Aragorn is a uniter. Aragorn is smart. Be like Aragorn.

WARNING: It’s about to get super nerdy all up in here.

As many of you are aware, I’m a bookworm, and J. R. R. Tolkien is a god in the literary world. So, of course, he created one of the greatest unifying characters of all time: Aragorn. I’m overwhelmed with great sadness over the fact that Aragorn is unfamiliar to many, and while I’m also rather disheartened that Khan may be a foreign name, as well, I’ll do my best to give a quick synopsis of their characters without going into incredible detail.

Disclosure: No, I’m not saying that Ted Cruz is Khan, nor that Marco Rubio is Aragorn. For example, I don’t think Rubio has killed any Uruk-hai and, quite frankly, I think we can all agree that we don’t want to see Ted Cruz in the bare-chested Wrath of Khan wardrobe. I’m just noting a few similarities in leadership techniques, and bringing some levity to the discussion because the current state of politics makes me want to curl up in a ball with a chocolate cake and regency era novels, and sob.

Khan Noonien Singh: Think Ricardo Montalban, not Cumberbatch. I may have picked this character because I could then refer to Ted Cruz as an “augmented human,” but as it turns out, the comparison fits quite nicely as a whole. In the very beginning, Khan is a fairly decent being; he comes across as kind, calm, gracious, but yet disregards the wants of others. Kirk even referred to him as “the best of the tyrants,” but also as the “most dangerous.” After being marooned on a “barren sandheap,” he led a revolt for the blind pursuit of revenge. Khan was indeed a villain, but he never saw himself as a villain, he felt as though he was righteously angry and deserving of revenge – he felt it was the right thing to do, you might say. His followers were dedicated and blinded themselves to his faults, as well as the danger an alliance with him induced, and they remained loyal because he was superior to normal humans. Ted Cruz followers offer this same level of oblivious loyalty; they trust him – despite blatant character scruples – so everyone should trust him.

Continue reading

The Bill, the Con, the Mark, and the Don…

Four candidates are in the lead: Hillary and Bernie on the left, Donald and Ted on the right. That pretty much says all you need to know about politics in America at this point in time; The bill of goods, the con artist, the perpetual martyr, and Donald… Calm and sensible is no longer the route we are on, you must whisper sweet nothings of free stuff, lie, or be as outrageous and egotistical as you possibly can. Or in Hillary’s case, all of that, plus have female genitalia.

I’m convinced that this is no longer about left and right, this is Big Government vs. Small Government, Reality TV vs. Facts, Authoritarianism vs. Democratic Principles, Pizzazz vs. Sanity, and they’re winning because maybe – just maybe – we’ve crossed the isthmus.

Mafia mentality, reality TV politics, and authoritarianism are what’s in right now. Like a horrible, horrible fashion choice. Like skinny jeans and man buns, side ponytails and tight rolled pants.

Real Feminism, Conservatism, and Liberalism are so last century.

Continue reading

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

“Stop Being A Political Cannibal!”: FYI – I Embrace That Label

The CNN GOP Debate took place last night. Or as I like to call it, “Best In Show: Political Edition.”

Once again, we were gifted with a few more examples of Ted Cruz’s burgeoning lack of integrity. Cruz spent the evening catapulting baseless attacks at Camp Rubio, but when asked about Donald Trump he did the verbal equivalent of fleeing the country and going under Witness Protection to escape the threat of losing the overrated vote of Trump’s cultist ilk. It was moderately infuriating, and I think Leon Wolf with Red State put it better than I can:

It’s not just that Cruz disagreed with Rubio. It’s that his disagreement was laced with biting sarcasm and personal attacks. For many (if not most) of us who are not already in Camp Trump, Rubio is considered to be an acceptable choice for the nomination (if not our first), and only a fool would not concede that he presents the best chance in the general to defeat Hillary. Watching a guy who’s turned turtle repeatedly to a fake conservative insult comic, only to turn around and show some fighting spirit against a guy who is actually conservative was a little hard to stomach.

While Ted Cruz blatantly lied to his faithful following, Marco Rubio was honest about certain positions he’s held throughout his political career, even if they don’t sell well to the rage driven faction of quasi-conservatives.


CRUZ: Look, I understand Marco wants to raise confusion, it is not accurate what he just said that I supported legalization. Indeed, I led the fight against his legalization and amnesty. And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record’s the same is like suggesting “the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire.”

The truth? Take a moment to watch this video of Ted Cruz supporting legalization:

Continue reading

I’m Not Supporting Ted Cruz: The Post I Never Wanted to Write

First off, not everyone that reads my stuff is going to like this post. However, I’ve recently been negative towards Ted Cruz, and many people have questioned why I feel the way I do towards him, or have accused me of demonizing the opposition to boost my own candidate. A lot of people won’t agree with this post, and that’s alright. I write to put my opinions out there, and if people don’t agree I encourage dialogue. I love that we all have differing opinions, and while I may harshly criticize some of those differing opinions, I still encourage discussion.

First, here’s a sample of the replies I’ve received:

“I don’t get why you’re so negative about Ted Cruz?!?” 
“What’s your deal? Ted Cruz is a fighter, and we need a fighter!” 
“I don’t mind if you’re negative about Trump, but being negative about Cruz is just ridiculous.” 

I tried to address the Trump/Cruz connection in this post, but apparently I didn’t do a great job of explaining my previous political leanings and why I’m so irritated. Hopefully this post sheds some light, whether you agree or disagree in the end.

First, a bit of history. Here are a few tweets of mine from back in 2013:

Continue reading

How To Deport Over 11 Million People & Still Retain Your Soul

So there you are with well over 11 million illegal immigrants, and you need to rid yourself of them in a timely manner, but as the Grim Reaper taps his freshly sharpened scythe upon the door of your soul, you know you must tread lightly –  Avoid the Salmon Mousse!

If you recognize the above scene, we can be friends.

So how do you do it? Well, in the ever brilliant theory of Sir. Donald Trump, you rip families apart and displace them in a humane manner – and you do it within 18-24 months. Ignore the oxymoron. According to Ann Coulter, it’s pretty simple.

“Look up Dwight Eisenhower’s. It was called ‘Operation Wetback.’ He started at the border, the troops moved north, they knew the businesses and they knew the homes. They went in and deported them,” said Coulter, who is known for being brash.

“And by the way, Donald Trump, yeah he’s right, you should go after the criminals. I’d go after the law abiding ones to send the message. Law abiding! They are not law abiding if they are illegal immigrants,” she added. “They get the message and then you do what Mitt Romney was saying: enforce e-verify. Make sure only Americans can get jobs. They get the message. They leave on their own.”

We’ll do it humanely by scaring them into fleeing the country. Well, Ann Coulter, thank you for that breath of fresh dysentery.

In reality, the numbers are probably much higher, but at minimum we are sitting around 11.5 million undocumented immigrants. So, I’m going to be generous to the pugnacious pro-deportation militants in terms of numbers, because I can still get my point across. Let’s round down the number of illegal immigrants to 11 million, and let’s take advantage of the longer end of the timeline, two years. That means we need to deport roughly 15,068 immigrants every day. Now, just for fun, let’s say 1/4 of them up and leave willingly. That brings us down to 8.25 million people to deport in total, and we need to heave-ho 11,301 individuals every day, including weekends and holidays; Justice never sleeps, nor does it celebrate Jesus’ birth.

Continue reading

Donald Trump Speaking at CPAC, ACU Claims They’re Still Conservative


CPAC, as most of you know, is an annual conference for conservative activists, hosted by the American Conservative Union, better known as the ACU. The Chairman of the ACU is a man by the name of Matt Schlapp. Now, in recent years, CPAC has been leaning more left, but they just made their most left leaning move by confirming Donald Trump as a speaker. After being questioned yesterday and today, the Chairman has evaded question after question in regards to the principles behind the allegedly “conservative” ACU and their recent decision involving the Lord of Darkness.

In other news, Brittany Pounders (founder of Liberty Juice) and I will probably never, ever be allowed at CPAC.


On Wednesday morning, Trump, Cruz, and Fiorina were confirmed as speakers for CPAC, happening in March of 2016.

Oh the jubilation. Go fetch the good Sherry, Niles!


So of course, being the person of restraint that I am, I tweeted out a sincere note of admiration for the glorious news.

The exchange that followed began fairly well, he was clearly trying to defuse any animosity I may have been projecting over the inclusion of Trump.

Tweet I attached:

So, to condense the above:

The ACU believes property rights are foundational to our democracy.

Trump doesn’t.

ACU Chairman refuses to affirm that Trump’s progressive stances go against what the ACU believes.

Donald Trump on Healthcare:

“The government’s gonna pay for it [healthcare].”

Donald Trump on Eminent Domain:

“Eminent domain is wonderful.”

You don’t even have to read into The Trump’s quotes, they’re perfectly clear. He’s repeatedly praised Canadian Healthcare, single payer systems, and socialized medicine as a whole. He is an open supporter of unnecessary eminent domain cases, and has praised the Kelo case, which involved the bulldozing of homes at the behest of a money hungry developer. To add insult to injury, after the homes were bulldozed, nothing happened on the land that was freed for what they claimed would be “economic development.”

Trump’s position on both issues is rather clear, yet the Chairman of the ACU refused to answer a simple yes or no question: “So then do you agree that Donald Trump’s progressive beliefs go against what the ACU believes?”

Enter Brittany.

And then there was this:

Two questions. Pretty simple, right? They went unanswered throughout the evening. This morning we tried to remind him that he still needed to answer our questions. Surely they were just forgotten, not ignored, right?

It seems petty to drag this Twitter exchange into a blog, but honestly, these are the people who are leaders in the conservative movement. The ACU can’t answer one question, because the only answers available expose them as phonies or panderers.

Therein lies the rub, if he affirmed that Trump’s progressive ideals don’t align with the ACU, he’ll get on Trump’s bad side. For some reason, Trump has his thumb on a vast number of “conservative” pundits, journalists, and leaders, and their defense of him is becoming so blatantly apparent that it’s stomach turning. Now, if he had said that Trump’s policies do align with the ACU, he would have to explain how a so called conservative organization is now in support of socialist healthcare and removing property rights.

And don’t you think a question concerning a donation made to a 501c3 organization could have been a simple yes/no answer, as well? Or is it possible that there’s a little bit of guilt, shame, and a financial benefit wrapped up in a delicious evasion sandwich? Unfortunately such a sandwich is sure to bring on a wild case of dyspepsia soon after it’s ingested.

Now that’s just my simple minded pondering, but his inability to answer a question doesn’t speak well to the existence of an answer that points to upstanding conservative principles in the ACU. Maybe, just maybe, the ticket sales and coverage of anything Trump touches is enough to bend the proclivities of the ACU enough to invite a big government, democrat supporting, progressive policy pushing jackwagon to their event? Both assumptions could be correct, or wildly off base. I mean, maybe they stared into Trump’s eyes for too long and this is all legitimate excitement via the cultish Donald phenomenon we’ve been witnessing, but we just can’t know because they just won’t answer.

Sure, they’ve been abandoning bits and pieces of conservatism for a while now, but isn’t it time that conservatives hold them accountable? I sincerely hope CPAC 2016 is chocked full of people like this:

You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth, we need to win. Apparently that means any quasi-democrat with a speech about big walls and mass deportation gets to be labeled a conservative. My how the mighty have fallen. If this is how you wish to win, please count me out.

UPDATE: According to The Donald J. Trump Foundation Form 990, the American Conservative Union received 50K in donations in 2013.

Andrew Breitbart & Breitbart News: Same Name, Different Views


People are probably tired of hearing me defend Marco Rubio and attack “conservative” media. Well, I’m kind of tired of having to do it, as well.

Yet here I am…


While it all seems redundant, I can’t help but think that with the Iowa caucuses 90 days away, the constant demonizing is in need of constant rebuttal. While I have a much, much smaller group of followers than Trump’s hired puppets, I’ll do what I can. I’ve used my last two posts to tear some in conservative media apart, and fully intended on moving on. However, this particular issue came up today so I put this post together. The most recent Breitbart/Drudge/Rubio/Trump debacle arrives on the same day that the below video has been unearthed, a video showing Andrew Breitbart giving praise to Marco Rubio.

Continue reading

Is Marco Rubio Pulling a Peter Gibbons?

My favorite part of the election season, thus far, is when I have to defend the principles of my conservative candidate against people who now believe socialist healthcare, burka praise, and eminent domain fit inside conservative principles. Now, it’s normal to attack other candidates, and it can even be considered a strategic move… Unless, of course, your own candidate sounds like he was created after a mad scientist melted down Kim Jong-un and Liberace before pouring the bedazzled dictator creation into a yuge mold, because then you just look like a jackwagon.

I digress.

If you were scanning Twitter or Facebook yesterday, you’d find that Marco Rubio is a no good, dirty rotten scoundrel who hates his job in the Senate.

“He’s QUIT!”

“Give up your paycheck, Marco!”

“Poor little baby hates the Senate, how can he handle being a president?!”

My first response was to ask where these people have been. The Senate record argument has been used and debunked since the beginning of this debacle, and somehow people just found out about it all yesterday? That aside, in true throat slashing political fashion, Rubio’s opponents are now trying to paint him as Peter Gibbons.

Continue reading

#CNNDebate: What Really Matters

I am nothing if not opinionated, however, today I’m going to set some of those opinions aside and take a stab at a logical outlook for the current candidates. At this point, the candidates need to prove to those writing the checks that they are viable and worthy of continued support. Those who do well with the click bait public may not do as well with them, nor with serious conservatives.

Think of it like the appeal of a brand new toy. Johnny wants the new Nerf Zombie Strike Doominator Blaster, and he has dreams of sneaking through tall grass to annihilate the enemy, which is really just Jimmy and Billy, and so he begs his parents for this elite level of foam warfare. Johnny’s parents give in, and three months later the foam bullets are found bent and destroyed in the bottom of a toy box, and the Nerf Zombie Strike Doominator Blaster has yet to kill any zombies, and Jimmy and Billy have already purchased the 2.0 version. The shiny new gun that consumed all of Johnny’s time for approximately one week is now collecting dust on the floor in his room. However, every time Johnny gets bored and realizes that his fun new toys have lost their spark and appeal, you can find him on the living room floor building a castle creation made with the bucket of Legos his parents purchased him 4 years prior. You see, some candidates are Nerf Zombie Strike Doominator Blasters, and others are Legos, and one special candidate is like a blow torch in the hands of a toddler.

Last night, bottom tier candidates had something to prove, and many of them failed. Everyone at the first debate is out of luck, we all know this. But here is my breakdown, and prediction, for the 11 candidates on the main stage last night. Some exposed themselves as a good investment, others did not. They needed to set themselves apart in policy, not just in pizzazz.

John Kasich and Mike Huckabee (F):

I’m combining them to save time and sanity. They’re old news and have absolutely zero appeal to anyone under the age of 45, and that’s even stretching it. They won’t win anything. I predict that by Christmas these two will either be out, or they’ll be a joke. Both of these men would be a risky investment, all but guaranteed to yield a loss. By the end of the second fundraising quarter, September 30th, both of these candidates will feel the sting of defeat creeping up like rigamortis.

Rand Paul (D+): 

I have a feeling he’ll struggle for air longer than most, but still won’t make it much longer. He won’t even come close to winning the nomination. While many politically vapid millennials who appreciate his indignation for “The Man” tend to hang on his every word, the rest of us gasped in pity when he danced his campaign down the suicidal road of isolationism on Wednesday evening. We look around our world and see horror and fear, mass hysteria and pain, and our greatest concern with Paul was his foreign policy deficiency to begin with, last night only solidified our prejudice.

Ben Carson (C):

Ben Carson is the prime example of the Nerf Zombie Strike Doominator Blaster appeal. He’s a good guy, the people love him, the politically immersed conservatives even love him, but we cringe a little when he speaks on policy. If our country was not in the state it’s currently in, he would have a much better shot. Unfortunately the brilliant brain surgeon feels more like a dose of Tylenol for a patient fighting Ebola. We really like him, and if it was just a minor headache he’d be the first choice, but it’s just not a job for Tylenol. I suspect he’ll be all the rage for a few more weeks, but Wednesday was the beginning of his fizzling, by November he’ll be on his way out. The irrelevance of early polls will be on full display.

Ted Cruz (D): 

I once cheered on Teddy, no lie. I supported his endeavors, spirit, and full-on spunk. He was strong and against the grain. Now he annoys me. His speaking abilities, once hailed, now feel stiff and rehearsed. Worst of all, I cringe in horror whenever I think of the way he’s pandered to Donald Trump. I understand that he plans to collect votes from the disappointed leaches who are sure to drop from Trump once his campaign is doused in salt, but I can’t help but be angry for the conservatives like myself who had faith in him to rise above such low tactics. I am unforgiving in the world of politics, and while my personality is normally one of mild mannered – sarcasm laden – optimism, I quickly become Michael Corleone when you cross the line politically. Betrayal is intolerable, and while others sing his praises, I’m acknowledging my historical accolades for the man while also knowing what needs to be done. “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.” He’s cooked for many of us who are paying attention… Candidates don’t get elected by leaches alone, and the dedicated few who stand by him through his moments of weakness will accept the disappointment and move on, as well. I don’t hate the man, by any means, but I have no problem making him an example on how to lose.

Scott Walker (C):

Meh. Take him or leave him. I think many of us would appreciate him, and he is a step above plenty of candidates from yonder years, but he’s in over his head at this point. He’s a victim of sensory overload. He’s like a chocolate chip cookie on a table of premium desserts; when sitting on a platter next to dry muffins, Scotty is incredibly exciting… but when sitting next to cake, brownies, or premium pies, he just doesn’t outshine their appeal. He definitely could, but I find myself staring at him with my head tipped to the side like I do at an empty wall, “What will make this work, what does it need?” Before the debate I saw his great demise on the horizon; however, I believe Walker purchased himself a bit of time. That said, I believe it will be money wasted, because I’m predicting the great Scott Walker exit before the third fundraising quarter ends on December 31st.

Chris Christie(C):

Chris Christie is similar to John Stewart for me, I hate him and love him at the same time. I would never vote for him, but his presence doesn’t annoy me as much as others. He’s funny and good with one-liners, and he was very smart to involve the crowd on Wednesday night. That said, he won’t win. He’ll trudge on for a while, and he’ll make a lot of really great points, but in the end, he’s vying for the votes other candidates have in the bag. His strong points are genuinely held by most everyone else on the stage, and he really has no unique qualities that make him a viable long term investment.

Carly Fiorina (A+):

Girl brought game on Wednesday. She owned the stage. She’s a strong candidate, and I have a feeling she’ll be around for quite a while. More than anything, she’s perfect for a VP nod. She’s strong, she’s blunt, and she’s articulate. She’s strategic, and she combines policy with personal narrative. She’s not a politician, and unlike Donald Trump, she knows the issues rather well. I see her as a great asset to the Republican party, not only because she is a clear voice of reason, but because she could annihilate any argument Hillary would throw her way. I see her being here to the end, and I see other top tier candidates treating her with dignity and respect because they most likely see her as VP material. If you’re wondering what her appeal is, watch the mashup below. Like her or not, let’s admit a good candidate when we see one. Don’t like her, I recommend getting over it, because she’s not going anywhere.


Jeb Bush (B):

Don’t be angry guys, but Jeb did alright yesterday. He hit Trump with a few brutal punches, he defended his brother and his wife, and all in all, his outing was much stronger than I expected. I don’t want to see another Bush in the race, but when I remove his last name and look at the entire picture, he wasn’t bad last night. People say, “he’s awkward,” but the facts are, those arguments are as weak as picking on a lisp, tone of voice, or hand gestures. He did well, and he’s not going anywhere. He has shown himself to be a solid investment for donors.

Marco Rubio (A+):

Yes, Marco is my candidate, and I’m not shy about saying so. However, I merely echo the sentiments of a vast number of pundits, bloggers, and various conservative personalities when I say that he was in the winner column right next to Carly. Carly gives a solid punch, but Marco is substance in its purist form. Marco is a Lego candidate; he’s dependable, he’s consistent, and if you try to step on him he inflicts a blow that will take your breath away without stooping to theatrics. He did not stumble – he doesn’t stumble, for that matter – and he outlined solid strategies; more so than anyone else. If you determine that foreign policy is of high importance when choosing a candidate, you cannot overlook Marco Rubio and still be taken seriously. In addition, I spend a lot of time on politics and blogging, trolling Twitter for opinions. I’ve found that the vast majority of people I know in the “new media” support Marco Rubio, or at least lean in that direction. Rubio has staying power because investors know that the “new media” Andrew Breitbart created has even more pull than the high end – well known – journalists. A candidate backed by the majority of dedicated conservative “grassroots” writers – those much greater than I – has more staying power than Ann Coulter’s flavor of the week. When the celebrities exit the race, and 2016 rolls around, the game is in the hands of the new media, and Marco Rubio is doing quite well in their eyes.

And that’s just a sampling. Whether all of these wise men will fully support Rubio in 2016 is yet to be determined, but the general consensus is that Rubio ranks in the top three for the vast number of solid conservative names, as he should. The idea that he’ll faze out is unfounded, and quite honestly, a mere illusion thought up by those who just really, really like to cling to their favorite sputtering candidate like a baby blanket, hoping they won’t make the exit they’re surely headed towards.

Donald Trump (Crazy stalker you have escorted off school property):

Donald is running on angry fumes, but to think they’ll get him to 2016 is like me thinking that I can get from Florida to Washington on one tank of gas. Eventually his campaign is going to die on the side of the road – most likely in Georgia – surrounded by zombies with no Daryl to the rescue. His base may not shrink, but it also won’t grow, and as other candidates fizzle out his numbers will become less appealing. Hopefully the damage done in the Republican party by his bloviated rantings doesn’t linger into the general, but since it more than likely will, we have an even better reason to pick a candidate who can overcome them.

If you’d like a few highlights of Donald completely bombing it, here you go:

– Though they’re normal, his low blow remarks were on full display. After saying that Rand Paul shouldn’t be on the stage, a cheap shot at the very beginning of the debate, he also said that he’d have a lot of “subject matter” if he wanted to go after Rand Paul’s looks.

– He played the “rich people should pay more taxes” card, straight out of the progressive handbook like Obama was feeding him talking points.

– His business record was attacked, and he couldn’t defend himself in the slightest. The truth is that Donald ran on Daddy’s money, has had multiple bankruptcies on Casinos (which is, well, crazy), and plenty of his deals have been incredibly poor.

– He once again flopped on foreign policy and eluded to the idea that he’d learn it before getting to the White House. Meanwhile, Rubio and Carly gave eloquent and detailed answers. Can you honestly look to the Middle East, see the horror, and then turn around and vote for a man who doesn’t even sound like he could find Iraq on a map?

Speaking of his confusion between “Kurds” and “Quds”: “Hugh was giving me name after name—Arab name, Arab name, Arab—and there are few people anywhere, ANYWHERE, that would have known those names. I think he was reading them off a sheet.”

Crazy, one of those “few people” who know those names (Rubio) happens to be standing mere feet from the Lord of Darkness himself.

Those are just a few of the bullet points I had to pick from.

Now, if you read this until the end, THANK YOU! I’m known for long posts, but this may have taken the cake, so I appreciate you sticking around. I’m not a professional, and this isn’t what I do for a living, this is just my opinion on how I see the election moving. You never know exactly what will happen, but if Carson, Walker, or Cruz are on the general ticket, I’ll be eating my words. And if Trump is on the general ticket I’ll be writing in “Sweet Meteor of Death.”