I know the difference between a wolf in sheep’s clothing with malicious intentions and a wolf who has decided that the sheep need protection from other wolves and has sided with them to further their species. Many think that the Donald Trump run for president is something of a Trojan horse into the Republican Party intended to derail conservatism. I can understand their skepticism. But as I remind people often—we all have our little gifts innate to our individuality and mine has always been the ability to see way over the horizon toward trends and dangers well before anybody else. I have been able to do that all my life, and it was within weeks of the Donald Trump run for president that I saw something very special happening in politics. Donald Trump is in a position to do something that I have been doing with this blog site for over five years every day, and that is address difficult issues directly on a gigantic global stage, and if he is successful, where he actually steps into the White House, I am confident at that time that I’ll be able to step away from the daily contributions to this site and do something else—because Trump is largely going to be able to take the baton to the next level.
My family came over for dinner on Friday night to watch the wonderful Donald Trump speech from Mobile, Alabama. Trump was able to put about 30,000 people—according to USA Today—into a local football stadium for a very enthusiastic rally promoting his candidacy. Trump may not get into the details or have the same defined value systems that I do, but I see on his face and hear in his words a guy who has lived his life well—epically in fact—and now wants to give something back as a man at the top of his game—the way the process should work. I’ve always said that the best among us should manage the money and affairs of our nation—and Trump represents a trend changing element. So I wanted my family to see history happening. They came over, my wife picked up some Chick-fil-A, and we watched about four hours of Trump coverage including the live broadcasts on Fox and CNN. It really was an amazing event.
I have read a lot of books over the years and many have been Trump’s. Books like The Art of the Deal, Think Big and Kick Ass, Never Give Up, Think Like a Champion, Why We Want You to be Rich, and The America We Deserve are highly motivational and were written by a guy with a very long track record committed to the power of positive thinking. He has achieved so much in his life that really President of the United States is the only social thing left for him to conquer which is what I believe his true motivation is. He has the gifts and the mentality, and he’s testing himself on the largest stage possible, and the result is something that like everything else he has done will greatly benefit a large number of people.
My oldest daughter who thinks very highly of me immediately noticed what I wanted her to see by coming over to watch the Trump speech. “He reminds me of you,” she said with some level of intensity which she said when Trump signed a copy of The Art of the Deal for a fan while he was in the middle of his speech. Trump’s approach to problems is very similar to mine and I had been thinking the same thing. My wife has been saying that the reason she likes Trump so much is again because he reminders her of me, which she has been declaring for the last couple of months. Trump is running for president in precisely the way I would if I were in a similar position. He stays up each day working his campaign longer and harder than any other candidate and is able to dominate his rivals with sheer charisma. He’s at a different stage of life than I am, but the heart is what they are talking about—the intentions behind his actions. Because of all those elements, I feel very confident I understand Donald Trump and what he’s up to.
Slowly, as the back of this train, where the rest of society is, catches up to the front—where Trump has been all his life—the true impact of this soon to be global phenomena will make itself known. What we were watching in Mobile, Alabama was unique in the world of politics—a perfect blend of entertainment and political philosophy colliding within contemporary static patterns. Even though politicians have for years used celebrity as a way to prop up their numbers as second-handers, Trump is able to turn that whole system on its head. It used to drive me crazy to watch Bill Clinton fly Air Force One around speaking venues—completely paid for by the tax payers—to raise money for Democrats. Landing into Mobile Trump applied the same trick with his Boeing 757, his own plane built by years of personal success. That plane can fly at 609 miles an hour and can travel 4,400 miles without stopping. The plane is a symbol of Trump’s power. I was watching him on Twitter leading up to the big speech in Alabama. He was in New York just a few hours before his speech, but was able to jump in his plane and fly out to a remote site—perform his speech—and be back to sleep in his own bed. No other candidate can do that because they are second-handers—and Trump knows it. He was able to circle the stadium in his plane a few times just to rally the crowd on the ground that he already has a personal airplane better than Air Force One as a private citizen. It was a psychologically imposing reminder of just who he is, and what he has the potential to do in America.
For this blog site I have loaned my personal reputation and image to the plight of solving hard problems and I do it because I know that if someone doesn’t do something, there won’t be much of a country left in a few years. I know many important people read it every day that is at the top of political discourse and it helps them navigate through a very complicated time. It costs me far more to write this blog than many might think—but I do it because someone has to say these things as bluntly as possible. Just a few years ago, Glenn Beck and I were very closely on the same page, but over time, and personal circumstances he has essentially taken the money from his success and turned inward leaving the fate of his life to God. The guy who was able to pack the Mall in Washington for a Restoring America tour essentially got knocked off the national stage and is now broadcasting out of a cave in Dallas. He moved from New York to seek friendlier people who wouldn’t harass him on the social scene when he was out with his family. That’s where he and I differ tremendously.
Years ago Darryl Parks from WLW radio asked me how I dealt with the kind of harassment within my community from all the things I said on the radio and within this blog. He assumed that everywhere I went I would be harassed—and he’d be correct. Only people know that if they confront me that there will be a fight of some kind. There are two ways that people advance conflict, directly and indirectly. Direct conflicts are where people actually try to pick a fight with you and physical violence is the result. That has happened, and I deal with that kind of thing accordingly. Obviously, my behavior has not changed and it will not change, because I know how to handle those circumstances. Indirect conflicts are the passive aggressive types where people smile to your face, but try to stick a knife in your back at the first opportunity. These are the most common attempts, and were what Darryl Parks was asking me about. I have said it long before I’ve heard Donald Trump say it, that nobody out thinks me. Lots of people have tried, but nobody outthinks or out lasts me. I make a point to always be the last person standing in whatever conflict is presented, which ironically is the best deterrent. Once word gets out, people try much less frequently. Due to my relatively young age, I still get takers every now and then who try—especially older people who think by their age and social status that they have some inherit right to win a strategic match-up by default. I respond to them by not only beating them, but in embarrassing them to their very core. When they make a move against me I fully intend to send them to bed each night with doubt strewn across their faces and impotence that no Viagra pill can fix. I always plan to break them down from the inside out. Physical violence is fine as a last resort, beating someone from the outside in—but for a cunning mind, a truly dominate alpha male, the best way to beat a competitor is from the inside out. You can see a beaten person from the way they hold their eyes in a simple gaze. Trump, better than anybody running for President understands exactly what I’m talking about—he applies it each day—and that has won my trust.
Since Trump began his campaign he has had death threats lashed against him by drug lords, he has challenged entire countries and their governments to end their corruption, taken on the entire media establishment, both political parties, said and done anything and everything he has wanted, and he has still been able to fill a rally on a Friday night in Mobile, Alabama a year and a half from a presidential election with enthusiastic supporters while advocating his economic prowess using his private airplane with the reminder that he’s willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to have a lobby free candidate sitting in the White House. Sign me up. I understand the kind of fighter that he is and am confident that his brand would destroy a political establishment that I want to see eradicated from the American scene. I am 100% confident that a Donald Trump as president would usher in a decade unique in not only America, but in all of human history. The Reagan presidency would become a footnote of inadequacy, and Trump would be successful because he knows how to win from the inside out, and not just the outside in.
So we are witnessing history in the making, something that is truly unique. I know what Donald Trump is doing and why he’s doing it. I don’t have to sit down with him to see it, because it is obvious to me that his motivations are very similar to my own. But he is positioned to take it to a new level, and for that I would gladly support. He is offering the kind of President that I have been asking for, so I’m going to advocate on his behalf. What people say about him from the past are interpretations of their social positions regarding the wake of defeats handed to them by Trump. People who have been conquered still have to live with themselves even after embarrassments, so they justify their existence with snaky comments and behind the back undermining. For instance, even with all that I’ve said and done, why is it that people from my past don’t come forward to say, “hey, remember when we met in that back alley, and you lost, or I got the better of you on such and such date.” You know why dear reader—because it’s never happened, and it never will. When you are a winner, you know how to hold the high ground and make others tear themselves to shreds trying to get to you. And that is what Trump is doing in a presidential election before the primaries. It makes me very excited to see what he could actually do once he won the election. I get the feeling that America by then will be a very different place. And that’s not a bad thing. At that point the words on these pages become much less relevant as a new day would spring forth in America, and I would emphatically assist by passing the baton to someone with a larger platform to finish the job.
To understand a Trump presidency is to understand the effort that actually built his 757 airplane. He could make America into something better, and I want to put it in his artistic hands to perform the task. The metaphor of that power made its impact in Alabama before he ever landed, and that left the global media short of words—because for many of them it was the first time they had seen such a thing outside of their personal static patterns where the rich and famous relegate themselves to the plush towers of Abu Dhabi. Trump wants to fight, he wants to conquer, and he wants to do it on behalf of America for one last triumph of a life well lived. And that in and of itself is wonderfully unique. A wolf is running for president not because he wants to eat the sheep that flock within American politics, but because he wants to fight the other wolves who reside in the cracks of global endeavor, and he wants to prove to himself that he can beat them all. And in the wake of that effort, America will become great once again. I know all that because I know myself, and I understand the drive that resides deep inside a person born to be a winner.
Now, watch the above videos and learn all about Donald Trump and understand why I’m right once again.
I’m not writing this for my usual readers, who would expect approximately 1500 words of substantiation to validate whatever argument I’m putting forth. What I’m about to say they already know. Rather, this article is for those on the other side who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton. I have news for you since by your lifestyle choices; you probably don’t know what’s happening involving her right now. For those people I will make this a lot shorter so to hold your attention spans. I am of course speaking to the communist slugs, the Democratic socialists, the labor union supporters, the welfare recipients, the bloods and the crips, the community activists, the “he she” types, the criminals, the lazy, and the vile progressive. Your candidate is in deep trouble. Just watch her in this very revealing Vegas press conference.
She was of course making a campaign stop in Vegas trying to maintain her lead during a presidential election—which can also be seen below. But at this point because of the guilt implied in what she said in the press conference, her campaign just ended. There is no possibility to recover. The Democrats are now without a candidate. Bernie Sanders is an open socialist. Joe Biden is attached to the sinking ship of the Obama White House and is extremely gaffe prone and there isn’t another viable candidate. So there you have it. Welcome to reality.
I’m not going to rub it in anybody’s face. Like the cockroaches that most of you are, the light has been turned on and your first instinct is to flee to the cracks and hide. But there isn’t anywhere to shelter you from your own stupidity. Those days are—in effect—over. It will take a while to clean up the mess, but the progressive party is effectively over—and it starts with this press conference. Hillary has no defense and it is so painfully evident. She is guilty as guilty could possibly be of not only misleading a federal investigation by destroying evidence, but gross misconduct while holding a public office directly connected to two American presidencies. And there isn’t enough pot (marijuana) in the world to numb that reality.
I know this has been a lot of words for your tiny minds to contemplate; I have tried to be as brief as possible. But I just thought you’d want to know that you don’t have a candidate for the 2016 election. Have a nice day.
Before anyone says that the real life Oskar Schindler was a Nazi war profiteer and has no comparison to Trump, or that the situation in Schindler’s List is not even remotely the same as the current state of America—I would argue both points. Oskar Schindler was a businessman who worked the Nazi Party into making himself huge profits. But during his experiences he realized how evil the party under Hitler truly was and he had a change of heart, so he decided to save some lives and work the system from his position of strength to do it. Without talking to Trump personally about the situation I think a few really big things happened to him over the last couple of years where he has had his own Oskar Schindler moments. First and foremost I think the smart money of New York sees the writing on the wall. 19-20 trillion in national debt will crush America and likely Trump knows George Soros personally, and everyone on the financial end of the country’s business knows that the left leaning billionaire is trying to topple the American economy. Trump and his financial friends will lose a lot of money when that happens, so now is the time to fight to preserve America as a safe haven of financial independence. Second I think the birther issues involving Trump’s push to get the Obama administration to release the president’s birth certificate, which was done in April of 2011, was an extreme revelation to just how corrupt the political machine truly was—at all levels. Trump won that hard fight but immediately Sheriff Joe Arpaio went on CBS and proved that the birth certificate was a fake. There was something very fishy with the whole deal and since Trump was one of the only people not to back down on the birther issue, he felt vindicated from the shower of criticism and decided to do something about it. There was obviously a shadow party at work within the federal government and there wasn’t a single Republican in the field who was poised to fight it, so Trump out of self-interest, and a since of righting a wrong decided to step forward to fight it.
I can say those things with some level of certainty. If I were in Trump’s situation, I would spend a billion dollars of my own money to fight it. Heck, I write a blog every day for free to fight these things staying up late at night, getting up early in the morning with nothing in it for me at all, but the sense of righting wrongs. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that Trump’s wife Melina probably has something to do with his sudden rush of conservative value. A good woman does put lead in the pencil of A type personalities, and a new son gives a man something to fight for. I’m sure if you peel back Donald Trump that those are some of the core motivations. There are a lot of things that Donald Trump does and says that I completely understand. If he were president, I could convince him to stay off my guns. He’s a New York guy so his policies are largely shaped around the gun laws of that crowded city. But it’s my hope that a Trump presidency will take the fight to the enemies of America making it so that I won’t have to use the Second Amendment to defend my property from an out-of-control nation in debt to a world looking to collect. Once that debt gets over $20 trillion, the lights start to go out and a collapse is inevitable. But listening to Trump, he is conducting his campaign the way I would if I had the resources and time—so I trust him. I know a lot of people in business who put on a metaphorical mask when they do their work, but once the mask comes off they are normal people. I think Trump put on his mask to do his deals over the years, sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat, but he discovered that some of the people behind the masks of people he was dealing with were really bad people, and he is in a unique position to do something about it, so he is. I would too.
After all the controversy I watched Trump closely, particularly after the Megan Kelly situation. Trump has been playing the situation of president in the classic deal maker fashion, just like playing a simple game of Poker. He has baited pundits to discover their positions, and then he takes control of the situation after they show their cards. He is a lot smarter than he has let on, and he’s in far more control than many believed. His ego maniac position is not part of his true character, but a device he uses to discover the kind of cards people are holding. By insulting people directly and indirectly, you provoke them into showing their hands. It’s a classic trick that has obviously made Trump a lot of money over the years, and he’s now performing it on a world stage. He’s not just playing this game to win the presidency; he’s setting the stage for global negotiations when he becomes president. I’d bet everything I have on the matter. He’s playing the game that far ahead.
Watching his speeches in Michigan, then New Hampshire, then flying out in his helicopter to Iowa—no teleprompters, no handlers, just straight talk speaking with extreme confidence knowing that every word he says will be analyzed and cut-up any way possible—he gave three of the best speeches I’ve ever heard from him. He is a master at the top of his game and there are hints that he has a lot more in the tank. And that is scaring the crap out of establishment types. Standing in front of his personal helicopter in Iowa he was asked if he’d be willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to become president, and he said without pause—yes. It’s over for the other Republican candidates. This race is over. The 2016 election will be between Trump and whoever the Democrats can put up. And Trump will not run to lose, he’ll do anything and everything in his power to win and the money men know it.
I say that because soon there won’t be any donors to the other candidates. Now that word is out that Trump is serious, the funding for them will dry to a trickle. It won’t take but a few months from now. Trump has another advantage over them that nobody has yet picked up on. Donald Trump is a hard worker. He is willing to work harder than any person running for office. After listening to his recent speeches I am convinced that he read voluminous amounts of information and he was quite comfortable in reciting what he had been learning. He is a smart guy, and I doubt he sleeps much. I understand that because I’m the same way as is in evidence by the voluminous amount of work I produce. Trump will out work and out spend anybody running against him Republican or Democrat. That’s why he’s already shaping global opinions about him in a way that gives him negotiation power once he holds office as president. He is speaking a language that Putin understands, the Saudi’s are terrified of, and Mexico is silently stunned about. The “shadow parties” of world governments are really scared of Donald Trump and his unstoppable campaign during this mythical 2015 “Summer of Trump.”
There really isn’t a policy issue in the 2016 race that is bigger than the economy. Only someone like Trump can wrestle the economy back from this staggering debt. If he can’t than it’s over, and many people like me see it from the front-of-the-train. Those in the back will discover it soon enough. Glenn Beck is not a back of the train person, but he is when it comes to faith and religion. He has had to turn too much toward religion to hold his life together as a person and his opinions about Trump are largely shaped in the context of faith. I don’t have those handicaps when thinking about Trump, and Trump doesn’t live by those limits. I understand his religious position. Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand president. Many Objectivists that I know have taken issue with my assessment of Trump comparing him to Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. They countered to me that Trump was not like Roark, but more like Gail Wynand—the newspaper tycoon who married the hot wife and traveled the world in his boat once he realized the futility of the fight against him. I can see that, which plays into the whole Oskar Schindler comparison. But Roark loved building things, and so does Trump. I think Donald Trump is a lot deeper person than he shows most people and deep down inside, he is more a figure out of an Ayn Rand novel than out of The Bible, which is the heart of Glenn Beck’s issue, and one that Christian conservatives will have to come to terms with.
To say it’s unfair, or not an apples to apples comparison to say that Oskar Schindler saved Jewish lives and Donald Trump is just a selfish businessman who wants attention, is to miss the real tragedy of the present moment. If the economy fails, more people will die than they did in the German/Jewish holocaust—that is for sure. But think of the evils going on presently from the aborted fetuses at Planned Parenthood to the obvious shadow government conspiracies happening at every level of political endeavor. Trump is wonderfully free of any control mechanisms within that system, and I think his crusade is more out of moral obligation than self fulfillment. His life already is like that of a president. It would be a step down for him to reside in the White House. His ability to make decisions without the temptation of making money off the deal is an ability that I would put my money on over any potential candidate. With the current problems facing the nation, I don’t see any other way out of it, but through someone like Trump.
If Trump comes after our guns, I will happily fight him on it. I am happy to argue and throw mud at him over issues involving the Constitution. As I’ve said, I know for certain he’s not as conservative as I am—but few people are—if any are. But I see in him a man who will work harder than anybody, who can finance himself and owe nothing to anybody, and who can actually stop America from being a debtor nation. I’m even open to his health care options because Obamacare will further bankrupt America, and without that insurance still raises 7-15% each year. That is unsustainable as well. America doesn’t need a church pastor in the White House. It needs a cut-throat Ayn Ran type of money man who is self-sustaining and seeks his own advice 100% of the time. Watching how Trump handled the “birther” issue convinced me that he’s the only one who can be president in this current climate. Everyone backed off that issue except for him. Without Trump, Obama would have never produced the birth certificate, and what they did produce was obviously tampered with. The story died, because nobody in the media had the will to take the next step for fear of being called names by the administration. But somewhere in there Trump made his decision to become a modern Oskar Schindler. Critics might say Trump is running for president to satisfy his own ego, that he used to be a progressive—Democrat—a liberal who is working with Bill Clinton to sabotage the political system for the aims of the Clinton Foundation. But I think Trump’s 2005 marriage to Melania Knauss is the real secret to his behavior. I think deep down inside, behind all the bolster and theatrics is a man in love with his wife—and I think he wants to make the world better for his family—so there is something of it left for them. His new son Barron is likely the primary motivation. I say that because it would be for me, and I see a lot of myself in Donald Trump—particularly in his will, and ability to fight for what he thinks is right. That is why this is the Summer of Trump with an administration to follow.
Again, I’ve said it before—but because the news is just now catching up to things I’ve said years ago, I have to address them, particularly in regard to the destroyed Lois Lerner emails at the IRS, and the same involving Hillary Clinton on her private server destroying classified information hoping to prevent a modern version of Watergate for her presidency which is occurring before she has even been elected. Both women should be in prison for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are notoriously criminal, both of them and it is disgraceful that they are both free to roam about unmolested currently without prosecution. They clearly committed crimes and are showing the world that criminals are in charge within the federal government. And you know what they have in common dear reader? Barack Obama was at the center of both their lives directly and if the evidence had not been destroyed it would likely point directly to the President’s office.
“High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: “‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art‘, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”[2]
The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
As can be found in[3] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “…impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[4]
According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, “Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges.”[5]
The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor”, “maladministration”, or “other crime”. Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave”. Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved “…for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.
Proof if it can ever be retrieved will show that Lois Lerner received marching orders from the IRS union rep who met directly with President Obama, to use the IRS to derail the Tea Party movement through audits and other legal harassment. Lerner has showed horrendous behavior toward conservatives in the emails that had been scanned through and released to authorities. Imagine what they destroyed! What’s most troubling is the communication between Lerner and her husband who advocated that he wanted to vote for a “socialist-labor candidate.” Out of all the bad things I have said about these people in the past, I hate being so right about them.
But Hillary, she used a former President in her husband to gain access to secret service and a plausible reason to have a private server to begin with, then used that security to hide acts she committed as Secretary of State under another sitting president in Obama. If that’s not high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing is. Obama is guilty and so are both Clintons, the one who used to be President and the one who wants to be. They are all inconceivably bad, so bad that people can’t even fathom the treachery on display, because we are not accustomed to comprehending it. That is why there are terms for such things so that those trusted with such delicate information can be prosecuted if they violate that trust. And until that happens, our legal system is a joke not worthy of a single tax dollar for further substantiation.
I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.
I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.
Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.
In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.
But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.
If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.
There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.
The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.
To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property. In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions. They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases. The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy. They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.
But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that. To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations. Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.
Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept. Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive. Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative. Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds. They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control. If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them. That is because they are functionally socialists.
Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks. All those developments are in competition with one another for validity. For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road. Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc. The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area. Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer. But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city. That is the beauty of free market capitalism. The same mentality should be applied to education. There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others. Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars. But that’s not the system we have. Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars. The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games. There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe. If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.
Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth. They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit. They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power. That is socialism. That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was. She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.
The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense. When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior. It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party. But the terminology is historically accurate. Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school. Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior. That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference. Because there isn’t one. When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism. The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes. It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with. Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it. They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own. I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble. I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.” Because they didn’t listen when they should have.
I’m not talking about a politician like the ones the world has become used to. Rather Trump is much more reminiscent of the type of office seeker that we would have had stepping purely off the pages of Ayn Rand’s two great American novels, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged—both personal favorites of mine. As I read carefully the statements about the exit of Donald Trump’s campaign adviser Roger Stone in the wake of the Megan Kelly feud, I noticed something distinctly different about this round of controversy. Trump is moving into uncharted political waters which Stone was clearly not comfortable with—and Trump recognizing it, is pressing to move on with the methods that have given him success.
The system is set up to protect itself from individual merit. Stone, Kelly, Bill O’Reilly even Roger Ailes of Fox News are members of the system. Glenn Beck years ago tried to press against that system, and he is currently doing a good job with his own little network, The Blaze, which I listen to every day. But Beck never really survived his run-ins with George Soros or his expulsion from Fox News. When individuals push back against the system, they tend to be destroyed in the process. Along comes Donald Trump who has made his living by underlining the pronoun I. His 1987 book The Art of the Deal is a great book about a very passionate man who comes across larger than life because as he says, if you’re going to think, you might as well think big. But before you can do that you have to truly know who you are as an individual, not as a member of the collective and Donald Trump clearly knows who he is.
I have never seen or read anything from Trump that points to Ayn Rand as a source of inspiration—which doesn’t surprise me. The characters from her novels—people like Howard Roark and John Galt were just who they were. They didn’t point to a philosopher on the horizon as the origin of their thoughts; they just were who they were. Yet Trump clearly is a hero from those pages whether by default, or through inspiration. He reminds me of the kind of man Howard Roark was in The Fountainhead. I have a lot of favorite books. One is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Another is The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musahi. Another is The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell. Way of the Fighter is another treasure of mine written by General Claire Lee Chennault. Most of my favorite books have something to do with combat and fighting—strategy. Like Trump nobody out thinks me. It would likely be a stalemate if he and I would ever come into contact with each other because I wouldn’t yield an inch to him, and neither would he. He would likely chose to fight with verbal insults to shake me off my position whereas I tend to use many more subtle means built off many years of reading voluminous books providing me with a robust vocabulary and strategic options. That is why out of all my books one of my favorites is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because it is about these types of people, those who clearly understand themselves and know that they are the source of all material from which all things pour forth.
The Fountainhead is a uniquely American concept and was inspired by the bright-eyed young woman Ayn Rand who escaped communist Russia to work as a screenwriter in Hollywood. Her first impressions of America were the New York skyline and the buildings which made it up erected because of capitalism. Nowhere else in the world had such sights, and she built her philosophy of Objectivism off that vision. One of her strongest and most explosive characters was the architect Howard Roark from that first big hit by her written in 1943. He built buildings for that skyline and was directly inspired by the real life Frank Lloyd Wright. Throughout the novel Roark refuses to collaborate with others on projects so to maintain his individuality, even when it costs him dearly. Donald Trump is the closest personification of Roark that I’ve ever seen which most adequately allows for the philosophy of individuality to finally see the light of day which it deserves—which seemed to be at the center of Roger Stone’s issues. The American presidency has been accepted by default to be a sacrifice to the collective, and Donald Trump is changing that perception rapidly much to the anxiety of those who have molded their lives to the system and are unsure of how to conduct themselves in that vacancy.
I don’t want the system of politics that we inherited by default from Europe. I want something uniquely American. I want a real life Howard Roark as president—which is precisely what Donald Trump is. Now that I’ve gotten to know Trump better through all these media escapades and watched his behavior more accurately, I think I would get along well with him. Even after all the years that he did The Apprentice, I had never watched a single show until recently, because I don’t waste time on network television. I’m just too busy. So outside of his book The Art of the Deal, I didn’t know much about Trump or his empire. I don’t like casinos, so I lumped Trump into that parasitic category of human being—a crony capitalist who was part of the problem. But I see now something else, a long-held strategy centered on evoking pride in the pronoun I to the extent of saving America from the collectivist parasites which have embedded themselves in our political culture. They are scared of Trump, and he is relishing in aggravating their anxiety. Because he truly wants to save America, not just to provide an ego boost to himself. For all of the reasons that Howard Roark refused the World’s Fair commission, to maintain his integrity and love for a country that has made him extremely wealthy, Trump is trying to save America not through more rules and regulations, or even executive order. He’s trying to save it by invoking in the people of the nation, the spirit and power of the pronoun I. Because he knows that through individuality and values invoked from within, America can only survive the systems which currently encumber it. Committees never have worked, Howard Roark said so in a 1943 novel about individualism and the power of a philosophy built from it. Now Donald Trump is in forbidden territory, and he appears ready to thrive in that task. And for that he has my full support!
Rupert Murdoch may have been pandering to his Fox News journalists by saying that his friend Donald Trump needs to learn that running for president of the United States is “public life,” but he’d be wrong. For some reason everyone believed that they were going to put a guy like Trump on center stage with 24 million people watching on television and that they were going to pin him down with some hit pieces pandering to the mythical “war on women,” and that they’d get away with it. Sure Donald Trump had called some women in the past “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” but he does the same to men. Women don’t have special rules of behavior if they truly want to be “equal.” When Megan Kelly brought up something Donald Trump had said on his television show, The Apprentice about a woman looking good on her knees, she was the one who stepped in it on live television. Trump did what he was supposed to, he didn’t back down—instead he went on the attack like he said he would leaving many including Red State editor Erick Erickson baffled. Shortly thereafter Erickson disinvited Trump to a weekend event because of the feud that had widened between Trump and Kelly. Trump of course responded to the Erickson actions by calling him a “weak and pathetic leader.” I’ve been telling Republicans for a long time that if they want to beat the progressive left, and the right, you have to hit back when attacked. And if they hit you with a blunt stick, you need to come back at them with something much harsher. In a war of words, that is certainly the case. Megan Kelly clearly had a “vagenda” against Trump from before the debate, and she got it thrown back in her face—which she obviously didn’t expect. In an equal world, females don’t get to dish out attacks then hide behind their femininity for protection. Progressives have advanced their position for too long using this tactic and it’s about time that someone calls them out on it. And Trump did much to my satisfaction.
As everyone who reads here knows, I am well aware of this “vagenda” where progressive types attempt to disarm men from their opinions using the weapons of femininity to attack while expecting no return fire of aggression—because they are women. I am proud to say that I have maintained a position over the years consistent to the one Donald Trump is exhibiting now on a national stage and I have been trying to get other Republicans to listen for quite some time. But they are afraid of that “vagenda,” so they always have backed down. I know how Trump feels when people who should have courage back out of events because of comments he made in response to Megan Kelly after the debate by saying “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her whatever,” which immediately provoked Erickson at Red State to cancel the Trump appearance. Well, Trump created an event of his own in response—which was the correct behavior. But the “vagenda” strategies are the last resort of progressives who use their sex to disarm men into maintaining a status quo. I have said plenty of things on my own under similar circumstances. Here are just a few examples which were well documented in the Cincinnati media market. I said of school levy supporters:
“Their husbands roll them over at night and insert their manhood into these women of the bedroom and hundred-dollar bills find their way into their purses. The women don’t know what the man does to earn the money, nor do they care. They are busy saving the world one child at a time with howls of safety and more regulations as they rush to the polling places at election time.” Remember that, and also this, “crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they plot against me with an anger only estrogen can produce. The progressive mode of attack they use to protect their positions which cannot withstand scrutiny is to attack people like Rush Limbaugh whenever he says something they believe they can use against him in an emotional argument. Conservatives typically are terrible at playing this game with progressives because they tend to operate on a belief system rooted in the truth. So they can easily be attacked because if they cross the line, they feel bad about it, and that guilt is used against them to change their behavior in the future.”
I’ve been there and am proud of Trump for sticking to his guns. It’s about time someone does what he’s doing. Women are not a collective group. Progressive women are seeking to “change” America into something I don’t want, and they aren’t going to get away with it without being called out. For my comments the usual tactic was used of distance, isolation and a media attempt to paint me as a “fringe” guy. The hardest part for me was when some of my associates pulled away from me while I was on the air of a large radio station defending their position for them. I managed to do well on the radio show, and thereafter. But I have a policy that if people behave like a vagina, then they invite upon themselves for what happens to those sexual utilities during mating practices—and that’s what happened to them in the wake. For me, my numbers went up on the blog, I sold more books, and I even had people stopping me at gas stations volunteering to pay for tanks of fuel out of thanks. I get asked at least once a week to run for some elected office—which I don’t do, because I’m too busy, too young in my opinion, and I have no desire to be a public servant—owned by the “public.” In all honesty, I’m rooting for Trump more now than ever because I’m hoping he will change the definition for what is expected out of a public servant. I’d love to see more people like him entering public office who wouldn’t be demeaned by the expectation of being a public utility to a bunch of careless people who just want a punching bag for their own slanted lives. Trump as president could do a lot of good. With his attitude who is going to beat him in a negotiation over arms, prisoners, economic policy or global pride? And after years of America suffering under the “vagenda” of feminists, that’s exactly the kind of president we need to straighten out the mess of decades of policy that soft bellied politicians have given us.
It’s OK to say you hate “vagenda” driven feminists. Some of them are disgusting people, some are fat pigs, and are disgusting animals. We are not obligated as men to pander to those idiots just because they offer the gateways to sex. When it came down to it, the men who pulled away from me during my escapade did it under pressure from their wives and community friends who played right along with the “vagenda” of the feminist movement. I tried to tell those men that women—normal women—don’t like the “vagenda,” but that they have been taught that they have to support it with a collective unification. Men over time have been taught to fear those who possess vaginas because the “vagenda” behind their actions are not defensible. Men fear that they won’t get sex unless they play along. Wrong. I have said it time and time and time again, women love 50 Shades of Grey because they don’t want to live the “vagenda” in their bedrooms. Sure they might utter such nonsense socially, but with the door closed, there are reasons they throw their panties at rock stars and tuck themselves under their sheets reading the latest E. L. James novel. That is the secret; most women hate the “vagenda” as much as men do, they are just afraid to say so publicly because society has shouted them down when they showed the inclination. They don’t like the “vagenda” of Megan Kelly, not to the core of their essence.
The result of the war with Megan Kelly and Donald Trump is that the billionaire investor running for president will increase in popularity. The Fox News stunt to diminish Trump backfired in a dramatic way and Trump’s popularity will increase among women. Just like the immigration issue in America will be solved once Republicans learn that by supporting capitalism you give immigrants what they came to America for in the first place, respect for themselves with a good job, and money to care for their families—women don’t like the “vagenda” of progressivism. When it comes to supporting Trump, they may not announce it at the dinner table to their families—because they feel guilty, but they will throw their panties at Donald Trump at campaign events just because the man has so much confidence. Women—normal women—not “vagenda” driven despots, love confidence and they will throw their support behind a candidate who exhibits that behavior with the same recklessness that they will throw themselves at Gene Simmons from the rock band KISS even knowing that he’s a disgusting old man who has slept with over 4,600 women. I understand it, and have experienced it firsthand. Trump understands it too. And because he’s running for president on a big international stage that is watching his every move—soon the world will learn that hard lesson which they have avoided for such a long time—that people are sick of the “vagenda.” Megan Kelly came out as a villain in the debate because of her commitment to the “vagenda.” And Donald Trump was launched into the orbit of a rock star, and that was not the intention of Fox News.
I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.
Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.
I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.
It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.
My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.
It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.
Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.
Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.
Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that! Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.
Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.
(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.
HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.
Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.
“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”
Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.
The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.
Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.
The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?
To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.
Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.
In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.
