right? Right?! I guess after making you believe that women are paid less, they actually thought they could get away with something so outlandish. We owe it to ourselves, as women, to support one another in the fight for personal protection, even if you yourself decide that carrying a gun is not something you want to do. Now, I want you to think about this: If I know how the UK calculates rape and homicide rates, and I know that those in office must be educated enough to know the same, mull over the fact that they know the truth, yet they blatantly lie to you to push the agenda of disarming you. They know that you are safer with a gun, that you are less likely to be a victim when you are trained with a proper weapon, yet they lie to you in an effort to control you. Isn’t that why real feminism exists?! To fight such ridiculous notions? All over, women are starting to push back, and those opposing them are college presidents, campus police, board members, and liberal bureaucrats… So basically, all of the people that really don’t have to worry about how dark it is when they leave class are fighting to keep women as the demographic most likely to be victimized. Comforting. I guess they figure it wasn’t them that had to go casket shopping for their child, so why should they be concerned with giving potential victims the chance that Amanda and Brianna were robbed of?

Stand up and tell our government that you are more efficient in protecting yourself than they are, that you aren’t going to depend on campus security, that you aren’t going to depend on what you hope will be a fast response time from a police officer. Let our government know that you aren’t going to depend on the tolerance level that rapists might have for urine. Let our government know that you aren’t going to sell your worth for a ballpoint pen that is going to do you little good in a situation with an attacker. Let our government know that they can’t manipulate you into thinking that a phone in a parking garage is going to help you when a depraved – not misguided or unlearned, but depraved – mind has you cornered while you pray that he’s the one attacker in the history of the world that actually allows you to call 911 on him. Doesn’t it bother you that our government continues to push the idea that you should fear what predators are capable of, instead of letting predators fear what you are capable of?

But above all else, please let our government know that screaming “raping isn’t nice” doesn’t stop a predator, but a well-placed bullet does. I don’t live my life in fear, because I am capable of protecting myself. Could things outside of my control happen? Of course. But when I walk around in a parking lot at night, I have an equal chance… And isn’t it time that the feminist movement stops its archaic treatment of women? Shouldn’t they stop treating us like items and starts embracing true equality anyway? I mean, come on… stop trying to drag us back to the days when we needed the protection of a man to survive. EVOLVE already, Feminists…