Sunday, January 31, 2016

Screw the presidential race, Ted Cruz belongs in prison

Making people think that they might be going to jail if they don't vote for you IS VOTER INTIMIDATION!



Making an official looking letter, with the words "Violation", is a clear attempt to make the voter think they have broken the law, because that's what the government does when you actually have broken the law, usually this is done as a warning before they arrest or fine you.  It is not acceptable nor is it okay.  I am officially calling for a push for Ted Cruz to be thrown in prison for blatant and flagrant Voter Intimidation, whether he wins or losses the primaries or the general election (which he won't because the swing states will NEVER vote for someone who thinks non-conservative values are unAmerican).

No, even when he is out if the race, it is time for this nonsense to stop.  A person can not be expected to get away with trying to bully people into voting for them, we have laws against this for a reason. Contact your local and federal authorities and bring this to their attention.  Keep pushing, ANYONE who does this can and should be held accountable.

TED CRUZ FOR PRISON: RE: VOTER INTIMIDATION

Friday, January 29, 2016

Evidence that Social Justice Warriors (PC Police) are the racist scum they say everyone else is

At Oregon State University, they recently started a Jim Crow segregation program under the guise of "Social Justice", seen here.  The thing is, these are the same people who call everyone a racist or misogynist for stupid things.  More on that later, but after initiating this Jim Crow bullshit, the PC Cops then took it a step further in trying to censor Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech, not kidding.

UPDATE 2/16/2016 - There is now evidence that SJW's are using the Violence Against Women Act is being used to discriminate against black people.  I will keep adding more evidence as I find it.

So I guess if you play video games, you're a misogynist because a couple of twitter gamers used the word "whore" back in August 2014, if you're an atheist, you're a misogynist because atheism+, if you talk about periods or say rude things to women, even if said rude things are gender neutral, you're a misogynist.  I guess if you talk about illegals, you hate Mexicans, even though it's an offensive stereotype to equate Mexicans with illegals.  If you hate cartel thugs, you're a racist.  If you hate a horrible president, who happens to be black, you're a racist.

But instituting Jim Crow tyranny, and taking down MLK's great speech, that's tolerance, because "Social Justice", amirite?

Do the PC Police actually believe their own bullshit?  Or is this really just one big gotcha and they've been trolling us this whole time?  Either way, with Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Bernie Sanders Catering to the PC Police, we need to be backing far away from the Democratic ticket this election.  Jeb! is doing it too, but hasn't a chance.  And only Donald Trump is standing up to these racists.

So when you go to the polls in the primary and the general, think about this.  The people Trump stands against are what the MSM wants you to think Trump is, maybe that is why they fear him.  Because the SJWs in the media know that Social Justice Jim Crow hasn't a chance in hell under Trump.

They call it the Regressive Left for a reason, and Trump is our best hope of stopping it cold.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Abortion, what it means to me, and this election

There's a lot of controversy about Mr. Trump's alleged prochoiceness based on beliefs he held 17 years ago.  Kinda odd, considering very few of us hold the same political views we did in 1999.  But it did get me thinking about this issue, so here I'm going to breakdown the issue of abortion with an objective look, so that we can vote with facts, not emotions and 17 year old videos.

Before I begin, for full disclosure, I am a pro life liberal.  A minority, I know, but worth noting.  I used to be on the fence, before I had my son a little over 5 years ago.  I leaned prochoice, mind you, but what changed my mind was when those ultra sound abortion videos hit youtube.  I won't link them because the mere thought makes me tremor with horror and fear.  The other thing was my son, and his dynamic interaction in the womb with outside noise, and anything that would touch his mom's stomach.

So it's believable that life experience with children can make you prolife.  Whether you choose to believe Trump is up to you, but it's worth noting that if it is true, it is not unique to him.

Roe vs. Wade - Impact

Roe vs. Wade, unbeknownst to many, does not ban anti-abortion laws altogether.  Remember that Texas bill that Wendy Davis famously filibustered?  Part of it banned any abortions past the first 20 weeks.  How is that possible if Roe vs. Wade protects the right to abortion?  Because it actually doesn't, or well, it sort of doesn't.

Originally, it banned anti-abortion laws, but only pertaining to the 1st and 2nd Trimester.  3rd Trimester abortions could be banned and still can, by the states. I am unclear on whether the federal government can, so I will assume it can't.  In 1992, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey changed this so that abortion can now be banned beyond any time period that science can prove "fetal viability".  And the states have to make an exception if the woman's life is threatened.  There's also a privacy thing attached to this, but I'd rather focus on abortion itself.

So the real impact is that States have to do the banning, and only when they can prove, with science, that the fetus is likely alive. It's bad if you're a pro-lifer, mind you, but it's not as terrible as some are making it out to be.  And even I, as a pro-lifer, find it reasonable to make an exception when the woman's life is threatened.

Roe vs. Wade - Overturning

Right, so, here's the thing about overturning Roe vs. Wade, it's not as simple as appointing a couple of justices and calling it a day. Mathematically, that's sort of true, sort of, but there's a lot more to it than that.

First, you have to actually get your case heard.  The current caseload per year, is over 10,000.  That's the official number of the SCOTUS itself.  How many do they actually hear each year? It varies per year, but tends to be less than 150.  Even if we were to reduce the caseload to 1,000, that's still not great odds of getting your case heard.  You can increase your odds by getting a chief justice who desperately wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and maybe John Roberts does, but it's not certain by any means.

Then there's the matter of appointments.  The 3 ways a justice can be replaced is if they step down, are found mentally unstable, or die.  That's it, you can't rely on them to retire, they may, and one or two likely will over the next 8 years, but it's not guaranteed.  And in a day and age where people live to be over 100, the oldest is Ginsberg at 82.  It's not unimaginable that there won't be a replacement in the next 8 years.  And while you could probably make the case that a couple of them really are mentally unstable, good luck trying to make it happen without people calling it a political show.  

But even ignoring all that, let's just pretend we can replace all nine of them right now with prolife justices.  A funny thing about the supreme court is that justices have historically been unpredictable,  Justice Kennedy is an excellent example of that.  There are reasons for this, some of them put law above politics, and some sell themselves one way to get appointed, only to prove the opposite on the bench.  The point is, even in the best case scenerio, it's still not a certainty that we would be successful in overturning Roe vs. Wade.  Mind you, it probably would succeed in this case, but it's not 100%.

Partial Birth Abortion

If it's not already banned it should be, straight up.  Already went through the pregnancy and childbirth, but are killing the kid anyway?  Yeah-no.

Backroom Butcher Problem

Many prochoicers point out that if we were to ban abortion today, it may just be replaced by more brutal black market abortions.  It's probably less true than they say, as black market surgeries of any kind are unsanitary, often painful, and difficult to hide the evidence thereof.  But it's a legit point.  To me though, what this says is that our first step in banning abortion should be to provide alternatives.  Easy access to contraceptives is one thing, but the problem is that this often causes people to have a lot more sex, offsetting the effect somewhat.

A surrogate mother program, to hook up unwanted pregnancies, with people having trouble conceiving can help, but will probably lead to large disparities on one side or the other. Perhaps pouring research into artifical wombs for an eventual pre-birth adoption program?

Conclusion

Abortion can and needs to be banned, but it can't and won't happen right now.  And we need to look at the whole picture, and ban it right when the time does come.

The time will not come within the next 8 years though, and probably won't even come in the next 20.  So let's calm down and quit freaking out about this.  Trump is most likely genuine when he says he is pro-life.  But even if he were the most hard core pro-lifer, there'd be little he could do as president anyway.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Why I support Donald Trump's decision to walk out on the Faux News Debate

It's a bit known that back in August, SJW Megyn Kelly frivolously accused Donald Trump of sexism for what, at worst, was crass humor.  Most people think that's the entire reason for Trump skipping out.  Well, the problem with that theory is that many of her recent shows have been hit pieces, aimed at Trump.  She even called, of all people, Micheal Moore to help her attack Trump:




You are not seeing a parody clip or a joke show, she actually summoned Mr. Fahrenheit 911.  For those who don't know, 9/11 conspiracy theories started not with loose change, but Fahrenheit 911.  Loose Change is just more infamous because it's actually more batshit insane than Fahrenheit 911, as if that was possible.  This is like calling on Alex Jones to take someone down, except, Alex, at least, believes his own bullshit. And before I move on, I just want to ensure you conservatives and moderates that we liberals ARE NOTHING LIKE MOORE.

But back to Faux News the point is, there was more reason for the feud with Kelly than just the 1 incident.  And a cursory look at Bret Baer's youtube channel and show also hints at an anti-Trump bias, albiet a more subtle one.  Here's a video showcasing some of her hitpiece shows, many making erroneous claims:




FYI Megyn, no republican has a majority of the black, women, or young vote, but Trump does better with them than the other republicans.

So you have two moderators, one obviously biased, another seeming to be, and a network unwilling to waver even on the most obviously biased one.  That's unprofessional as it is, but then there was this:
We learned from a secret back channel, that the ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.
Now I know that Mr. Trump hasn't run his campaign professionally either, and perhaps he should start doing so.  The difference is, that Trump is not in a position where his job is to be objective, he is in a position where his job is to push his own agenda and prop up his poll numbers. He is not running a debate for the sake of the voters, aimed at helping them decide.  Mocking a candidate, and standing behind blatantly biased moderators is unacceptable, it is the job of the network to HELP people decide, not to MAKE them decide.


Now with that said, it is possible this will hurt his campaign, yes.  It is also very likely that the debate was a show trial aimed at persecuting Donald Trump in the court of public opinion. Either decision could potentially end his campaign (though, other decisions seemed like they could have, but didn't), but walking out at least gave him the opportunity to screw over Faux News.

It's the difference between losing with your head up, or losing with your head down.  And who knows, this may actually INCREASE his poll numbers.

Update: Added video showcasing Megyn's hit pieces on Trump and some Italics commentary.

Update 2: Faux News is now implying that Trump is a terrorist.....for walking out on a debate:
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/26/fox-news-donald-trump-gop-debate

Even if you think it was dumb or cowardly, there IS NO WAY that is terrorism.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Mark Levin's history of lies and misrepresentation

Ah yes, Mark Levin, radiohost, and step father to a Cruz Campaign staffer.  We all know the story, he has a hate-on for Mr. Trump.  He misrepresents facts, and that's when he ISN'T outright lying.  But what you may not know is that this isn't an isolated incident.

Take the 2010 incident where he "took down a Global Warming Zealot on Earth Day".  If by "Global Warming Zealot", he meant Climate Change denier, he's right.  Now I'm not going to argue for or against Climate Change here, because whether or not it is correct isn't the point.  That Mark Levin lied on somebody for slamming his book, is.  His lies are so frequent, that he has actually been fired for them at least once:



Think about that, conservative AND liberal media is a place where the job is often to lie as much as possible, and this guy gets fired for of all things, LYING.  It's pretty bad when you're such an abrasive partisan hack that even other abrasive partisan hacks get sick of you and give ya the boot, because you lie too much for even them.

And of course, these aren't the only two incidents.  There's his birther flip flopping ( Even if Trump may be wrong, he's at least consistent). his refusal to let callers who get the upper hand talk (Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage are also guilty of this), and his temper tantrum he directed at Bill O'Reilly for actually taking a second, to NOT be partisan.  And lastly, while Barack Obama has been a horrible president, he hasn't exactly committed genocide, rape, and slavery. I mean, sure, he's created Daesh, destabilized the middle east, acted immature and ruined US-Russia relations over Snowden, gave us a health insurance bill instead of actual universal healthcare, supported a dovish fed that destroyed many people's life savings, lied about unemployment (neglected the ones who stopped looking for work or who are UNDER employed), and suspiciously won ALL the swing states in 2012, even the ones that were heavily leaning towards Romney, but that's not genocide, rape, or enslavement.

So it's no surprise that Mark Levin doesn't want people seeing this, dated Dec 22 2014 one week AFTER the 15th:

But as I have established, Mr. Levin is not a friend of the truth.

Monday, January 25, 2016

I KNOW what Canadian Cruz meant by "NY Values", and THAT is exactly my problem

Yes, we all know what Mr. Pretend to filibuster was getting at.  Trump is from a blue state, don't vote for him because blue state people are bad.

But can I just ask? How is that ANY better? Is being from a liberal state a crime?  Is being an actual liberal a crime?  Are we not all Americans?  Not according to the notso naturally born Ted Cruz. Now before anyone says it, no I do not believe Donald Trump is anywhere near liberal, but Cruz fans love to bash on Donald Trump for HIS attacks on other candidates saying that he's "not debating the issues".  But just how is "liberal New York Values" debating the issues?

It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, Ted Cruz has something against people who are not all the way to the right.  A bit hypocritical given that his own record is one of moving  left when he thinks it will get him more votes.  Even ignoring that, he's welcome to be as far right as he wants, but I'm welcome to be as far left as I want, and no president should ever imply otherwise.

Good luck winning the swing states Mr. Cruz, because every liberal and moderate who heard what you said now hates your guts for it.  Trump may be a conservative, but he's a conservative I respect, and if he's more liberal than you, good, cus I'm a liberal myself.


Sunday, January 24, 2016

Who WANTS to be endorsed by THIS guy?

Ted Cruz is flaunting his endorsement by Glenn Beck, THIS Glenn Beck:



Say what you will about Sarah Palin, she may be, okay she IS extremely awkward.  But on a personal level, she's likable.  And if conservatives are persuaded by her endorsement, so be it.  Again, I'm not saying she isn't weird or crazy, or that she's a genius, just that she doesn't act like the above video.  That's the difference between Palin and Beck.  They both say and do weird things, but I honestly do not see Sarah Palin freaking out over an argument and getting homicidally angry.  Hell, everyone remember Howard Dean's freakout over his Iowa loss?  That was LESS bad than, well, see above.

Okay you get the point.  Notice that I am not knocking his opinion, I am knocking his meltdown.  If he can't stop himself from melting down on the air, one wonders how he acts at home.  And ANY candidate would be wise to rebuke such an endorsement.

Then again, we're talking about a candidate who pretended to filibuster for 21 hours, only to cave like his other republicans, then pretend he did something when he clearly did not.