What creeps me out about Donald Trump

Trump fans will hate on this post, because political tribalism makes football season look like a My Little Pony commercial. Calm down, every candidate will get a fair shake.

I’ve already written about why Trump’s candidacy was a good thing, and I’m a fan of his ability to freak out the media. “The Donald” phenomena was awesome, but I just can’t swallow candidate Trump.

He voted for Obama. Twice. He’s used the club of government for his own ends, and when he’s called on it, his response is “I’m smarter than conservatives, and jobs outrank property rights.” He’s donated to democrats. Not ancient candidates like Carter or Mondale, but Clinton and Obama, both clear and present dangers to our nation. He’s changed position on so many issues so many times that people never know if they’re being duped by a slimy businessman. That nagging feeling won’t go away and I’ve learned not to try and make it.

I’m all for a show of strength, but arrogance is not strength. He’s really divisive, at a time when conservatives very much need healing. He utterly lacks humility. Maybe the problem is that it’s been so long since a grown up was in charge, America doesn’t remember what it looks like.

There’s also the specter of an independent run should he lose the nomination. I have no love for the GOP, but should Trump split the not-Hillary vote, history will repeat itself and Trump will be the new Ross Perot (for another Clinton). Nothing Trump says can assuage that fear, which exposes underlying trust issues. We also need to ask ourselves if America needs a hotel/casino boss as president.

Overall, there’s too much baggage to haul. In a primary with Bob Dole, Trump would have been great. This time, there’s better options.

***UPDATE: There’s one more major reason I don’t trust Donald Trump. The Republican National Committee is backing him. We all know the RNC hates grassroots conservatives above anything. If they’ve decided to back Trump, it’s not because he’s friendly to dismantling excessive government.



GOP Quarter Quell

Remember who the real enemy is.

Primary season reduces friends and neighbors to enemies as we root for “our” candidate. Evangelicals, libertarians, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, tea partiers, etc… Everyone fighting for a piece of the polling pie.

Who wins? Always the Capitol.

Iowa is shaping up to be a battle between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, and rumors are swirling that the GOP Establishment has decided they hate Ted Cruz more than they fear Donald Trump. Trump isn’t a stranger to paying to play with the cudgel of government, so they likely think he’ll play ball more than Cruz. Trump may embarrass the political class, but Cruz will fire them.

I also hear that democrat voters may be “defecting” to Trump. This is one of two things. One, democrats want to face Trump in the general, and are willing to help him over the primary hump. Two, the Establishment GOP is deploying the “Mississippi Strategy,” which involves crossover get-out-the-vote operations to democrat areas for the express purpose of defeating a conservative candidate (Cruz). Either way, it’s not a good sign for actual conservatives.

The GOP establishment hates conservatives, and they have for decades. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, and Bush 41 were picks of “mainstream” Republicans. (Don’t try the Bush-won line, he was billed as Reagan’s 3rd term and the moment he stood on his own record, Clinton won.) Democrat-lite candidates that have more in common with Nancy Pelosi than Ronald Reagan are normal in the Capitol. Washington elites have hated conservatives for so long it’s now difficult for them to hide their contempt.

WE are the enemy of Mitch McConnell, Speaker Paul Ryan, Reince Prebuis, and every other establishment politician for one reason only. We want D.C. to be less powerful. They want their turn at the wheel. Establishment paradigms go right down to the state and county level as well, with operatives that believe it’s their job bend our support to the elites, not the other way around.

Rank and file conservatives didn’t pick this fight, and apart from blindly following their lead, we have nothing they want. To the Establishment, Election 2016 isn’t about who can compromise with the people, it’s about who gets to rule them.

That’s what America is up against. It’s not GOP vs. Democrats, it’s the Capitol vs. everyone else. Don’t forget it, because they sure haven’t.

Plan and execute accordingly.

P.S. Clinton is an enemy, but not yet. I applaud the candidates who make her the target, because that’s their job. It’s our job to push back against GOPe, because someone 80% my enemy is not likely 20% my friend.

One Person Nobody’s Asking About in Spring Valley Assault Video

We’ve all seen the video. Cop flips high school student out of chair, yanks her around like a rag doll. There’s also two other videos, showing the same girl punching the cop in the chest and neck, but that’s (somehow) irrelevant. Now the cop is fired and talking heads everywhere are using the incident to push pre-baked agendas and statistically incorrect race conflicts.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

So, in this nation-destroying blame game, how did no one bother to ask why the minor’s parents were not involved in the discipline process? Do teachers routinely use police to physically confront students before contacting parents? Why did that become a good idea?

How did parents get so removed from conflict resolution with their own children? School is not supposed to be some black hole children live in for hours a day. Don’t tell me there wasn’t time to call home, this wasn’t an active shooter situation. In fact, the problem was errant cell phone use, coupled with refusal to physically move from the classroom. You’re telling me a teacher can’t whip out their own phone and call mom or dad?

When did parents become silent partners in child-rearing? More importantly, why do they choose to remain so?

That’s the problem. Not the teachers, not the students, not the cops. We have a generation of children raised by screens, each other, and a shattered education system run by a state monopoly. As long as families are broken, dad is absent, parents keep dumping off their babies to “find fulfillment,” and entertainment/addictions are more important than children, these things will continue to happen.

None of those things are the police’s fault.

Parents should be the first line of discipline; actually involved at the conflict and policy levels. I know, maybe parents won’t take the call; they might remain as uninvolved as usual, or worse, defend the errant child. That is the conversation we need to have in this society, not who to fire when families disintegrate.

There’s a whole other host of issues that go into this argument, such as school choice (a good thing), compulsory education (also a good thing), and Constitutional rights for minors, to name a few. Those national conversations need to be had. Side note: If you want a genuinely productive answer to such problems, do not look to government as your answer. They’ve done a rather horrible job with education, so they don’t get an opinion.

It doesn’t matter if you are black, white, brown, or a penguin; families are the functional unit of society. No government funding, social program, or redefinition of the nuclear family will make broken homes vanish. If you really, really want to improve the lives of children, schools, and race relations, you will work to support and strengthen the family in every aspect of society. That means the schools call parents first, it means parents take those calls, it means parents discipline children in a productive and effective way. It means schools answer to parents, not the state. It means children answer to parents, not the other way around.

America has two choices. Fix the family or watch society burn.

P.S. Compounding to the high school kid’s problems is the report that she’s in foster care. Still think broken families aren’t the problem?

In Defense of Self-Defense

In the wake of the Roseburg school shooting, national debate over gun control is raging once more. According to people who have never been attacked, taking away self-defense tools from regular people will somehow make the world a safer place. I’m guessing they mean “a better place… for abusers.”

I want to puke. And possibly kick in their front door at 3am.

Childhood wasn’t great for me. Basically, my parents are the bad guys in a Lifetime movie, inflicting about every type of abuse you can imagine. Mom was the more physically violent one. She was also a blue belt in Karate, so her beatings were, um, precise. One interesting twist in her physical abuse came if I made a move to protect myself. Raising my arms (or curling up) to shield the blows brought more hits, which was… counterproductive. It took a while, but eventually I learned to make myself defenseless in the hope of reducing the number of attacks.

It. Didn’t. Work.

What gun control proponents are asking me (and you) to do is to hold still in terror as we are beaten. Raping and killing are also on the menu, and gun control supporters are ok with that. Let me say that again, gun control supporters are willing to have people beaten, raped, and killed to gratify their ideas.

Unless the Second Coming of Jesus happened earlier today, there will always be bad guys. There will always be abusers. But, unless gun production is halted on a global scale, bad guys will be able to get guns. And evil people will continue to do violence because that’s what they do.

What gun control advocates are really working toward is making normal people defenseless. It’s an abomination. What blows my mind is the weight our society is giving this argument. Are we, on a national scale, actually considering creating a defenseless population in the hope that violent people will be less violent?

The Roseburg/Sandyhook/Columbine teachers should have been armed and trained. The students should have been armed and trained. The security guard should have been armed and trained. Gun control protects no one but the assailant and/or tyrannical government officials.

Let me tell you about the last time my mother beat me. I was 16, and sweeping the kitchen floor. I must have said something that set her off, and she grabbed the broom from me. This time, I didn’t let go of the stick. The broom was collapsible, and she twisted the handle into two pieces, leaving both of us with half a broomstick. I was on the floor from the struggle when she began swinging her stick at me, club-style. I held up my stick to block the incoming strikes. I remember the look on her face as she processed the fact that her assault wasn’t working. For the first time, we were evenly matched, and it was because I had a tool that stopped me from getting beat. She paused after several strikes (that bent my metal pipe), then threw her pipe down and stormed away.

Telling survivors they should be re-victimized to satisfy your opinion is a moral atrocity. Please believe me when I say I will never again be that girl, frozen in terror as an attacker violates me. You want to destroy my right to defend myself? Come and take it, because I’ve proven I can take a hit. Have you?

Because if you come for me, you’re going to find out.

Gun Control Google Translate: Governments Only

Note: First off, I’m sorry for the loss of life and loved ones in the UCC Shooting. I regret having to post on this topic so close to the attack, but I’m not the one who politicized the tragedy, and to remain silent while government officials fear monger is a disservice to our nation.

So, we’ve got another school shooting, and government-types wasted no time calling for more gun control. Liberals throw around terms like background checks, assault weapon bans, reduced magazine rounds, firearm registration, and loop holes. What’s missing from their talking points is the end result of these ideas (pretty sure that’s intentional.)

They’ve been working toward it in baby steps, but the final goal for gun control supporters is a completely disarmed civilian and a fully armed police force. Don’t believe me? Find a liberal and ask them, “In what situation(s) would you prefer and support a civilian armed?” The longer they take to answer, the more defenseless they think people should be.

Gun control proponents are actually more interested in gun concentration, making only people paid by the government armed. Some supporters may have good intentions, which means nothing. When depriving people of moral rights, safety, and self-defense, you don’t get credit for what you were trying to do.

In my discussions with supporters of gun control, their end usually goes like this:

“We need to reduce the number of guns on the street so less people will die from gun violence… Yes I know criminals don’t obey laws, which is why we need to choke off the supply; they should make selling guns illegal… No, they can sell to police and military, just not civilians… You’re right, we can’t only target American companies, we need to ban all businesses from selling guns to non-government employees… No, I don’t think gun manufacturers in Russia, Africa, Asia, and South America would try and sell their guns on the black market to cartels and terrorists… Yes, I think we could keep those guns out of the hands of gangs… Yes, we can disarm criminals if we take all the guns…”

Lather, rinse, repeat, bang head on desk.

Here’s a hint, if you can’t stop drugs or groups of dehydrated farmers from crossing the border, you can’t stop guns either. The legitimacy of the entire gun control argument rests on the idea that all  governments of the world will agree to stop making guns. Short of that, you’re talking about gun concentration. If you think the 1 percent of wealth crowd is bad, wait until you see what the 1 percent of firepower can do. There are already several examples… the Cambodian killing fields, Chinese revolution, USSR, and lets not forget the Holocaust. In the last century, gun control has killed over 100 million people, and that’s just the ones directly murdered by their own government.

Ban guns, because safety.
Ban guns, because safety.

Bad guys will never stop making guns, so the only people you’re disarming are civilians without access to a black market. The reality is that anything illegal isn’t hard to get, it’s simply more expensive.

P.S. The UCC Shooting? All students and teachers were disarmed. The guys who stopped the shooter? Armed. The badges they carried didn’t save the dead, but a gun in the classroom might have.

Black Market Mental Illness

Obamacare destroyed more than America’s wallet. It also ripped the blanket of doctor-patient confidentiality away from the most vulnerable. Mental illness is an epidemic in our nation, and fear of government is driving people away from treatment.

Obamacare’s mandate giving DSHS electronic access to their medical records is what’s chasing them:

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act requires physicians and hospitals, under financial penalties, to transfer your secure paper-based medical records to an “electronic” system, i.e., the Internet. (…) What this really does is remove the privacy and control in your relationship with your doctor by removing your records from their office file cabinet and dumping them into the Internet “cloud” where everyone and anyone can access them.

Then in December of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to share your medical records with over 35 federal agencies. This was long after January of 2014, when DSHS changed patient confidentiality standards, allowing psychiatrists to report their patients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) based on confidential patient information.

Have you taken your kid to the doctor recently? Do you remember the part of the visit where your fever-ridden child is asked “Are there any guns in your house?” I do. Now fast forward 6 months. You’ve been sad longer than you can remember and know it’s more than just motherhood. You feel like you’re drowning, but then remember that guy who had his guns confiscated because he had a psychiatric prescription. Now you’re more scared than sad, and the light at the end of the tunnel just got much further away.

Mental health professionals everywhere know the phrase “self-medicating.” It’s never a good thing. But when the people reading your therapist’s notes are the same people who can legally kick in your door; taking away your kids, guns, and anything else they want while throwing you in jail, it’s not gonna make you open up and admit you need help. Mentally unstable people who are paranoid of the government are a cliche, but a (hopefully) unintended consequence of Obamacare is making these people into prophets.

“Off the books” is an increasingly attractive option for people struggling with depression, PTSD, anxiety, etc. but finding such help is impossible. Penalties for providers that treat patients outside approved channels include jail time.

It’s a travesty that the biggest concern of mentally ill people is now “What if the government finds out?”

Eat the Young

The only thing more shocking than ten videos showing babies being ripped apart is America’s meh response. So far, the most mainstream defense of meat-marketing baby brains comes from the stem-cell research crowd. “We’ll cure disease” they said. “It will benefit humanity” they said. Call me insensitive, but drawing and quartering a baby to acquire medicine for adults seems a bit backward, doesn’t it? Is dissecting the young to feed medical advances to the old something to be proud of?

This is OK, because science.
This is OK, because science.

If killing children in the name of medicine is acceptable, it shouldn’t be a shock that protecting children from rape is “culturally offensive.”

Sgt. First Class Charles Martland and his co-worker Captain Daniel Quinn were just removed from the U.S. Army for physically assaulting a child rapist that beat the boy’s mother when she spoke out about his raping. I’m gonna repeat that. The US Government fired someone for intervening against a child rapist. The reason? Local Afghan (read: Islamic) culture is completely fine with child rape, so we are morally bound to accept it.

I’m detecting a common thread here. Somehow, in the name of choice and equality, it became acceptable to turn children into commodities; created to be slaughtered, traded, purchased, and sold by hanging weight.

Inflicting horror on children isn’t new. Islam has regulated child abuse of all types since it existed, and regressive cultures have a habit of sacrificing children. But the western world is supposed to have a higher standard. Things like child rape and murder used to be “grab your gun” moments in the community. If western culture is so enlightened, why are we creating laws specifically to allow the raping and killing of children?

Grinding up the young to feed the old is, shall we say, unsustainable. Right now, our legacy is going to be mountains of broken abuse survivors, infant corpses, and spectacular geriatric treatments. But if the most precious resource is our children, we should probably mean it.

And not in a price per pound sort of way.